Proportional Representation

 

I notice it has been a month since my last blog, but it’s summer, time to take it easy. But I do have something to say, so here goes.

Many writers decrie the current voting system in Canada.  They are upset that too many politicians get elected with less than a majority. They demand proportional representation (PR), perhaps influenced by the many columns on the subject by Globe and Mail columnist Andrew Coyne. But do they have any idea how it would work in Canada?

“It's so much easier to suggest solutions when you don't know too much about the problem.”

  - Malcolm Forbes

There are several forms of proportional representation throughout the world of democracies.  Which would we choose? Many counties use a party list system where the voter only votes for a party, not individuals. Parties may show a list of candidates, but that is not necessarily final. This is done as a whole country election, as is done in the Netherlands. Would Canada adopt this model or some other variant using a province-by-province method? To copy the Netherlands, you must recognize that it is a rather small country with a relatively homogenous population. In this system there is no guarantee that you will know who, if anyone, represents your area or riding. It also causes a proliferation of political parties, each vying for a piece of the action. This can cause instability since in many cases national or provincial governments are formed by coalitions which can be fragile. I give you, for example, Italy which seems to require new elections every year or so.

Another system is what is called mixed member proportional (MMP). This system was proposed some years ago by an Ontario government.  It went nowhere.  Yes, you get to vote for a local candidate, but based on that vote, additional seats, about a quarter of the total, would be awarded proportionally. As I wrote in a letter at the time, this would mean that you would never get to vote directly for party leaders and their chosen few.

As you can see, there are many choices and questions that have to be addressed.

Are there other choices? One alternative, which would be a variant of our current system, would have run-off elections whenever candidates do not get a majority in the first ballot. This is also done in some countries even where proportional representation is used in the first ballot. This would mean that those elected to office would have a first or second ballot majority of voters in their riding.

If we want to improve the voting system in Canada, we, the voters, must understand how any new system would work. Someone must enunciate a system that can then be discussed logically and knowledgeably.

Will election reform happen in Canada? Probably not.  Entrenched parties that crave majorities would not be inclined to support a system that could lead to coalition governments. Only a very strong movement by electors could move this forward.

“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.”
  - Michael Crichton

 

Proportional Representation

 

I notice it has been a month since my last blog, but it’s summer, time to take it easy. But I do have something to say, so here goes.

Many writers decrie the current voting system in Canada.  They are upset that too many politicians get elected with less than a majority. They demand proportional representation (PR), perhaps influenced by the many columns on the subject by Globe and Mail columnist Andrew Coyne. But do they have any idea how it would work in Canada?

“It's so much easier to suggest solutions when you don't know too much about the problem.”

  - Malcolm Forbes

There are several forms of proportional representation throughout the world of democracies.  Which would we choose? Many counties use a party list system where the voter only votes for a party, not individuals. Parties may show a list of candidates, but that is not necessarily final. This is done as a whole country election, as is done in the Netherlands. Would Canada adopt this model or some other variant using a province-by-province method? To copy the Netherlands, you must recognize that it is a rather small country with a relatively homogenous population. In this system there is no guarantee that you will know who, if anyone, represents your area or riding. It also causes a proliferation of political parties, each vying for a piece of the action. This can cause instability since in many cases national or provincial governments are formed by coalitions which can be fragile. I give you, for example, Italy which seems to require new elections every year or so.

Another system is what is called mixed member proportional (MMP). This system was proposed some years ago by an Ontario government.  It went nowhere.  Yes, you get to vote for a local candidate, but based on that vote, additional seats, about a quarter of the total, would be awarded proportionally. As I wrote in a letter at the time, this would mean that you would never get to vote directly for party leaders and their chosen few.

As you can see, there are many choices and questions that have to be addressed.

Are there other choices? One alternative, which would be a variant of our current system, would have run-off elections whenever candidates do not get a majority in the first ballot. This is also done in some countries even where proportional representation is used in the first ballot. This would mean that those elected to office would have a first or second ballot majority of voters in their riding.

If we want to improve the voting system in Canada, we, the voters, must understand how any new system would work. Someone must enunciate a system that can then be discussed logically and knowledgeably.

Will election reform happen in Canada? Probably not.  Entrenched parties that crave majorities would not be inclined to support a system that could lead to coalition governments. Only a very strong movement by electors could move this forward.

“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.”
  - Michael Crichton