Why electoral systems matter
Every democracy holds elections, but the rules that turn votes into seats, the electoral system, vary widely. The same votes can produce very different governments under different systems. Electoral systems affect:
- how many parties win seats
- whether governments are single-party majorities or coalitions
- how closely seats reflect the popular vote
- how strong the link is between representatives and local areas
- whether women and minority groups are well represented
Plurality and majority systems
First-past-the-post (FPTP)
Used in Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom and India.
- One representative per district.
- The candidate with the most votes wins (a plurality), even under 50%.
- Tends to produce single-party majority governments and favours large parties or parties with regionally concentrated support.
Example: In Canada’s 1993 election, the Bloc Québécois, concentrated in Quebec, won 54 seats and became Official Opposition with about 13.5% of the national vote, while the Progressive Conservatives won about 16% of the vote but only 2 seats.
Ranked ballot (instant runoff or alternative vote)
Used in Australia‘s House of Representatives and in some U.S. states and cities, such as Maine, Alaska and New York City primaries.
- Voters rank candidates: 1, 2, 3…
- If no one has a majority of first choices, the last-place candidate is eliminated and their votes go to the voters’ next choices. This repeats until someone has a majority.
- Winners have broader support, but results are still not proportional.
Two-round system
Used in France‘s presidential elections and many other countries.
- If no candidate wins a majority in the first round, the top two (or more) face a second round.
- Ensures the winner has majority support, but requires two elections.
Proportional systems
List proportional representation
Used in the Netherlands, Israel, Spain and many others.
- Voters choose a party; parties win seats in proportion to their vote share.
- Parties rank their candidates on a list.
- Often uses a threshold (such as 5%) to win seats.
- Produces many parties and usually coalition governments.
Mixed-member proportional (MMP)
Used in Germany and New Zealand (since 1996).
- Voters cast two votes: one for a local candidate and one for a party.
- Local winners take district seats; additional list seats are given out so each party’s total matches its party vote.
- Combines local representation with proportional results.
Single transferable vote (STV)
Used in Ireland and Malta, and for Australia’s Senate.
- Multi-member districts; voters rank candidates.
- Candidates reach a quota; surplus and eliminated votes transfer to next preferences.
- Proportional and candidate-focused.
Comparing systems
| System | Proportional? | Local link | Typical government | Example |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| First-past-the-post | low | strong | single-party majority | Canada, U.S., UK |
| Ranked ballot | low | strong | single-party majority | Australia (House) |
| Two-round system | low | strong | majority president | France |
| List PR | high | weak | coalition | Netherlands |
| Mixed-member proportional | high | moderate | coalition | Germany, New Zealand |
| STV | moderate–high | moderate | coalition | Ireland |
Trade-offs
- Stability vs fairness: FPTP often gives clear majorities; proportional representation better reflects voters’ choices but may require coalitions.
- Accountability: in FPTP it’s clear who governs; in coalitions, responsibility is shared.
- Diversity: proportional systems tend to elect more parties, and often more women.
- Extremism: thresholds can keep very small or extreme parties out; critics argue PR can give them influence, while defenders note FPTP can also amplify extremes in some regions.
Electoral reform in Canada
Several provinces have held referendums on changing from FPTP:
- British Columbia (2005, 2009, 2018)
- Ontario (2007)
- Prince Edward Island (2005, 2016, 2019)
None resulted in a change. In 2015, the federal government promised that would be the last FPTP election, but abandoned the plan in 2017.
Drawing the lines
In single-member systems, district boundaries matter. Gerrymandering means drawing boundaries to favour a party, by "packing" opponents into a few districts or "cracking" them across many. In the United States, many states let legislatures draw congressional districts, leading to frequent gerrymandering disputes. In Canada, independent commissions redraw federal ridings after each census.
Try it yourself
- Using the same imaginary vote totals, calculate the seat results under FPTP and list PR.
- Hold a class election using ranked ballots and count the results.
- Research one electoral reform referendum in Canada. Why did it fail?
- Debate: "Canada should adopt mixed-member proportional representation."
Quick recap
- Electoral systems turn votes into seats and shape party systems.
- FPTP, ranked ballots and two-round systems are majoritarian.
- List PR, MMP and STV are proportional or semi-proportional.
- Each system balances stability, fairness, accountability and local representation differently.
- Boundary drawing and gerrymandering also affect results.