The dangers of proportional representation
Paul Knowles, New Hamburg Independant
Once upon a time, not all that long ago, I fell into conversation with a woman on an airplane. The plane was bound for Amsterdam; the woman was a Member of Parliament in the Netherlands, representing the Green Party.
Here is how she became an M.P.: as an active member of the Greens, she campaigned, exclusively within the party, to be put on their official “list”. I don’t recall the exact numbers, but let’s say she earned the 14th place on that list.
August 30th, 2007 at 9:22 am
Wow, what a Humbug! Paul is afraid that having two types of politicians would be bad for Ontario. You know, I just don’t get it. A person that is selected from a list makes that list by being special in some way. That list will be full of superstars.
And while I agree with Paul that people on the list are not ‘democratically elected’ in the traditional manner, I would argue that the list itself is. If the Green Party, for example, had David Suzuki on the list, it would get far more partyvotes than if it had, say, Peter MacKay. All this despite the fact that Peter Mackay is a professional at getting himself elected, whether to the Progressive Conservatives or the Conservatives. Obviously, getting oneself elected isn’t tied to keeping your word or following through on written agreements with other members of your party.
Elections have given us a certain class of politician: ambitious, hardworking, extroverted, wheeler dealers and has cut out those others whose voice we don’t hear from: thinkers, academicians, planners who aren’t cut out for rough-and-tumble campaigning but would be fine additions to our parliaments.
August 30th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
The funny thing is that the guy doesn’t even give very many reasons - or eloquent, well-articulated reasons - for not trying the proportional representation. I was looking for a string of arguments within his train of thought..like, PR is bad for representing regional and local interests, PR does not go far enough in reforming our institutions (i.e. the process of elections will change, the process in the Parliament won’t)…but he did not give ANY REASONS, besides conveying this vague feeling of discomfort with the idea.
It is actually typical of the critiques levied by people who oppose anything new, anything untested. They point out where an alternative model could go wrong or simply dismiss it in the “ain’t broke, so don’t fix it” manner. No serious consideration of the real pros and cons (and there are both pros and cons to the Proportional representation idea).
BTW, all the existing PR systems have a minimum vote percenatge thresholds. Usually it’s 5%, sometimes 3%. With the former, the Greens would still not have elected any MPs to the federal parliament in the 2006 election. One more reason for you guys to increase the credibility of the organization.
August 31st, 2007 at 3:39 am
Here’s my response:
To the editors of the New Hamburg Independent;
So, Paul Knowles met a woman who ran as a candidate in the Dutch elections (The Dangers of Proportional Representation - Independent, August 29). She was nominated by the Green Party and placed on their list of candidates. The voters of Holland compared that list with those of the other parties and voted for the party of their choice. Based on those comparisons, enough votes were received by the Green Party to elect 12 members of parliament.
Why does Knowles not consider those members to have been elected? They sound elected to me. The voters of Holland clearly made their choices based on their opinion of the candidates on the lists, as well as on their judgment of the party leaders, platforms, and records. The people of Holland certainly consider their members of parliament to be democratically elected. In fact, I could introduce Mr. Knowles to quite a few Canadians who came here from Holland, who are astonished at how we vote here. They find it absurd that most of us vote for people who do not get elected, while in Holland every vote actually helps to elect someone. They can’t believe that we consider it normal for one party to have all the power, even though most people voted against them.
Mr. Knowles claims that a proportional voting system would lead to “perpetual minority government”. Does Holland have minority government? No, it does not. Do Switzerland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, Austria (I could go on), all of which have proportional voting systems, have minority governments? No, they do not. Do Germany, New Zealand, Scotland and Wales, all of which use the Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) system recommended by the Ontario Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform, the system on which we will be voting on October 10, have minority governments? No, they do not.
These countries all have coalition governments, true majority governments that have the support of a true majority of the voters, legitimate, effective governments that reflect the will of the people. That is undoubtedly what we will have in Ontario too if we adopt this system. The end of phony majority governments in Ontario will not quite mean the end of arrogance and unresponsiveness in our politicians, but it will certainly be a step in the right direction.
I’m voting for MMP on October 10.