A FAIR SURVEY MIGHT HAVE DEALT WITH CURRENT TRADE-OFFS.

And in almost every case the choice upon which such doubt is cast is the reform option, against which the status quo is presented as implicitly problem-free. Along with the hard-tounderstand ballots and “many small parties,” respondents are menaced with a world in which it “takes longer for government to get things done,” is “less clear who is accountable,” and “takes longer to count the ballots,” among other perils.

It isn’t that these are necessarily invalid concerns. It’s just a very incomplete depiction of the actual range of trade-offs involved. A survey that was designed to be fair might have paid more attention to the trade-offs associated with the present system, which are not a matter of conjecture but observation.

Thus: “MPs should be elected by a plurality vote in single-member ridings, even if this means they only represent the views of a minority of a riding’s voters.” Or: “A party with a minority of the vote should be entitled to rule as if it had a majority, even if it this leads to wild swings in policy from one election to the next.” Or: “Parties that can bunch their vote geographically should be advantaged over parties that have broad appeal, even if this results in a separatist party becoming the Official Opposition.”

Or how about: “Voters should have to vote for just one party, even if this means they cannot vote for the party they prefer, but must vote for a party they dislike to prevent a party they detest from getting in.” I suspect the results might be a little different in that case, and lot more useful.