Electoral reform rewards splintering

It appears that not only is electoral reform being contemplated once again (despite two referendum defeats), but if the NDP and Greens have their way, it might be instigated without consulting the voters. Our very own coup d’état.

If, heaven forbid, that should happen, it’s possible we will never again see a majority government in B.C. Only once in the past 70 years has one of our parties gained more than 50 per cent of the vote.

Anyone interested in the shambles created by proportional representation should take a look at the newly released Israeli cabinet minutes from the 1967 Six Day War. Israel uses rep by pop, and the minutes reveal, in stunning clarity, the utter chaos that followed.

With the Egyptians, Syrians and Jordanians literally at the gates, ministers dithered and dallied, unable to find a consensus. And no wonder. The cabinet at the time comprised representatives of eight separate parties, one with only two seats in the Knesset.

Meetings continually broke up in disorder, as ministers insisted they had to consult their followers. The country was saved when senior military officers essentially took matters into their own hands.

Not that anything changed after that near-death experience. Israel has had 25 governments in the past 50 years, some of them coalitions of 10 separate parties. And this is a land with a population of just over eight million.

It might be argued that some countries employ a form of rep by pop without descending into quagmires. Quite true. Norway, Sweden and Denmark come to mind.

The distinguishing factor, I believe, is social cohesion. Countries such as the Nordic nations, which enjoy high levels of consensus, might do well with this system. Others, such as Greece and Italy, where major disagreements flourish, are paralyzed.

Now where are we on this scale? Arguably, nowhere near consensus.

That became clear during the election, when a major division emerged in voting preferences between urban and rural areas. On basic economic matters, such as dams and pipelines, we are a sharply divided province.

So what happens if residents of the Interior find themselves perpetually outnumbered in a legislature based on rep by pop, as seems inevitable? Do they submit quietly to their statistical irrelevance, or do they form a party of their own?

Let’s hope not. But here is the point. Our current electoral system encourages cohesion, if for no other reason than votes for splinter parties are wasted. This is its greatest virtue — that it discourages factionalism and promotes stable and reliable government.

Abandon that model, and you create an immediate incentive to fragment the population into demographic or geographic voting blocs. For there are other contingencies to consider.

You could probably get elected in the Fraser Valley on an anti-abortion platform, so long as vote share is what matters. Or how about a seniors’ party?

This might seem outlandish. After all, it hasn’t happened to date.

On the other hand, we haven’t employed an electoral system that would reward such splintering. But if a Green Party supported by just 17 per cent of voters can demand a fundamental change in our governance model, public opposition notwithstanding, imagine what six or eight minority parties could extort.

The philosopher Thomas Hobbes, writing in 1651, described the state of man before the arrival of unified government as “a war of all against all.” That is what electoral reform promises — the abandonment of stability in favour of endless factional manoeuvring.

And then there is one final reality. If we do surrender our existing system, there will be no going back.

That’s because once the legislature is overrun by a host of single-issue parties, each with its own devoted sliver of supporters, nothing will persuade them to give up power.