Canada West Foundation Blog

By: Robbie Rolfe

The results of the Alberta provincial election that took place on April 23, 2012 generated a lot of commentary on the gap between what the polls were saying and what actually happened on election day. While this is an interesting puzzle, it is perhaps more important to look at another gap—namely, the chasm between votes cast and seats won.

There is a large differential between the percentage of the vote some parties received and the percentage of seats they won. The table below shows seat share minus vote share by region. A negative number indicates where a party had a smaller share of seats than votes while a positive number indicates where a party had a larger share of the seats than votes. When it comes to the first and second place parties (the Progressive Conservative and Wildrose parties), the differentials are quite large.



The Wildrose party had strong support across the province. Nevertheless, it came a close second or third in many ridings. To modify the cliché, close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades, not in the single member plurality races we use to select our representatives in Alberta and across the country. So despite garnering more than a third of the popular vote in the province, the Wildrose party won only a fifth of the seats.

The Progressive Conservative party, on the other hand, won about 23 more seats than it would have if each party had received the same proportion of seats as its proportion of the popular vote. In many cases, the PCs won with a plurality (the most votes) rather than a majority.

Another way to measure the gap between vote share and seat share that typifies single member plurality systems is the least squares index, a common measure of proportionality used in political science. The scale runs from 0 to 100 with higher numbers indicating a less proportional result. This measure allows us to compare proportionality across elections. For the recent Alberta election, its value is about 22. To provide some context, that is a more disproportional result than any Canadian federal election since 1945. (This includes Brian Mulroney’s 1984 victory, where his party won 75% of the seats with 50% of the votes, while the Liberal and New Democratic parties’ seat shares were about half of their popular vote shares.)

Proportionality matters. Arguably, when the distribution of seats in the legislature does not accurately match the preferences of the voters expressed in the general election, it is less likely to pass laws reflecting the diverse preferences of the population. In other words, the single member plurality system we use in Canada tends to distort the representativeness of our legislatures.

To create a better match between votes and seats, we would need to implement some form of proportional representation. In these systems, seats are allocated based on a candidate or party’s share of the popular vote rather than on which candidate comes first in each riding. It may even have other positive effects (for example, it may increase the number of women and ethnic minority representatives in the legislature, two historically underrepresented groups).

Of course, a change of this sort will also have costs. For example, it will likely mean the end of majority government. In order to get a majority in a proportional representation system, one party will have to get very close to half the vote in order to get more than half the seats. This could be costly because majority governments are seen as stable, strong and able to implement their campaign promises. Voters can also identify responsibility easily and hold governments accountable when one party controls the levers of power. It is also easy for the electorate to turn majority governments out in a single member plurality system, as small movements in the popular vote can result in large changes in seats. (Some also argue that majority governments are better for economic performance, though there appears to be no statistically significant link in practice between the electoral system and economic performance. See, for example, Arend Lijphart’s 1999 book, which compares different democratic institutional types.)

Nevertheless, we can discuss and decide on a system that works for us. There are many options we can choose (we can even retain single member districts). We can minimize the costs and maximize the benefits.

We cannot do that, however, without talking about it—it is time to grapple with this elephant in our political living room.
 

Western Canada profits from its abundance of natural resources, however, in the changing global landscape, we need to take action to ensure our future prosperity. The latest research from the Canada West Foundation outlines the main contours of the contemporary energy world and takes stock of the trends shaping energy in western Canada.

State of the West: Energy – 2012 Western Canadian Energy Trends, by Senior Economist Michael Holden and Policy Analyst Robbie Rolfe, provides an overview of the provincial energy systems in western Canada, including the current state of energy production, consumption, and other associated activities and impacts. That information is framed in the context of the energy-related policy issues and challenges facing the four western provinces.

“Western Canada is characterized by a profound diversity of resources, consumption patterns, and economic and environmental impacts” said Michael Holden. “The energy picture in each province is unique, but their strengths are complementary. Through a more coordinated approach to energy policy, the western provinces can become more than the sum of their parts.”

Given the extent to which it permeates our daily lives, energy has come to dominate the economic, social, and political agenda in the region. State of the West: Energy provides a one-stop information resource on energy in western Canada, informing the debate surrounding energy policy in the West, and providing context to both where we are today and where we may go in the future.

State of the West: Energy – 2012 Western Canadian Energy Trends is part of the Foundation’s Powering Up for the Future initiative, which facilitates constructive debate on sustainable energy policy solutions for Canada and promotes the vital importance of western Canadian energy systems in the national, continental, and global economy. Click here to download a copy of the report.

By: Robbie Rolfe

I sometimes find myself getting weary of ideologues on environmental issues. One argument I find particularly tiresome is the insistence that there are significant tradeoffs when it comes to the economy and the environment. The conclusion of these extreme viewpoints is that we can be prosperous polluters or penniless hippies. Apparently, there is no middle ground.

These zero-sum views neglect market-based instruments (MBIs for short) that can make us both prosperous and green. The careful deployment of MBIs can address a major difficulty facing governments trying to encourage good environmental practices: people and businesses will not provide enough ecological goods and services because the costs of providing them accrue to individual persons or businesses while the benefits are enjoyed by the wider community. An MBI is a mechanism that shares the costs of environmental protection among its many beneficiaries.

Take a farmer who is nearing retirement and needs cash. If he sells his farm to a developer, he gets the money he needs. If he holds onto the land to ensure that it continues to provide a nearby city’s water system with valuable natural filtration, he takes a direct financial hit. There are significant tradeoffs in that situation: the farmer gives up some of his livelihood to maintain ecological benefits or gives up ecological benefits to enhance his livelihood. An MBI could pay the farmer for the ecological goods and services his land provides. To ensure a fair price, the amount the farmer gets could be set by a market, or at least market-like mechanisms. Taxpayers living in the city who benefit from the natural filtration on the farmer’s land could fund the MBI through their taxes, thereby sharing in the costs associated with the benefits they receive.

The good news is that these kinds of policies are increasingly under consideration in western Canada. The Alberta Land Stewardship Act, for example, urges the use of market-based instruments on a regional or local level to better provide ecological goods and services, particularly when it comes to land use and land management.

Though market-based instruments show great potential, we are only beginning to explore their varied applications. If we can tap that potential, then one day we may be able to have our cake and eat it too.

MBIs are explored in detail in a new Canada West Foundation report entitled The Invisible Hand’s Green Thumb: Market-based Instruments for Environmental Protection in Alberta. To download the report, click here.