Proportional Representation

Letter sent to the Globe and Mail...likely destined for the dustheap of non-history!

Hello,

Another federal election has come and gone, and we have yet again been treated to a chorus of calls for democratic reform, specifically, for some sort of Proportional Representation or PR. 

Before addressing the merits of such a proposal and proposing an alternative, it is worth noting that PR has been rejected by Canadians in referenda every single time it has ever been proposed, either being rejected outright, or, in the case of Prince Edward Island’s referendum in 2016, by not being supported by a sufficient proportion of the electorate to warrant moving ahead with any changes to the existing system.  In short, there is no outcry for PR in this country, and there never has been. When asked, Canadians have either said no to whatever form of PR was offered, or they simply did not show up to voice their opinion in sufficient numbers to matter.

I am personally opposed to any form of PR in any form. The key problem with this form of democracy is that parties will send MPs directly to Parliament to represent parties.  All systems of PR would make political parties partially sovereign by given them law-making power through their representatives. I think people should be sovereign, not parties.

To be more specific, even if citizens could somehow vote for people on party lists, these party MPs would only represent their respective parties in Parliament, not citizens in general.  There would be absolutely no accountability of these people back to citizens, instead, they would be accountable only to their party leader and their party’s executive cadre.

Political parties are not representative organizations.  While they try to reflect the political preferences of various citizens, these preferences are put forward to attract votes, not to represent any person's opinion outside of those of party members themselves.  I realize that some people prefer this form of “representation by opinion” rather than “representation by population”. I don’t. I am not a member of any party, and no political party represents me in any way shape or form, as is the case for the vast majority of citizens who are not party members. 

Parties exist primarily to facilitate control the House Common by mobilizing the MPs so that if they form a majority, or at least a plurality, they may be able to form a government. While the MPs in question are members of parties, they actually represent and are responsible only to their constituents, to whom they must go back every four years to reaffirm that they actually maintain their confidence.  At no time do parties themselves become sovereign in our system of government. In Canada, citizens are sovereign, with that sovereignty exercised through their elected representatives.

There is a problem with democracy in Canada. The problem is not that political parties don’t get their fair share of power in elections. The problem is that political parties are so powerful in this country that they effectively undercut the legitimate role of MPs in representing their constituents and being responsible to them.  In fact, political parties have become powerful enough to effectively undercut “representative and responsible” government that our forefathers and mothers fought for even before this country was formed.

We need less of political parties in Canada, not more. The way to reduce the power of political parties is to enhance the representation of citizens by their MPs, and the responsibility of those MPs back to citizens.  The reforms that could be initiated to do this could include recall, so citizens can dismiss their member of parliament between elections, and an increase in the number of MPs which could dilute party control over those same members.   

Beyond that, there have been many recommendations for democratic reform in Canada going all the way back to the Spicer Commission in the early 1990s. There has been precious little done in the way of reform precisely because the political parties that control the House of Commons have not been able to agree on reform, and this is specifically because they will not agree to reforms that do not benefit the parties themselves.  Most recently, I suspect that Prime Minister’s Trudeau’s own efforts floundered on the shoals of the interests of his own party, which could not see how it would benefit from the reforms that were proposed three years ago.

While we continue to be held hostage to the political interests of these organizations, there will be no meaningful democratic reform in Canada.  To have any progress on this issue, democratic reform has to be taken out of the hands of politicians who are elected in the very same system that they would purport to reform, and who therefore have a massive conflict of interest as any changes would affect them personally.  This situation recommends a national referendum wherein the main significant democratic reform proposals that have surfaced in this country in the last 30 years or so could be put to the populace in a vote, and where any reforms receiving a significant majority support (say 55% +, to avoid a Brexit-like situation) would be enacted by Parliament. 

The questions in such a referendum could be as follows:

1. Should we have internet voting?

2. Should constituents be able to recall their Members of Parliament?

3. Should voting be mandatory?

4. Should citizens elect their representatives through the use of a ranked ballot?

5. If no candidate in a riding gets more than 50% of the vote, should there be a runoff election between the top two candidates two weeks later?

6. Should Members of Parliament represent no more than an average of 75,000 constituents, thereby expanding the number of MPs?

7. Should citizens have the ability to trigger national referenda?

8. Assuming that the Senate will continue in its "sober second thought" role and not become a competitor to the House of Commons, should Senators be elected in the provinces they represent?

9. Should the yearly stipend to political parties be restored?

10. Should we have fixed election dates?

 11. Should political spending by parties between elections be regulated?

It should be noted that there is no question listed above about whether Canada should move to a PR system. The reason is as noted above - we are not freer when political parties gain sovereignty.  

I realize that PR exists in some fine countries in the world such as Germany and New Zealand.  I don’t live in Germany or New Zealand. I live here, in Canada, the finest country in the world.

Yours,

Arthur Heale