|
Submission TIELEMAN-1232 (Online)
|
Submission By | Bill Tieleman |
Address | Vancouver, BC, |
Organization | |
Date | 20040812 |
Category | Electoral system no change |
Abstract
|
I strongly urge you to decide that our current electoral system,
whatever its perceived flaws, is a far better option than to take a
risky chance on proportional representation. [3 pages]
|
Submission Content
|
Political Connections
The Georgia Straight
Let's Keep First-Past-the-Post
By Bill Tieleman
Publish Date: 12-Aug-2004
Democracy is working just fine, so leave B.C.'s electoral system
be
Democracy means government by discussion, but it is only effective
if you can stop people talking.
-- former British prime minister Clement Attlee
This is a submission for your deliberations on whether and
how to change British Columbia's electoral system.
You are responsible for deciding if our existing system is adequate
and, if not, recommending an alternative that will be voted on at
the next provincial election on May 17, 2005.
I have a simple suggestion that will save you untold amounts of
work: don't change a thing.
Keep our first-past-the-post system as it is, where the winner in a
geographical riding is determined simply by who gets the most
votes. Do not succumb to the enormous pressure of political parties
and special-interest groups that desperately want you to recommend
a system of proportional representation, where the number of
legislature seats won reflects each party's percentage of the
vote.
Refuse to change an electoral system that has served society well
since the advent of parliamentary democracy in England centuries
ago. Resist the urge to reform simply for reform's sake.
But I fear you have already made up your collective mind to tinker
with democracy, for the well-intentioned idea that our electoral
system should be "more representative". I can only ask you, more
representative of what?
I can hear a multitude of submissions crying out in the darkness:
"So no vote is a wasted vote. So every vote counts!" In a
democracy, there are no "wasted" votes. Unfortunately, in an age of
instant gratification, some people believe their vote was wasted
unless a politician of the same brand name that they picked appears
in the legislature.
And as in a preschooler's game, some people feel that everyone
should get a prize. What nonsense.
Every election, voters are faced with political choices. And just
like in a horserace, some candidates are favourites and others are
long shots. Some political parties have a chance to form
government; others have no hope.
But it's up to each person to decide whether to compromise some of
their principles by voting for a party that is more likely to win
an election or to vote their conscience no matter what the odds.
Your preliminary statement of March 21, 2004, concerns me.
"Adversarial politics often result in sharp swings in public policy
as newly elected governments often undo or reverse the programs of
their predecessors. This style of politics contributes to a growing
alienation of voters from the political process which has been
reflected in falling voter turnout rates, especially among young
voters," it reads.
First, voter turnout is not falling. In our last B.C. election in
May 2001, an impressive turnout of 70.95 percent of registered
voters cast a ballot. In the previous election of 1996, 71.5
percent turned out to vote.
It may not fit with your theories, but the 1996 and 2001 turnouts
were higher than in every provincial election between 1952 and 1979
but one.
And if such "low" voter turnout is your worry, then let's do what
Australia does and make voting mandatory. In its 2001 election,
Australia boasted a 95-percent turnout. It ends voter apathy by
fining those who don't participate. Civil libertarians may object,
but if paying taxes isn't optional, why is voting?
Ahhh, I can already hear one of your objections: what about the
alienated young people who don't vote or even register to vote?
Absolutely right.
A recent Elections Canada study that examined 2002 poll results of
about 2,500 people found a disturbing correlation between age and
voter participation.
In the 2000 federal election, voter turnout was 61 percent. The
older the voter, the better the participation rate, with 83 percent
of those aged 68 or older casting a ballot. On the other end of the
age scale, only 22 percent of those aged 18 to 20 and only 27.5
percent of those 21 to 24 years old voted.
So young people are cynical about the electoral system and
therefore don't vote, right? Wrong.
A second 2002 poll by Elections Canada of 4,659 people, including
848 nonvoters, found that the biggest single reason not to vote was
negative attitudes toward politicians, cited by 26 percent,
followed closely by "apathy and lack of interest", the reason given
by 23 percent of them. Negative attitudes toward the electoral
system was an issue for only one percent of those surveyed and only
one-half of one percent of the nonvoters. This would lead one to
conclude that the best way to improve voter turnout and end apathy
would be to ban politicians from running for office, not to change
the electoral system.
Nonetheless, several B.C. political parties, including the B.C. NDP
and the Green Party, are hell-bent on introducing proportional
representation. They are wrong.
There are many reasons why voters, including yourselves, should be
extremely wary of proportional representation. Perhaps the most
important is that pro-rep takes power away from voters and hands it
to political parties while claiming to do exactly the opposite.
Proportional representation almost always guarantees minority
governments that are forced to make backroom deals with the
smallest parties to survive. It potentially means a tyranny of the
minority, as happens regularly in Israel when extremist religious
parties demand their positions be adopted in exchange for propping
up a government.
Voters are cynical because of politicians and government, not the
electoral system, and proportional representation will result in
yet more reasons to distrust our elected officials. That's not what
democracy needs.
I strongly urge you to decide that our current electoral system,
whatever its perceived flaws, is a far better option than to take a
risky chance on proportional representation.
|
|