Submission GRUBEL-0791 (Online)
|
Submission By | Emeritus Professor Herbert Grubel |
Address | North Vancouver, BC, Canada |
Organization | |
Date | 20040706 |
Category | Electoral system no change |
Abstract
|
Those who argue for proportional representation are not giving us
the whole picture. They criticize the existing system
without considering its benefits and advocate PR without
considering its shortcomings. [2 pages]
|
Submission Content
|
The Case against Proportional Representation
More than 600 submissions to the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral
Reform in British Columbia have been published on the Internet.
Most criticize the present plurality system on the grounds that it
is undemocratic and encourages voter apathy because elected
politicians do not listen to minority views. Most submissions
recommend the adoption of the mixed proportional representation
system now existing in Germany and New Zealand.
The debate over proportional representation has become relevant
beyond the border of British Columbia since after the federal
election on June 28, 2004, the national NDP has made it be known
that in return for support of the minority government, it demands
the adoption of such as system for federal elections.
The criticism of the plurality system in the submissions is
patently false. As a Member of the Federal Parliament I spent much
time listening to the concerns of my constituents, be it in private
meetings, political gatherings, parliamentary committee hearings or
through emails, letters and phone-calls. These concerns were
discussed during the design of party platforms, in party caucuses
and on the floor of the House of Commons. However, after due
consideration of minority concerns, almost none were acted upon.
All of the proposals for more government benefits, spending,
taxation and regulation have merit. I have always listened to their
advocates carefully and often have been deeply moved by stories
about the needs of many citizens and impressed by the compassion
and sincerity of the advocates. But the fact is that need and
compassion are not enough. Society has only limited resources and
politicians have to make choices on how they are used.
Canadians want to keep most of their earnings for private
consumption so that the overall level of taxation is strictly
limited. The tax revenues have to be allocated to many competing
causes that serve all Canadians like healthcare, education, social
insurance programs, defence, infrastructure, policing and the
criminal justice system. In addition, as much as a quarter of all
revenues have in recent years been used in making unavoidable
payments on government debt. Politicians, however much they may
share the compassion and views of advocates for more spending, once
in government have to come to terms with this economic reality.
The main problem with demands for more regulation in support of
good causes is that regulations impose costs of compliance and
reduced freedoms on all Canadians. The more regulations there are,
the slower is economic growth and the smaller is the future ability
of the government to tax and spend on good causes. Politicians
reject the demand for new regulations because their additional
costs exceed the benefits to society.
For a long time it was considered conventional wisdom that the
democratic process operating in Canada under the plurality voting
system results in spending, taxation and regulations that serve the
best interest of society. In recent decades political scientists
and economists have challenged this view, suggesting that there may
be too much spending and regulation. The reason is that these
programs tend to be in the interest of politicians for whom is
assures electoral success, not in the interest of society. Interest
groups whose demands are satisfied by the politicians deliver votes
and financial support while the rest of the population is ignorant
of the costs of meeting these demands or cannot be bothered to
oppose them.
The main reason to oppose the adoption of the proportional voting
system or any of its variants is that it creates a bias for
increased spending and government regulations greater than the
optimum or even than the levels reached as a result of the
political payoffs to interest groups. The main reasons for this
outcome are obvious from historical and international evidence.
Under proportional voting systems countries often get 'pizza
parliaments', so called because a seating map of the legislature
resembles a pizza cut into many pieces.
In pizza parliaments even the biggest parties rarely have enough
seats to form a government and they are forced into alliances with
smaller parties. Such governments tend to be unstable. Most
important, they give great leverage to small parties that demand
legislation and regulation for the benefits of their members in
return for voting with the government. An empirical study published
recently in the prestigious American Economic Review lends strong
support for this view. Countries with proportional representation
have higher spending and levels of regulation than parliaments
elected under the plurality system.
The switch from the present to the proportional system has the
strong support of the NDP and Greens and of the former Reform
Party. Canadians should oppose such a switch because the resultant
higher government spending and regulations reduce incentives to
work, invest and take risks and thus slower economic growth. Future
levels of consumption and the government's ability to finance
existing spending programs would be endangered correspondingly.
Canadians who are impressed by the arguments for proportional
voting systems should remember that its advocates are not giving us
the whole picture. Like ideologues of all stripes, they criticize
the existing system without considering its benefits. At the same
time they present a utopian view of their preferred alternative
without considering its shortcomings. Canadians should not let
themselves be misled by this technique.
Herbert Grubel, Professor of Economics Emeritus, Simon Fraser
University; Senior Fellow, The Fraser Institute; Reform MP for
Capilano-Howe Sound, 1993-97
|