Introducing Prof. Lawrence Leduc - Expert on Canadian Electoral History and Political Participation

Dr. Lawrence LeDuc is Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Toronto.  His research interests are in the areas of political participation, electoral reform and direct democracy.

In his affidavit, he adds to the contributions of Profs. John Carey and Karen Bird that we’ve previously described by providing more detail about Canada’s experience with First Past the Post with respect both to the distribution of parliamentary seats and to the representation of various kinds of Canadian voters (particularly women, minorities, and those with particular political ideologies).  In addition, he describes how our current voting system affects voter participation, as well as Canada’s previous history of using proportional voting systems and previous voting reform efforts. 

FPTP Fails to Represent Many Individual Voters

MPs often claim that they represent all their constituents, not just the ones that voted for them.  This is nonsense, and Prof. LeDuc helpfully explains why:  

“While all Members of Parliament in Canada are expected to provide constituents with certain basic services such as assistance with citizenship issues or help in applying for government programs, FPTP at the individual level fails to provide any political representation at the constituency level to all those who voted for any candidate other than that of the winning party in their constituency. It thus generates millions of votes that do not translate into legislative seats (which some refer to as “wasted votes”), a characteristic of FPTP systems that has long been a central focus of the criticism of this system in the academic literature.”  “These voters therefore have significantly reduced voices in government compared to voters who voted for an elected MP.”  

In other words, elected MPs confuse constituency service (which they provide to all constituents) with legislative representation (which, since they can only vote one way, only serves those voters who voted for them and is denied to those who did not).  This “bug” (not “feature”!) of FPTP will be fundamental to our argument that FPTP violates our Charter right to effective representation.

Stay tuned for more about Prof. LeDuc’s other key pieces of evidence.

Jesse Hitchcock, Springtide & Antony Hodgson, Fair Voting BC

- - -

Stay tuned to this blog for updates on electoral reform and the Charter Challenge for Fair Voting.

Get Charter Challenge updates by following SPRINGTIDE on Facebook and Twitter.

Sign up for email updates from the Charter Challenge for Fair Voting here:

By subscribing to this list you consent to being contacted by both Springtide and Fair Voting BC.

  • Springtide Chair
    published this page in Blog Updates 2021-11-14 11:41:34 -0400


Like and Follow

- - -

Key Events in the Case:

  • We're currently awaiting the appeal decision (expected in spring 2025)
  • We submitted a response in March 2025 re: the relevance of the SCC Working Families case
  • We presented our appeal in the Court of Appeal for Ontario in November 2024
  • We submitted our appeal factum in April 2024
  • We filed our Notice of Appeal in December 2023
  • Justice Ed Morgan issued his ruling in November 2023 and unfortunately dismissed our application
  • The case was heard in September 2023 in the Ontario Superior Court
  • We received the government's affidavits in fall 2022
  • We served the government with our affidavit and evidence package in May 2021
  • We filed the case with the Ontario Superior Court in October 2019

How you can help

The main way you can help is to support the case financially. We are now asking for pledges totalling $60,000 to support us appealing to the Supreme Court of Canada, if they grant us leave to appeal in mid-2025.

What to expect

At each step, we set new pledge or donation goals based on our estimate of the costs for the next stage of the process, and invite our supporters to contribute towards that goal to ensure the case can continue to move forward. We don't ask for or collect funds until we're sure we're going to take the associated step.