Question of the month from the Garvie Reading Room:
Can my landlord prevent me from displaying an election sign supporting a particular candidate?
This depends on the type of election. Both the Canada Elections Act (S.C. 2000, c. 9), section 322, and the Alberta Election Act (E.1, RSA 2000), section 135.5 state clearly that no landlord may prohibit a tenant from displaying election advertising posters on the premises nor may any condominium corporation prohibit any owner or tenant from displaying such posters. They do allow the landlord or condominium corporation to set reasonable limits on the size or type of posters and to prohibit such displays in common areas of the building. Common areas are usually those areas that all tenants can access, like the laundry room, parking lot and land surrounding the building.
However, the Alberta Local Authorities Election Act (E-21, RSA 2000), which governs municipal elections makes no reference to election advertising at all, other than to prohibit such displays at polling stations on election day. Many municipalities have bylaws or regulations related to campaign signs on municipal property and roadways. Generally they have no regulations about private property but do caution that placement of signs on private property must have the permission of the property owner. This would imply that in a municipal election the landlord can refuse for a tenant to display a campaign poster or ask a tenant to remove a sign that has been posted. There may even be a term in your lease governing such displays.
Because each province governs both their own elections and their municipalities, these rules may well differ in other provinces.
Latest Issue of LawNow Magazine: Elections and the Law & Privacy Law
Free and fair elections are the cornerstones of democracies. This issue of LawNow examines elections law in Canada and around the world.
American and Canadian Election Laws
There are many differences between the U.S. and Canadian election laws. Here are our top 10!
Democracy After Post-Conflict Elections – Are we there yet?
Perhaps our hopes are too high. The reality is that post-conflict elections are often far from satisfactory.
Running for Office: A Candidate’s Journey
From theory to reality: a candidate’s journey through an election is both bruising and rewarding.
Riding the Election Cycle
Elections in Alberta follow a four-year cycle, and there is lots of work to do in between elections.
Electoral Finance Rules at Home and Around the World
There is consensus in Canada and around the world that strict electoral financing rules are necessary for democracy and transparency.
Special Report: Privacy Law
Privacy Law in Canada
There are many challenges to the right to privacy for Canadians: fortunately, we have committed and engaged privacy commissioners to help.
Intrusion on Seclusion: The Tort of Invasion of Privacy
The new tort of Invasion of Privacy has been created in Canadian law, aptly summarized as Intrusion on Seclusion.
Privacy Issues in Criminal Law
Nowhere is protection of personal privacy more important than in the realm of criminal law. The Canadian Charter of Rights contains important safeguards for Canadians facing criminal charges.
The Complexities of Privacy and Social Networking Sites
Facebook users need to know about the privacy challenges that can arise from the use of this popular social media site.
Departments
Viewpoint
Freedom from bias always your right
First Nations people can now seek equality other Canadians enjoy
Bench Press
Children and Cyber-bullying
What do We Mean by Public Standing?
A Task for Solomon?
Reid This: Police Tactic Oppressive
Columns
Human Rights Law
Sexual Harassment is a Continuing Issue in Canada
Family Law
Considering Custody
Law and Literature
Miss Julie’s Revenge, or Men Who Hate Women, Please Meet Lisbeth Salander
Employment Law
The Law of Embellished Credentials
Landlord and Tenant Law
Protecting Your Personal Information When You Rent
Not-for-Profit Law
Questioning Jurisdiction
What Ever Happened to … A Follow-up to Famous Cases
Roncarelli v. Duplessis
Subscribe to receive email updates once a month when new content is published on LawNow.org.
Alternative Voting Systems
Recently, we had a federal election here in Canada, and many people noticed that when all was said and done, the distribution of seats in the House of Commons didn’t very closely match the distribution of votes that each party received. There is a good reason for this, and it has to do with the voting system we use here in Canada, a system known as “First Past the Post” or “Single Member Plurality”. Given the recent election here in Canada, as well as the fact that people in the UK recently engaged in a referendum about whether they should change their voting system (they opted not to), we thought our readers might be interested in a brief overview of how our system works, what some of the alternatives are, and the history of alternative voting systems in Canada.
Single Member Plurality
Here in Canada, we use a system based on the Westminster parliamentary system found in the United Kingdom. The Single Member Plurality system (also known as the “winner take all” system) has the advantage of being very easy to understand. Basically, Canada is divided up into 308 geographical areas (known as “ridings”), and voters in those areas cast a ballot for the candidate that they feel would best represent them. The candidate in each riding who garners the most votes is declared the winner and becomes a Member of Parliament. There are a number of advantages to this system, not the least of which is that it is very simple. People cast one vote, and that vote is directly accounted to a single candidate. Moreover, it allows people to vote for a person who is explicitly responsible for the area that they live in, giving a sense of direct representation.
There are, however, some downsides to this system. Because a candidate only has to get more votes than every other candidate to win, the winner doesn’t necessarily have to get the support of the majority of the voters in their riding. Here is an example from the 2011 election:
Party | Candidate | Votes | Percentage |
Conservative | John Baird | 25,226 | 44.7 |
Green Party | Mark MacKenzie | 2,279 | 4.0 |
NDP-New Democratic Party | Marlene Rivier | 11,128 | 19.7 |
Liberal | Anita Vandenbeld | 17,790 | 31.5 |
Notice that Conservative candidate John Baird received the support of less than half of the voters in the riding, but because he received a plurality of votes (more votes than anyone else) he was declared the winner and will represent all of the voters in the House of Commons.
While this might seem somewhat unequal on a local level, the difference is even more pronounced if you look at the results across the entire country. In our political system, the party that wins the largest number of seats is generally the party that forms the government, especially if that party wins a majority of the seats, as the Conservative Party did in 2011. But, just as a candidate can win a riding without the support of the majority of voters, so too can a party win a majority of the seats in the House of Commons without the support of the majority of Canadians. In the 2011 federal election, the popular vote each party received is as follows:
Green Party: 3.9%
Conservative Party: 39.6%
Liberal Party: 18.9%
NDP: 30.6%
Bloc Quebecois: 6.0%
But the actual percentage of seats that each party won was very different:
Green Party: 0.3%
Conservative Party: 54.2%
Liberal Party: 11.0%
NDP: 33.1%
Bloc Quebecois: 1.3%
In fact, if the seats in the House of Commons were distributed proportionally to the votes that each party received, the House would look very different:
Image by Bryan Beca. Click for full size