Should elections be about more than saying no?

This week, British Columbia voters have received their ballots in a referendum that will allow voters to decide whether to move toward a system of proportional representation — representing just the latest opportunity to discuss how we should elect our political representatives.

Unfortunately, many of the arguments against a more proportional electoral system have been less than honest. The “no” side’s core messages involve pretending that the alternatives would eliminate local representation or allow the imposition of representatives from party lists, when the proportional systems on the ballot avoid those possibilities.

There is, however, a somewhat more valid question raised by the choice between firstpast-the-post and proportional systems: namely, should our elections be about something more than merely saying “no” to an incumbent government?

The most plausible argument available to support the relationship between a small swing in votes and a drastic change in representation is that it facilitates both the formation of majority governments, and the removal of those governments with a single vote.

But that focus on one minor form of accountability comes with a bevy of readily avoidable costs. First, there’s the policy whiplash that can result from changes in majority governments under the first-past-the-post system. Ontario offers the most glaring recent example: having already announced the evisceration of all existing climate change policy, Doug Ford’s government has just introduced legislation to reverse the results of a two-year consultation process on labour and employment standards. And Jason Kenney has recently been exposed planning to immediately undercut protection for workers and consumers if given the opportunity in Alberta.

And the whiplash can be even more severe for partisan positioning than for policy outcomes — particularly given that the assumption of voters choosing between an incumbent government and a single alternative has long since been overtaken by events. (Of course, even if one theorizes that elections should be limited that way, the U.S. offers a cautionary tale as to the systemic dangers when one of two parties faces institutional rot. So we should be glad not to be limited in our number of choices.)

In the last election cycle, third- or fourthplace parties have boosted their standing in most Canadian jurisdictions — including by jumping from third place or lower to majority government status at the federal level, in Alberta and in Quebec.

The presence of multiple parties then undermines the supposed advantages of first-pastthe-post. British Columbia’s last election led to uncertainty as to whether anybody could form government — and it took a two-party agreement for a stable government to emerge. And New Brunswick’s first-past-the-post election this fall resulted in a nightmare scenario, featuring a glaring deviation between the relative votes and seats won by the top two parties, a lack of any party capable of governing on its own, and a far-right fringe party poised to exercise meaningful control in a minority legislature.

If our main priority was to turn each election into a referendum on an incumbent government that could be held fully and solely accountable for its actions, the ideal form of ballot might well be the one used in British Columbia’s referendum. There, voters face a yes/no question on whether to make a change for two election cycles, followed by a choice of replacements if the status quo is voted out.

But the process necessary to evaluate a single policy choice isn’t one anybody wants to propose in electing representatives. And hopefully British Columbia’s leaders and voters will continue demonstrating that politics can be about more than a chance to say “no”.

Fingas is a Regina lawyer, blogger and freelance political commentator who has written about provincial and national issues from a progressive NDP perspective since 2005.

Many ... arguments against a more proportional ... system have been less than honest.