In our last few messages, we've been sharing with you the key "findings of fact" that the judge made in our original challenge last fall. We've previously covered those that relate to reduced effectiveness of representation and impaired participation. Today, we outline the judge's findings related to under-representing women, which is a core part of our argument that First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) violates our Section 15 right to equality.

Under-Representation of Women:

Relatively Worse Off Now vs 25 Years Ago: Despite the fact that the proportion of women in Parliament in Canada has risen over the past 25 years from 20% to 30%, women are relatively worse off now than then. In 1998, Canada ranked 16th in the world, but we've since slipped to 64th, “well behind most comparable democracies that have moved much faster towards gender parity in parliament” - these countries almost universally use proportional representation (PR).

Voting System Strongly Affects Number of Women Elected: "The experts agreed that the type of electoral system ... is “an important—if not the most important—variable” to explain ... differences in women’s representation. As such, one of “the most well-established findings in the political science literature” is that PR countries significantly outperform [FPTP] countries on the election of women." The key dynamic is that, "Under [FPTP], elections are zero-sum games. A candidate from only one gender can win an election in a single-seat district, and parties overwhelmingly nominate men in the most winnable seats. Conversely, [with PR], the availability of multiple seats in each district “strongly compels” parties to “balance the ticket” by nominating women, to appeal to the full electorate."

PR Promotes "Contagion": "The dynamics of party competition in PR systems “further enhance the likelihood” that women will become a focus of political recruitment (through a process called “contagion”)", whereby larger parties feel pressure to nominate more women to match the ratios of (typically smaller parties) that do so. One key piece of evidence showed that, "on average, [FPTP] lower[s] women’s representation by 3% in the short term and 5% in the long term" compared to PR. Both experts we nominated and one the government nominated "agreed that the adoption of PR would likely raise the share of elected women."

Inconsistent Judgement?

Despite the findings outlined above, and despite the fact that the judge "accepted that “countries with PR systems tend to elect a somewhat higher percentage of women than those with [FPTP] systems”, parties seem to be “more amenable to female candidates where they will attain seats in direct proportion to their votes”, the adoption of a PR system “might… provide incentives for political parties to nominate more women candidates”, and the "overwhelming and consistent worldwide consensus on the benefit of PR for women’s representation", the judge nonetheless relied most on (and mischaracterized) the opinion of Prof. Thomas, "a government expert without any expertise on comparative electoral systems," and found that the electoral system was not a causal factor in limiting women’s representation.

Next week, we'll outline how the judge explained his thinking, and later will lay out how we plan to appeal his finding.