ANDERSON: From the frying pan into the fire
"Change" is a slogan used by politicians because it seems to influence us regardless of what exactly is changing. We seem to like change even though we know it isn't always good. Think of the worst and best things that have happened in the world, and you'll inevitably find change lurking behind them in equal measure. Change can be good when it breathes a breath of fresh air into our political culture from time to time, but it can also let bad ideas take seductive root.
We live in a funny first world of flawed democracies. Whether it's liberal democracy or social democracy it will always fall short of its ideal, yet we allow politicians and political scholars to lure us into thinking that if we can somehow change it this way or that we'll arrive at a democratic system that's somehow better than what we now have.
In Canada we live under an imperfect parliamentary democracy, a subset of liberal democracy in which Canadians are represented by candidates from political parties offering "bundled" ideas that we voters have to choose from. The perennial complaint against the parliamentary system is that many of us aren't represented at all, given the first-past-the-post-winner-take-all mechanism which often allows one party with a minority of votes to form government and, depending on where those votes are sprinkled, to frequently form a majority government. It has been said, with some truth in the case of a majority government, that under our present system we hold an election every four years to choose a dictatorship for the next four. Naturally, these complaints are always raised by the electoral losers and those with no hope of forming government. The winners always seem satisfied with the current system.
This week's proposed cure-all for the ills of parliamentary democracy is "proportional representation" (PR). Whereas our current parliamentary system treats each riding like a separate area in which candidates vie for votes with the winner becoming the Member of Parliament for that riding, under the PR system we would no longer vote for a flesh and blood person but instead vote for the party of our choice, whereupon the parties would assign MPs according to the proportion of votes each party receives. Theoretically that would more accurately reflect the wishes of the electorate because it would allow parties like the Greens to hold seats in proportion to the number of votes it received. At the moment PR is espoused by the NDP, the Liberals, and of course the Greens, all deeply worried about the split in the left and each seeking to outdo the other in the hope-n-change department.
The standard argument against proportional representation is that it fragments the body politic and creates a sort of structural anarchy that creates deadlocks and galloping inefficiencies. This is true to be sure, as Italy, Israel and Germany have learned to their chagrin… consider the Free Democratic Party in Germany, which never garnered more than 12 per cent of the vote and yet was present in every ruling coalition government for 50 years, or Israel, where extreme religious groups often hold the balance of power, or Italy, whose fractured government has been in a constant state of instability, ineffectiveness, and occasional outlawry for decades.
But a more powerful argument, it seems to me, is that our existing parliamentary system is structured to maintain a centrist or near-centrist political culture. By excluding fringe parties, it excludes the possibility of any such parties riding a temporary wave of popularity into decidedly non-democratic regime change. History is replete with examples of this – in fact it happens about three times a week and twice on Sundays in Africa – but the starkest historical example is the National Socialist Workers' Party's (Nazis) seizure of power during the virtual anarchy of the Weimar Republic's PR system. One might argue that it can't happen here, and they might be right. But then again it couldn't happen in Germany either, according to just about everyone in Germany in 1932, and it did, in 1933.
We Canadians tend to think of existing mainstream parties when we think of proportional representation – the three traditional parties and the marginally electable Greens – but under PR other parties would come into play as well, including the Accountability, Competency and Transparency Party, the Animal Alliance-Environment Voters Party, the Canadian Action Party, the Christian Heritage Party, the Communist Party, the Libertarian Party, the Marijuana Party, the Marxist–Leninist Party, the Pirate Party, the Progressive Canadian Party, the Rhinoceros Party, the United Party and of course the Communist Party…many of which have from time to time garnered enough votes for actual seats within a PR system and all of them currently registered and actively seeking votes.
More equitable representation means less efficiency at best, and catastrophic regime change at worst.
Our current system is imperfect, but it does allow for moderate change and even the addition of new, battle-tested parties… as the rise of the Reform Party, the Progressives and the CCF attest… while ensuring the stability of a centrist political culture reflective of our values. There is and can be no perfect democracy, but throwing out our present system in favour of proportional representation would be a change from the frying pan into the fire. Remember that next time a politician shows up at your door preaching "change."
— Scott Anderson is a Vernon City Councillor, freelance writer, commissioned officer in the Canadian Forces Reserves and a bunch of other stuff. His academic background is in International Relations, Strategic Studies, Philosophy, and poking progressives with rhetorical sticks until they explode.
Join the Conversation!
Want to share your thoughts, add context, or connect with others in your community? Create a free account to comment on stories, ask questions, and join meaningful discussions on our new site.
8 responses
-
Many conservatives want to make every vote count. These include independent conservative MP Brent Rathgeber, and Rick Anderson, Hugh Segal, Patrick Boyer,Walter Robinson, former MP Ted White, and many more.
-
Scott, if you can take six minutes to watch this video by Prof. Dennis Pilon, you will see that the PR model recommended by the Law Commission of Canada is very different from what you seem to expect: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3guVBhKmDc
-
Well Dave, it’s used in Germany, Finland, Belgium, Italy and Greece.Italy and Greece speak for themselves, Germany sweeps back and forth in fundamental swings from left to right, Finland uses the party list format, and Belgium is on the perpetual verge of political breakup.None of these suggest greater stability than what exists in Canada today.
-
Wayne, with respect, I have to say that most of your post simply consists of counterclaims without backup.You simply reply to my points with “no it’s not,” followed by an opinion, or a claim that’s not quite accurate.For example, where I say that PR is a vote for the party and not a flesh and blood representative, you claim that’s not true, but your website says the opposite.While it gives two examples of systems that sort of allow people to vote for flesh and blood candidates, the system advocated for is, and I quote, “Fair Vote Canada advocates for voting systems that are designed to produce a representative body (like a parliament, legislature, or council) where seats are more or less in proportion to votes cast.”That is exactly the system I described.I could go through a line item rebuttal, but basically you’re making authoritative claims based on hope and speculation.
-
Scott Anderson OK, where shall we start?”This week’s proposed cure-all for the ills of parliamentary democracy is “proportional representation” (PR).”Allthough critics love to accuse PR proponents of presenting PR as a “panacea”, we make no such claims. PR will solve only one of our problems, the problem that we don’t have a fair voting system. Of course, legislators who are actually accountable to voters and a government that is accountable to Parliament will give us much more powerful tools to address the rest of our problems.”under the PR system we would no longer vote for a flesh and blood person”.Simply false. All the proportional voting systems proposed for Canada recently would allow us to vote for individual candidates.”the parties would assign MPs”.It is the current system that allows political parties and party elites to appoint MPs. Up to two-thirds of us live in safe ridings where the outcome of the election is known before we cast our ballots. To win the (rigged) nomination is to win the seat.”The standard argument against proportional representation is that it fragments the body politic and creates a sort of structural anarchy that creates deadlocks and galloping inefficiencies.”Well yes, that argument is made, but it is false. Italy and Israel have fractious politics, but not because of their voting systems. Most developed countries have used proportional voting systems for most of the last century, since the invention of the modern political party, and PR countries tend to be more stable and offer greater voter satisfaction.”our existing parliamentary system is structured to maintain a centrist or near-centrist political culture.”No it isn’t. Winner-take-all politics encourages, on the one hand, a tendency to sit on the fence and refuse to take a principled position, or on the other hand, to appeal to a narrow base and to hell with the rest of you.”the starkest historical example is the National Socialist Workers’ Party’s (Nazis) seizure of power during the virtual anarchy of the Weimar Republic’s PR system.”The oldest canard of them all. The collapse of Weimar Germany was caused a a number of well documented factors, none of whic was the voting system. PR actually kept Hitler out of power for a decade.”under PR other parties would come into play as well, including the Accountability, Competency and Transparency Party, the Animal Alliance-Environment Voters Party, the Canadian Action Party, the Christian Heritage Party, the Communist Party, the Libertarian Party, the Marijuana Party, the Marxist–Leninist Party, the Pirate Party, the Progressive Canadian Party, the Rhinoceros Party, the United Party and of course the Communist Party”.None of these parties is in danger of electing anyone any time soon under any voting system. But if they can get the votes, why shouldn’t they get the seats? A well designed proportional voting system would offer voters four to seven viable choices in each riding. As mentioned above, most of us currently live in safe ridings and have no meaningful choice at all.”More equitable representation means less efficiency at best, and catastrophic regime change at worst.”More equitable representation means more ideas being considered, more needs being addressed, better buy-in for better-considered and more moderate solutions. As for catastrophic change, that is a feature of the current system. It’s called “policy lurch” and the best example is Bob Rae ripping up Eglinton Avenue for three years to build a subway, then Mike Harris getting elected and filling it all back in—with concrete.”Our current system is imperfect, but it does allow for moderate change and even the addition of new, battle-tested parties… as the rise of the Reform Party, the Progressives and the CCF attest… while ensuring the stability of a centrist political culture reflective of our values.”These parties are history. The Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois thrived by pitting regional interests against the national interest, a great strategy under the current system. Principled third parties with broad national appeal are unsustainable.Our current system gives us either single-party monopoly government that quickly grows arrogant and corrupt, or, about half the time, unstable minority government that quickly unravels so that they can roll the dice again.Under the current system, most of us are “represented” by people we voted against. First-past-the-post is a farcical anachronism.
-
I just read the website, and I can’t find anything either “opposite” or substantively different from what I’ve said.The difference is that the page you directed us to is arguing for PR and I’m pointing out the flaws in it.
-
I’m not sure what’s standing in the way of people achieving all of the ideas you’ve outlined under the present system, Linda.My point about change is that it can be good, but it can be bad in equal measure.And quite often what seems good turns out badly because of perverse incentive.
-
Another circus of ideas a veritable dogs breakfast of half baked political name calling without a shred of common sense. You have outdone yourself on this one. The power of change is just that. The opportunity to see a different way forward. When something is not working or not working well people desire change in order to move forward.The danger is in violent oscillations back and forth from one extreme to the other. In government, at election time people are called upon to weigh the achievements, the goals, the power of leadership displayed by their government and contenders. I think it it is fair to say this is an important election in terms of Canada’s future and our stature in the world.I think it is fair to say, Canadians are feeling the need to rediscover their collective identity, to remember who we are and what we stand for, what we believe in , and how we want to move forward. Are we happy with what we have in terms of leadership. Do we deserve better?The future will always be defined by our willingness to change and to grow.Here’s to you Canada. We will try to get better.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.