Thoughts toward an opinion on Proportional Representation

[bcholmes]

In case you missed the news, apparently Carolyn Parrish is retiring from politics. Surely you remember Carolyn Parrish, the Member of Parliament who was kicked out of the Liberal caucus for stomping on a George Bush doll. Well, okay, Paul Martin says it's more than that, but I'm not sure that I believe him. Anyway, Carolyn's calling it quits. Buried in the story, however, was this blurb about what life as an independent MP is like:

"Independent MPs cannot vote on committees, attend caucus or deliver speeches in the House," she said in her letter to constituents. "In fact, the only privilege accorded an Independent is the asking of one weekly, uncensored question in the House during Question Period."

I like political parties. I really do. I think they offer a fascinating check-and-balance system in government. Being ousted from a political party is a powerful punishment for voting against party lines. But any sizable block of dissenters cannot be adequately punished by the Party Whip, unless the party is prepared for an election. Party dissent can, as we've seen with Jean Chrétien, oust a successful leader.

But I also really like independents as an alternative to official parties. Maybe it's sentimental; my grandfather ran as an independent candidate many, many years ago.

I love the fact that the independent Chuck Cadman held the future of the Martin government in his hands. I love the amazing irony that the Conservative party that screwed him over was itself screwed over by him. Independents rarely win, but Cadman had almost 3.5 times the number of votes of the Conservative who ran against him.

I like the fact that independent candidates are a viable alternative in Canada, even if they're rarely elected. I love the stories of ridings who clue in to the fact that an official party is behaving badly (like in Cadman's case), and who show their indignance by putting their support behind an independent candidate.

So, anyway, all the cool kids are talking about electoral reform in Canada, and here's me jumping on a bandwagon.

When I talk about electoral reform, I talk about single tranferable voting. My perception, though, is that most people, when they talk about electoral reform, mean proportional representation. Me, I'm not so crazy about proportional representation.

I have a number of reservations, but they mostly boil down to these points:

1. Proportional representation privileges political parties over independents even more than they are already privileged in our political system. There are, simply, a number of seats in parliament that are unwinnable except by parties. Now, that's not quite as bad as it was when you needed to run candidates in 50 ridings in order to be considered a political party in Canada -- now it's a lot easier to become a political party.
2. Proportional representation is party-centric, and obscures individual candidates more than they are already obscured. Yeah, I know that people in Canada tend to vote for parties rather than candidates (I know far too many people who have no idea who their MP is, let alone who their candidates are in a given election year). But in my ideal world, voters should think about the people who are actually governing, and deciding whether or not they're worth our trust, rather than just assuming that Red = Good and Blue = Bad. (Sure, that's the way to bet, but...) Proportional representation is about voters thinking even more about parties than they currently do.
3. I'm rather squicked by the idea that there doesn't seem to be a good way for a riding to vet names on the party list. Today, an unpopular candidate in a popular party can be easily kept out of office. Party lists, while a gamble, seem like they take away an electorate's ability to vet a particular candidate.

What I want from electoral reform is something that'll help break the tyranny of the strategic vote. Something that will increase the power of the minor parties. If that lead to more NDP and fewer Conservatives, I'm all for it. Heck, I'm even comfortable with a few Blue Greens in the mix. Throw in one or two total pinkos, and I'd be in heaven.

I think single transferable voting will give us that. 57% of people in the recent BC referendum were in favour of it. That gives me hope.

So anyway, these are the thoughts going on in my head, but I haven't really had an opportunity to dash them against the rock. What do you think? Am I off-base, here?

Comments

[king-tirian.livejournal.com]

I've never been quite satisfied with STV because I don't think it's radical enough. To me, the fundimental problem is that there are many people in a district who aren't satisfied with their representative and the converse situation that a representative tends to serve the ideology of the constituency that elected xir rather than the entire philosophical diversity of xir district. STV doesn't elimintate this regret, it just creates a system where (probably) a larger number of people each have a (probably) smaller regret.

I don't think that any implementation of a republic would eliminate the regret, but in the 21st century I don't see why one couldn't switch to a system more like a pure democracy, where each individual in the electorate would select any representitive they wanted to be their proxy in Ottawa and each MP would wield power in proportion to the number of citizens who selected them. I would suspect that this would largely eliminate parties because you could "elect" the charismatic leader even if she lives on the other side of the country rather than having to support someone you didn't know who happened to be in her party. And the other big problems with parties is that you're never quite sure who is invited to the back-room meeting where the platform is being hashed out. But in a system like mine the fight would take place in the open. Mary Jones would stand up and say "I'm largely in line with Frank Smith's conservative economic views, except that I take a Bible-based stand against gay marriage and teaching evolution and whatnot," and Frank Smith's supporters would or wouldn't switch their votes over to Mary Jones as they wished. (Oh yeah, the other fun part is that you would cast a vote by filling out a form at the post office whenever you wanted, so I'm also throwing a wrench at elections, campaigning, and willfully disrespecting your constituents because you know that they'll forget before you'll have to face them next.)

I guess there isn't anything much like that on the horizon, although maybe the PEI system wouldn't piss me off too badly. I suppose all your parties are united in the notion that whatever reform comes out is party-centric, which is both predictable and a shame.

[lovecraftienne.livejournal.com]

I think I'm pretty much in total agreement, actually. I liked the STV when they were proposing it in BC, and I was appalled that they set the bar so high for change. Pundits are claiming it's too complex, and maybe they have a point with regards to recent immigrants, or the strongly unassimilated longtime immigrant (we all have seen the type - stays exclusively within their own ethnic or national community, never learns more than the most basic English). We'd have to be very careful to make sure that the education available on how it works was comprehensive and multilingual (not bilingual).

PR can be good or bad, and a lot depends, I think, on how polarised the electorate is. Germany has been largely stable since the war, despite using PR (I believe they do, no? with a threshold for small parties?); they're used to and expect coalition governments. Is that, in some way, a rejection of their history? A rejection of the strong man hypothesis of government, to which we still, in North America, subscribe?

On the other hand, Italy has been a more-or-less constant mess, but they have much stronger regional divides than Germany has dealt with: the north and the south are so culturally and economically different as to be nearly two different countries, and regionalism holds sway over nationalism in their voting preferences.

I think one can produce examples from either side on PR, though I think your objections are quite valid. It's a definite entrenchment of party politics, of which I'm probably less enamoured than you.

Interesting discussion. I'll be interested to see what else comes back here from your other flisters.

[the_axel]

My favourite PR model is to have 2 groups of MP's:
1 of regional MP's voted for on a per Riding basis (exactly like today) and another set elected from party lists (ideally one nationwide count like in Israel).

I don't like STV because I'm from the UK, where it pretty well guarantees single party government (the traditional parties being Tory on the right, Labour on the left and Liberal in the middle. Under STV, the Liberals would always win, which is why it was part of their platform).

TBH, an individual with a strong personal popularity is electable on a list model, since every n-thousand votes gets a seat. The problem with the individual campaigner is if he gets 2n-thousand votes. Israel allows for that, and for what a group does with 0.5n-thousand votes by allowing them to be transferred to a pre-defined other group.