Dishonest voting analysis

Re: Electoral reform train will derail B.C.’s economy, Opinion, June 16

Electoral reform is an important subject. It is about good government. What produces the best form of government? There are those who, like Rick Peterson, defend first-past-the-post because they say it delivers stable government and keeps extremists at bay. But where is the honest analysis in that assertion? On the face of it, there is plenty of contrary evidence. Doug Ford stable? Donald Trump free of extremism? The last provincial election a smooth transition? Are Norway, Germany and New Zealand economic basket-cases?

Measuring stability also requires measuring the shelf-life of public policies. Under our system, a new administration’s first order of business is undoing what previous governments have done.

Then, most policies are short-term, designed with an eye on the next election. Long-term planning suffers. Our governments tend to be like the person who does not think beyond the next paycheque.

In contrast, consider how proportional systems function. They do not suffer such structural defects, they deliver better long-term governance. Why is that? Proportional voting systems yield chronic coalition governments, which means the majority of cabinet seats in successive administrations remain occupied by members of the same political parties. Unlike our system, PR systems do not throw out all the bums to bring in a whole new lot of bums. Changes in government tend to be modest, incremental, less polarizing.

In the recent Ontario election the Conservatives won by only seven percentage points, but gained 46 per cent more seats. It is not the voters, but our voting system that produces wild swings in government.

Look around the world and it is obvious that there is more stability and continuity in public policies and more long-term planning under PR than under FPTP. The claim that we have stability and PR does not, is a bogus claim void of honest analysis.

Nick Loenen, Richmond