ELECTORAL CHANGE – Prop rep is a perfect example of loser take all

Germany’s Bundestag.

Replacing the existing system with proportional representation will result in a government of chaos

Troy Media

THE B.C. REFERENDUM on how citizens elect those who govern them is fast approaching.

The current system has given us viable government for a long time. But like most things in the real world, it’s not perfect.

Roslyn Kunin.

Those who live in a riding that’s considered safe for a party other than the one they choose can feel unheard and unrepresented.

But there’s no such thing as a truly safe riding. Just ask former British Columbia premier Christy Clark. Even in the United States, where ridings are often heavily gerrymandered, many are looking for considerable upsets in November elections. Gerrymandering is selecting election boundaries to mainly include only those who vote for a particular party. Many American electoral maps look like crazy quilts.

Before I go further, some details and a caveat.

First the details: B.C. citizens will get their referendum ballots in the mail between Oct. 22 and Nov. 2. They must be returned by Nov. 30.

And now the caveat: when I talk about the non-FPTP (first past the post) options, I’m talking about proportional representation (PR) in very general terms. At least two of the three options offered in the referendum have never been tried anywhere. Details about how they’ll be implemented haven’t been revealed and in some cases aren’t even determined. Talk about buying a pig in a poke.

If there’s a question about election results, no simple and understandable recount will fix it. Decisions will be made in the bowels of a computer, which we won’t be able to see, understand or trust. Again, exactly how this will work has not yet been decided.

Second, PR doesn’t give minority voters in any riding an elected representative. Their vote goes into a pot for the party they select. If the pot is full enough, the party (not the voters!) selects who sits in the house.

Those chosen aren’t tied to any riding or any specific electorate. They didn’t have to knock on doors, show up at all-candidates meetings or take any measures to make themselves or their ideas known to voters. How much time are they likely to spend listening to and dealing with citizens’ problems?

What such potential members (note that I’m not calling them representatives) have to do is get on a party list in as high a position as possible. To do this, they must gain favour with party leaders, the only ones they’re answerable to.

Instead of government of the people, for the people and by the people, we’ll have a government of party hacks.

One major source of unhappiness with FPTP is that it’s winner take all. The candidate with the most votes wins. The others lose.

Under PR, some but not all those in the house would be directly elected in specific ridings. However, they’re not likely to be able to govern. Parties would now be able to appoint members of the house even if they had directly elected few members or none at all.

As we have learned from other jurisdictions that use PR, it’s almost impossible for any party to have a clear majority. The party that got the majority or plurality of the votes can’t govern. Coalitions must be formed. They may or not include the party with the most elected representatives. Politics being what it is, they’re inherently unstable. Forget fixed election dates.

No longer will we have a government that can concentrate at least for a few years at a time on meeting our province’s social and economic needs. PR will give us political parties forever jockeying to form, dominate or destroy coalitions in order to maximize their party’s influence and power. Germany, a strong stable country, is often used as an example of how PR might work. However, even Germany has recently spent months working out a governing coalition rather than concentrating on the real, important issues that affect that nation.

Some must benefit under PR. Otherwise why would we continue to have a series of referenda (so far all defeated) on it?

The biggest winners are the very small, often extreme parties that have little or no chance of getting members directly elected, let alone forming a government. Under PR, they’re much more likely to appoint a member or two if they can get five or 10 per cent (depending on the rules) of the vote in the province.

One or two seats don’t seem like such a big deal, but remember we’re now in a coalition environment. One or two extra supporters may be all that’s needed to keep a coalition government functioning. Who’s deciding now what policies the government will implement?

Not the party that got the most votes, but the one that the fewest people in the province voted for or want. If their ideas aren’t heeded and implemented, they can leave the coalition and bring down the government.

We no longer have a majority in a winner take all mode. Instead, we have a very small minority calling the shots – a perfect example of loser take all.

Roslyn Kunin is a consulting economist and speaker. She is a recipient of the Order of Canada and Order of British Columbia. She is a former Governor of the University of B.C, and has taught at both UBC and Simon Fraser University. She is president of Roslyn Kunin and Associates Inc.

© Troy Media

About Mel Rothenburger (6630 Articles) is a forum about Kamloops and the world. It has more than one million views. Mel Rothenburger is the former Editor of The Daily News in Kamloops, B.C. (retiring in 2012), and past mayor of Kamloops (1999-2005). At he is the publisher, editor, news editor, city editor, reporter, webmaster, and just about anything else you can think of. He is grateful for the contributions of several local columnists. This blog doesn't require a subscription but gratefully accepts donations to help defray costs.

6 Comments on ELECTORAL CHANGE – Prop rep is a perfect example of loser take all

  1. Sean McGuinness // October 10, 2018 at 8:47 PM // Reply

    It’s true that in a PR system, one is sacrificing one’s ability to vote for a particular candidate — to an extent. However, it’s also true that in the current FPTP system, many votes will simply not count towards anything. It’s difficult and maybe impossible to find a system which eliminates both problems. I would argue that in our current system, policies and party platforms are just as important as candidates. In many cases, it’s hard to differentiate between a candidate and their party. Local issues are important, but decisions regarding big issues such as health care, education, environmental issues (such as the Ajax mine) etc are made on the provincial/federal level. In theory, each vote in a PR system carries some weight in the determination of future provincial/federal policy. In practice, it’s a lot messier. It’s true that coalitions are formed and that smaller “extreme” parties may also have seats at the table. Despite the complexities, I think it comes down to a question of principles. Do we want to continue with a system where half the population has absolutely no representation at the provincial decision table, or do we want a system where all voters have at least some representation at the table?

  2. Ian M MacKenzie // October 10, 2018 at 7:19 AM // Reply

    Just to quote a couple of well known lads in the political swirl: “The imperative of moving to proportional representation is neither a right-wing nor a left-wing point of view. It’s simply democratic common sense.”
    Unfortunately neither Roslyn nor you in your previous editorial about Pro-rep and voodoo math don’t seem to have too much of it.

    • Mel Rothenburger // October 10, 2018 at 8:11 AM // Reply

      I respect your right to disagree with me, but why do so many prop rep proponents feel they have to ascribe motives and attributes to those who support FPTP? You say I don’t have common sense because I have an opinion different than yours. And others who propose PR as the better option call FPTP supporters fear mongers and say they have vested interests. And why is it that I, a supporter of FPTP, publish opinions from both sides, but Fair Vote Kamloops, the PR advocate, publishes only opinions supporting its side, then urges people to “get the facts”?

  3. Representers of the people? Really?
    They can’t be representing the large swath of people they do not share ideologies with. There is a reason why many are advocating for change…
    It can be argued the most important plight of a nation is to make sure everyone matters, every one is included, coalition talks notwithstanding.

  4. Dave Monsees // October 9, 2018 at 7:02 AM // Reply

    This lady makes a lot of sense. Now how to we get every one in B.C. that will vote, to read this editorial? We have an example right today of a coalition where it’s the Green Party that is controlling Parliament.. not the party with the most seats, not the party with what the majority of people in B.C. have asked for.,

    • The lady does not make sense at all and her “rationale” is laughable every couple of sentences…
      Knowing there is people like this lady advising our political “hacks” I too want to get rid of the current system…in a hurry!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: