So, reviewing the results of the election published in The Star, we have a Liberal majority again (66% of the seats) with 46% of the vote, while the NDP gets 9% of the seats with 17% of the vote and the Conservatives 24% of the seats event though they had 32% of the vote. The Greens got 8% of the vote but no seats.
It’s a very big difference. Although the Liberals can rule as if they had a clear mandate from the people, the proportion of voting they got shows that it really isn’t that clear. This is something that people have been aware of for some time now, and they want a change, just not the Mixed-Proportional Representation (MMP) proposed by a citizen’s assembly and that was the subject of a referendum on the same election day.
MMP lost, and lost badly. Although the conditions for it to be accepted were, quite frankly, ridiculously high (it had to win 66% of the vote and a majority in 64 ridings) it didn’t even come close to a simple majority. Just one third of the voters said yes to the proposed system, the rest opting for the winner-takes-all approach that has been in use since forever.
Although the system is not perfect, I bet that the differences in representation wouldn’t be as grossly inaccurate as with the current system. However, would the communities be as well represented with MMP? or would MMP (or other system of proportional representation) shift power to the parties? Is MMP a less imperfect system than first-past-the-post, or more imperfect?