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 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