Proportional representation would appoint representatives to
govern in proportion to the popular vote. So far, so good. But
since we would not vote for a local representative under this
system, the unelected officials of the parties themselves would
presumedly appoint all the representatives from their own lists.
Wouldn't voters therefore lose more in accountability and
representativeness than we could gain? Minority or coalition
governments would become the norm, preventing radicalism, but
causing sclerosis by compromise (think of our futile attempts at
constitutional reform in Canada).
An alternative not much discussed is the automatic or instant
runoff system [AV], which would ensure that each Member of
Parliament was either the first or second choice of a majority of
voters. Voters rank the candidates; the preferred candidate is
first choice and, in case their favorite is eliminated, their
runoff choices are ranked second, third, etc. If no candidate
receives a majority of the #1 votes, the candidate with the least
total of #1 votes is eliminated. The second choice votes from these
ballots are then transferred to the other candidates. The ballots
are recounted, and candidates are eliminated in this fashion until
a winner emerges with a majority of the vote. Candidates then must
appeal to a broad base of voters to attract first or second choice
votes.
Instant runoffs would preserve our current system of government and
traditions, and ensure that we can still locally elect people to
represent us who are, if not our favourites, at least the
least-disliked by the majority. A subtle, but effective, reform.
See
www.instantrunoff.com for
more on the mechanics.
levelCMS