The Purple Party Paradox

Let’s imagine a new Canadian party. They pick purple as their colour because they are a perfect blend of red progressive human rights and blue conservative economic stability. Their platform has four pillars: cost of living relief, housing, healthcare, responsible immigration, and energy security with environmental stewardship. Each pillar balances compassion with fiscal responsibility.

Now let’s imagine that the Purple Party is second-past-the-post in each of Canada’s 343 ridings. How many seats would they win in the House of Commons? Zero. Yes, zero!

Map of Canada Public Domain/Horse Image by Mohamed Hassan from Pixabay

 Even though they won more of the popular vote, as the Conservatives did in 2019 and 2021, it could still be shut out of Parliament entirely. That's the fundamental flaw of first-past-the-post—millions of votes can result in zero representation.

Electoral reform with proportional representation would solve this unfairness. If the Purple Party won 35% of the vote, they would win 35% of the seats. Imagine knowing that your vote would count, help elect someone, never be wasted or split the vote, and make every riding matter in every election.

Unlike Canada, most OECD countries use proportional or mixed electoral systems. When votes are translated into seats, you are more likely to believe your voice matters. That belief builds trust in democracy. Trust creates a stronger sense of belonging, where you feel less ignored or shut out. A democracy you trust is more likely to stay united.

Support electoral reform with PR. Visit FairVote.ca or CharterChallenge.ca to learn how.

35% votes = 35% seats—simple math, fair representation

The Real Math of Representation

What did you think about the unusual wave of floor crossings? In the aftermath of Conservative MP Gladu’s floor crossing, Prime Minister Mark Carney said, "If you really want to unite the country, you want people with lots of different views." This applies most clearly to elections, when diversity within a party is built transparently. After elections, when diversity is gained through defections, it can raise questions about legitimacy.

When someone crosses the floor, it blurs the connection between how people voted and who governs. That dynamic is sharper under first-past-the-post, where even a small shift can have outsized effects on power. This strengthens the case for proportional representation (PR), where seats reflect how people actually voted. Similar shifts would be less likely to dramatically alter who governs because power is usually shared among multiple parties and coalition agreements.

Image created by ChatGPT 9-Jun-2026

While majority governments elected with less than majority support may “get things done,” the policy lurch that follows can undo those gains and create uncertainty. GPC Leader Elizabeth May points instead to Lester B. Pearson’s minority governments, which worked closely with Tommy Douglas and the NDP to help deliver Medicare, the Canada Pension Plan, and major expansions of social programs.

Canadians cast ballots for representation, not surprises. PR would make sure the democratic math still adds up after election day.

Support electoral reform with PR. Visit FairVote.ca or CharterChallenge.ca to learn how.

35% votes = 35% seats—simple math, fair representation

Vote and Voice

At an elementary school event, I witnessed a great example of nurturing parenting. The parent announced it was time to go. One child protested and pleaded. The parent listened attentively and responded to the child’s words while playfully herding their two children to the door. The parent’s listening was not a surrender of authority, but a way of guiding the child through frustration. Nurturing parenting often means giving a child a voice, but not a vote.

Our first-past-the-post electoral system offers an opposite example. Even when your vote helps elect an MP, that MP often has no voice. As Andrew Coyne explains in The Crisis in Canadian Democracy, MPs historically used their voices to “consider, refine and pass” legislation. Increasingly, they are whipped by party discipline (and/or personal ambition) to keep their party in power. Omnibus bills and truncated debate times further muzzle our MPs, reducing Parliamentary voting to a rubber stamp.

Proportional representation (PR) would change this dynamic. Coyne also explains how PR governments promote stable, consensus-based policy. Those consensus-based policies are because MPs have a voice. Also, because the votes a party gets translates into seats, voters have a voice.

Image by Clker-Free-Vector-Images and OpenClipart-Vectors from Pixabay.

Which raises a timely question: if PR converts votes into voices—both in Parliament and across the country—would Alberta be holding a referendum on leaving Canada at all?

Support electoral reform with PR. Visit FairVote.ca or CharterChallenge.ca to learn how.

35% votes = 35% seats—simple math, fair representation

From "Can AI?" to "Should AI?"

If you had asked me five years ago if my instructional design work could be done by artificial intelligence, (AI), I would have said no. Now, I would say yes. The question has changed from can AI replace human workers to, should it?

The recent federal budget cuts the federal public service by adopting AI tools. Imagine at 65, you defer your OAS benefits because you are still working. Then your checks start arriving. Your local Service Canada is closed. The automated phone menu is a maze. Your online My Service Canada Account is equally confusing. You give up trapped between AI systems with no human help.

Image by Alicia from Pixabay

Giving up has financial implications for you as OAS benefits are taxable. However, the larger harm is psychological. Being at the mercy of AI algorithms is likely to produce stress and alienation, undermining your wellbeing and civic trust.

Canada needs long-term AI policies that keep pace with technology and protect humans. But under first-past-the-post (FPTP), parties chase short-term wins, ignoring future consequences. Even if the current government implements good policies, the next government may change it to align with their politics.

To harness AI safely and for the common good, we need policies that prioritize humans and lasting solutions. Electoral reform with proportional representation (PR) fosters collaboration and consensus, encouraging long-term policymaking that benefits everyone. Support electoral reform with PR. Visit FairVote.ca or CharterChallenge.ca to learn how.

35% votes = 35% seats—simple math, fair representation

Democracy Needs More Women in the Room

The documentary Pray the Devil Back to Hell chronicles how Liberian women used nonviolent protest to end 14 years of civil war. After pressuring the male president and male rebels into peace talks, they blocked the exits when negotiations stalled, forcing the men to stay until an agreement was reached. Having endured years of restriction, often without basic necessities, the women wanted the men in the room to taste that same hardship. 

Screengrab from Pray the Devil Back to Hell

What the documentary does not show are the countless hours the women spent after each protest, reflecting and strategizing. One organizer reflected, “If we had not had different women from different walks of life banding together, we may not have been able to solve the problem.” At its core, democracy exists to address the problems of its people. It flourishes when diverse voices are heard, and inclusive decision-making fosters policies that are both equitable and responsive to all.

Countries with proportional representation (PR) elect more women to the legislature, bringing a shift in legislative priorities. Research shows that women in government are more likely to champion policies that support education, healthcare, family well-being, and social equity. They also prioritize collaboration and long-term solutions over partisan conflict. With more women in the room, diverse problem-solving approaches lead to stronger, more equitable policies—this is, in essence, real democracy.

This federal election, ask you candidates if they support electoral reform with proportional representation. Visit FairVote.ca and/or CharterChallenge.ca to learn more.

Rising Billionaires and Receding Democracy

 Have you lived a billion seconds? Hint: You’ve lived a million seconds if you are 12 days old. If you’ve lived a billion seconds, you are almost 32.

Now, imagine if dollars were seconds and your lifetime earnings were $2.2 million. How many days is that? About 26 days. But billionaires? They’ve got 32 years' worth of dollars to burn. They only need to spend 12 days' worth to flood election campaigns with donations, channel lobbyists into key positions, and submerge politicians in a tide of influence. With just a 0.00094 of their fortune, they shape policies, cut themselves tax breaks, and rig the system in their favor.

Under first-past-the-post (FPTP), winning isn’t about representing the most people; it’s about gaming the system. A party can win total control with just 39% of the vote, leaving the majority without a voice. And who benefits? The ultra-rich.

Modified mage by Alex Yomare from Pixabay

Proportional representation (PR) is a remedy. PR ensures seats match votes, making it harder for wealthy donors to buy governments. More diverse voices in the legislature mean fewer policies to benefit the wealthy and more policies that serve people and the planet.

If you’re tired of a democracy that prioritizes profit over people and our planet, support PR. It’s time to reclaim our democracy for everyone. With electoral reform through PR, we can take the next step—transforming our economy from a linear system of extraction and exploitation to a circular one centered on sustainability and justice. Visit FairVote.ca and/or CharterChallenge.ca.

Teen Brain Would Vote for Proportional Representation

Imagine you are living in the age of cavepersons with a constant supply of water and food in your cave. Would you ever risk venturing outside? Brain research reveals there is a demographic in our cave that has a brain designed to venture outside—teens. Ironically, it is our teens' drive for reward that has become the foundation of our existence as they enthusiastically ignore consequences. Sometimes they take themselves out of the gene pool and sometimes they succeed in a "better way" that benefits all of us.

Our government has promised to replace our first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system with a better way. While some think keeping FPTP is keeping us safe, among other severe problems, it favours survival of the richest.

The Electoral Reform Committee (ERRE) is reporting in December on two options; ranked ballots and proportional representation (PR). Ranked ballots would not meet the requirements of effectiveness and legitimacy, engagement, accessibility and inclusiveness, and integrity. PR meets all of these plus we can customize it for the requirement of local representation. No constitutional changes needed.

The "teen" brain found PR is a better way in 35 other robust democracies including Denmark, Finland, Germany, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland. In our Canadian cave, let's replace adversarial first-past-the-post with consensual proportional representation. Tell your MP and/or tell the Committee (http://tinyurl.com/tellerre) that PR is the better way to make every vote count.

Nancy Carswell, Co-spokesperson Fair Vote Canada Saskatchewan Chapter

Electoral Reform Not Looking at Status Quo

I jokingly say I prefer being on a committee of one—me or someone else. Imagine you are the committee responsible for electoral reform in Canada. Your Liberal party campaign promise was that the 2015 federal election would be the last using our first-past-the-post (FPTP) winner-take-all-losers-get-nothing plurality-majority electoral system. Your committee must report by December 2016 on reforms that include ranked ballots and proportional representation.

My Preferred Committee: Me or Someone Else

The Conservative Party has vowed to block any electoral reform without a referendum. Perhaps though it would be wiser for the Conservatives to support proportional representation rather than counting on a referendum to keep the status quo.

If your committee report recommends proportional representation, the Conservatives would get seats proportional to how voters voted—9 more than FPTP gave in 2015. If your committee report recommends ranked ballots (which is still winner take all), it could give the Liberals a perpetual advantage. What advantage? In experiments, voters on the right rank Conservatives #1 and Liberals #2. Voters on the left rank NDPs #1 and Liberals #2. All the Liberal #2s plus their own #1s rank them into first place.

Proportional representation is not just fair for the Conservatives; it is fair for all Canadians. It is the system that over 80 countries have progressed to because it is consensus based rather than majoritarian oppositional so parliamentarians can focus on policy rather than politics.

The committee wants to hear from you at http://www.parl.gc.ca/Committees/en/ERRE/StudyActivity or ask your MP about their electoral reform town hall.

There was dancing in the streets—or at least in the offices across Canada of non-profit organizations when the Liberals announced a committee on electoral reform that will be looking at systems to replace first-past-the-post (FPTP). Why would non-profits be dancing? Their hope is that the 2019 federal election will use a system of proportional representation (PR); one where seats in the House of Commons will be in proportion to the way people voted.

Community-serving non-profits recognize that FPTP serves the rich community as the rich can bet their money on a party and influence the election. Then, post-election, they have their hands on the reins.

Ominously, as well as PR, the Liberals are considering a ranked voting system called preferential-balloting or alternative voting (AV). Analysis show that Liberals would win with AV because being in the middle of the Conservatives and NDP, people would rank them as a second choice. Enough second choices makes you a winner. Ed Broadbent says, "Simply put, ranked ballots in a federal election would be like First Past the Post on steroids – even larger false majorities, results even more outrageously torqued and even more unrepresentative of the popular will."

The electoral reform committee is charged with finding a system that is effective and legitimate, engaging, accessible and inclusive, and has integrity and local representation. The committee is setting up consultations; written, online, and face-to-face. Visit FairVote.ca to compare PR and AV then let the committee know which you think is best for all Canadians.

Can You Name All Six Parties That Ran in the 2016 Saskatchewan Election?

Can you name all six parties that ran in the 2016 provincial election?  Each of these parties is a voice for their voters yet we ended up with a two party government. Where are the other four voices?

Of the 431,140 votes, 277,379 were cast for the winners and 153,761 were cast into the wind.

Adding in the 320,424 eligible voters who did not vote, we have 63% of the people of Saskatchewan without a voice in government. Yet, we are told we have a majority government.

Recently Stephen Lewis says replacing first-past-the-post with proportional representation (PR) "is a fight we have to win: it should consume our energies."  PR is any voting system designed to produce a legislature where the voices of voters are represented in proportion to their numbers—not their bank balance.

Countries with PR like Sweden, Denmark, and Norway have more income equality and more gender equality in government.  They are more likely to have stronger economic growth and at the same time better environmental report cards.  Why?  Because the parties don't waste energy beating each other, they use their energy to win voters and cooperate for the common good.

If the Liberals don't come calling to consult you on their promise that the 2015 federal election would be the last using first-past-the-post, you can call on Minister of Democratic Institutions Maryam Monsef to support PR.  Once our votes count federally, it won't be long before they count provincially.

Electoral Reform Referendum Undemocratic

I wrote this letter wearing my Fair Vote Saskatchewan Co-spokesperson.  Thanks for the FVC Chapters group for the inspiration.

Dear Editor,

Would Canadian women have the vote today if it could only happen through a referendum? Like all roads not taken, we will never know but the question does provide guidance on whether we need a referendum for electoral reform of our first-past-the-post (FPTP) system. It may appear that recognizing women's right to vote is a different case than replacing FPTP but at their core they are both issues of fairness.

In 1918, the Supreme Court did not consider women "persons" and this would have been reflected in the beliefs of men who would be voting in our hypothetical referendum. It was the 1918 "An Act to confer the Electoral Franchise upon Women" voted in by parliament that entitled women to vote.

While it takes only simple math to prove that FPTP with more than two parties on the ballot is unfair, choosing a replacement system requires time-consuming research and reflection.

In 2015, 63% of voters cast ballots for parties which campaigned on conducting a public consultation, then making every vote count in 2019. Yet Conservative MP Randy Hoback writes not having a referendum would be "profoundly undemocratic". I suggest we remember that we have a representative democracy. We vote in members of parliament to consider complex questions, consult with constituents, virtuously debate the issue, and then cast a vote on our behalf.

Visit FairVote.ca and other sources to study electoral reform options. Then, let your MP know your informed opinion so they can make a more informed decision.

The Right to Proportional Volume

This Letter to the Editor was inspired by a comment in The Right to be Cold and has also been posted on http://fairvotesask.blogspot.ca/.

When asked by the late Jack Layton to enter federal politics, renowned Inuk environmental activist Shelia Watt-Cloutier's declined because she "couldn't possibly survive the loud and uncivil manner in which the House of Commons conducts itself." Where does this loud and uncivil manner originate from? It is from our winner-take-all first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system that produces phony majorities.

FPTP works well in a two party system. With more than two parties there is always the potential that more people will vote against the winners than for them. Our 2011 federal election gave 54% of the seats to a party that won 40% of the popular vote. Then, 40% of the people didn't vote (perhaps because they recognize it is as futile), so the Conservative mandate was from 25% of the eligible voters. Conversely, FPTP gave 100% of the power to a party not mandated by 75% of the eligible voters. 

As soon as a party forms the government, the goal becomes to win the next election by competing with the other parties—not collaborating, so we have a "loud and uncivil" House. 

FPTP has to go. Insist your candidate commit to proportional representation (PR). PR is designed to produce a House that shares out its seats in proportion to the way voters vote so that the volume of each party's voice is genuine, not phony. 

Let's make 2015 the last time a party wins a phony majority. If your candidate commits to electoral reform through PR, then Go Vote. 

Nancy Carswell
Co-spokesperson Saskatchewan Chapter Fair Vote Canada