ELECTIONS ARE A HORSE RACE

Bill Hulet of Guelph is a strong supporter of Proportional Representation. I downloaded some of his data from the nternet on the subject. His descriptions of the subject are much easier to understand than most of the articles I have read, so I will try to follow his example.

The system of government that we have is generally called 'First Past the Post' or 'winner takes all.' It is much like a horse race; the one who gets the most votes is deemed to be the winner. This method is so ingrained into our society that many have difficulty believing that there can be an alternate and better method.

First, let me say why dissenters, including myself, do not like our election process. To use an example from Bill Hulet's papers: If 5 candidates run and one gets 24% and the other four get each get 19%, the former wins----even though 64% of the voters never voted for him. Since Canada has many different parties running in each election, this sort of situation is very common. In fact, it is rare for a majority government to really represent any more than a relatively small percentage of the voters. The present system ignores the opinions of every voter who casts his/her vote for an alternate candidate. (They often ignore the opinions of those who voted for them as well, but that is another story.)

Proportional Representation is also an electoral system. It takes several different forms in different countries. It is designed to ensure that the number of seats a party receives in Parliament really reflects the percentage of votes that they received in the election.

It should be understood that all countries have a cutoff point where a party cannot be represented. For example if a party could not muster 5% of the vote, there would be no representatives. (This cutoff percentage varies from one country to another.)

For example, In Germany, and New Zealand more recently, they use a system called 'Mixed Member Proportional' that was devised after WW2. In this system the electorates get to vote twice. The first vote goes to the local candidate and the second vote goes to the Party of Choice. (This system will be reviewed in the next week or two.)

In Ireland, and more recently Australia, they use what is called 'Single Transferable Vote.' In this system you vote for your first choice but specify alternatives. There are no wasted votes. (This system will be reviewed in the near future.)

In the Netherlands and in Israel the whole country is considered to be one large riding and everyone votes for the Party of their choice.

There are many advantages to a Proportional Representation elections over our current system.

Women tend to be better represented. (33% to 40% for the Scandinavian countries as opposed to 12% for the US. Canadian statistics, I believe, are around 23%.)

There is more attention to long term public interests rather than to short term partisan interests.

There is no need to manipulate results with 'strategic voting fiascoes' as was tried in our last provincial election.

There is less mud slinging during the campaigning.

There is less dismantling of what the previous government implemented after an election.

Minority, environmental and moral issues are better represented.

There is always a much higher voter turn out.

There are very few countries hanging on to the antiquated 'first past the post' electoral systems such as ours. Most of those that continue to use it are former colonies of England, i.e. Canada, the US, India, Pakistan, and some Caribbean countries. (Scotland, Wales, Russia, The Ukraine, New Zealand, Australia, Japan, and Mexico have recently adopted one form or another of PR.

Have a nice day.