1. No category

Fair Vote Canada
408 – 283 Danforth Avenue, Toronto ON M4K 1N2
www.fairvote.ca office@fairvote.ca 416-410-4034
Why Proportional Representation?
A look at the evidence
This paper provides a brief introduction to the two main families of voting systems proportional and winner-take-all - and a summary of the research comparing their
performance. In addition to making votes count, and delivering fair, representative
election results, the research will show that proportional representation outperforms
winner-take-all systems on measures of democracy, quality of life, income equality,
environmental performance, and economic growth.
Introduction: Two Families of Voting Systems
There are two basic types, or families, of voting systems:
1) Winner-take-all. Political scientists call these systems "majoritarian". Winner-take-all
systems include First Past the Post and Alternative Vote. These systems use single
member ridings, and are based on the idea that just one group of voters - the largest
group in each riding - will elect a representative. Winner-take-all systems are designed
to produce single party majority governments, in which one party will win more than half
the seats and all the decision making power, often with less than 50% of the popular
vote.
All winner-take-all systems share the same basic flaws: a high percentage of wasted
votes, distorted overall results in which the seats earned do not reflect the popular vote,
suppression of minority viewpoints, adversarial politics, and legislatures which do not
accurately reflect the diversity of the country.
2) Proportional Representation. PR systems include Mixed Member Proportional,
Single Transferable Vote, with country-specific variations of each. Proportional
representation systems are designed to produce a legislature which is representative of
the views of citizens. Proportional representation systems are based on the principle
that the number of seats a party earns in a legislature should closely match the
percentage of voters who voted for it. PR also tends to produce legislatures which better
reflect ethnic and gender diversity. Because a single party rarely earns more than 50%
of the vote, two or more parties usually govern together in a coalition, representing the
genuine majority of voters.
Page 1 of 5
Fair Vote Canada
408 – 283 Danforth Avenue, Toronto ON M4K 1N2
www.fairvote.ca office@fairvote.ca 416-410-4034
Comparing Winner-Take-All to Proportional Systems
Measures of Democracy
Substantial research has been conducted comparing outcomes in countries using
winner-take-all systems vs proportional systems. Arend Lijphart (2012), a worldrenowned political scientist, spent his career studying the differences between
majoritarian and "consensual" (PR) democracies. In his landmark study - Patterns of
Democracy - he compared 36 democracies over 29 years, and found that in countries
using proportional systems:





voter turnout was higher - about 7% higher on average
government policies were closer to the view of the median voter
citizens were more satisfied with democracy, even when the party they voted for
was not in power
there was only a marginal increase in the number of parties in Parliament
8% more women were elected
Lijphart concluded that consensual (PR) democracies were "kinder, gentler
democracies" (p. 293).
McDonald, Mendes and Budge (2004) looked at 254 elections producing 471
governments in 20 countries, with a major finding that:

Proportional systems created governments which better reflected the views of
the median voter
Health, Education, Physical Security
Carey and Hix (2009) looked at 610 elections over 60 years in 81 countries and found
that:


The benefits of proportional representation through fair representation of voters
garnered higher scores on the United Nations Index of Human Development,
which looks at health, education, and security - basically, how well government
takes care of citizens
The benefits of proportional representation (higher scores on the Index of
Development, and fair representation of voters) could be achieved with a
moderately proportional system
Page 2 of 5
Fair Vote Canada
408 – 283 Danforth Avenue, Toronto ON M4K 1N2
www.fairvote.ca office@fairvote.ca 416-410-4034
Economic Performance and Fiscal Responsibility
Carey and Hix (2009) also found that:

Countries with moderately proportional systems were less likely to have deficits
and more likely to have fiscal surpluses
Knutsen (2011) looked at 107 countries from 1820 to 2002 - 3710 “country years” and
found that:

Both proportional and semi-proportional systems produced higher economic
growth than plurality-majoritarian - "a strong, significant effect" (p.86)
Knutsen (2011) concluded:

"PR systems likely produce higher growth because they promote broad-interest,
rather than special interest, policies, and perhaps because PR systems produce
more stable and thus credible economic policies. PR and semi-PR systems are
thus not only beneficial for representation of diverse groups in politics (Lijphart,
1999; Carey and Hix, 2009) and for decreasing the distance between median
voter and median government member (Huber and Powell, 1994; Carey and Hix,
2009). PR and semi-PR systems also generate more prosperity than pluralmajoritarian systems."(p. 89)
Income Inequality
Lijphart (2012) found that:

Countries with proportional systems had lower income inequality - a “strong and
significant effect” (p. 282)
Birchfield and Crepaz (1998) found that:


"[C]onsensual political institutions (which use proportional representation) tend to
reduce income inequalities whereas majoritarian institutions have the opposite
effect" (p. 192)
[W]hat made the difference was that people in countries with PR had more
power. "The more widespread the access to political institutions, and the more
representative the political system, the more citizens will take part in the political
process to change it in their favour which will manifest itself, among other things,
in lower income inequality. Such consensual political institutions make the
government more responsive to the demands of a wider range of citizens." (p.
191)
Page 3 of 5
Fair Vote Canada
408 – 283 Danforth Avenue, Toronto ON M4K 1N2
www.fairvote.ca office@fairvote.ca 416-410-4034
Vincenzo Verardi, in 2005 study of 28 democracies, found that:

When the degree of proportionality of a system increases, inequality decreases.
Environment
Lijphart (2012), found that:

Countries with proportional systems scored 6 points higher on the Environmental
Performance Index, which measures ten policy areas, including environmental
health, air quality, resource management, biodiversity and habitat, forestry,
fisheries, agriculture and climate change
Darcie Cohen (2010) found that:



Countries with proportional systems were faster to ratify the Kyoto protocol
in countries with a form of PR, the percentage of world total carbon emissions
decreased, while it increased in other countries or remained static
“[b]y changing electoral systems countries may be moving a step closer to
environmental improvement. However a commitment to effective environmental
policies must be widely shared.” (p. v)
Stability
Does proportional representation mean more political instability? In fact, between 1945
and 1998, countries using First Past the Post averaged 16.7 elections, while countries
using proportional systems averaged 16 elections (Pilon, 2007). Clearly, stable,
representative government can go hand in hand.
Conclusion
Research has clearly shown that proportional representation outperforms winner-takeall systems on measures of democracy, quality of life, income equality, environmental
outcomes, and economic growth. A more proportional electoral system is therefore an
important vehicle for those in favour of a more equitable, sustainable, prosperous and
democratic society.
Page 4 of 5
Fair Vote Canada
408 – 283 Danforth Avenue, Toronto ON M4K 1N2
www.fairvote.ca office@fairvote.ca 416-410-4034
References
Birchfield, Vicki and Crepaz, Markus (1998). The impact of constitutional structures and
collective and competitive veto points on income inequality in industrialized
democracies. European Journal of Political Research 34: 175–200. Retrieved from:
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~iversen/PDFfiles/Birchfield&Crepaz1998.pdf
Carey, John M. and Hix, Simon (2009) The electoral sweet spot: low-magnitude
proportional electoral systems. PSPE working papers, 01-2009. Department of
Government, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.
Retrieved from:
http://www.electoralreformforcanada.ca/2009%20Carey%20%20Electoral%20Sweet%20Spot.pdf
Cohen, Darcie (2010). Do political preconditions affect environmental outcomes?
Exploring the linkages between proportional representation, Green parties and the
Kyoto Protocol. Simon Fraser University. Retrieved from:
http://summit.sfu.ca/item/10084
Knutsen, Carl (2011). Which democracies prosper? Electoral rules, forms of
government, and economic growth. Electoral Studies 30: 83-90. Retrieved from:
http://www.sv.uio.no/isv/forskning/publikasjoner/artikler/chknutsen_sciencedirect_2011.
pdf
Lijphart, Arend (2012). Patterns of Democracy. Government Forms and Performance in
36 Countries. New Haven, CT: Yale Press.
Summary of 1999 edition:: http://www.fairvote.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/LijphartSummary.pdf
McDonald, M., Mendes, S. and Budge, I. (2004). What are elections for? Conferring the
median mandate. British Journal of Political Science 34: 1-26, Cambridge University
Press. Retrieved from:
http://cdp.binghamton.edu/papers/What%20Are%20Elections%20For.pdf
Pilon, Dennis. (2007). The Politics of Voting: Reforming Canada’s Electoral System.
Toronto: Emond Montgomery.
Verardi, Vincenzo. Electoral Systems and Income Inequality. Economics Letters,
Volume 86, Issue 1, January 2005, Pages 7-12.
Page 5 of 5