Proportional representation ends policy lurch
Pro-rep countries are kinder and gentler, Seth Klein says.
Over the last few months, I’ve spent a lot of time debating against the No side in this electoral-reform referendum. For the most part, they are waging a highly negative campaign based on fearmongering and falsehoods.
But in rare moments when the No side makes a positive appeal it goes something like this: “We have a stable system in British Columbia. We have a fantastic, successful province. Nothing is broken, nothing needs to be fixed.”
B.C. is indeed a wonderful place. But all is not well with the state of our democracy.
Voter turnout is in long-term decline. People don’t feel well-represented by our first-pastthe-post (FPTP) electoral system, which routinely and unfairly produces a legislature that does not reflect how we actually vote.
From a policy perspective, our broken politics means we’ve failed to tackle many of the core societal challenges of our time. From housing affordability, poverty, inequality to the climate crisis, our current system is unresponsive and weak, making us national and global laggards.
Are countries using proportional representation better on these matters? Short answer, yes.
Research across the OECD shows that PR countries outperform those with first-pastthe-post systems like ours on measures of democracy, quality of life, income equality, diversity among elected representatives, values of tolerance, environmental performance and fiscal policy.
Arend Lijphart, one of the world’s foremost political scientists of comparative electoral systems, describes PR countries as “more caring and gentle societies.”
He and others find evidence that PR countries have less income inequality.
Similarly, evidence shows that countries with proportional systems set tougher environmental policies.
Under FPTP, as power and false majorities swing between two main parties, each new government tends to spend a chunk of its first years inefficiently undoing the policies of the previous government.
Their share of world greenhouse gas emissions has declined. PR countries also garner higher scores on the United Nations Index of Human Development, which incorporates health, education and standard-of-living indicators.
Regarding economic performance, most analysis finds no relationship between electoral systems and economic growth, so there’s nothing to fear on that front. In fact, nine out of 10 top OECD economies (measured as GDP per capita) use PR. PR countries are also more likely to have fiscal surpluses, are less likely to have deficits and have lower overall debt levels.
But PR countries do have more robust socialsupport systems. They make fundamentally different choices about spending, reflected in the inequality data noted above.
PR also liberates us from a fundamental problem under FPTP known as “policy lurch.”
Under FPTP, as power and false majorities swing between two main parties, each new government tends to spend a chunk of its first years inefficiently undoing the policies of the previous government.
Look no further than Ontario if you want to see the problem of policy lurch. Premier Doug Ford is undoing the policies of Kathleen Wynne’s government, rolling back new protections for workers and reversing climate actions. U.S. President Donald Trump has done the same with former U.S. president Barack Obama’s policies.
Policy lurch isn’t just an esoteric concern — it’s downright dangerous as the world struggles to deal with climate change. The climate is telling us we don’t have time for these lurches.
In contrast, minority outcomes produced under PR require compromise across parties and are more likely to produce policies with broad appeal. And because minority or coalition governments must continually secure support that corresponds to a majority of voters (not just seek one-off mandates every four years), they are inherently more accountable for fulfilling their promises.