Proportional representation is still a bad choice

This fall, British Columbians will be asked for a third time whether they want to change our province’s electoral system. They will choose between our current first-past-the-post method and a yet-to-be-specified proportional representation model.

Amid the whirlwind of information that each side of the debate will present, I encourage voters to keep three questions in mind: Does local representation matter? Does accountability matter? And, in the face of the emergence of extreme political parties all over the world, does moderation matter?

I believe that if British Columbians consider these questions, they will again soundly reject PR in favour of our existing electoral system.

The first of these questions deals with local representation. B.C. is diverse, and ensuring all corners of our province have an effective voice in the legislature is essential.

The FPTP system is designed to ensure communities are well represented. It is simple: B.C. has 87 ridings. Every election, the candi- date who receives the most votes in each district becomes that area’s MLA, bringing the unique perspectives of their constituents to Victoria.

Under PR, it is not so simple. While the specific PR model has yet to be identified, the tendency is for much larger electoral districts with multiple MLAs. For example, the single transferable vote system proposed in the last referendum would have merged over 80 ridings into just 20, with multiple MLAs. Under that system, it would be possible to elect all the MLAs for a large region from just one community, leaving the other communities without truly local representation.

The second question concerns accountability, one of the foundational principles of democracy.

The local accountability relationship under FPTP is straightforward: If voters feel they are well represented, they re-elect their MLA. If they feel they are poorly represented, they can elect a different candidate.

The lines of accountability are blurred under PR because there are multiple representatives. Knowing which representative is responsible for effective or poor representation becomes significantly more difficult, and the reward/punish decision that is integral to holding one’s MLA to account is no longer straightforward.

The accountability relationship at the provincial level is also affected. FPTP systems have a tendency to produce majority governments, meaning one party gets more than half of the seats in the legislature and can form government without the support of other parties. This allows voters to hold that one party accountable for government policies because it is clear which party implemented them.

PR systems lose this clear line of accountability. This is because they have a tendency to produce minority governments, in which no single party wins enough seats to form government alone. Mainstream parties have to look to other parties for support to form a coalition government, making it difficult for voters to know which party to reward or punish.

Finally, voters must ask themselves if they want to see power in government held by moderate political parties, or parties with more extreme views.

FPTP encourages the creation of “big tent” political parties with a wide range of members. Differing views are considered within the party structure, with polarized views held in check by less extreme views of other members.

In contrast, PR leads to the development of smaller, more extreme parties. This occurs as polarized voices that were tempered in larger parties under FPTP break away as they have a chance of winning seats under PR.

Worse yet, the tendency of PR systems to result in minority governments means that these more extreme parties frequently end up holding the balance of power. While proponents of PR point to this kind of coalition building as an example of co-operation across party lines, in practice it results in a disproportionate amount of influence for smaller, less moderate parties. This occurs because the mainstream parties, in their efforts to keep power, become beholden to the demands of parties with views further removed from average voters.

As British Columbians get themselves up to speed on what is at stake in this fall’s referendum, I hope they will ask themselves these three questions. If their answer to any of them is “yes”, they will vote for a third time to retain our FPTP system.

Caroline Elliott is a former political aide with the B.C. government. She is pursuing her PhD in political science at Simon Fraser University.