Prof. Emeritus David Beatty: "YES: PR is more democratic"

This commentary was first published in the Toronto Star on November 1, 2008.

The days and weeks following a national election are invariably a time of reflection and recrimination.

The Liberals in particular are in for a period of intense soul-searching as they begin yet another leadership campaign.

But it is not only Liberals who should reflect on the recent election.

All Canadians should be disturbed by the results because once again we have gone to the polls and ended up with a government that almost two-thirds of the country opposes.

The flaws in this election go way beyond party politics and political egos. The way we count votes and award seats in the House of Commons, it turns out, deserves much more of the blame.

The fact is that Liberals suffered more from the Canada Election Act than anything Stéphane Dion said or did. Even though the Liberals trailed the Conservatives by only 12 percentage points in the popular vote (38-26), they got barely half as many seats (143-76).

If seats had been awarded to the parties in the same proportion as the votes they received, the Conservatives would have won 116 compared to 80 for the Liberals.

An even worse injustice was suffered by the almost 1 million Canadians who voted for the Greens. They will have no representation in Parliament, even though they had as many supporters as there are people living in Calgary or Ottawa or Vancouver. Not giving them any seats in the House of Commons is like disenfranchising whole cities.

In the post-mortems on this election, Canadians should ask themselves why our elections are so undemocratic.

After all, we are one of the few countries in the world that does not award parties the same percentage of seats in Parliament that they received in the popular vote. In most countries, election laws are built around the principle of proportional representation (PR), which ensures each party's percentage of votes and seats in the legislature are more or less the same.

Moreover, ensuring that the votes of each Canadian count the same is not the only virtue of PR. Women also do better. More women run and more women are elected in PR countries than in Canada. Because women have a harder time winning seats that represent geographical constituencies, in PR countries all parties recognize the need to put a lot of them high up on their candidate lists.

Studies also show that PR invigorates democracy by encouraging greater citizen participation. Not surprisingly, when people know their vote really counts, they are more likely to turn up at the polls.

Finally, PR also encourages a more inclusive, less divisive politics.

National parties like the Greens that appeal to voters coast to coast get the representation they deserve. The disproportionate influence that regional parties like the Bloc Québécois currently enjoy would become a relic of our (colonial) past. If this election had been fought under PR rules, the Bloc would now have 30 seats instead of the 50 they won.

On every criterion PR makes for better democracy. Even the charge that PR produces unstable governments that lack transparency is belied by the facts. Germany is widely regarded as having developed one of the most sophisticated PR systems in the world and its governments have been as stable and open as any.

So far, Canada's politicians have not been keen on the idea of incorporating the principle of proportional representation into our election laws.

The problem is that the party that wins the most votes, like the Conservatives, profits too much from the current system and has no incentive to change the law.

To force the government to consider serious reform we need someone like Green Party Leader Elizabeth May to challenge our current election laws as a violation of constitutional rights and take Stephen Harper to court. Unlike her appearances in the leaders debate, before the bar of the Supreme Court of Canada she would occupy centre stage.

And if she won the case, as I think she would, and her party did as well in the next election, she would be sitting in Parliament in three or four years with 20 fellow environmentalists. Indeed, if all parties held onto the same percentage of votes, she and NDP Leader Jack Layton could join forces, offer their support to the Liberals and be part of a government that, unlike Harper's, would have the support of a majority of Canadians.

Comments

[yakov_a]

I take it the author has no doubts that the greens would have done as well as they did if people actually thought they were electing them.

I'm not sure it is a universal phenomena, but in at least a couple ridings, greens received support from people to actually siphon away Liberal votes (voting to give a significant competitor more votes), others have voted for them in protest and would be unlikely to vote for either the NDP or Greens if they had a realistic chance of actually having an input in government.

It is also HIGHLY unclear that the concessions Liberals would have to give the Greens and NDP would be supported by a majority of Canadians.

Isn't it equally possible that the Liberals and Conservatives would align against a Green/NDP alliance?

Just some thoughts that are too often overlooked by people who think Canadian's as a whole are to the left of the Liberal party.

[yakov_a]

Basically, one should realize the phrase

"Finally, PR also encourages a more inclusive, less divisive politics."

Also means that extreme right elements are also likely to be included, and it is unclear that spectrum of political views in Canada matches a Bell Curve distribution (that Canadian political views match a Bell Curve, with the current political structure skewing the government to the right, seems to be the assumption of people supporting PR).

There seems to be very little solid evidence supporting the existence of such a distribution.

Further, even if we assume the model is skewed to the right, I think it doubtful you'll see much movement to the left.

If Canadian politics is indeed a Bell Curve, the Conservatives each tiny movement to the left would result in an astronomical increase in support for the Conservative Party, meaning they could probably seize a majority of popular support with very few concessions.

[Lawrence Gridin]

I agree completely with Mr. Beatty.

We are long overdue for a change. I could not believe it when the measure to adopt MMP in Ontario failed. It was a sad day for democracy.

I disagree with yakov_a, above, who suggests that the Greens would lose support. On the contrary, I think the Greens would get an even larger percentage of the popular vote in a PR system, because left wing supporters would feel that a vote for the Greens actually COUNTS for something. Right now, many voters who support the Greens chose to vote Red or Orange strategically, because a vote for the Greens was essentially a waste.

The only point in voting for the Greens in our current system is to give them a dollar or so in public campaign funding. Thanks to Mr. Harper, even that purpose is now at risk!

As for the introduction of right wing extremism: it is unlikely. Most PR systems have cut-offs (e.g. a 5% of the popular vote cut-off) before a party receives any seats. These cut-offs are an effective way of countering extremism in the House.

[Gareth Morley]

70% of the voters reject an electoral system, and it is a sad day for democracy. Better to have 5 of 9 or 4 of 7 public sector lawyers living in Ottawa impose an electoral system on everyone instead.

[Lawrence Gridin]

Half of those 70% probably had no idea what they were voting for. There should have been a third checkbox on the ballot:
1. Yes
2. No
3. What the hell is MMP?

[Lawrence Gridin]

The actual question was this:

"Which electoral system should Ontario use to elect members to the provincial legislature?"

Answers:
1. "The existing electoral system (First-Past-the-Post)."
2. "The alternative electoral system proposed by the Citizens’ Assembly."

Obviously, anyone who hasn't a clue what "the alternative electoral system" is would vote for option one. Option two by its very wording sounds strange and radical.

"Citizen's Assembly? What's that? Some sort of Fascist group? Nuh uh. I ain't voting for them."

The "safe" vote was for the status quo, when one didn't understand the options.

And the final result was 63.1% in favor of FPTP, not 70%. But, as a supporter of FPTP, I'm sure you don't think that a 300,000-vote discrepancy (7%) matters anyway.

That's what FPTP is all about, after all: throwing votes away.

[Gareth Morley]

It's hardly much of a defence of democracy of any sort to say that voters are too stupid to make choices.

[Adam Smith]

FPTP does not give an acute measurement of the countries desire. Since 1921, federal elections have produced majority governments 15 times out of 23, yet in only three cases (1940, 1958 and 1984) has this been based on a majority of the popular vote (38.5% of the vote in 1997). In 1979 Joe Clark formed a minority government even though his party only received 36% of the popular vote compared to 40% for the liberals.

Is this the democracy you are talking about Gareth Morley?