Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Change doesn't mean better

A few weeks ago, we were talking about the fundamental issues underneath electoral reform. There are as many reasons for change as there are people it would seem.
col-whitcombe.27_11262018.jpg

A few weeks ago, we were talking about the fundamental issues underneath electoral reform. There are as many reasons for change as there are people it would seem.

I had a conversation the other day with Green Party members and their issue isn't better government. It is about getting their people into the legislature. Then we will have the right legislation.

Interesting idea but I don't think it is accurate. First of all, any legislation they would want to bring forward will need to be a compromise with other parties. For example, banning all pipeline projects might sound like a good idea but it would also cripple our economy, so it is unlikely any other party is truly going to support the notion.

Second, it assumes the legislative agenda of the Green Party is "better" in some fashion. While they may have a more environmentally friendly stance on some issues, the environment is only part of the equation. How do you balance jobs into the mix? Or international obligations? Or economic growth?

Simply voting for proportional representation so the Green Party will have more seats is a bit self-serving and not going to improve government.

Another friend was concerned about the dictatorial power of government. Why do they get to make all of the decisions?

Well, because they are government. We have ceded our right to complete self-determination by adopting representational democracy. Essentially, we say to our elected representatives "go make decisions for us."

If they make decisions we don't like we can always vote them out. Except, of course, there are other people who might like their decisions. And they will vote them in. This happens under any form of democracy - first past the post or proportional representation. Indeed, it is much harder to switch governments under a PR system but that is an aside.

The alternatives to a representational democracy are many. We could put every piece of legislation to a province-wide referendum. But consider as of right now only 18.9 per cent of voters have mailed in their ballots on the important PR/FPTP question, how many people would really want to be voting on a Class Proceedings Amendment Act? Better to let the politicians deal with it.

True democracies in which all of the citizens vote are rare and fraught with the fundamental issue of addressing perceptual self-interest. Would you vote for higher taxes? What would it take to get you to vote in favour?

California ran into this problem through their referendum system. The result was a state which nearly went bankrupt because no one wanted to pay taxes to support initiatives which didn't directly benefit them.

Another colleague argued proportional representation will do away with corruption. My response was "How?" They didn't have an answer.

Corruption comes in many forms but invariably it is related to people with loose moral character being put into positions of power. One of the methods we have of dealing with the issue is through the election campaign where individual candidates can be scrutinized by the electorate. Some of the questions people ask on the campaign trail would make the average person blush and politicians duck for cover.

With a "list-based" proportional representation system, none of the candidates on the "list" have to go through the process of facing public scrutiny. Indeed, other than being a good party member, there really isn't any criteria for a candidate to be on a list. Or, at least, the parties presently don't have criteria.

So how are we the electorate supposed to know these are people of good character and above reproach? I would argue, if anything, proportional representation leads to a system which is more susceptible to corruption not less. But we will see if we switch.

My sense of this all is there is a general dissatisfaction with our economic system rather than the way we elect politicians.

Our social contract promised us if we worked hard and kept our noses to the grindstone, we would come out ahead. We could be at the top if we tried.

Yet that is not what happens. Many people work very hard to just keep their nose above water. Rewards in our socio-economic structure don't seem to follow effort. CEOs make 30 times as much as average workers and yet do they do 30 times as much work? Are they 30 times more valuable?

Affording a house has become a dream for the average worker in our major cities. Who can afford a million-dollar house on the average $54,832 salary in this province?

Is it any wonder a promise to change things for the better is met with so much support? But as I have said before, proportional representation will not actually fix the problems. If anything it will exacerbate some of the issues and ignore others.