Ontario politicians should stay clear of electoral reform
As predictable as the Liberals’ defeat in last week’s Ontario election was, cheerleaders of electoral reform are once again banging their drums for radical change in how we vote following an election they deem “unfair.”
The renewed calls for change came after Doug Ford’s Conservatives won a huge victory, claiming 76 seats in the 124-seat Legislature despite winning just 40.6 per cent of the popular vote.
Was it “fair,” they ask, that the Liberals got only seven seats although gaining 19.3 per cent of the votes, or that the Greens captured just one seat while getting 4.6 per cent of the votes? The NDP got 40 seats with 33.7 per cent of the vote, which probably meets their “fairness” criteria.
After every election, advocates of scrapping our first-past-the-post voting system start pushing politicians to enact some form of proportional representation whereby some, or all seats, are allocated based on each party’s share of the popular vote.
On the surface it’s an alluring concept, aimed at addressing complaints that losing parties don’t get as many seats as they deserve or that many citizens are turned off on politics because they believe their votes for small parties don’t count.
In reality, though, proportional representation is a badly flawed system that could well do more harm to our political system than it does good.
Indeed, voters across Canada have understood that and have rejected every plan over the past two decades to change how we vote.
Still, the push for “reform” continues — and was given a boost by the outcome of the Ontario election.
Under Ford’s Conservatives, the Ontario Legislature isn’t expected to act on these calls. But this fall British Columbia will hold a referendum on a new voting system. A similar referendum is expected in 2019 in Quebec given that three of the four parties in the National Assembly have agreed to a non-binding pledge to hold such a vote within a year of the Oct. 1, 2018, election.
While the case for change has some merit, the risks vastly outweigh any perceived benefits.
First, it could lead to perpetual minority governments, chaotic politics, legislative gridlock and backroom deals with tiny parties with single-issue agendas whose support is needed by the leading party just to stay in power. Look at the experiences in Italy, Israel, Belgium and other countries. This seems to be closer to being “tyranny of the minority” than to being a fairer representation of the electorate.
Second, there’s no proof that voter turnout will improve, despite claims by reformers. In fact, turnout rates in Israel, Germany, Greece, New Zealand and other countries with proportional representation have, albeit with some blips, been trending downward for decades, just as in Canada.
Third, many reformers fall on the “progressive” side of the electorate and don’t seem to mind Liberal majorities as much as they express disgust for Conservative majorities. Rather, they see reform as a way to rein in right-wing populists, such as Doug Ford. What the reformers conveniently reject is the notion that extreme right-wing parties — anti-immigrant, anti-abortion, pro-gun — could wind up with oversized power and influence in a minority or coalition government.
Fourth, many MPPs would be appointed by their party — not directly elected by voters — under virtually any proportional representative system. That means party hacks chosen by a party leader could well decide the fate of key legislation. Is that democratic?
Ontario politicians would be wise to avoid the issue. Our current system has worked well under right-wing and leftwing governments. To replace it with a system that grants undue influence to fringe parties and encourages chaos and deadlock — not “fairness” — would be a backward step for our democracy.