Greetings ...
For those interested in the issue of proportional representation and
electoral reform, there was a recent issue of Policy Options devoted to
the subject.
I remain skeptical about the benefits of such a system. I have several
reasons for thinking this way.
First, I think that much of the enthusiasm for proportional representation
is opportunistic. Sure, PR may give
greater weight to parties that represent groups that cut across
geographical constituencies, such as environmental groups or women's
groups. But this is a door that swings both ways. When small radical
right wing factions exercise more influence through such systems, PR
suddenly doesn't look very good. I can understand why many dislike
concentrations of power in the hands of a few, but I don't know how PR
solves that. The Westminster model of governance is designed to
concentrate power and accountability, but it is not the first-past-
the-post electoral system that is necessarily to blame.
In fact, I think PR presents a greater risk of manipulative power
politics. PR systems that are reliant on coalition governments are forums
of back room horse trading, not open and transparent policy making. When
such back-room deals are not made and governments fall on a regular basis,
the bureaucracy runs the government with near impunity. Some may say:
well, in governments with stable coalitions, at least there is a check on
power by other parties that can threaten to topple the government. I
think this is a very Canadian way of looking at the issue, for Canadians
have just become so use to high levels of caucus solidarity that they
forget that Canada is an anomaly on this count. Some may say: well, in
Canada, government operate virtually unchecked between elections and act
with impunity. But this is a very recent phenomenon. It is extremely
rare for a federal government to get back-to-back majority governments,
such as Mulroney (unusually large majorities)and Chretien (by only a
couple of MPs). Remember that it was not too long ago that
the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform spent so much time asking the
question: why is Canada's electoral system so volatile, given, at the
time, the difficulty in obtaining back-to-back majority governments.
My larger point is that I wonder if people are placing too much blind
faith in PR instead of institutional reforms that DIRECTLY address the
issues of accountability, transparency, caucus solidarity, concentrations
of power, etc. Oh, and for the political opportunists on the left out
there, check the popular vote counts of the last election and wonder to
yourself what the likelihood of a Unit The Right coalition would be under
a Canadian PR system in the next one.
Cheers, Peter.
On Fri, 15 Jan 1999, Caspar Davis wrote:
> I agree completely with everything you say. Wearing my cynical hat
> today, I would say that those who buy the major parties abhor nothing
> more than the thought that an un-bought party might get some say.
>
> They're already spinning oiver the Green inspired phaseout of nukes in
> germany.
>
> Caspar davis
>
> At 9:07 AM -0800 1/14/99, Colin Stark wrote:
>
> >I caught a 5 minute interview of N.Z. Prime Minister Jennie Shipley on CBC
> >Newsworld
> >
> >Part of that time was on Proportional Representation
> >
> >While my knowledge of Proportional Representation in NZ comes mainly from
> >the opinions expressed on CDD Listserv by a New Zealander, I was very much
> >unimpressed by the views expressed by PM Shipley, egged on by CBC
> >Interviewer Don Newman
> >
> >Her major opinions (prejudices in my opinion) are:
> >1 that N.Zealanders are unhappy with the "indecisiveness" of
> >Proportional
> >Representation compared with the former FPTP
> >(first-past-the-post) system;
> >2 that Proportional Representation gives undue influence to
> >smaller parties
> >
> >"a smaller party, in proportional terms, carries a greater degree of
> >influence of power than the large party (sic) … in fact that is an
> >inequity
> >in itself . . . we have a minority leading a majority . . .", she says
> >
> >Seldom have I heard two people manipulate the truth as blatantly as
> >Shipley
> >and Newman
> >
> >Think about it!!
> >
> >1 Would you rather have dictatorship, or "indecisiveness"
> >
> >2 If three parties have, say, 42%, 35%, and 23% of the popular
> >vote (or
> >make up your own numbers), which is more fair:
> >
> >a that one party have a virtual dictatorship?
> >b that the 42% party should form a coalition with the party of
> >its choice,
> >and govern in some kind of a compromise?
> >c other (I personally prefer "other", which would include Direct
> >Democracy,
> >but will reserve further comment till I hear from others)
> >
> >What do YOU think??
> >
> >
> >Colin Stark
>
>
>
