tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-86025214003259880992011-08-01T17:50:53.445-04:00Neal Fordnoreply@blogger.comBlogger11100tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8602521400325988099.post-60268518688065502602010-05-09T14:44:00.002-04:002010-05-09T14:55:41.742-04:00I originally wrote this back in 1999, and dusted it off again, since , in light of the elections in the UK and the Liberal Democrats' demand for a referendum on proportional representation as electoral Reform, i think it is good to get a jump start on the debate that will begin again here.<br /><br />Why Proportional Representation is a Bad Idea<br /><br />by Neal Ford,<br /><br />Invariably after every election,party spin doctors, in an effort to put the best possible light on electoral defeat, trot out the idea of replacing the current "first past the post" electoral system with proportional representation. A chorus of voices,usually those belonging to fringe parties, then chimes in with their support.<br /><br />Canada has been served extremely well by the system that is currently in place. After every election, there will be a great many people dissatisfied with the result and they will want to do their best to overturn the result.<br /><br />One prime example was the November 1998 Quebec election, where the Liberal Party garnered a higher percentage of the popular vote than the PQ, but the PQ won a vast majority of seats. The Liberals then embarked on a campaign to bring in proportional representation, a system which, based on the results of the election, would have given the Liberals most of the seats, but would have left them far short of a majority in the National Assembly.<br /><br />This is short term thinking at its worst.<br /><br />In the next election,under the current system, the Liberal Party is virtually GUARANTEED to win. Quebecers throw out parties in power after two terms, no matter what. In fact when the Liberals do win, they tend to win big majorities of over 90 seats!<br /><br />Proportional representation will effectively put an end to majority governments in Quebec, leaving the Liberals and the PQ at the mercy of the ADQ, who will exact their pound of flesh from one or the other for their support in a coalition.<br /><br />A more insidious by-product of proportional representation would be the firm entrenchment of party insiders and "elite" in positions of power. As it exists, the current system, allows parties to nominate local candidates at the riding level. Proportional representation would effectively end this form of local practice of democracy. The parties would then choose "slates" of candidates with little regard to where they come from or what they can offer. For example, Party "A" would have a list of 301 potential candidates, and if, by virtue of their popular vote they got 145 seats, the first 145 names on the list would become members of parliament, with the average voter having no say whatsoever in who represents them. People invariably complain when a party "parachutes " a candidate into a riding yet proportional representation would virtually institutionalize this practice.<br /><br />Many people believe that local members of parliament or of the National Assembly are nothing more than trained seals who must blindly carry out the will of the leadership of the party. On the surface, this would appear to be true. However, behind the scenes, many members do stand up for their constituents, and changes end up being made to proposed pieces of legislation, and new legislation introduced as a result of caucus & committee debates.<br /><br />Based on the results of the 1997 Federal election if calculated on a province by province basis, each province retaining its current number of MPS, the breakdown of seats would have been as follows:,Liberal: 118 PC: 59 Reform: 59 NDP: 37 BQ: 28,The standings after the 1997 election were: Liberal: 155 PC: 20 Reform:60 NDP 21 BQ: 44 Ind.:1.<br /><br />Proportional representation would also effectively end independent candidacies, as people would only be voting for parties. John Nunziata, who won his riding,under the current system, would not have been elected.<br /><br />In spite of their constant clamouring for the idea, no fringe party garnered enough support to win even one seat.<br /><br />We would end up with an Israeli style parliament, where fractious coalitions will need to be built.<br /><br />Given the above scenario, the Liberals would have had to put together a coalition with the NDP in order to be able to govern. History has shown us that coalition or minority governments do not last long in Canada. Some recent examples: 1972-1974 NDP supported Liberal Minority<br /><br />1985-1987 NDP/Liberal coalition in Ontario<br /><br />1979 Conservative minority govt.<br /><br />We should all step back for a moment and think about what kind of democracy we want: The current system, with its flaws, but which allows local constituencies to choose the candidate they want, or a new system, where the parties choose who will sit in parliament on behalf of the citizens.,<br /><br />January 27th 1999, published in The Suburban . Updated Nov. 3d 2000:<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/8602521400325988099-6026851868806550260?l=libertystorch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Neal Fordnoreply@blogger.com0