Fixing Canada’s Democracy with MMP Voting

Canada’s first-past-the-post system is broken. Mixed-member proportional voting offers fairer results, local representation, and real democratic reform.

The Flaws in Canada’s Current Electoral System

Canadian Electoral Reform by AI

Canada’s political system is built on a first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral model, where representatives are elected in geographic ridings. While this structure ensures local representation, it fails to accurately reflect the political diversity of the population. In election after election, parties win a disproportionate share of seats compared to their actual vote share. A party can form a majority government with just 35% of the popular vote, leaving millions of voters with little to no representation in Parliament. Justin Trudeau had promised to implement electoral reform when his government was elected in 2015 but failed to deliver due to his government preferring ranked voting over proportional representation.

This isn’t a uniquely Canadian issue. The United Kingdom and the United States suffer from the same problem. But countries like Germany, New Zealand, and the Netherlands have implemented proportional systems that ensure fairer representation. If Canada is serious about improving its democracy, it must consider mixed-member proportional representation (MMP).

Why Proportional Representation Is More Democratic

Proportional representation (PR) solves one of the biggest problems with FPTP: wasted votes. Under FPTP, if a party’s support is spread thinly across the country rather than concentrated in specific ridings, its voters may not win any representation at all. In contrast, a proportional system ensures that a party winning 20% of the vote gets roughly 20% of the seats.

Take a political movement with 5% support across the country. Under FPTP, that movement would likely win zero seats unless its voters happened to be concentrated in a few ridings. Under PR, it would receive seats in Parliament proportionate to its vote share, allowing minority voices to be heard.

This model is already in use in countries like the Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, and Finland. Germany and New Zealand use a mixed system that blends local representation with proportionality, ensuring that every vote has value while still keeping ties to local communities.

The Problem with Pure Proportional Representation

The downside of a purely proportional system is that it eliminates local representation. In a country as vast as Canada, with rural regions that have unique needs, this could create real problems. Who would advocate for a small town’s highway expansion or push for local infrastructure projects? How would citizens maintain a direct connection with their representatives if MPs were chosen based only on party lists?

The Solution: Mixed-Member Proportional Representation

Mixed-member proportional representation (MMP) combines the best of both worlds. It maintains local ridings while introducing proportional seats to ensure that Parliament accurately reflects the national vote.

Here’s how it works:

When voters go to the polls, they cast two votes. One vote is for a candidate in their local riding, just like in FPTP. The second vote is for a political party. The local riding winners take their seats, but then additional seats are allocated to ensure that the final composition of Parliament matches the overall vote share.

Imagine an election where there are six ridings, each electing one MP, for a total of twelve seats (six riding seats plus six proportional seats). If the initial riding results give three seats to the Lake Party, two to the River Party, and one to the Beach Party, but the national vote share is 45% River, 30% Lake, and 25% Beach, adjustments are made. The proportional seats are distributed so that the final Parliament accurately reflects the national vote. In this case, the River Party would gain additional seats to match its vote share, while the Beach Party would also receive extra representation.

This model ensures that Canadians still have local representatives advocating for their communities while also guaranteeing that every vote counts toward the national outcome.

Addressing Concerns About Political Parties

One criticism of MMP is that it strengthens political parties by requiring party lists to fill the proportional seats. However, this concern is largely unfounded. Canada already operates on a party-driven system, where most voters cast ballots based on party platforms rather than individual candidates. Urban voters in Vancouver, Halifax, and Toronto consistently choose similar parties, not because they prioritize local concerns but because they share ideological and economic interests.

Moreover, proportional systems reduce the grip of party elites by making it harder for politicians to rely on safe ridings. In Canada’s current system, incumbents, often older, career politicians, remain in power simply because their ridings are strongholds for their party. Under MMP, parties must work harder to appeal to a broad base of voters, making them more accountable and forcing them to recruit stronger candidates.

This difference is stark when comparing countries that use proportional systems. In 2024, the average age of a U.S. House Representative was 57, while in the Netherlands, where PR is used, the average age in Parliament was 45. In both countries, the Senate is older, but the U.S. Senate had an average age of 64 compared to 58 in the Netherlands. This suggests that proportional systems encourage a younger, more representative legislature.

Gerrymandering: A U.S. Problem, Not a Canadian One

Some critics argue that Canada’s electoral system doesn’t have the same level of dysfunction as the United States, where gerrymandering distorts election outcomes. Unlike in the U.S., where politicians draw their district boundaries, Canada’s ridings are determined by independent commissions that prioritize population balance and geographic simplicity. This means that while FPTP still produces skewed results, Canada avoids the worst effects of politically manipulated electoral maps.

However, this does not mean that Canada’s system is fair. While ridings are drawn fairly, FPTP still produces unrepresentative outcomes where a party can win a majority of seats with a minority of votes. MMP offers a solution that maintains Canada’s strong independent electoral commissions while correcting the distortions caused by FPTP.

Why Canada Must Act Now

The case for MMP is clear. Canada needs a system that ensures fair representation, reduces voter disenfranchisement, and balances local advocacy with national proportionality. The current system allows governments to win power without majority support, leaving millions of voters unrepresented. Meanwhile, other democracies have proven that MMP can create a fairer and more effective government.

Reforming Canada’s electoral system will not be easy. Those who benefit from the current system will resist change. But the longer Canada delays, the more it risks alienating voters, entrenching political complacency, and weakening democracy.

Change begins with awareness and action. Canadians must demand electoral reform from their representatives, support parties that commit to change, and engage in conversations about how to build a more representative democracy. Proportional representation is not just a theoretical improvement, it is a practical necessity for a fairer, stronger Canada.

If you found this analysis compelling, consider subscribing, referring a friend, or supporting my work. Your engagement helps keep this conversation alive and pushes for the change our democracy needs.