An impact of electoral systems on Canada and America

One difference between American and Canadian elections is that Americans can vote directly for the President.  The catch is that often that vote is wasted.  Their electoral system uses an electoral college which means each state's vote is decided by plurality and all the electors are credited to the one party that won the state.  Al Gore and Hilary Clinton got more votes, but lost because their votes weren't in the right states.

 In all states, provinces and nationally with two exceptions,  (Maine and Vermont) elections are decided on a plurality basis meaning that a winning candidate is the one who receives more votes than anyone else.  Canada accepts more than two parties and although so does America, the difference is that Americans disdain third parties as infringing on the two main parties.  Many Canadians feel the same way, but enough detect policy issues and character traits best addressed by a third party.  

Political thinking has been there are two choices only--our party and those of the opposition.  Is that true?  At one point the conservative movement had split into two segments.  Both were conservative on the economy, but one faction was more socially concerned.  It did in fact split the vote, allowing liberal parties to gain strength.  The two factions amalgamated and improved their election standing.  That move was effective, but was it fair?

Both American and Canadian politicians use polls.  They can be useful and beneficial to find out what the voters want.  However they are also used to determine political party strength.  In effect, some ridings or districts are very likely going to elect one party.  Others are more open and need to be contested.  Politicians have limited time and money and so decide where best to apply their resources.

An example of putting too much attention on one area is provided by Kamala Harris who realizes in practical terms in order to be elected president she needs to win Pennsylvania with 19 electoral votes.  In her case she has been tagged with her vow to banish fracking, a touchy issue in that state.  I suspect also for practical reasons she disavowed that more than 4 years ago.  With this handicap and the polling outlook elsewhere she will be concentrating her efforts on Pennsylvania and a few other key states.  Donald Trump in the meantime is also concentrating his efforts on states that are competitive.  Between the two of them over half the American states will receive at best cursory attention because they presumably have established sufficient loyalty to one of the two parties.

Important choices such as the vice president decision are discussed with regard to electoral votes  in key American states.

Unfortunately Canadian politicians concentrate their limited resources on ridings that offer a fighting chance.  This could lead to a lot of hopping around for a party's Prime Minister candidates as any one of 265 ridings could offer a promise of success. 

For many people the voting decision is not for who they want to win but who they don't want to win.  To prevent an undesired party from getting elected they switch their vote to their second choice.  If their first choice could be joined with those in other ridings another viewpoint might be elected and better represent the will of the people.  This is known as strategic voting.  The will of the people is not fairly represented.

Under the First Past the Post the winners only require to get one extra vote, while all the other votes count for nothing.  Essentially both countries use that principle and in both cases it distorts what the voters really want.

Justin Trudeau has recently cast a few remarks against real proportional representation.  He recognizes his Liberal Party is the second choice for both Conservatives and the N.D.P. so he likes ranked ballots and is dead set against proportional representation.  Like many politicians he knows how he got to power and doesn't want to risk changing the electoral system.