ELECTORAL REFORM PUSH ABOUT POWER, IDEOLOGY

European-style utopian welfare state is the goal, John Hansen writes.

The mantra of the proponents of proportional representation is that it is “fair” because the number of seats in the legislative assembly would be somewhat proportional to the votes garnered by the various parties. Does this mean better government, which, in the end ought to be the objective? It does not! Let’s look at some of the implications of going down the pro-rep road, and let’s understand what is really driving the move for pro-rep.

It is a demonstrated fact that pro-rep voting systems virtually guarantee coalition governments. Should B.C. voters select a pro-rep system, it is almost certain that we will have coalition governments in the future. It could be NDP- Green; LiberalGreen; Liberal-Conservative; or Libertarian, or Communist party, or any other fringe party that garners some votes and gains a few seats.

Coalition governments by their nature are based on deal-making and appeasement of the interests of the other parties to maintain power. (Some deal-making may be open and visible, but a lot of deals are cut behind closed doors in political offices, out of public view.)

Look at our current provincial government or any federal or provincial minority government: The party that holds the balance of power has the ability to bring down the minority government. The party — or parties — that hold that balance of power will get more or less everything on their agenda. This inexorably means more government, more spending and higher taxes. One only has to look at the European countries with some form of pro-rep. They are characterized by high taxes, enormous bureaucracies, and governments that reach deeply into the lives of their citizens. I give you my birth country of Denmark as an example, just on the tax picture. In Denmark, the general sales tax is 25 per cent. Tax on new cars is a whopping 180 per cent.

In Canada, one prime example is the Pierre Trudeau government of 1972 to 1974, a minority government in coalition with David Lewis’ NDP. There were new programs and new spending; whatever it took to keep the NDP coalition partners happy. I worked in Ottawa at the time and saw first-hand what was happening. This period sowed the seeds for massive deficit spending and it took subsequent governments 40 difficult years to dig out of the deficit hole.

Pro-rep has also been shown to spark small specialinterest groups and splinter parties to run for election, anticipating a piece of the action in the formation of a coalition government. The European countries with pro-rep typically have a dozen or more parties. Spain, for example, has 10 mainstream parties and another 19 regional/special-interest parties. Belgium has 19 main political parties and another 17 fringe parties. The recent Danish national election had 80 candidates on the ballot in any given riding.

There are some volatile countries where the coalition governments have been notoriously unstable; Italy, Greece and Spain are examples. In 150 years, Italy has had 58 prime ministers, 37 of whom lasted less than two years. Amintore Fanfani’s government in 1954 lasted 23 days. Benito Mussolini ruled for 21 years. But he was a dictator and seized power under a pro-rep election system. (And yes, it’s true, Adolf Hitler too, gained power under a pro-rep system.)

The partners in stable coalitions in Europe may change, slightly, but for the most part remain the same players stroking each other to stay in power. Power can shift a little to the right or to the left, but it’s rare for the electorate to “throw the rascals out.” (It’s like having a city council where the councillors and the mayor change seats from time to time, but you never get rid of them.) When it does happen, it is generally with great social upheaval, with riots and strikes, as in Greece and Spain last year.

Pro-rep, as proposed in any of the three options put on the ballot by the current coalition government, is complicated. Two of the options have never been tested anywhere in the world. All three involve multimember seats and allocation of additional seats ( by the party machinery not voters) to approximate the percentage of vote to the population. All this will distort and dilute openness and accountability.

Strip away the cloak of high-minded objectives hyped by the proponents of pro-rep in B.C., I believe the true driving forces are these three:

First, cynical self-interest by the Green party to gain more seats and, ergo, more power.

Second, opportunity seen by other special-interest parties to gain influence and power.

Third, many “social reformers” in our society see coalition governments as the road to achieve their vision of a European-style utopian welfare state.

Check the list of “endorsers” of pro-rep on the Yes PR website. Many are the same ones who signed to the NDP LEAP Manifesto, 2015, which was panned as being too socialist and too elitist even by the NDP itself.

In other words, the push for pro-rep is about power and ideology, not good government.

I would urge everyone to do some research and think about the potential consequences. (Premier Horgan is suggesting that we take a “leap of faith” and trust him that pro-rep will be good for B.C.) I believe we should not go down the pro-rep road on a leap of faith, but be fully informed and fully aware of what we are voting for and what the consequences will be.

Please vote No.

There are some volatile countries where the coalition governments have been notoriously unstable.