Canadian election hangover
Looking to a proportional cure
The Canadian government seemingly violated its own law to call an election, which likely cost more than $250 million, and resulted in, essentially, the same governing structure as the end of the previous parliamentary session. And, once again, this election featured the strange sight of a party dedicated to separating the country having the third largest number of seats, despite only earning 10 per cent of the national popular vote.
Out of curiosity, I thought I’d see how things would have broken down were seats awarded purely by the popular vote received (not that I’d recommend such a system, there are more accurate proportional representation models available):
| Party | Actual seats | Actual popular vote | Seats based on pop vote | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Totals do not add up to the full 304 seats available due to rounding and/or “other” part votes. Results based on those reported on Election Canada on the morning of October 15, 2008. | |||||
| Conservative | 143 | 37.6% | 114 | -30 | |
| Liberal | 76 | 26.2% | 80 | +4 | |
| Bloc Québécois | 50 | 10% | 30 | -20 | |
| NDP | 37 | 18.2% | 55 | +18 | |
| Green | 0 | 6.8% | 21 | +21 | |
The result is still a Conservative minority, but a more balanced opposition — and one that, in theory could form a coalition government were it needed, thereby lessening the need for yet another election in a couple of years. A more proportional system might even prevent new voter participation lows being set with each new election
Just sayin’