Making a case for run-off elections
Winner reflects overall view, writes Ross Urquhart.
The Trudeau government promised electoral reform.
As someone who spent years studying political science, I faithfully watched to see which new system they would select. Their answer was none, and it was not unexpected. Big changes promised in opposition seldom translate to real action when in power.
Now the new B.C. NDP-Green government is promising a change. Our first-past-the-post election system is again on the chopping block and, again, proportional representation is the favoured choice. It’s not my choice.
Ninety-four countries presently use some form of proportional representation and most elections end in coalitions, which equate, in the Canadian context, to minority governments. I have nothing against minority governments. Some great legislation has been wrung from these compromises. Still, I believe there are times when it takes a majority to introduce tough, but necessary, legislation.
As for proportional providing better representation, when the party that gets the most votes goes on a hunt for coalition partners we have no say in who they choose. Indeed, countries using this political system have, at times, seen their most voted for parties choose to align with groups on the radical fringe. It was simply what they needed to gain a 50 per cent majority. This is not only less than representative, it’s scary.
Proportional representation even raises the possibility of fringe parties being formed with the specific goal of achieving the balance of power. Here in British Columbia, that could be anything from an LNG party to a Marijuana party.
Most of us simply want better representation. We want caring, rational, fair-minded and courageous individuals legislating policy. If we are not moving in that direction, why change?
Proportional representation has many variations. It’s based on the number of elected representatives mirroring the percentage of votes received. As a result, some individuals are chosen based on a mathematical formula.
When a majority of voters in a riding choose a particular person, that’s democracy, and when the people who voted against them are disappointed, sorry, that’s also democracy. On the other hand, when a riding gets a representative who received less than a majority, and was chosen by a formula based on how the rest of the province voted, I am not sure that is democracy. Also, at times elections are about avoiding the representation you don’t want. The mathematics of proportional representation makes this more difficult.
We have other options. My choice is for runoff elections.
In a run-off election, those ridings with no majority winner hold a run-off. The two candidates receiving the most votes go head to head for the seat. For the sake of convenience, the time between the elections is just enough to make the vote count legal; a week should be enough, so voting machinery remains in place.
Your favoured candidate may have been eliminated, finished second, or finished first with no majority. In the run-off you get to restate your first choice or pick a second choice.
People who speak against this process usually complain that having two elections is both expensive and disruptive. Those are weak excuses. Going to the polls twice within a few days every four years is hardly a major disruption, and relative to provincial budgets, election costs are a drop in the bucket.
Run-off elections do not eliminate the possibility of minority governments. What they do is require that individual politicians, regardless of party, achieve a riding majority to enter parliament. What this impacts is vote splitting. Parties seek legitimacy by running candidates in as many ridings as possible, even in places where they have no hope of winning. It’s a pride thing or, if you believe some pundits, it helps with fundraising. What it also does is split votes and allow minority candidates to win. The Greens and NDP take votes away from each other, the Conservatives and Christian parties take from the Liberals, and splinter parties take votes away from everyone. In a run-off, when the dust settles the candidate that wins probably comes closest to reflecting the constituency’s overall views.
Proportional representation has a nice ring to it, but run-offs provide a more representative government. It’s a simpler process with fewer surprises than a proportional system, and it directly generates two chances toward achieving consensus within each riding.
You may not get your first choice, which is nothing new, but you gain a second choice.
As a result, you achieve greater participation within the democratic process. That’s a positive improvement.