PR won’t get the job done

At the risk of being accused of “ranting” some more, recent letters to the editor have certainly muddied the waters as to what the folks invested in proportional representation are after. Better government? This seems to be the contention in Stephen Rader’s letter. He states: “… how important is it to you that government has the power to unilaterally implement legislation.”

Fair enough.

But dig a little deeper and then the question is – how will proportional representation change this? Right now, we have a coalition of the NDP and Green Party who are able to “unilaterally implement legislation.” Sure, under the present system, the government has more than 50 per cent of the voters supporting one of the two parties in power but this is a result of the “first-past-the-post” system which elected our legislature and not a consequence of proportional representation.

Indeed, Spain’s minority government commands just 24 per cent of the Chamber of Deputies. Norway’s ruling Conservative Party only garnered 25 per cent of the popular vote while its coalition government holds 44.6 per cent. There is nothing about proportional representation which guarantees the government which will be formed will have more than 50 per cent of the voters supporting it. Nor that the legislation it tables will be supported by the voters who selected it.

And regardless of its support, it will have the power to unilaterally implement legislation. Proportional representation does not change this.

Smaller parties would get representation?

Not necessarily. Under the proposed legislation, they would need to accumulate more than five per cent of the popular vote. This would effectively block out a number of parties from ever getting sufficient support to actually hold seats.

But equally bizarre is the scenario in which the electorate in the province hasn’t voted in a single member from a party – none of the candidates were deemed electable in any riding – and yet they get five seats in the Legislature because they pulled just over five per cent of the popular vote. Is this what we want?

No swing ridings? Bob Nelson points out they would not occur under Mixed-Member Proportional Representation as if this would be a good thing. Not sure how. It would mean the political base in a riding would be fixed and never change. Hard to imagine this scenario.

Actually, his complaint is certain ridings seem to benefit from government largess as a result of the possibility they will flip. While I would agree with him that there are cases where federal cabinet ministers have pork-barreled funding for pet projects, I am finding it difficult to think of provincial cases.

Proportional representation will result in more independent MLAs? Not sure of the logic to this one as it would mean winning a riding under a complex system of election which favours political parties. Indeed, when a member of the New Zealand legislature chose to vote against her party’s wishes, she was dismissed from her party and removed from the legislature. She was replaced with another member from the party’s list. She was not allowed to sit as an independent.

It is hard to see how PR will change anything in the legislature except the mix of MLAs. Maybe for some this is all they are seeking. One recent letter went so far as to point out the Greens will have more representation and this is what they want to see. Well, I have always wanted to see more scientists in the legislature and people with advanced degrees. Should we change the way we vote to accommodate my wishes as well?

If the point of this whole exercise is to elect a government which will do the best job of representing the people of this province, it is hard to see how any of the forms of proportional representation will accomplish that in a way which is better than the present system.

The issue shouldn’t be whether we have PR or FPTP. The issue we should be discussing is how to have more effective government. And PR will not give us that regardless of what form it takes.