Canada does not have fair voting practices
Canadians and Americans are disillusioned with politics. People are cynical and often do not even bother to vote. It is
unfortunate that most people do not realize that our systems are not the epitome of perfection. When it comes to fair voting
practices, we are found lacking.
The vast majority of other Western democracies see our election of governments as outmoded and unfair. Many North
Americans, on the other hand, see other systems as a bit weird and complicated. This is mainly because we have been told
since infancy that our voting system is the envy of the free world. Believe me -- it isn't. The rest of the planet has seen
the short comings of First Past The Post (FPTP) and have adopted Proportional Representational (PR) systems. This is true of
all the emerging democracies of eastern Europe, including Russia.
Three major countries are the hold-outs for the "first past the post" (FPTP) system. I.e., Canada, the USA and England.
(A few Caribbean islands, which were also colonies of England, have FPTP as well.) In Canada and the US, much ado is made a
bout our democratic right to vote; unfortunately little is said about our right to be represented. This is the key word --
representation.
There are PR advocates and reform proposals in England and in the USA to revitalize elections and stimulate voter
interest. Canadians are also starting to show a modest, if not enthusiastic, interest in the idea. The media is also
picking up the ball -- Surprisingly, the Washington Post, The New Republic, The New Yorker, The Christian Monitor and USA
Today -- all have endorsed this proposed reform. Even the Cambridge Reporter allows me to spout off occasionally.
The political parties themselves are also starting to see the merits of such systems and are making this a platform of their
Parties. More specifically -- the grassroots groups within the Greens in both Canada and the USA.
,p.So what is PR you ask? Well, it is both simple and a bit confusing at first blush. To quote Douglas J. Amy of Mount
Holyoke College, "Describing how it works is simple. Proportional representation systems come in several varieties, but they
all share two basic characteristics. First, they use multi-member districts. Instead of electing one member of the
legislature in each small district, PR uses much larger districts that elect several members at once, say five or ten.
Second, which candidates win the seats in these multi-member districts is determined by the proportion of votes a party
receives. If we have a ten-member PR district in which the Democratic candidates win 50% of the vote, they would receive
five of those ten seats. With 30% of the vote, the Republicans would get three seats. And if a third party received the
other 20% of the votes, it would get the remaining two seats."
FPTP always denies representation to voters. This non-representation may amount to 49% of the voters who turn out to cast
a vote. Is it any wonder that voters stay home rather than waste their time? Who wants a government that produces majorities
that do not remotely represent the views of the majority? Who wants a system that denies representation and discriminates
against third parties and persons who do not fit the mold of a few policy makers?
There has been a recent trend towards reform in Italy, Japan and New Zealand - all within the past four years. The
contradicts the impression that nothing can or will be done. It is not unrealistic to want or effect change if the desire is
there -- but you need to speak up. Repeat -- you need to speak up.
There is a growing interest in the Germany two-vote electoral system. (It is noteworthy that Germany, even in
unconditional defeat, resisted the adoption of the British and American First Past the Post system.)
There is always someone who disapproves of PR. It is generally the party in power that is the most vocal. "The current
system has served us well" is the general argument. 'Served who well?' is the question that it should provoke.
John Adams, one of the founding fathers of the USA, is quoted as saying that parliament "should be an exact portrait, in
miniature, of the people at large, as it should think, feel, reason, and act like them." This is exactly the way I feel,
however, I may have said it somewhat differently than this lofty academic. I would have said "The planet may be corrupted,
but if so, it should be by the will of the people. It should not be at the will of those (expletive) unjustly elected
politicians who pander to (expletive) business interests."
Have a nice day.
|
