Friday, February 09, 2024

Proportional Representation Now


This week, the House voted down a resolution to establish a citizens' council to study proportional representation. Max Fawcett writes:

On Wednesday, the House of Commons voted against a motion calling for the federal government to establish a citizens' assembly to “determine if electoral reform is recommended for Canada and, if so, recommend specific measures that would foster a healthier democracy.” Those voting against the motion included a majority of Liberal MPs and most of the Trudeau government’s cabinet. But that doesn’t mean electoral reform is dead — or that it couldn’t still happen before the next election.

After all, a citizens' assembly would have taken time we probably don’t have. With Donald Trump poised to win the next U.S. presidential election despite trying to overturn the results of the last one, we no longer have the luxury of pretending democracy is somehow invulnerable or unassailable. There are even those in Canada who very much wish to assail it, albeit by less crude and crass means than Trump.

The merits of a more proportional system of representation are no secret at this point and require no further study or debate. British Columbia formed a Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform more than two decades ago and its conclusions were clear: "Election results will be fairer, reflecting a balance between votes and seats, voters will have more choice and candidates will work harder to earn their support," the assembly’s final report argued.

So is electoral reform dead? Of course not. The Liberals and NDP could make it happen. But they would get no support from the Conservatives:

Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives would come out swinging against any attempt to change the electoral system, even if it would actually benefit them in a bunch of different ways. By electing a more geographically diverse slate of MPs, they wouldn’t necessarily be so beholden to their Prairie base. And in the last two elections, a more proportional system would have given them more seats — maybe even more than the Liberals. But with polls now showing the Conservatives poised to benefit disproportionately from first-past-the-post’s math — some projections have them winning 65 per cent of the seats with less than 45 per cent of the vote — they’re not likely to listen to these sorts of arguments.

And the Liberals also have reasons for turning the idea down:

Some Liberals might not want to hear them either, since implementing a more proportional system would almost certainly mean they’d never form another majority government. But they need to ask themselves what matters most: some potential future government or the next one that Canadians will elect. That one, after all, could easily unwind some of their most important achievements, from climate policy to childcare. It could even throw the door more widely open to the sorts of culture war nonsense that has so thoroughly infected American politics. And with conservative provincial governments in seven provinces, most notably Ontario and Quebec, it could even take a run at the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

But proportional representation is an idea whose time has come. The only people who don't want to see that are our politicians.

Image: Fair Vote Canada

8 comments:

lungta said...

Robert A. Heinlein — 'Never appeal to a man's better nature. He may not have one. Invoking his self-interest gives you more leverage.'
Re-election is always job number one , eh?
They always want to keep the rules that they won by especially if changing them favors another. Public servants? Self servants is way more accurate.

Owen Gray said...

It's about looking out for number 1, lungta.

Northern PoV said...

This " implementing a more proportional system would almost certainly mean they’d never form another majority government"
and many similar nonsense comments focus on European PR outcomes.

We'd do better to study New Zealand ...

They've had both left and right gov'ts since they implemented PR. In one election, a single party got 50% of the vote and did not need coalition partners.

Owen Gray said...

A majority government could result, PoV. However, most PR systems result in governing coalitions.

zoombats said...

Like Israel with their twelve party system It could lead to a real shit show in this country.

Owen Gray said...

The more parties, the more complicated it gets, zoombats.

Northern PoV said...

"Like Israel with their twelve party system It could lead to a real shit show in this country."

Is it any wonder that Israeli politics is a 'sh*t show' zoombats?

Why cite the worst example way out on the spectrum?

Many (most?) PR countries have complex negotiations, with multiple parties big and small, in order to form and maintain gov't, and they do better to reflect the people's will than our antique FPTP.

NZ is the only one of the five-eyes-countries (UK,USA, CDN, AUS, NZ) that has made this leap and I think they are the best predictive model we have, should Canada decide to join the countries with 21st century electoral systems.

Owen Gray said...

It all comes down to how well politicians can work with each other, PoV. Some do an excellent job of it. Others are narcissists.