Is this what you call democracy?
Well, the PEI election results are in and islanders overwhelmingly voted in favour of change on Monday evening...or did they?
Blogger Werner Patels (aka Alberta Spectator) believes the "recent election in PEI is a textbook example of why we need proportional representation (PR), rather than the undemocratic first-past-the-post system (FPTP)." I couldn't agree more as I wrote a quick post about a week or so ago defending the need for provinces in our region (with emphasis on PEI and NB) to abandon the old FPTP system in favour of a democratic reform (proportional representation). Check out Patels synopsis below:
Overall Election Results [link]
Party Seats Vote share Lib 23 52.93% PC 4 41.34% Green 0 3.04% NDP 0 1.96% Other 0 0.73%
Under most PR systems, there is a threshold for obtaining seats in the legislature -- usually 5%. So, both the Greens and the NDP would have been disqualified anyway.
PEI has a legislature with 27 seats. Under PR, if the Liberals won 52.93%, they'd be entitled to 15 seats, while the Conservatives, with 41.34% of the vote, should have gotten the remaining 12 seats. A blind person can see that the almost 42% of the voters who voted Conservative are not democratically and fairly represented in the legislature. Under the current FPTP system, the Conservatives only got a third (!) of the seats they were entitled to.
Clearly, FPTP is the most undemocratic way of electing officials. It is high time we finally democratized Canada (currently, Canada is not a democracy) and implemented PR.
Update
On the subject of changing the way we vote, let's hope Fair Vote Canada's "Yes" for MMP campaign can persuade a few people to make Ontario's legislature the first in North America to be elected under a form of proportional representation.
10 Comments:
Keep a couple of things in mind. First, people don't vote in the same way with a PR system as otherwise, so the stats usually aren't the same. A good rule of thumb is to count up the people who don't bother voting as well.
However, second, while that number is skewered very badly and shows just how messed up the voting system is, in a two party political system it makes no difference because so long as they have a majority then it makes no difference whether they have one more seat or like Frank, every seat in the house. The only problem is if a few by elections come along.
The biggest issue there is media coverage, we can say ditto to New Brunswick and other provinces because there is almost zero coverage of legislative votes. MLA's even more than MP's are known for just voting down the party line, if THAT would change, then there could be some movement away from the status quo.
But in New Brunswick its still significant because even with only 5% the NDP would hold the balance of power and give them a lot more clout.
However, there is a bit of a misnomer there because Proportional Represention is a system of representation, NOT an electoral system. Most PR systems still use first past the post. The term you are missing there is what our current system of representation is called, which is 'single member plurality'.
Both Ontario's current recommendations as well as NB's past recommendations were to still keep first past the post.
However, PEI had its run at the gun and even with all the lousy shenanigans its clear that the majority of PEI'ers don't want to change, so as they say, that horse won't run.
In Ontario its about to be the next 'battleground', while in New Brunswick, I still hope you'll slow down on the CONSTANT government bashing because that simply turns more people off politics completely. If you think about the day in and day out activity of the thousands of people and components, it runs pretty damn good. It is the decision making structures that are askew, but to change that you need people to think they have an option and have some power to do something, so FIRST you need them to at least be marginally interested.
Keep in mind that while you lobby or blog for 'democracy', you have to remember that your other views, namely government regulations and minimal government are not shared by the majority of people. In fact, in almost every poll the majority has stated they want MORE government involvement. So you might want to think about that if you actually want democracy, because it may mean a serious change away from current practises, most of which are quite fiscally conservative.
From a fiscal conservative point of view New Brunswick is already close to valhalla. Minimal social spending, the lowest minimum wage, constant tax concessions to private industry, very little active legislation, few regulations on the environment and labour relations. So you might want to give ONE of those lobbies up!
The issue I've always had with PR is the inevitable situation where a party with 5% of the vote would actually hold the balance of power. Same with FPTP, PR looks great in certain scenarios and horrific in others. PEI was an example of the worst FPTP can offer. But is it any worse than a situation where a party representing a single digit percentage of the population is calling the shots?
Keep a couple of things in mind. First, people don't vote in the same way with a PR system as otherwise, so the stats usually aren't the same. A good rule of thumb is to count up the people who don't bother voting as well.
Good point, Mikel. I covered that angle a little bit in my previous post which I linked to this one. Like you, I believe there are many who hold their nose and vote for the Liberals or Tories because of FPTP system, or even worse, opt not to vote at all.
As for your final comment on "big" government ruling the day? IMO, proper representation and a working democracy is a must. As for what the elected officials do with their mandate is totally up to the people who elected them. That's why we call it democracy.
If they were elected on the mandate of raising taxes and expanding government spending (which I have yet to see a government or politician in NB run on btw), then they should fullfill that promise.
However, from what I have seen so far in New Brunswick is a considerable amount of people who feel disenfranchised on the ground that wish government would stay out of their affairs. Not to mention, there has been considerable outrage at the fact that government doesn't trust the little guy out there (small business) enough to allow them to keep their money and invest it where they please.
Which is why I find your statement "in almost every poll the majority has stated they want MORE government involvement" very egregious to say the least. But who am I to judge.
A good point, Eugene. However, as I see it, representative government should mean at least two things.
First, it should encourage all regions of the province to believe they can be reflected in the legislature. This is not always the case, as we have seen, in the first-past-the-post system, especially in many recent provincial elections like NB or PEI, one party usually obtains a considerable unfair edge in seats over another. In other words, seats arangements don't reflect how people actually voted.
Secondly, it should allow citizens to believe that their MPs andr MLAs represent them and can be held accountable. The direct link between the voter and politician is an important asset for the legislature. The MLAs could do work with groups and individuals in their constituencies on projects and problems. Something I believe Brent Taylor proposed to his constituents if hw were successful in being elected.
In other words, if the link instrengthened, then people feel empowered. And in the end, this can be an avenue for redress of grievances, slicing through bureaucracy (one we won't have to worry about since Mikel indicated everyone loves big bureacracy), lobying for help, etc.
Remember when Trudeau said "MPs were "nobodies" once they ventured off the grounds of parliament. To a certain degree, he was right. Which is why I believe the bond between an elected official and the citizens has to be strenghthened. At the moment, it isn't. Just ask the tousands who voted for the PCs in Charlottetown who are now completely unrepresented.
To Eugene, there is a difference between holding the 'balance of power' and holding power.
So to use NB as an example, you may be horrified that the NDP would hold that much power, but remember, they only hold that power BECAUSE the other parties are so equally distributed. So in this they act as an ideological link-depending of course on the parties. And of course PR tends to create more parties.
One thing that most people don't know is how parties vote, and I think that's on purpose, because if people DID see how the parties vote then they'd know that what they THINK about politics isn't true at all.
I am yet to find a place where I can even find out how MLA's vote, short of going into the legislature library. But lets look federally. Lets look at Paul Martins govenrment as its fairly well documented. Three brand new 'big government' departments were created specifically for Quebec during that year. That's a lot more cash and bureaucracy going to Quebec.
Interestingly enough it was passed by BOTH the liberals AND the tories. And was voted against by the NDP AND Bloc-the so called 'tax and spend' parties.
So people still think of the NDP and 'tax and spend' when here is a clear example that both the liberals and tories supported massive spending in a province whose own representatives voted against it.
So looking back at NB, the opposite is true of what you suggest. Take any legislation that may be 'pro business'. As we saw with your blog on Mactaquac, the problem isn't privatizing a service, but in how it is done. So both parties agree that it should be privatized, so IF there were legislation asking the question, the NDP would still only have 5% of the votes, so thats no power at all.
You are assuming that in any piece of legislation both parties are diametrically opposed, which is rarely the case except in very small numbers, and often then it is simply 'for show' because if a party voted for a bill, its harder to criticize the government about it.
So take the ATV Bill. Lets say under PR the NDP DOES hold the balance of power. Why this is good is because it makes people pay more attention to the bill. The liberals push it but can't pass it. What happens is usually one of two things, depending on the officials involved. You may see, like Layton did years ago, the NDP saying "we'll pass this bill if you will pass X".
However, usually, BECAUSE its a minority government then the entire issue becomes negotiable. So then we may see people say "well look, what about doing what is done in other areas and make the age 10?"
Again, that is negotiation and there is nothing wrong with it, in fact its better than currently, where the idea is they float out an idea, see how much screaming people do, and see what political leverage they can get out of it and decide unilaterally because they hold the majority of seats.
So it certainly is NOT the case that the NDP would suddenly be able to control the issues because they have the tie breaking vote, far from it.
For the other remarks about government, again, don't take my word for it simply do a web search. Just because you and your friends have a certain outlook doesn't mean hundreds of thousands of others share it. You get your information from pretty much ONE source-irvings. They have editors who pick and choose whose voices get in there.
SOME people want government out of their lives, but usually in very specific ways.
When people get sick they want a health care system, and even in the states IF voters had their way they would have a health care system like ours, polls have shown that for decades.
But look at your own example becasue you state quite clearly that you are quite happy with more taxes and more government-so long as it goes for things YOU think is important, like the military and perhaps police.
And of course no two people are alike, if those are the conditions under which you accept current or even higher public expenditures, it shouldn't surprise you that others would have their own-and that they might outnumber you. But its nice to see that you'd go along with democratic principles even when they oppose yours, thats usually a good sign.
Is there a two thirds majorty required for MMP to be adopted in Ontario?
Not exactly two thirds but close to it, it requires a 60% overall yes vote, and at least 50% of the votes in at least 64 of the 106 ridings.
Thanks for that Mikel.
Btw, I don't know if you noticed, but there are some great people from all points of the political spectrum involved in the "Yes" campaign.
Hopefully, they will be able to harness all that brainpower so as counter the past problems that have resulted in past referendums. Although, PEI's didn't take place during a general election, mostly because their election dates weren't fixed like BC and Ontario.
Not quite as bad as two thirds.
No, not as bad as 2/3 but still pretty bad. It should be noted that the CURRENT system was brought in with the decision of ONE GUY.
There are a few groups around looking at the issue, however, McGuinty isn't stupid, one thing canadians know is not to rock the boat when the going is good. The economy is going gangbusters with development everywhere, and people know little about the political system to begin with.
So much is being accomplished simply by the government and media refusing to talk about it. As I've pitched before online, a maritime equivalent to TVO would be a blessing as there is so much information just not getting out there, and TVO has an entire link and section just devoted to the referendum.
It's not that people are happy with the status quo, I assume most people will simply equate their government with their economy and opt for the status quo.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home