I originally posted this at BlogsCanada in May 2005. The subject of my posting was the Globe and Mail had published a series of articles on the failings of our current First-Past-The-Post electoral system, and then to my complete surprise and utter joy had endorsed Mixed-Member PR and published a model they felt would address the current regional inequalities they see in our present system, but still maintain the ability to have a stable strong federal government. That of course means their system did not automatically mean constant minority governments - a criticism that many have of PR. The Globe’s main point of supporting their particular model was for that exact reason:
Many proponents of electoral reform are looking not just for greater proportionality but for cultural change. They prefer minority governments, believing they will promote coalitions and consensus-building and thereby introduce more representativeness and civility into legislatures. While civility would be a welcome development, we prefer a system that, while more proportional, still allows for strong governments led by coherent parties
(At the time of my writing, I was paraphrasing the Globe’s articles, because they were behind a copyright wall. I have acquired those articles since this posting and as I have offered many times will gladly forward and attach the original articles to anyone who wants to see the more specific details of the article then what my original paraphrase was talking about.)
I’ve decided to re-post this article now, because PR seems to (finally) be getting discussed more and more by other Liberal blogs then just myself and Greg Morrow (of DemocraticSPACE.com), and I figure while the iron is hot, I’m going to be talking about it and continue to advocate it as a proposal that the Liberal Party should embrace.
Here follows my original post at BlogsCanada, with the points I made about the Globe’s system still relevant for me today. I’ve added some comments or additions where relevant and those will be in italics.
May 7,2005
In its Friday editorial, (which I am paraphrasing since I dont have a paid subscription - I read this in the actual paper), the Globe explained why it was advocating reforms to the current system we have in Canada: while the FPTP (First Past The Post) setup has served Canada well and is not a “disaster”, it argues that it has placed too much power in the hands of party leaders, and that in today’s Canadian society, Canada needs an electoral system where accountability would be increased. The other reason argued was because we are a nation of regional fragility, having a system more reflective of the voting population would be an improvement to what we currently have.
Lets take a look at the “mixed-member” PR system of government the Globe is advocating. To be brief, how (the Globe’s model) Mixed-Member PR would work is that 2/3 of the current seats in the House of Commons would still be determined by the present FPTP system. The remaining 1/3 of the seats would be distributed to the parties according to the popular vote, provided they had received a minimum of 5% of the popular riding votes within a region of Canada. This is important: it looks at how parties do in regions of the country - not just nationally.
Therefore, even though the Green Party only received 4.3% of the national popular vote in Canada in 2004, it would have received a seat because of its 6.4% showing in BC. (Here, I think the Globe made a slight error, because according to that formula, the Greens should also be receiving a seat from their 6.1% showing in Alberta - a minor oversight, but you get the point of their system).
The Globe argues that with this proposed setup, it would produce election results more representative of both national and regional voter sentiment, but also still allow for strong governments that could make tough decisions. One of the arguments against classical PR has been that it would be a formula for permanent minority government (which some might argue isn’t a bad thing, but thats a totally different topic) but according to the Globe, that isn’t the case with the mixed-member PR it advocates. The 2004 general election would have been a minority government under either the current setup or the proposed one, but the Globe points out that in the past 3 elections prior to 2004, only 1 of the 3 elections (the 1997 one) would have resulted in a minority government rather then a majority if (their version of) mixed-member PR had been the voting system. However, the majorities of the Liberals would have been slightly reduced and there would have been a more accurate representation of Canadian popular will.
Let’s Look at the 1993 General Election where the old Progressive Conservatives were wiped out to a mere 2 seats. Under the current system, the 1993 Election results were as follows:
Lib 177, BQ 54, Reform 52, NDP 9, PC 2, Ind. 1
Under the proposed mixed-member system, the 1993 election results according to the Globe would have been as follows:
Lib 161, Reform 53, BQ 48, PC 20, NDP 12, Ind. 1
The Liberals would still have had their majority, but the system would have been much fairer to the PC’s, whose supporters were more or less disenfranchised/penalized by the FPTP system (The Reform Party received 52 seats based on 18.7% of the Pop Vote and 2.5 million votes, while the PC’s received only 2 seats based on 16% of the Pop vote and 2.1 million votes).
I have myself looked briefly at the 1988 and 1984 general elections and have come to the same conclusion that the (Globe’s) mixed-member system would not have resulted in weak minority governments but would have been a better reflection of the voting publics desires.
I have to say that the Globe has really surprised and pleased me this week with the analysis of PR and its subsequent support of this mixed member system. (It also has called for additional parliamentary reforms, such as a mechanism similar to what they have in Britain to allow MP’s unhappy with their leader to be able to trigger a leadership review) If I didnt know any better, I would have thought I was reading the NDP party platform on PR, or perhaps reading a column from one of the idealistic columnists that the Toronto Star has.
In any event, after reading these editorials and seeing what the Globe endorses and seeing the explanation of how it would work, and the defending of the soundness behind it, I would like to give my ringing endorsement to the Globe’s proposal for Mixed-Member Proportional representation. I would hope that other “progressive” people do as well, and other people of moderate and reasonable thought. It is going to be virtually impossible to reform the Senate with the stringent rules in the Constitution for doing so, so we might as well reform the lower House to try and address specific voting grievances and concerns.
(Addenum to this - some contend that party leaders would still have too much power in their hands by being able to draw up who would be on the party lists for regional MP’s, but the Globe contends otherwise as you will see:
the system would draw on regional lists decided through party primaries… MPs chosen through proportionality would represent a regional political base and would have had to win approval by party members…Moreover, these “proportional” MPs would also have to face the voting public, albeit by region rather than by riding.
The problem with PR, in any incarnation, is that it over-rides the basic fact that our country is a federation, and that the brokerage that happens in the House of Commons (in theory, but not necessarily in practice) occurs between 308 equally-represented local constituencies.
I am not saying that the status quo is ideal, I am only suggesting that every model of PR I have seen proposed overlooks this issue. It is no coincidence that the most vocal proponents for PR are usually (a) urban voters who are (b) sympathetic to “left” or “right” political sides of the spectrum and (c) far more attached to interest groups or causes than to any mainstream political parties.
In short, they are people who fundametnally believe that the greatest cleavages in our society and the greatest shortfall of our government is the absence of a more dispersed set of ideological values from our country’s political dialogue.
It is a valid point of view, but one which I would strongly suggest is either (a) wrong or (b) right but far less important than the discrepencies between voters from different “places”.
The very language of the article above offends/frightens me. What is a “region”? How does a PR chosen MP “represent” a particular group of Canadians? And worst of all, how can you possibly make the argument that the current system places too much control in the leadership of political parties? Doesn’t a PR system essentially give the party leadership complete control of who gets into those seats through such insturments as a priority listing of candidates?
The point is this - Canada is a fractured enough place based on the very very different lives, economies, societies and experiences that each of us lives in our own little corner of this very big country. The fact that we have managed to govern the Country through world wars, the Depression, technologcial upheaval and great demographic change is nothing short of a miracle.
The last thing this country needs is a political system which encourages even more fracturing of our political voice, a system which encourages people to elect ideologues and to vote along a progressively narrower set of interests. Ours is a country whose politics is built on brokerage, compromise and occassional acts of selflessness. Overall, it is a very successful and fortunate experience. But we cannot expect our Parliament to be the only venue where such acts of brokerage, compromise and selflessness play out. Some of those things have to happen in our own backyards, and PR eliminates every incentive to strive for that.