If It Ain't Fixed, Don't Break It
by Jason Capodimonte,
modern living editor, NEW IMPROVED HEAD
February 1, 2006
Scarcely was the federal election of January 23, 2006 over than the advocates of proportional representation were writing letters to the newspapers. Why, the New Democratic Party got 18% of the popular vote but only 9% of the seats in the House of Commons, while the Bloc Québécois, with only 10% of the popular vote, ended up with 16% of the seats! That, supposedly, is not fair.
The rough idea of proportional representation is to distribute some seats according to the popular vote. That way the many Canadians who voted for the NDP would get a representation more in line with their numbers in the country. Of course, the NDP is keen on this idea.
But is that really fair? I vote to elect a representative for my riding. The opinions of other Canadians about what party will best represent their ridings are irrelevant to the decision facing voters in my riding.
This observation raises a question for proponents of proportional representation – are you crazy? Do you really think that voters in the west will feel more fairly treated if we reduce the percentage of Conservative seats in the House of Commons because the enormous population of voters in Ontario really loves the Liberals?
And do you really think that reducing the percentage of seats held by the Bloc will go over well in Quebec? Do you think that proposing amendments to the constitution to do just that would not be interpreted, and widely adduced, as a transparent ploy by English Canadians to stifle the legitimate aspirations of the people of Quebec? Do you think that triggering a constitutional crisis is a good use to which to put the constitution?
If the NDP wants more seats, a more wholesome way of accomplishing that goal would be to go out and win some. With the new rules for campaign financing that should be easier for them than ever.
I will grant that when you elect a representative for your riding you might be troubled if that representative receives less than half the vote in the riding, especially if it turns out to be someone you didn't vote for. The solution for that, though, is run-off elections, which are used in France, for example. The week after the first round of voting a second is held at which the two top candidates in ridings where no one received a majority of the votes square off to see who will represent the riding. However, I'm sure that after the second round we'd be hearing the same complaints from NDP supporters about how they don't get no respect.
Another popular idea for changing the constitution is to remove the British queen as head of state. Polls show a large percentage of the population supporting this idea, but then polls don't require people to think about the issue before giving their opinion. Chiefly what people need to think about is just who would we replace the queen with?
We could elect a president, of course. But how? The West would be quick to note that any national election by popular vote would be dominated by voters from Ontario and Quebec, while Quebec would be quick to point out that it would be dominated by anglophones. So they would come up with their own plans to counteract these evil influences, which would inevitably be in conflict, and no doubt Roy Romanow would come up with a plan to end dissension by having the president chosen by appointees of the federal, provincial, and territorial governments. And we could fight over those ideas forever.
If we want to improve Canadian politics probably the simplest and most effective thing we could do right now is to let the parliamentary caucus of each party pick its leader. One of the reasons proportional representation is appealing is that the strict discipline of Canadian parties sometimes means that members of parliament are sometimes required by their party leaders to vote against the interests of their ridings. However, if the leader was picked by the caucus rather than by a party convention, party discipline would be nowhere near as strict as it is today. How do we know that? Because the caucus picks the party leader in the United Kingdom, and party discipline is nowhere near as strict there as it is here.
If you're worried about the undemocratic implications of having the party leader picked by MPs rather than by the party at large, I will note the undemocratic implications of having a leader forced on MPs by members in ridings which can't elect members for the party. Seriously, should Jack Layton start putting his foot wrong (say, by forcing an election which put the Conservatives in power) why should New Democratic MPs be required to work for a leader elected largely by the 279 ridings who couldn't produce an NDP MP?
So there you are. Forget about elaborate voting schemes which threaten to tear the country apart. Forget about proposing constitutional changes we're likely to be wrangling over forever. Set your members of parliament free!
If It Ain't Fixed, Don't Break it © Coolth, 2006
Click the banner or click here for ACTUAL ANALYSIS
Commentary | Home