From Aug 5: In our last message, we shared with you the key findings from our first hearing about how First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) leads to under-representation of women, which is a core part of our argument that FPTP violates our Section 15 right to equality.

The Evidence

As we noted last time, the evidence showed that Canada has slipped from 16th to 64th in the world in terms of women's representation over the past 25 years, that political scientists agree that the type of voting system is arguably the single most important variable in explaining differences in women's representation, and that switching to proportional representation (PR) would likely "raise the share of elected women".

Causation Not Proven?

Despite this, the judge concluded that "Causation of the gender disparity is far from proven" and stated that "it is self-evident that while electoral systems may be tangentially implicated, the particular type of system – whether SMP or PR – is not the cause of women’s comparative advantages or disadvantages across societies."

Our Appeal Argument

In our appeal of these findings, our lawyer, Nicolas Rouleau, argues that the Judge inappropriately relied on (and mischaracterized) the expert report of Dr. Melanee Thomas, "a Respondent expert without any [demonstrated research] expertise on comparative electoral systems" and failed to give appropriate weight to the evidence of Dr. Karen Bird (Full Professor at McMaster), who clearly has the most relevant expertise on this topic - Bird is a specialist in "comparative politics, with a focus on comparative electoral systems, women's and ethnic minority representation."

While no-one disputes Thomas' claim that the overall level of sexism present in society affects representation of women under any voting system, such that adopting PR won't necessarily fully compensate for gender bias in our political system, we feel the judge failed to take note that even Thomas conceded that "PR systems act to “moderate” the effects of sexist attitudes, changing the way they are expressed [and ...] agreed with the consensus that PR’s multimember districts make it “easier to elect women” and “typically increases women’s numerical representation”", which effectively means that FPTP poses an impediment to electing women.

In our view, the judge also failed to take proper account of the fact that both the key studies Thomas relied on support our contention that FPTP disadvantages women, particularly in countries such as Canada that broadly support women's participation in politics. One study "confirms that PR rules contribute to women’s representation by incentivizing parties to present balanced slates" and the other that voters “are more accepting of women if multiple positions are chosen” - both key dynamics of the voting system that were highlighted by other expert witnesses.

Next week, we'll turn our attention to the last major set of findings, related to under-representation of minority groups.