We here at The Empty Press blame our First-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system for many of our nation’s ills, and can’t seem to understand why everyone doesn’t just blindly take our word for it, and immediately advocate for a change to a proportional representation (PR) system.
With that in mind, we thought it might be helpful to break down WHY we think it would be good for us to switch out of this mess.
Fine, I’ll listen. Tell me about FPTP.
Our country (Editor: Canada, maybe you’ve heard of it) uses the FPTP system. How does it work?
Well, let’s say you have a parliament with 100 seats, and 3 parties, A, B, C and D (Ed.: We spent HOURS coming up with these). The vote breakdown in each riding is 40% for A, 25% for B, 20% for C, and 15% D.
Under FPTP, the parliamentary seats would ALL be assigned to part A. They’d be free to do whatever they want, no matter how much of a bad idea it is. They’d also be free to do absolutely nothing and just sit on their arses and collect their paycheques.
They have total control, despite the fact that over 60% of the people don’t want them in charge!
Yeah, I know how our elections work. Now tell me how PR would be different.
Under a PR system, A would get 40 seats, B would get 25 seats, C would get 20, and D would get 15.
No one party would be able able to operate with impunity, they’d have to strike a deal with a different party, or form a coalition, but the voices in parliament would be reflective of how the the people feel, and a government that wishes to stay in power would be under a great deal of pressure to do what the majority of the public would want.
Yeah, a majority government becomes a minority government. I can do basic math.
Yes! But, that’s not all! A lot of hidden advantages come up with a PR system, and we feel that they would eliminate a lot of the long-standing issues in our country.
You’re just going to drag this out, aren’t you?
Yes. It’s a blog post, after all.
*Sigh* All right, let’s play your stupid game.
What would you saw is a common complaint about the federal governments we’ve had throughout our history?
That, in varying degrees, the Feds have only cared about Ontario, Quebec, or Alberta.
Exactly! FPTP favours regionalism and a divide-and-conquer strategy rather than solid approaches to governance. Hell, there have been times when the Bloc Quebecois have held the balance of power in our government. The party whose sole objective is to break the country apart, essentially had all the power! How weird is that?!
Another example, of divide-and-conquer, that is common on provincial levels, is the tendency for people in rural communities to feel that they are being neglected in favour of those in urban areas, and vice versa (Ed.: We’re only saying ‘vice versa’ to keep the whiny city-folk happy, you know how it is)
Let’s say that, in our hypothetical parliament, 60 of the 100 seats represent metropolitan communities, with the rest agricultural ones. Party A’s platform is “Fixing our infrastructure”, Party B’s is “Solving the housing crisis”, C’s is “Fixing our infrastructure AND solving the housing crisis”, and D’s is, simply, “Fuck farms! Cities Rule!”.
In the metropolitan ridings, Party D’s platform appeals to a small, but not-insignificant, subset of the population, and the vote breakdown in each riding is: A – 10%, B – 25%, C – 30%, D – 35%.
Meanwhile, in the rural ridings, the breakdown is thus: A – 20%, B – 25%, C: 50%, D – 5%. (Ed.: We figure that 5% represents the proportion of emo teens)
The end result is that Party D wins all of the urban ridings, and a majority government, giving them free reign to fuck farms all they like, and do literally nothing else, despite the fact that they only have the support of 23% of the people! [Ed.: The math – (.35*.6+.05*.4)*100 percent]
Party C is completely powerless, even though they’re supported by the largest proportion of the population (38%), and seem to have the platform with the broadest appeal.
Perhaps worse, Party C appears to have a platform that would allow them to work pretty well with Parties A or B, and their supporters combined with those of EITHER of the other two, would represent a majority of the electorate.
With PR, there’s a great deal less advantage in turning the populace against one-another, forcing governments to try to appeal to a wide swath of the population, instead of one key “strategic” group.
I already knew all of that but, since there’s literally no point to any of this, if I do, what else do you have for me?
Well, how’s this, do you always vote for the party that you support?
No, sometimes I end up voting for a different party just because I’m terrified that a party I hate might win if I don’t.
Exactly! The FPTP system favours strategic voting and people generally choosing “the lesser of evils” instead of their preferred option.
Let’s say that Party A is the “Dog Dudes”, Party B the “Cat Connoisseurs”, C the “Bird Buddies” and D the “Lizard Lovers”.
Let’s say you’re a Dog person, but Lizards enjoy a small, but incredibly loyal base of support in your riding, even though they’re fucking terrifying. The feline fans seem to have pretty significant support themselves, so you’re forced to vote for another mammalian party, even though cats are dicks (Ed.: This is not opinion. It’s fact. Deal with it.), because you’d rather deal with 5 years of the buggers leaving messes on your lawn than running in terror every time a torpid iguana falls from a tree.
On the flip side, let’s say you’re a supporter of scaly creatures, and are absolutely petrified of the idea of another half-decade coughing and sneezing as a result of dander accumulation. You don’t do great with feathers, either, but at least they’re less likely to get clogged in your carpet and sofa, so you end up having to vote for the Bird Buddies, even though they’re really just the lamest dinosaurs.
Under PR, you can vote for Lizards, Dogs, or freakin’ Jellyfish, for all you care, with little reason to fear that your choice might produce a truly disastrous outcome!
Birds? Lizards? What am I, a child? I’ve had enough of you.
No, please, wait!
Okay, what next?
What do you find most irritating of the most popular parties.
They seem incredibly out of touch, full of a lot of career politicians, and really just seem interested in winning elections and doing favours for their corporate overlords.
Exactly. FPTP generally favours old, established parties, because they’ve had the time to generate a significant base of partisan allegiance that they can consistency count on to prop up their election chances. It lends to the development of a ruling class and makes it difficult for new parties and voices to gain the kind of traction in elections that allows them to establish a lasting profile. It also tends to produce a syste that is more polarised, by making it difficult for parties offering “middle ground” platforms to make an impact.
Great, anything else?
Nothing much, we just want to know if we’ve changed your mind.
I mean, you’ve made a really good case, but you still haven’t really wowed me, you want people on your side, you’ve gotta make a nice, succinct point.
Okay, how’s this, countries that use PR are way less fucked up than countries that use FPTP.
Well, that’s better, but, how do I know it’s true?
Okay, well, besides Canada, countries that use the FPTP system are the United States and the United Kingdom. One’s grade schools have turned into a shooting gallery and the other is a rainy mess that has become so miserable for its citizens that its only major contribution to modern society is TV shows about murders in small towns.
Okay, not bad, now bring it home.
Well, countries that use PR systems include New Zealand and Sweden. One is a magical fairly land whose only major issue is an overabundance of sheep, and the other consistently produces people who look like this:
