Both systems offer stability

Dear Editor: Daryl Sturdy of Vancouver (Courier, Aug. 2) said first-past-the-post has serious flaws and one such flaw is that “40 percent of the popular vote gets 100 percent of the power.”

I’ve heard this before, said by BC Green leader Andrew Weaver and I found it strange then as I do now. Because Weaver understands the inner workings of government and surely knows majority government is not unbridled-power to do whatever you like, as he would like us to fear. But, the power of government comes with fixed election dates, party platforms, oaths of office and assigned duties and responsibilities against a backdrop of legal checks and balances by the judicial branch and the next election day of reckoning tempers decisions in order to keep power.

Renaissance philosopher and former Secretary of State for Florentine Republic, Niccolo Machiavelli reminds us, power is sweet and as John Horgan, for one, has figured out, once you’ve experienced it, you work hard to keep it.

In all multi-party democracies where the total popular vote is split between four, five, six or more political parties; actually getting 40 to 50 of the popular vote for one party is a very big deal in such a crowded field.

So that means, the other 50 to 60 per cent of the popular vote is split in some cases between four or five different opposition parties, each with less than 20 percent of the popular vote and so, while opposition against the ruling party unites them; their individual party platforms and long term party political goals separates them.

Sturdy proudly claims Denmark routinely has a 95 percent popular vote turnout; however Denmark has 13 different political parties sitting in their parliament and seven different parties in the European parliament and another five full time political parties without parliamentary representation, because they have not made the five percent threshold, yet.

According Danish parliamentary records no single party has ever won a majority since 1901; all governments since then are either one-party minority or a coalition of two or three parties.

It seems obvious in a system with so many political parties, voter turnout would naturally be a higher number; with more small single issue minority parties in the political arena means more minority voters are milling about, but more minority voices doesn’t equal better government.

As a matter of fact what usually happens is that more minority voices means less legislation is ultimately passed.

Holding up Denmark or any country’s higher popular vote turnout as proof of better democracy is what a friend of mine calls “truthiness,” something that sounds like it should be true, but its not.

Just remember, PR will fragment government decision making and FPTP streamlines decision making; that’s the real difference. Both system offer stable democracy. Jon Peter Christoff West Kelowna