Disproportional Representation vs Proportional Lackthereof
October 27, 2008 · By Adam Dyck
Every election, you get those people who come out against the first past the post system, arguing that proportional representation would be more fair. The National Post had an interesting piece on it, and I actually agree with what they said. However, they missed the biggest problem with PR.
In a PR system, there is no individual accountability for MPs. They have no particular jurisdiction they are responsible for that has the power to vote them out if they fail to represent them. People like our old friends Garth Turner and Belinda Stronach could switch parties without any repercussion.
In my Canada, MPs represent the public interest, not the political.
The individual accountability of MPs is a fundamental inherent value of our first-past-the-post system. You’re right, any pure-play PR system would not have this value, and the connection between MPs and the people would suffer. I really value the fact that I can walk into my MPs office if I’m having a problem with the federal bureaucracy, and they can (and do) help on behalf of their consituents. This is particularly true with immigration issues, for example.
On the other hand, if you’re an NDP supporter in Leeds Grenville, for example, there’s no real point in wasting your time by voting. The Tories could nominate a horse in that riding, and they’d still win. All 4 major parties have similar ‘safe’ ridings. This is a fundamental limitation of FPTP systems.
How about a compromise like STV, or some other system? Or the idea of making the Senate a PR system, and keeping the HoC FPTP?
Unfortunately, the Ontario Liberals illustrated exactly the problem for us – it’s only the opposition who are ever interested in electoral reform. McGuinty promised a serious look at electoral reform going into his election as premier, and so he commissioned a citizen’s assembly to investigate, but then did absolutely nothing to promote any real debate on the topic. When we had the referendum, most people had no clue what they were voting about.
Good point Adam. I want to learn more about this so-called PR system but so far, I haven’t heard one thing I like about it.
There are many Proportional Representation systems, all with their own strengths and weaknesses. The general idea is to try to better reflect the people’s desire to support a particular party. In the ‘ideal’ case, a party with 40% of the votes gets 40% of the seats, not 60%. If a government wants to rule as a majority, they have to earn 50% of the vote.
The big draw is that if you’re a Tory supporter in downtown Toronto, your vote will actually count for something. There are many downsides to a pure PR system, however, so there are several hybrids and variations to consider.