Readers agree: voting system needs overhaul

re. NO: Don't sacrifice stability

The so-called debate on Proportional Representation (PR) reminds of the "debate" on global warming. Neither "debate" really exists. The evidence, as opposed to opinion, on each is overwhelming. Global warming exists and is caused by human activity. PR is a better system for electing our governments.

The "debate" on both exists only in the media and the special interests who believe they have a stake in the status quo. To fight change and lacking any evidence to back their case, they resort to FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt), the staple of opponents to change. No statement is too outrageous, no lie too bald faced to use. In fact, the further removed a statement is from reality, the better, as the ever perverse human psyche questions whether there must be something to such an astounding claim!

Norm Sterling states that our first past the post (FPTP) system leads to more stable governments than PR. He never cites any evidence to back this claim. Yet evidence on the stability of PR, the system used by most of the world's nations, is not hard to find. In fact, compared with Canada's record this century, few nations have less stable governments.

FPTP systems rarely achieve stability in multi-party elections because a small change in voter preferences can lead to big change in the number of seats a party takes. Each party has an interest in defeating the government to force an election, hoping to gain some small advantage in popular support. Under PR, a small change in voter preference doesn't change seat counts. Defeating the government only happens when the governing coalition no longer has the support of the majority. Moreover, elections only occur when no coalition can get the backing of the majority.

Nor does he present any evidence to even justify the need for stable governments. Is giving a party elected by fewer than 4 out 10 voters absolute control of our government really in the best interest of Canadians? Shouldn't the government at least represent the wishes of the majority of Canadians? If representatives of the majority of voters can no longer support the government, why shouldn't the government change?

Amazingly, Sterling then claims that "a PR system leads to more single-issue and regional parties." Obviously this man has never heard of the Bloc Quebecois, a party that has a stranglehold on Quebec's seats despite receiving only 38% of the popular vote!

And the Green Party got almost one million votes yet no seats. While PR allocates seats according to popular support, FPTP allocates seats almost at random. The distribution of votes in individual ridings matters more than a party's actual level of support. We have even had majority governments that didn't get the most votes!

As I said, for opponents of PR, the further removed a statement is from reality, the better.

Sterling then tackles accountability. He decries the "backroom deals" where parties negotiate an agenda. Apparently he prefers having the Prime Minister's Office dictate the agenda. When one of our major parties has been nicknamed the Lieberals, when "Liberal Promise" is an oxymoron, and when our recent elections have been fought over whether you fear the Conservatives more than you loath the Liberals, accountability is non-existent in FPTP

He talks about the need to give MPs the power our FPTP system denies them. Under PR, cabinets are negotiated by the coalition partners, not hand picked by the party leader as they are under FPTP. Coalitions can be built on the fly, making the votes of each MP crucial. Parties cannot deviate from their platforms or principles because their MPs aren't dependent on the favour of their leaders.

He talks about candidates being selected locally under our current system. This incorrectly implies that this changes under PR. Under PR, you still need local organizations to conduct the campaigns. While they are not called riding associations (expect in the MMP and Parallel variants of PR), they continue to elect candidates. The central party, which under FPTP can drop in candidates overriding the local associations, loses this ability in PR.

And you are not dependent on Elections Canada to determine riding borders. Different parties may have reasons for selecting different regions for electing candidates to the party lists. A party stressing diversity issues may not even use geographic boundaries for all of its candidate elections.

Our FPTP system gave us epic struggles between top candidates, such May versus MacKay or Nash versus Kennedy, while party hacks coasted to easy victories in safe seats. In PR, the best candidates top the party lists. After all, the list of candidates is a big part of what sells a party to the voters.

Again, for opponents of PR, the further removed a statement is from reality, the better.

Sterling reserves his real howlers for "simplicity". He claims that our voting system is "simple" because you just have to check off the name of the candidate want to win. Voters recognize that this is far from simple however. It confuses the merits of the local candidate with the policies and records of the party he or she is running for. Do you vote for the candidate or the party? Under Ontario's proposed MMP system the two issues are separate. You would have been able to vote for the best local candidate and the party you wanted to represent you.

FPTP also leads to tactical voting (sometimes called strategic voting), where you vote against a candidate or party. This requires detailed knowledge of the chances of the various candidates. Plus you need to balance that decision against the impact on electoral finances, since your vote gives money to the party you vote for.

By comparison, voting under any form of PR is simplicity. You vote for the party of your choice knowing your vote counts. And under the MMP system recommended for Ontario, you also get to vote for the local representative of your choice again knowing that this preference doesn't affect who forms the government. You are secure in the knowledge that any coalition that forms represents the majority of the people.

Well financed special interests oppose proportional representation because it puts democracy back in the hands of the electorate. They prefer systems where corporate lobbying and expensive ad campaigns matter more than the wishes of the people.

Whether we're talking global warming or electoral systems, there is no real debate. There is just a campaign of FUD aimed at confusing the issue to prevent necessary change from happening.

Gary Dale