Former prime minster Justin Trudeau infamously broke his promise to reform the electoral system. Trudeau’s own preference was for a type of majoritarian system called the Alternative Vote (AV) AKA Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). However, the House of Commons Special Committee on Electoral Reform established by his government went in a different direction: it ultimately recommended that the government design a system of proportional representation (PR) and vote on it through referendum.
Grossly, electoral systems are classified into majoritarian and proportional types. In addition to AV there are two other well-known majoritarian systems: FPTP and the two-round system (used in France). Trudeau rejected the recommendation to move away from a majoritarian system and has negatively characterized proportional representation in different ways. In this townhall exchange, Trudeau explains his opposition to PR. “If we were to make a change or risk a change that would augment individual voices — that would augment extremist voices and activist voices that don’t get to sit within a party that figures out what’s best for the whole future of the country, like the three existing parties do — I think we would be entering a period of instability and uncertainty.”
…
Political stability, dissatisfaction with democracy, and political polarization are easiest to compare with simple data. With political stability, PR countries on average perform better. With democratic dissatisfaction, PR countries dramatically outperform majoritarian countries. On political polarization, PR countries outperform, with Ireland achieving the lowest polarization score in the whole OECD.
Further, when you examine the three comparison pairings listed above, the PR country performs better on each dimension for all three pairs. Trudeau feared that proportional systems would bring instability, polarization, and that voices which undermine what’s good for the country would be augmented, but it’s the majoritarian countries where these concerns are more severe.
…
Trudeau’s thesis was that these problematic outcomes should be happening in PR countries, not majoritarian ones. Given the observation we see, there is no basis to say that majoritarian electoral systems can minimize these concerns, there is simply no supporting evidence for this.
The idea that PR (at least the MMP and STV systems) would definitely lead to these outcomes is also not supported by the evidence. To be able claim that PR would cause extremism, or that majoritarian systems protect against, you would at least need to observe an association that suggests this possibility, but we do not observe any such association.
What we do have an association for is that MMP/STV are protective against democratic and social decay, while majoritarian countries inflame these issues, which is the opposite of what Trudeau believed. This does not mean causality, but it does make a causal relationship possible.
…
In proportional systems, coalitions tend to form, and different political parties sharing power helps alleviate the irrational decision-making of groupthink in a majority government. In addition, politicians must always be wary about losing their spot at the top because voters can easily select alternative parties without the inhibitions of vote splitting and vote wasting. In a proportional system, there is no shielding to give a false sense of security: politicians understand that if they are complacent, a disruptive political force can easily swallow them, so they must stay vigilant and proactive about emerging political issues to keep the public satisfied. In proportional systems, complacency and corruption can be easily punished by the electorate, which keeps politicians disciplined.
…
Representative democracy by election is stupid.
Bring back qualified sortition.
This is an oddly written article. It constantly compares proportional representation with all “majoritarian” systems, as if FPTP and instant runoff were somehow so similar that you don’t need to bother differentiating, which couldn’t be further from the truth. I mean, yeah, if you compare it like that, FPTP is going to drag the results down far enough so that PR definitely comes out on top, but that’s just a terrible way of interpreting the data.
Also,
The idea that PR (at least the MMP and STV systems) would definitely lead to these outcomes is also not supported by the evidence [emphasis added]
is a strawman. No one in their right mind would say X form of representation definitely lead to Y result. It’s always a question of likelihoods.
I really don’t like what Trudeau pulled off in that regard, but to be fair, look at Germany - it has PR, and look at what’s happening with the AfD. It essentially underlines the ~concerns he had~ excuse he used to eliminate FPTP.
If you want an anti-poster boy for PR, look no further than that great bastion of human rights and democracy, Israel.
TIL, very good point.
Israel uses proportional representation. To maintain power Netanyahu made deals with some far-right crazies.
The EU is proportional representation. This allowed Nigel Farage to make a name for himself, and ultimately the UK left the EU.
PR systems give all of the power to political parties. They have negotiate backroom deals so they can form a coalition and govern. Minority interests are often ignored. If some extremists want to harm minorities, and a party needs those extremists to form a coalition, the minority groups will be harmed. This is not a hypothetical, this has happened in Israel. Nothing anyone can do about it but hope in the next election Israelis vote for parties in the correct proportions to make a coalition like this not possible.
Yeah, PR looks better on spreadsheet. And maybe some people spread across the country with specific interests might get an MP in Parliament. But if that MP doesn’t get into the ruling coalition, their interests will be ignored.
Calling it a “first past the post” system is just putting the thumb on the scale to slant the debate by making the system sound arbitrary. Let’s instead call it what it is, a community representation system. In a community representation system, community leaders control the seats, not the parties. In the case where there’s a minority group spread across the country, they will be well represented. Not by a single MP that gets ignored by the ruling coalition. But by multiple MPs in representing ridings. A party may ignore the interests of a million people. But an MP doesn’t want to ignore a thousand people in their riding. If their party refuses to address the concerns of those thousand, they might cross the floor. If they don’t, they might lose votes to someone who will represent that minority group in their riding.
Community representation is bottom up. People in a community choose someone to represent them in Parliament. The parties need to keep those community leaders happy or they lose seats. And parties hate losing seats. The Liberal party of Canada has really worked on attracting community leaders into their party. This isn’t solely altruism, they do this because it gains them seats. So in a community representation system the most cynical strategy focused operatives are made to talk to community leaders and make compromises with them.
A PR system is top down. You have the party leadership, the MPs are just trained seals because they can’t cross the floor. They have to fall in line with the party leadership or you lose your job. MPs are basically pointless in a PR system, you’d save money by just having the party leaders declare what legislation they want, their vote is worth X votes (with X being the percentage of the vote their party got) and the legislation passes. We would find out what compromises they made with the other parties to form a coalition immediately and wouldn’t have to pay a bunch of MPs to vote the way their party requires them to vote. The only reason to have MPs in a PR system would be to create the appearance that communities are being represented, when really it’s just some party leaders making decisions in backrooms with zero oversight by community leaders.
A PR system only looks good on a spreadsheet. It’s actually terrible when power dynamics are considered. And we should primarily be thinking of power dynamics when discussing political systems. I don’t think numbers on a spreadsheet lining up don’t matter all that much when minorities are having their houses bulldozed by a country governed by coalition formed in a backroom.
You again spreading bullshit so confidently incorrect.
The thing you praise about FPTP is called district, riding, etc… it is very common in many of the PR systems implemented around the world. Also, PR is not a single thing, it is just a catch-all term for systems that try to not silence voices.
What about all your fantasies crossing the floor? Do you think that do not happen everywhere? Lol.
Seriously, at this point you are just being intentionally malicious.
The thing you praise about FPTP is called district, riding, etc… it is very common in many of the PR systems implemented around the world.
I mentioned the fact there are seats that only give the illusion that communities are represented. The seats are ultimately controlled by the parties.
Seems like you remember me from some other thread. I don’t remember you… it’s a basic to resort to insults when you can’t hand criticism of your ideas.
Coalitions is how government is supposed to be run.
During this Liberal tenure, how many Conservative party bills have been passed? Why aren’t our representatives working together to help their constituents?
Now I’ll preface by saying there’s nothing wrong with floor crossing. However why did MPs have to floor cross to support the government? That doesn’t make sense in our political system.
Coalitions is how government is supposed to be run.
Disagree. Governments are supposed to be run by the representatives of the people. Parties are an ugly thing that are unfortunately unavoidable and we have to live with. Given that all political parties suck, the goal should be increasing the representation of people and decreasing the power of parties. PR is an attempt to do the opposite.
During this Liberal tenure, how many Conservative party bills have been passed? Why aren’t our representatives working together to help their constituents?
It’s up to Pierre Pollievre to work with the government, not the other way around. But PP can’t even work with people in his own party. It would’ve been a smart move for him to offer to form a Goverment of National Unity just after the last election (it worked out well for Clement Attlee), but PP isn’t all that smart.
A lot of the things the Liberals passed in the past year have been thing the CPC have wanted. PP will never admit that and if he does he’ll complain about it taking too long or not being enough or whatever. He tried being “nice” but that didn’t even last a week. At his core he’s a debate club kid, he always just takes the opposite side and argues. There’s a lot of people in the Conservative base that hate Liberals so they support him, but he’s not really a leader. He was Stephen Harper’s attack dog and is unable to grow out of that role.
Any MP can put forward a private members bill. Of course if it’s a good idea the governing party will probably co-opt it into one of their bills so they can take credit for it. The Liberals have been doing that with NDP proposals for a long long time. But if the goal is to get good legislation, does it matter who takes credit for it? What matters is what passes, the rest is just politics.
Now I’ll preface by saying there’s nothing wrong with floor crossing. However why did MPs have to floor cross to support the government? That doesn’t make sense in our political system.
Each party has a whip and they pressure people to vote with the party on every bill. They can declare a free vote and everyone can vote their conscience, but that doesn’t happen often. If an MP regularly votes against party lines, they might be kicked out of the party. Crossing the floor has the benefit that you’re not going to be hounded by the party whip or PP constantly.
But probably a bigger factor (at least in the most recent floor crossings) is the committees. If there’s a majority government, the committees are all lead by the governing party. It’s not this way in a minority government and so an opposition party could hold up legislation at the committee level if they want. And this was happening. Mark Carney is a “Red Tory”, that is a conservative but in the Liberal Party, but more of a Progressive Conservative, not a Reform Conservative. A lot of the things he’s doing is what a lot of the Conservative MPs actually want. So imagine seeing the thing you want passed being held up in committee under the orders of your party leadership and knowing that if you cross the floor you’d be able to unblock it.
In the last year we’ve seen blockages occur because of party leadership (which parties can do under any system) but those blockages were cleared because we’re under a community representation system where the parties don’t own the seats. The people that work with the party leadership know them better that the voters and it’s good to have those people have the option to leave a bad leader. These are important features of our system that a PR system doesn’t have.
Because not part voting gets you kicked out. I know not how are system is supposed to work but it is the reality of it.
But an MP doesn’t want to ignore a thousand people in their riding
BS. I live in a riding where a third of the population is never represented, either federally or provincially, where thousands of us routinely are disenfranchised, and our needs and perspectives are utterly ignored by the conservative majority for partisan purposes. Your claim that naked partisanship in our riding based system is inhibited is objectively and demonstrably BS. Empty fields of cattle are given more political weight than human beings. At least a PR system is open about partisanship. This farcical pretence at enlightened compromise is smoke and mirrors.
You could talk to your neighbours, go to a town hall, call your MP.
If you’re represented by a party that’s not in a ruling coalition, sure that party will tell you they care about you, but they’re powerless to do anything to help you. Y
You’re complaining about partisan politics but you also want to make the system even more partisan?
I want the system to be honest about what it is. Not dragging my name through the mud with people who turned their backs on their neighbors. Nor will I be run off from my home. I know who my people are. These monsters aren’t it.
Edit: and no, I can’t go to a town hall. They’re invite only around these parts.
Proportional representation is a horrible idea, which is one of the main reasons that every province that’s taken a good look at it has rejected it. Sometimes twice.
And frankly the systems that are in place that do use it are not the same as Canada or are having a lot more trouble than this article would let on
Proportional representation is management by committee. It is the least efficient and least accountable way to run a government.
There are definitely ways where we could substantially improve the representation of smaller parties Within our existing system and make things better but switching to proportional representation would not. If anyone needs any more proof then just watching what happened with the NDP and liberal coalition over the last 4 years should be evidence enough
I would argue the opposite! A party that can unilaterally impose its will on the nation is effectively an elected monarchy.
I’d rather govern by committee than by a dictatorship.
There’s no difference between a party that can impose its will and a cabal or coalition that does as we saw under the liberals ndp coalition last government. Remember that the vast majority of gov’ts this century have been minority gov’ts.
Effective management absolutely requires clear direction and vision. A gov’t should have a clear mandate and be empowered to execute it within the boundaries of it’s constitutional authority. Otherwise parties can throw the blame aorund and you see people stay in power forever. Israel is an example. In situations like that it’s all about posturing and optics and never about good governance. You still get that with first pass to post to a degree but it does give governments the freedom to do unpopular things once in awhile when it’s the right thing to do
There are lots of ways to improve the system and improve representation but proportional representation is probably the worst
The difference is that a coalition represents the population more accurately, and because they are separate parties, the “party whip” is less effective. The NDP can split from the Liberals in a way that members of the Liberal party cannot.
A coalition represents the population less. You lose your individual MP so you have no one locally to hold responsible. A coalition has to run on a platform that was never introduced in the election so now they’re operating without even a mandate. And there’s no accountability, one blames the other and nobody gets held to account.
Let’s take the last of government as an example. They formed a coalition and jag meat basically sold out his party and everything he got elected for in exchange for what has amounted to nothing. Now he walked out the door with his pension intact and will make tons of money as a consultant because of his time in government. Meanwhile the liberals went on to win the next election and have now managed to buy themselves a majority. But young Canadians still can’t afford a home, Food inflation is through the roof, and our economy is still tanking and nobody was held to account. Justin Trudeau is off making millions of dollars each year consulting with charity organizations that he gave money to while he was prime minister and doing speaking engagements.
The government to work and be effective people need a local representative, there needs to be one government that people can hold to account and there needs to be one clear vision that this government is working towards instead of a mishmash of ideology and sound bites but look good but do nothing for the people in the long run
It has been said that our democracy is a horrible way to govern people, with its only redeeming quality being that it’s better than all of the others that are available. And this is true
There are other ways to improve our democratic representation, this just isn’t one of them
You lose your individual MP so you have no one locally to hold responsible.
You’re talking about Jagmeet Singh as if he is the entire NDP, which illustrates my next point. You don’t have a local representative in Canadian FPTP. You vote for the party, because any notable vote will be a three line (or at least two line) vote. See https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2019/bdp-lop/eb/YM32-5-2018-26-eng.pdf
A coalition represents the population less.
That doesn’t make any sense. Let’s say I vote NDP, my candidate gets elected, but Liberals win a majority. My MP’s views/opinions (which should be reflective of mine) don’t matter in the slightest. I’ve lost representation.
If, instead, we have a system that doesn’t favor majority governments, my MP’s views do have to be considered for the coalition to survive. If the coalition members stick together, it’s because they believe that is in the best interests of their voters.
Most of this entire discussion is missing the point. On the one hand a variety of views and/or options for political representation are needed. This is where first past the post utterly fails. It devolves mostly to a two choice system, as is becoming painfully obvious in the US. Or it might become unstable/unpredictable as seen in the UK where alternative parties are emerging, but probably to the detriment of the old parties. In the end it might well devolve back to a two party system, just two other parties. This is where some form of proportional representation system comes in. More than two parties are viable. But at the cost of stability. Back in schooly politics teacher liked to present Italy as the poster child for why (simple) PR doesn’t work well. Though in recent years the Italian government has proven quite stable. Also, in Italys Case I’d love to run the experiment how they did with nothing changed except for organized crime being eradicated. Alas, in humanities controlled experiments like that aren’t possible. But I’d not be surprised if spectacular corruption wasn’t the bigger problem.
So what could the solution be? First I’d like to see corruption stomped out completely. I know, that’s almost like wishing for world peace, and come to think about it, it’s mostly the same characters that are in the way. Second, the solution is likely to be neither a simple majority system nor a simple proportional system. Ranked choice? My teacher was taken by the German system (a mixture of both), but that has it’s own problems. Or something entirely different, like completely independent publicly funded media. Print, audio and audiovisual. And that media could run regular polls to publicly show which topics are important to people.
I think our problems stem more from the influence on populations rather than the actual modality in which our representation is formed. In Israel you have the corruptive influence of ultra-orthodox and nationalist hardliners mixed with some run if the mill corruption, in Italy you have a gigantic organized crime problem, with some rich people problem, in Germany the Springer group is trying to set up a Fox news situation and in the US you have the Fox/Heritage Foundation/billionaires and general corruption through money problem.
Jagmeet Singh represented the entire party.
And you absolutely have a local representative in Canada. And that can do an awful lot, they can bring forward local issues and you have someone to speak to if you’ve got a problem and you can hold them to account. This happens all the time. And god knows there’s been more than one back bench revolt over the years, that’s the thing that happens in every political party
So you’re mistaken. We definitely have local representation and that’s critical
And it does make sense that you’re representing the population less. You’ve lost your local representative, you can’t hold them accountable, the person who is speaking for you might not even be someone you like or know. You lose massive amounts of accountability and now it’s the party and the internal politics that put people in charge and not the people directly. You are 100% less represented under that system then a system where you pick the local person and they are answerable to you
Even worse by forming a coalition a government would now be pursuing a policy that was never put forward and voted on by the People. They would have no mandate for the things they were doing yet they would be doing them anyway. And we saw that again with the Justin and jagmeet coalition where it was a hodgepodge of ideas that had never been presented to voters during the election. So once again far less representation by the people, politicians feel emboldened to do whatever they like to or whatever they need to in order to stay in power regardless of the people’s wishes
And it’s pretty hard to claim that our system favors majority governments when we had basically two in the last 26 years. Sure carney bought himself one recently but guess what, that can happen under proportional representation even easier than it did for Carney under the current system. And in fact under your system there would be no way for the voters of the writing where the person crossed the floor to hold that person to account next time, they can easily be in the next government
What’s your proposing is an absolutely horrible system that removes accountability and representation.
There are vastly better ways to improve our system and representation and the whole governments to account then proportional representation. I get why a lot of people like it when they first look at it but it’s a horrible idea
That people voted against it is no evidence that it’s a horrible idea. The article to which you reply at least tries to provide a bit of evidence for its argument. Also, I don’t need a parliament that’s “efficient” (whatever that can mean. Do you measure that in number of pages of new laws passed per months?), I need one that’s fair and democratic. Wht has been happening sine the “liberals” got the majority is evidence enough for me that we should avoid non-coalitions as much as we can.
People voting against it is absolutely evidence that it’s a horrible idea. But I love that you are claiming that the people making a democratic decision about it is terrible because we need more democracy 😂😂😂😂😋
The people took a look at it they looked at the pros and cons they gave it serious consideration and said no. And not just once or twice but many many times now. And while you may not like that it is absolutely evidence that when people actually give it serious consideration they come to the conclusion that it’s a bad idea
And you absolutely need a parliament that’s efficient. Efficiency isn’t measured in bureaucracy, it’s measured in results. We’ve basically had minority governments for most of the last 11 years, And a look at our economic legal and social results suggest that there are serious problems with that and that encouraging it to go on more is not a healthy thing.
And there is absolutely nothing fair about government by committee. Again I would point you to Israel.
And the liberals got to power by buying off members of the opposition until they Cobble together a majority. And essentially that’s what you get by management of committee, that’s what you want more of not less. For now had a majority in his last term impractical terms despite it being technically a minority government. How’d that go for us?
