An Argument against Proportional Representation
Dan Mailer
The Ontario Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform is touring the Province and receiving input from citizens on the issue of whether Ontario should be reforming the method by which we choose our legislative representatives. The Assembly is to report to the Ontario government by June and a question on the issue will be posed to the people of Ontario by way of referendum on the ballot in November, 2007.
I was pleased to make an oral presentation to the Assembly on Tuesday, January 9th, 2007 when it was here in London. I was the only speaker of ten who argued against a move towards a proportional representation model. Here is essentially what I said:
I believe that proportional representation (hereinafter referred to as PR) while described as more democratic, in practice leads to a less democratic system of government. I am a true blue believer in democracy and as a small "c" conservative, greatly respect our traditions and institutions. However, I am not so wedded to the old way of doing things that I would reject a new and better way to vote our representatives if one presented itself. I don't believe that PR is a better way.
MPP, the Honourable Dwight Duncan delivered a speech to the Churchill Society for the advancement of Parliamentary Democracy and in that speech delivered on April 29, 2004, he indicated that after lengthy study of our institutions of government and various electoral systems, he urged that any reform of our voting system proceed slowly and cautiously and only after lengthy debate. He was concerned that in the rush to reform, that we just might end up throwing out the baby with the bathwater. His speech can be found on the internet and elesewhere on this site.
In preparing for my speech, I wanted to know how other great leaders who preceeded us, felt about the issue. I was advised by famed historian Sir Martin Gilbert, that the great Sir Winston Churchill, was no fan of proportional representation. He personally witnessed Adolph Hitler come to power in a Germany that had PR. When no party could form a majority, Hitler seized power while the government floundered. Meanwhile, while Britain was facing the biggest threat to its existence ever during World War 2, the British Parliamentary system showed that it could endure and triumph in a time of great testing.
More recently, former British Prime Minister Lady Margaret Thatcher also, delivered a speech against PR when she addressed the Hague on May 15th, 1992. After observing the European experience, she stated " The systems of proportional representation which so many of these countries have adopted have allowed these tactics to succeed all the more, leading to weak governments and a bewildering multiplicity of parties. All of this risks bringing democracy into discredit."
I would argue that our current "constituency" system, or "first past the post" system, has served us very well in Canada and has served the test of time.
Other countries that made the change from our type of system to another, have in some cases, come to regret the change. For instance, in New Zealand, following the first election under PR, no party was able to form a government for about 2 months. Finally, in the end, a party with 13% of the vote became the party controlling the government agenda. It became a case of the "tail wagging the dog". Few would argue that this is more democratic. In fact, within two years of experimenting with this system, the majority wanted to return to a "first past the post" system, but the parties were so entrenched in power and feared for themselves and losing that power, and they are stuck with a system that few now want.
I think that there is something to be said for a system such as ours that allows us to directly choose the person who will represent us in the legislature. Scotland now has PR and almost half of the MP's sitting in their legislature were not selected by the people but by party elites! Again, democracy suffers in my view, under such a system.
One observer that I spoke to cited the situation in Israel and the possible danger at some time of some maverick extremist group obtaining a disproportionate amount of power and holding the balance of power. The Canadian system may not be perfect, but it tends to discourage such groups or parties from obtaining a direct voice in the House. Even when it tends to work, PR tends to cater to the "fractional party" , not the party whose interest is primarily in the broad national or provincial interest. This is an ever present danger under PR regardless of the country that uses such a system.
If my observations of the various speakers at the London meeting on January 9th, 2007 is any indication, the smaller fringe parties are the most vocal supporters of PR. The NDP must be rubbing their hands together in glee over the prospect of this coming in as their influence will very likely increase. Shawn Lewis who works for NDP MP Irene Matthyssen was there arguing in favour, as were representatives of the Green party, Christian Heritage and womens groups. The Greens however are the best example of how a party can have tremendous influence on the political agenda without necessarily holding a seat in the legislature. I believe that in the end, our system is best served by a two or three party system that tends to be more efficient, stable and in the end, more democratic and more likely to govern with the best interest of the whole in mind.
I would urge more debate on the issue and I hope that my views will contribute in a positive way to that debate.
If you have any questions or thoughts, feel free to email me at
Thanks
Dan Mailer
January 15, 2007
