I have 3 main propositions for the Assembly to examine. I will
give the proposition first and then the explanation
Proposition 1: the first-past-the-post election system is
faulty
One of the two questions the assembly is trying to answer is
does the present electoral system need fixing? I say yes since one
fault is it tends to favor the party with the best distribution of
votes rather than the amounts of votes. An extreme example will
help illustrate my view. With our present election system with 3
competing parties, a party can win with 17% of the popular vote
while another party can lose with about 66% of the popular vote. In
this example, the 3 competing parties are Party X, Party y and
Party Z. In our province, there are 75 ridings and a party needs to
win 38 of them to have a majority government. In this example, 38
ridings have the following vote pattern in each riding:
Party X: 34%
Party Y: 33%
Party Z: 33%
From these results, Party X wins in 38 ridings. However these 38
ridings compose of slightly more than half of all the ridings and
thus half of all the province's votes. Therefore, Party X has about
half of 34% of all the province's votes in this example, which is
17%. This is how Party X wins with 17% of the popular vote.
Now, suppose in each of the remaining 37 ridings the vote count
is 100% Party Y. Since these 37 ridings is about half of all the
province's votes, Party Y has about 50% of the popular vote with
these 37 ridings. From the 38 ridings Party X has won, Party Y has
about 16.5% of the popular vote of the whole province. If the Party
Y votes are all added, Party Y has about 66% of the province's
popular vote yet does not win the election. The reason is Party X
votes are distributed better for winning than Party Y even though
it has less.
Since the first past the post system favors voting distribution,
real election results can be strange. For example, In the 1986 and
1991 provincial elections, the NDP got 40% of the popular vote yet
they lost in 1986 and won in 1991. The Socreds won in 1986 but lost
in 1991. Reason I see is many voters switched from Socred to the
Liberals and perhaps some other changes were made to alter the vote
distribution.
Another problem with the first-past-the-post election system is
winner takes all even though they have minority support of voters.
The winning party can appoint cabinet ministers, pass anything in
the Legislature and can make key appointments in the higher levels
of government agencies.
Proposition 2: political parties work against
democracy
If the present election system is so faulty, how should it be
fixed? That is the other main question that The Assembly is trying
to answer. From what I read in the news, The Assembly is looking
into different system like proportional representation. I am
doubtful they will work because political systems, all if not most
of them, assume political parties are sound and functional. I
disagree and think a main problem with political parties is they
tend to or do work against democracy. We in this
province are suppose to be a democratic society. A trait of
democracy is through discussions and deliberation some kind of
consensus is reached that at least the majority agrees with. This
does not always happen and maybe never does. Political parties tend
to work against democracy since they are not democratic entities
themselves. The party policies, ideas and ways of governing or hope
to govern are often set by the leader and called the party 'line'.
People joining the party must comply to it and respect the leader
if they want to progress in the party. Examples of those who failed
to do so are Sheila Copps and David Anderson. Both are MPs and use
to rank high in the Liberal Party until their critiques of Paul
Martin caught up with them. If party member becomes an MLA or
cabinet minister, the party line may conflict with wishes of voters
of their ridings.
Once a party gets into power, they have a reputation of breaking
promises and do things that are not in the public's best interests.
Anyone who has followed politics can certainly remeber some
examples. One I read recently is about MP John Reynolds who
condemned Prime Minister Paul Martin for giving the helicopter
contract to an Eastern Canada firm even though the areospace
industry is better in the West. Martin's action contradicts his
election promise of more respect and consideration for the West in
Canada.
In the Legislature, political parties almost never agree with
each other. They always argue and make destructive, negative
comments to each other. There never seems to be any reaching of
consensus through discussion since parties are competing with each
other. Thus they achieve little or nothing in developing sound
policies and laws.
To get a better understanding of what I am saying, try watching
some 'debate' in any Legislature or The Parliament. You will see
politicians yell at each other, talk out of turn and make comments
while another politician is talking. Now, imagine this sort of
behavior happening in other situations. If someone acts like a
politician in court, they would be charged with contempt of
court. In some corporate boardroom, an executive could
be demoted. If some student acted like a rude politican in class,
they would be scolded. Strangely, it is tolerated in the
Legislature.
One possible solution to political parties is to have an
election system that does not rely on them but I strongly doubt
such a system would gain public acceptance. The multi-party system
of governments and elections is strongly entrenched in the public's
mind. Thus most people are reluctant to make bold changes and
accept very different ideas. However much some people hate the
status quo with politics, I think many are too fearful to support
very significant change since they not confident they can adapt to
it or they do not want the changes to affect them. Case and point
are voting patterns. It seems that no matter how bad a political
party can become, they can somehow win another election. Examples
are The BC NDP rebounding after the 2001 provincial election and
The Liberal Party in the federal elections.
Proposition 3: the need for elected cabinet
ministers
If there is to be any increase in voting participation and for
people to transcend from the 'us vs. them vs. them' mentality of
multi-party politics, there needs to be some new things in
politics. One suggestion I have is to have Legislature seats that
are exclusively for elected cabinet ministers.
Before I explain this idea, one would ask what is wrong with the
present means of selecting cabinet ministers? The problem I see is
cabinet ministers are chosen by the premier. There is no certainty
that his selection method is good and often it is poor. The premier
will often choose people who show him the greatest devotion to him
and the party. Even if a premier can make sound choices for
ministers, he is choosing from people who are often unqualified.
Reason is the premier is choosing elected MLAs of his
own party and have developed their expertise in political party
workings, not in field of expertise their cabinet position
requires. For example, someone could spend years developing an
expertise in transportation and spend years working in that field.
Yet they would never become a transportation cabinet minister
because they did not developed links in a political party.
Getting more qualified people as cabinet ministers could be done
with electing them. This can be done by creating seats exclusively
for elected cabinet ministers. These seats could be created by
adding more seats in the Legislature or convert some riding seats
to cabinet seats. This would require ridings to have a greater
number of people and then redraw the riding borders. The people who
elect cabinet ministers are what I call ministrial delegates. These
are citizens who are eligible voters but can choose to be a
ministrial delegate of one ministry. By being a ministrial
delegate, a person over time will develop expertise with a certain
ministry, the issues, the background knowledge and some idea of
qualifications for a minister. Cabinet ministers could be elected
the same time MLAs are elected and they need not be political party
members. One advantage with elected cabinet ministers
is they are more likely to be qualified. Another is it would
encourage political participation. A person is not forced to
conform to some party line that makes little rational sense and is
more likely discuss politics. People of different
ministry memberships are not in competition with each other and
thus more likely to discuss politics. This encourages learning and
makes politics more interesting which encourages participation.
People of different political party memberships are often at odds
with each other and therefore not likely to discuss politics. This
is because political parties are in competion with each other and
view each other as enemies, not as citizens of the same
province.
Another bonus of elected cabinet ministers is it reduces the
power of the premier and his party. This forces him and his party
to be more accountable since they have less control over the
provincial government. Another bonus is that there is a chance of
seeing people in political positions without political party links.
If they succeed as cabinet ministers, it would over time show some
people how faulty political parties are and they are not necessary
for governments to work.
levelCMS