at continues to produce certainty and stability in Canada. The Westminster approach of responsible government is based on a stable, parliamentary majority, and the stability of a single party majoritarian government is one of the main arguments in support of FPTP. Under Canada's plurality system, coalitions are much less likely and the policies on which parties campaigned can be implemented with relative ease. Legislative majorities also have the freedom to carry out policies with the security that there exists little chance that a vote of no confidence will be passed (Library of Parliament, 2001). Maintaining a direct link between constituencies and representatives provides FPTP with the strength that many proposed alternatives lack. The system allows for direct accountability to the electorate as well as the facilitation of clear local representation (Canadian Electoral Reform, 2001).
             Other arguments in support of FPTP include the relative simplicity of the system in determining the winning candidate by whoever receives the most votes, and the fact that it is still possible for a plurality system to produce more proportional results than a PR system (Library of Parliament, 2001). The certainty of accountability and stability that Canada's plurality system provides exist as the main arguments in support of retaining Canada's first-past-the-post electoral system in a time of growing pressure for reform. While the FPTP system has produced many majority governments in Canada, representation in Parliament has not served well. The fairness and legitimacy of the process in which FPTP translates votes into seats is often questioned, and reasons for the abolishment of FPTP are abundant. A principal criticism of the system is that it encourages regional division. It has been argued that Canada's electoral system gives parties incentives to maximize regional divisions, creating 'national' party caucuses domi...