Another day, another column with a plaintive wail that Proportional Representation (PR) is really nothing like its critics say – really! And like Andrew Coyne last week, this defence by Devon Rowcliffe for iPolitics.ca relies again on comparisons that are problematic. The argument that small parties better reflect our diverse society ignores that large brokerage parties that exist in this country are adaptable and diverse in their own right, and seek to attract diverse candidates. Many countries that rely on PR systems are fairly ethnically homogenous, and I would be concerned that a system that privileges smaller ideological parties would also favour parties founded on ethnic nationalism – a party of Sikh voices or Ismaili Muslims, for example. There are plenty of stories that exist among people who currently organise in our system about attempts by these communities to turn themselves into voting blocs for one party or another, and in a system that privileges those kind of blocs with the promise of outsized power – as opposed to one that diffuses these differences among the many factions being brokered into a big tent – there would be the danger of rewarding sectarianism, which would do nothing for social unity. And no, Canada is not New Zealand, so trying to force that comparison is yet another attempt to draw lessons that may not be applicable.
Rowcliffe also cites that there’s no real fear of unstable coalition governments, and then cites the Danish political drama Borgen as an example of this in action, apparently taking the wrong lessons as every other episode of Borgen that I’ve seen (granted, I’m only into the second season currently) has the coalition being in danger of falling apart because one party or another that forms it is looking to leverage their way into more power or influence. Look at the Liberal Democrats in the UK! You mean the part where the party was virtually wiped out in the next election? Shouting “Stephen Harper!” as an excuse to implement PR ignores that there was a significant following for Harper and his policies at the time, and it should not bear repeating but trying to change the voting system to keep out a party you don’t’ like is a very poor reason to do it because that leads to all manner of unintended consequences. Pointing to the 1993 election as examples where the current system has failed ignores both the circumstances around it and the fact that it was a blip and not the norm (not to mention that once again, the logical fallacy of the popular vote is cited as being a real figure when it is not, and hence the epithet of the system being “broken and archaic” is reliant on a lie).
One last point, which is that constantly whining about how unfair the current system is to the Green Party (as Rowcliffe borders on) ignores that the Green Party is not a grown-up political party. It’s a loose collection of conspiracy theory-minded hippies and bitter Red Tories with a policy development system that consistently falls prey to marginal groups like “Men’s Rights Activists,” and their inability to effectively organize or come up with a coherent policy book is not the fault of the system. Pretending otherwise ignores the facts for the sake of sore loserism.
Good reads:
- The cabinet retreat is talking trade with the US given tumultuous political times in that country, and how tough their second year is going to be.
- Jane Philpott took a “luxury Lexus” and not a limousine and she’s sorry, and for the love of all the gods on Olympus can we please stop talking about this?
- Later this week, Trudeau heads to China, where he’s looking to “reset” that relationship (yet again).
- The government seems to be looking at exceptions to mandatory minimum sentences rather than the wholesale review of sentencing that’s needed.
- One of the deputy leaders of the Green Party says that losing Elizabeth May would be a blow to the party, because obviously.
- Chantal Hébert wonders what Jack Layton would think of his party turning itself into a blank slate.
- Paul Wells offers us a peek inside the cabinet retreats that have been happening quarterly under this government.
Odds and ends:
Here’s a look at the BC Civil Liberties Association, which has been successfully challenging laws in this country at the Supreme Court level.
One worrisome aspect of PR that I have not seen thoroughly discussed is the problem of candidate selection and, more importantly, the ranking of candidates on a party’s list in a multi-candidate riding. In a 7-candidate riding, of the sort proposed in a BC referendum some years back, a major party’s first-ranked candidate would be virtually assured a seat while the 7th-ranked candidate would require a miracle (a 94% vote for one party) to be elected, and would not be running seriously.
Not to mention the fact that most of the electorate is, even now, hard-pressed to name at least 3 candidates running in their riding, so multiplying the number of candidates by 7 is not going to help with public awareness in matters electoral.
The crucial issue is the transfer of power from local riding associations to party bosses in the ranking of candidate lists (and therefore the selection of MPs). Unless you instituted a vote by signed-up party members in each riding on how to rank candidates — which might be impractical in a riding 7 times the normal size — you end up with the ranking decisions being made by party officials.
But on what basis?
Instead of a riding’s constituents deciding on their candidates, the party apparatus (not always sensitive to local needs) would decide, likely much influenced by factors such as party loyalty and length of service. This encourages a class of politicos to emerge who, after 20 years loyal service to a party, are “owed” a seat in Parliament — an affront to the democratic process.
Such party faithful, if sent to Parliament because their party decided to put them first-ranked in a riding where at least 14% of the vote was assured, would not be afraid of losing the confidence of the voters — because the voters had nothing to do with putting him in Parliament. It was the party bosses who put him there, and it will be the party bosses to whom he will be accountable.
Every candidate will then be a “parachute” candidate, in some sense, because given his/her candidate ranking (and therefore likely chance of being elected) by the Party, rather than the People.
I don’t disagree, and when people insist they would prefer an “open list” system for PR, they neglect that it also complicates the ballots by a large degree when the overwhelming preference of Canadians has been toward simple ballots. The STV system that you’re describing is part of that problem – not to mention that they are impractical outside of urban areas, and I’m not sure how a nomination process would work where you’re trying to find seven candidates for a super-sized riding.