Editor,
There have been some interesting articles written regarding proportional representation (PR) in the world’s news media. A recent article in The Guardian describes the effect of PR in Israel. A few points are:
1. PR leads to perpetually hung parliaments – leaders cannot push through the policies they campaigned on.
2. Parties usually need to form coalitions with radical minority partners to gain power, and often these partners pull their support, leading to mid-term collapse of governments and early elections.
3. Radical minority partners may pull the coalition toward more radical decisions, leading to opposition threatening to topple the coalition, in effect, paralyzing the prime minister.
4. The radical minority members of the coalition use horse-trading to siphon off a significant portion of the national budget.
5. Major ministerial posts are filled by the top members of parliament of various parties, rather than from one party alone – so little unity and totally ineffective governance.
6. It is almost impossible to fix this system, because the minority partners are enjoying their control and will vote against changing it.
Another article in the National Post cites statistics gathered over 15 years (2000-2015) comparing countries with PR vs countries without:
1. Only 17 per cent of elections in countries with PR resulted in single-party majorities, while Canada, with first-past-the-post, has had 85 per cent majorities.
2. Governments with PR over the 15 years spent 29.2 per cent of gross domestic product on government, largely financed with deficits (borrowing). Other countries only spent 23.5 per cent. So PR central governments are almost one-quarter larger than required.
The article goes on to say that “to form governing coalitions, the party with the most seats must negotiate with smaller parties and often must capitulate on key policy issues. Therefore, smaller parties can exert a disproportional power in government in countries with PR. This is a critical insight because it counters those who argue that PR provides everyone with an equal vote. It doesn’t. It disproportionately empowers those who vote for small, even fringe, parties, at the expense of the majority of voters who tend to vote for one of a few main parties.”
Another point not covered in these newspapers is that of regional representation. The Canadian pioneers who set up our current system knew that the system must be designed to give all facets of our population a say in how they are governed. Ridings were set up to give a small number of rural farmers, or miners, or industrialists as much say as large numbers of city dwellers. In some of the provinces, an elections map will show a few tiny pockets of orange ridings in the major cities surrounded by a sea of blue. Under a PR system, rural people will lose their say to those many city dwellers, and be forced to pay their taxes to a government who cares more about winning city votes than caring for rural roads and hospitals. Instead we’ll pay for city transit systems, safe injections sites, daycare, and a bloated government.
Let’s not go down this road. Please let us learn from other country’s mistakes. We already have an unelected government coalition in B.C. with the green tail wagging the dog.
Madeline Thon
Smithers