The New Democratic Party and electoral reform

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 20/04/2024 (769 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Why has the national wing of the NDP pushed for decades for the replacement of the first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system with some type of proportional representation system, whereas the Manitoba wing of the party, even when it was in power, has stuck with the FPTP? This was the question that a former graduate student of mine challenged me to answer, so here goes.

Electoral reform is a complicated and contentious topic. Careful studies of past electoral changes indicate that it is difficult to predict with certainty the real-world impacts, as opposed to the theoretical potential of different models. No electoral system is perfect, and none delivers fully the benefits that proponents claim it will.

Modifying an existing voting system is more difficult than starting from scratch, because any change may result in advantages for one or more party.

This means that the competitive, political context shapes to a great degree the positions of individual parties on electoral reform.

At the national level, since its founding in 1961, the NDP has complained about being “under rewarded” in terms of the share of the seats in the House of Commons it typically obtains compared to its share of the popular vote.

For example, in the 2021 federal election the Liberals achieved another minority government with 32 per cent of the popular vote which translated into 159 or 47 per cent of the 338 seats in the House of Commons. In contrast, the NDP with 18 per cent of the vote captured 25, or just seven per cent, of the seats.

Not surprisingly, the NDP has been highly critical of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for breaking his promise to make the 2015 election the last fought under what the NDP label an unfair, divisive, and outdated FPTP system.

Recognizing that Trudeau would never agree to a PR system, the NDP used the leverage it had with the minority Liberal government to negotiate a series of operational reforms to the electoral process. Specifically, the two parties agreed to an “expanded” three-day voting period, allowing voters to cast their ballots at any polling place within their constituencies, and improving the mail-in ballot process to ensure accessibility.

A resulting government bill before the Commons adds provisions to deal with such matters as the security of voter information, greater transparency for third party advertising, and curbing foreign interference in elections.

Turning to Manitoba, it is worth noting that during an earlier period from 1921 to 1953, the province used a form of proportional representation (Single Transferable Voting) for provincial elections in Winnipeg, with a different system in the rest of the province. Since 1957, elections have used FPTP for all 57 constituencies.

Beginning with its breakthrough victory in 1969, the Manitoba NDP has won nine of the last 15 general elections. When a party wins more often than it loses, there is little incentive for it to consider an alternative.

In the October,2023 election the NDP obtained 45 per cent of the popular vote and 34 seats or nearly 60 per cent of all 57 seats in the legislature. With 42 per cent of the popular vote, the PCs won 22 seats, or 38 per cent of the seats. The Liberals had 11 per cent of the vote but just one seat. During the campaign the Liberals were the only party that raised the topic of electoral reform, proposing that Manitoba adopt alternative voting (also called ranked ballots).

Part of the case for PR at the national level is that the caucus of the governing party is often regional in composition, so that parts of the country feel excluded or underrepresented in the policy process. Regional imbalance is less of a problem in Manitoba, though it is true that the 2023 election saw the PCs obtain only three of the 32 seats in Winnipeg or nine per cent of the seats based on 32 per cent of the Winnipeg vote.

Another part of the case for PR is that it results in more socially diverse party caucuses in terms of more women, ethnic minorities, Indigenous and differing sexual orientations. More representative caucuses, the argument goes, leads to more progressive policies.

The counter argument is that parties can, through their own actions, achieve this outcome without replacing the FPTP model. The provincial NDP did not need the help of electoral reform to elect a First Nation premier and the most diverse caucus ever in Manitoba’s history.

Despite this development, the NDP Tuxedo constituency association recently called for the government to establish a representative citizen assembly to recommend what electoral reforms are necessary to promote a healthier democracy in the province.

This is not likely to happen. The Kinew government has far more important issues to handle. Electoral reform is an arcane topic. As Trudeau discovered, the electoral reform process can become a political headache involving controversy and divisions.

Electoral reform is not a panacea. Disillusionment with politics exists in all countries, regardless of their electoral system.

Paul G. Thomas is professor emeritus of Political Studies at the University of Manitoba