"The choice of Electoral System is one of the most important institutional decisions for any democracy" states the ACE Electoral Knowledge Network's article on electoral systems.
It goes on to say "the choice of a particular electoral system has a profound effect on the future political life of the country concerned, and electoral systems, once chosen, often remain fairly constant as political interests solidify around and respond to the incentives presented by them. However, while conscious design has become far more prevalent recently, traditionally it has been rare for electoral systems to be consciously and deliberately selected."
Indeed, adopting "first past the post" was likely not a "conscious" choice by our forefathers. Rather, it was simply adopting an electoral system which had existed in England for a very long time. Maybe if some other European nations had had more clout in the development of Canada, we would have adopted a different system.
But we are now being asked to reconsider our electoral system - to revisit the decision years ago - and to engage in making a conscious choice.
Part of the reason I am writing and will keep writing over the next year about electoral reform is to invoke a conversation about what sort of system of government we want to have. After all, "a particular electoral system has a profound effect on the future political life" of British Columbia. We are engaged in an important multi-generational decision.
What are the issues? As far as I can tell from the letters to the editor and from personal conversations, there is a sense that our present system doesn't represent the voter. If you vote for someone other than the winning candidate, you vote doesn't count.
This is patently absurd to begin with. Of course every vote counts and any MLA or MP who thinks winning with, say, 40 per cent of the popular vote gives them carte blanche to do as they please is not likely to stay in power very long. (Note: 49 out of the 84 MLAs or almost 60 per cent of the seats in the last provincial election were won with more than 50 per cent of the popular vote in those ridings.)
Taking the voter for granted - whether or not they voted for you - is a fool's game. Of the MLAs and MPs I know, most are very conscientious people who work hard for their constituents, regardless of their political stripes. Indeed, some even actively engage with proponents of a different view to gain perspective.
You don't learn by thinking you are "always right" and good politicians want to learn so they can provide the best representation they can.
The other concern I hear a lot about is the need for "compromise." Proportional representation will "force the government to include all perspectives in their decision-making and come up with compromises in the legislature." That might be true but is this really a worthwhile objective?
I don't ask this question lightly. I fully realize everyone needs to compromise in order to get along effectively in our society. But I have never heard of anyone thinking a compromise was the best outcome for a situation.
Sure, maybe in public or a press release, but on a personal level, people seethe when forced to compromise.
Take as an example the bus depot which was proposed for 15th and Foothills. Would any of the opponents have been happy if a compromise had been achieved and the depot was moved across the street or down the block? Not likely. Would they have accepted the compromise? No.
A compromise is an "agreement or settlement of a dispute by both sides making concessions." In other words, neither sides totally gets what they want. Where is the merit in that?
As I said - and before I get too many letters - I do understand we need to compromise in order for society to function but why would we want to build into our political system a structure which pretty much guarantees we will never get good legislation or push through valuable ideas because they will always be chained by the mediocracy of compromise?
If you follow American politics, you are aware of the pork-barreling which is required to get the votes necessary to pass pretty much any piece of legislation. All done in the name of compromise.
The ACE website points out there are a number of things an electoral system should accomplish and it states "a stable and efficient government, coherent coalitions, and strong parties are only a few" of these things.
It provides what it believes are more important principles - representation, transparency, and inclusiveness. Of these, "representation as a principle is a key guide when designing the most suitable electoral system."
We live in a representational democracy and it is not perfect. But are any of the other systems really any better?
