While proportional representation is not being debated as often as Kyoto, it still faces plenty of opposition. The main argument against proportional representation is that it will produce one short-lived minority government after the other, making us go to the polls every 18 months or so. Other arguments against it are that proportional representation would make elected members unaccountable to the voters and that instead of the two leading parties we'll end up with plenty of smaller factions each trying to please their own voters at the expense of the others.
While those are all valid arguments, I believe many of them are exaggerated. Yes, proportional representation would result in minority or coalition governments. But since the parties will no longer be able to win majority with roughly 40% of the vote, there will be no incentives for the opposition to bring down the government or for the government - to orchestrate its own defeat. The governments will most likely last 3-4 years - same as in Europe.
When it comes to the question of accountability, geographical connection between elected MPs and the voters as well as the number of political parties we may end up with - it all depends on the electoral system we choose. Yes, adopting a pure party-list system with a very low qualifying threshold, similar to the one used in Israel will result in a fractured parliament with MPs being only accountable to the party leader. But there are other systems as well. Adopting a mixed-member proportional system (which is a hybrid between single-member plurality and party-list system) would keep the elected members accountable to the voters (especially if we use open lists rather than closed lists) while making every vote count.
Another solution would be adopting a Single Transferable Ballot system. This system involves no party lists, all the candidates are elected locally, in multi-member constituencies using a preferential ballot. A vote for a candidate which failed to reach the quota is not wasted but transferred to voter's second choice. Since there are several members elected from each constituency, the ballots usually have more than one candidate from the same party. That keeps the elected members highly accountable to the voters. Unlike the mixed-member system where a qualifying threshold can be arbitrarily raised or lowered, STV has natural threshold which prevents the parliament from being too fractured.
Adopting a Single Transferable Vote would allow us to keep most of the benefits from the Single-Member Plurality system (which we use now), voters would be able to vote their conscience and the seat distribution in Parliament would be much closer to the actual popular vote. That's why I think STV would be the best option for Canada.
1 comment:
It depends on what would you consider to be more important. If all you want is to make the ethno-cultural makeup of the Legislature mirror the population then your concerns would make some sense. (Very little sense though!)
But if the goal is to provide every citizen with an opportunity to vote his conscience and ensure that people actually get what they've voted for - then it's the candidates' political affiliation that matters the most, not his background.
Post a Comment