Proportional Representation
I would like to give my thoughts on proportional representation
(PR, pro-rep). I have actually lived in a country where
the government was elected through the pro-rep process.
It was nice to see a broad spectrum of ideas being allowed a
forum. I found it to be a more representative governing
style, and one that encouraged cooperation. It was not
a perfect system, but I think it was superior to the one in use in
Canada.
I learned about the benefits of pro-rep when I was stationed in
Germany from 1986 to 1991. When I was there I learned
that Germany had had a pro-rep system since its modern inception in
1949 (actually even before Hitler dissolved the Weimar
government). They had a vibrant economy and could
afford a generous social welfare system. I think
pro-rep was the reason they were so successful. Their
politicians were able to draw from a larger pool of ideas and were
forced to work with people considered rivals.
One of the first benefits of pro-rep is the ability of smaller
parties to be represented in government. This can be a
positive force in two ways: it decreases the sense of
disenfranchisement that many people feel, and it allows alternative
views to have a voice in government.
When I talk to people who don't vote I constantly hear the same
reason: "My vote doesn't count." I think
people will be more inclined to vote if they feel they have a
chance of having their ideas heard in government.
Smaller parties like the Greens can and do win seats in
parliament. I saw the German Green party go from a
small, barely represented, party to a full partner in a coalition
government.
Pro-rep systems normally produce coalition
governments. This system forces political parties to
work together much more than in the Canadian system. A
party that wishes to remain in control has to cede a certain amount
of that control to another. The junior
party in a coalition will not normally endanger its position by
refusing to cooperate with the senior one.
The concept of an adversarial opposition becomes almost superfluous
because any of the other parties in government may be called upon
to help form the coalition. The system allows for a
compromise between idealism and pragmatism. Should it
come to a point where the coalition cannot function, there are two
choices: form a new coalition or call an election.
One major flaw with the Canadian system is the non-confidence
vote. A non-confidence vote can and does force a new
election no matter how long a government has been in
office. Joe Clark's government lasted less than a year
before a non-confidence vote forced a new election. In
a pro-rep system, that would not be necessary. In
Germany, for example, a non-confidence vote has to have a
replacement majority attached (that is to say: a
replacement government must be recommended and agreed on before the
vote can be held). Often the majority party is able to
dissolve the coalition and form a new one without going through the
expense of a new election.
I have to say that a pro-rep system is not a panacea for all
Canada's governing ills. Pro-rep does not eliminate a
gullible public and it does not get rid of corruption.
As with all things human, the electorate is responsible for making
sure that the government administers the nation's business
properly.
I favour a pro-rep electoral system because it enables a broader
range people to get their ideas represented in government and
encourage more voter turn-out. Pro-rep systems, by
their nature, encourage cooperation between political parties and
allow minority parties a larger say in the running of the
government. From what I have seen proportional
representation is a more productive system that allows the greatest
amount of participation in elections.
levelCMS