Sunday May 3, 2009
An election is not a horse race
You\’ve heard the old saying, “If it ain\’t broke, don\’t fix it.”
There\’s a corollary, though: “If it is broke, denying that it\’s broke won\’t fix it.”
Here in B.C., the electoral system is broke. We call it the “First past the post” system – a winner-takes-all analogy to horse racing. In any constituency, the candidate with the most votes takes the seat — even if only a minority of voters preferred him or her.
But an election should be something better than a horse race.
The present system worked reasonably well when there were only two parties. With just two options, the winning party always had a majority of seats.
But we have not had just two parties for most of my lifetime. Most ridings will have at least three candidates to choose from. In a three way race, the winning candidate needs only a shade over one vote in three.
The present system encourages distortions. Gordon Campbell\’s Liberals surged to power in 2001 with 97 per cent of seats in the provincial legislature, but only 57 per cent of the popular vote.
In New Brunswick, in 1987, Frank McKenna\’s Liberal party won every seat. But only 60 per cent of the people actually voted for them. The other 40 per cent had no one – not one member! – representing their views.
This hardly qualifies as representative government.
Alternative options
The present process, in fact, actively promotes a two-party system. The probability of wasting one\’s vote penalizes lesser parties and alternative viewpoints. B.C. currently has 32 parties registered for the May 12 election. It\’s unlikely that 30 of those will elect even a single member.
The process leads to what Lord Hailsham once called “elective dictatorship” — the ability of a ruling party to ram through whatever legislation it wants. Which in turn means that, inevitably, as ruling parties get deposed by voter alienation, government policies see-saw between conflicting ideologies.
There must be something better.
Before the 2005 B.C. election, a non-partisan Citizen\’s Assembly spent 10 months examining alternative voting systems. They recommended the Single Transferable Vote, or STV.
A majority – 57.7 per cent — of voters wanted a change in our voting process. That\’s much more than the 50 per cent plus one that would let Quebec secede from Canada. But it fell 2.3 per cent short of the level that premier Gordon Campbell had defined as the threshold his government would consider binding.
In other words, B.C. voters did not reject STV in 2005; Gordon Campbell did.
Evolving systems
France requires a majority to elect its president. If no candidate wins a majority, the top two contenders hold a run-off.
By my count, 72 countries around the world currently use some form of proportional representation. Some lean left, like Venezuela and Brazil; some lean right, like Australia and Israel. Some, like Italy, are renowned for changing governments frequently; others, like Switzerland and New Zealand, are considered models of stability.
The “first past the post” system evolved from the British parliamentary experience. A few remnants of the British Empire cling vociferously to that system – principally Canada, U.S.A., India, and England itself.
But that system itself evolved from earlier, less democratic, structures. Even the Magna Carta – traditionally treated as the foundation of parliamentary democracy — was modified several times. If the British parliament developed progressively, why should we assume that it attained perfection at some particular point a couple of centuries ago?
Even British prime minister Gordon Brown has recommended a review of their system. Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland already use alternative variants.
Four other Canadian provinces are currently examining forms of proportional voting.
If it\’s broke, fix it To receive this column regularly via e-mail, send a request to [email protected]. E-mail subscribers also get excerpts from correspondence about these columns. Please forward a copy of this column to anyone who might be interested in subscribing.
If you want to order my books, you can call 1-800-663-2775 in Canada, 1-800-328-0200 in the U.S., or order them on-line at the Wood Lake Books website.
For a lighter look at ethics, faith, and life, I recommend Ralph Milton\’s weekly e-newsletter Rumors. You can subscribe to it at the Wood Lake Books home page in Ralph Milton\’s Site, or by sending a note directly to [email protected].
It\’s also worth pursuing Charlene Fairchild\’s United Online site. Another site worth visiting is David Keating\’s \”SeemslikeGod\” page.
Now, I am not personally sold on the STV system itself. I would prefer to retain smaller ridings, with just one person elected from each riding. I would prefer a multiple choice ballot, so that if my first choice fails to win a majority, my vote gets transferred to my second choice, etc.
This is, in fact, the system that that staunch anti-socialist W.A.C. Bennett used to get his Social Credit party elected in 1952.
So much for wild claims that proportional voting is a socialist plot to create unstable governments!
But despite any misgivings about specific details, I shall vote for the STV option. STV may not be perfect, but it\’s a lot more equitable than the present “First past the post” system.
If you get sick, you don\’t refuse treatment because a better treatment may come along someday.
If your car breaks down, you don\’t stay in it because you don\’t like the hood ornament on the car that offers you a ride.
And if your voting system breaks down, you don\’t cling to the broken version because some elements of the new one don\’t please you.
The first step – the very first step, the essential step – is to admit we need a change. We can tinker with further changes later, after we\’re no longer stuck with the broken model.
=====================================
Copyright © 2009 by Jim Taylor. Non-profit use in congregations and study groups permitted; all other rights reserved.
=====================================
PROMOTION PLUGS