Confused about electoral reform? Don’t be
As a young man, I was tempted to embrace one form of proportional representation or another. Luckily, the temptation faded once I realized that the so-called major flaw of first-past-the-post systems — that relatively small changes in the popular vote lead to comparatively large changes in party standings — is actually its greatest advantage.
Practically speaking, these exaggerated swings in party standings are the only thing that allows the electorate to throw tired and corrupt parties out of power.
B.C.’s referendum on electoral reform asks two questions. First, should B.C. move away from a system of first-past-the-post to a system of proportional representation? Second, if B.C. decides to adopt a system of PR, which type of PR should we use?
All three of the proposed systems of PR suffer from this same fatal flaw.
As Postmedia columnist Andrew Coyne has noted: “It’s true that [systems of PR] do not typically produce one-party majority governments. Rather, they tend to be led by multi-party majorities: stable coalitions, that is, which together command the support of a majority of the legislature.”
Practically speaking, it is this kind of brokered stability that simply entrenches two or three parties in power forever. Unless there is an enormous swing in the popular vote, these same parties will end up negotiating their same tired legislative agendas election after election.
PR has other flaws, as well. As former B.C. NDP premier Ujjal Dosanjh has noted, the use of PR increases the likelihood that singleissue fringe parties will be elected.
It is because advocates of PR recognize this that they have introduced in their proposals a requirement that parties must receive at least five per cent of the popular vote before they can receive official party standing.
But is this enough? Recent lessons from several European countries suggest that it is not.
PR also leads to less democratic accountability. Any coalition government tends to diffuse political responsibility among coalition partners. This makes it more difficult — and sometimes impossible — to assign clear party responsibility to any individual legislative act or program. When things go wrong, it’s not clear who is to blame.
As Dosanjh has noted: “Proportional representation … creates perpetual minority governments, ongoing instability and constant background deals that exclude voters. It gives more power to political parties by taking it away from the voters.”
PR has other disadvantages, as well. One is that it often leads to increased government spending. New programs and expanded budgets result from the need to accommodate coalition-party interests.
Another is that PR leads to reduced election transparency. It is not just that election ballots become more complicated, making it more difficult for some citizens to understand exactly for whom they are voting. PR also makes it impossible to decide election results without using complex mathematical formulas and computer-assisted algorithms.
One of the greatest features of B.C.’s and Canada’s current election process is that ordinary citizens can serve as scrutineers.
After watching the count, representatives of every candidate return to their political parties, their businesses, their service groups and their families and say: “I saw the count and it was fair.”
At a time when computer hacking is a growing concern and when claims of election fraud can be made south of the border with apparent impunity, this kind of election transparency is something Canadians shouldn’t give up.
For anyone who’s keen to elect free-spending governments that are difficult to remove from power, proportional representation is exactly what’s required.
But for anyone who values democratic accountability, balanced budgets and election transparency, first-past-the-post is still the preferred option. Andrew David Irvine teaches at the University of British Columbia Okanagan.