LETTERS: Tegart’s view on electoral reform misguided

By on November 6, 2017
The Merritt Herald welcomes your letters, on any subject, addressed to the editor. Letters must be signed and include the writer’s name, address and phone number for verification purposes. Letters may be edited for length, taste and clarity. Please keep letters to 300 words or less. Email letters to: newsroom@merrittherald.com.

 

Since local MLA Jackie Tegart penned a column for the Herald last week in which she argued that B.C.’s rural communities have lots to lose in a proportional representation system, we have received a number of responses from readers across the country. Here are the collected responses to Tegart’s column.


Current system does not represent British Columbians

Editor,

Contrary to the partisan negative propaganda of our local Liberal MLA Jackie Tegart, our current First Past the Post (FPTP) electoral system does not fairly represent the constituencies of B.C.

In fact, rarely in Canada, including B.C. have a majority of the voter’s, elected a majority government. In the last two federal elections, majority governments have been elected with 39 per cent of the vote, leaving the real majority of 61 per cent of the voter’s without representation. 

In fact, most progressive democracies throughout the world, function exceedingly better with some sort of proportional representation governing body, than do the minority of democracies using FPTP. 

Ironically, our local MLA uses the small country of Belgium, on the brink of dividing into two countries, as her control model.

The reality is that in true proportional representation, every vote counts. This forces governments to collaborate and work cooperatively, rather than wasting time and resource bickering over unqualified partisan values. 

Unfortunately, it is very difficult to articulate how a proportional representation would elect our MLAs. Personally, I’m advocating for a system that elects its riding MLAs with the the traditional FPTP, then all parties add members to the legislature to equal their percentage based on the popular vote. This is sometimes referred to as Mixed Member Proportional (MMP).

With this system, no matter which party you vote for, you will be represented, as long as that party obtains a minimum threshold (probably 3 to 5 per cent) of the vote.

So if you’re fed up with being represented by a majority government, with a minority of the vote, write to your MLA and demand better, or better yet, vote yes in 2018 referendum.

Art Green
Hope, B.C.

 

Liberals enjoyed governing without majority support

Editor,

Jackie Tegart claims our present electoral system is democratic and is based on the principal that everyone’s voice is equal. The 2013 election results illustrate just how wrong this assertion is. The Liberals received a minority 44 per cent of the vote but took 58 per cent of the seats. Under our present system that minority popular vote gave them a majority of the seats in the house and thereby all the power in government. I totally fail to see how on earth this system can be held forth as democratic.

Ms. Tegart criticizes the present government for calling for a simple majority on the coming proportional representation (PR) referendum rather than 60 per cent. Given that the last time the Liberals formed government, they did so with a popular vote well under a majority, I am once again challenged to follow the logic. It is worth noting that the “failed” referendum of 2005 actually received 58 per cent of the votes. That wasn’t enough for the Gordon Campbell Liberals.

The next criticism of proportional representation Ms. Tegart trots out is that it can lead to smaller parties and coalition governments. Part of democracy is that all political views should be represented according to their support in elections. Smaller parties with enough support should be represented in government.

PR does not “encourage coalitions,” but it can lead to minority governments. Minority governments are not in themselves bad, they can lead to a government where only the best ideas receive the support of government. The false majorities of the first past the post systems lead us to governments like those of Christy Clark and Stephen Harper where leaders run the show with no regard whatsoever to democratic principals.

All democratically elected governments in the world, other than the U.S. the U.K. and Canada use some form of proportional representation. While those governments might have a problem once in while actually getting their house in order, those problems pale in comparison to first past the post countries. Just consider Donald Trump, who got elected with a minority of the votes cast.

I would argue that Liberal opposition to PR is not based an any embrace of democratic principles. As evidenced by Christy Clark’s desperate efforts to cling to power after the last election, the Liberal principle is to hold power at any cost. Through well funded research and polling the Liberals know where to focus their extensive campaign advertising efforts. “Swing ridings” receive most of the attention at the cost of other ridings.

Ms. Tegart’s claim that PR would be bad for rural B.C. is simply more of the divisive fear mongering pulled out of the Liberal play book. A PR electoral system would give all B.C. voters an equal say in forming the government whether they live in rural or urban ridings.

Tim Larsen
Merritt, B.C.

 

Reform could lead to better representation

Editor,

I would like to comment on the recent article by Ms. Tegart to the effect that proportional representation would be bad for rural B.C. I do not believe that to be the case because there would still be just as many MLAs for local voters, as under the existing system, but they would better reflect the political diversity of the region.

Just like the NDP won’t win every vote in the Vancouver area, nor will the Liberals win every vote in the Interior. Many voters opted for the Liberals in the Lower Mainland while by the same token many voters preferred the NDP in the Cariboo region.

Under proportional representation, nobody would lose representation, but rather each region has a strong, multi-partisan voice, and would always have some MLAs who are in government and some in opposition.

I believe that first-past-the-post is the system that is broken. Under-first past-the-post, fewer than 50 per cent of the votes cast can and usually have elected more than 50 per cent of the seats and gained 100 per cent of the power.

How can that represent voter preferences?

David R. Pearce
Victoria, B.C.

 

We can do better than winner-take-all politics

Editor,

It’s been my experience in life that establishing consensus takes time, but that it is a healthier way of doing things than having the big kid make all the rules unilaterally. It seems, in Belgium, that this is the approach they have chosen rather than having to deal in other ways with the serious linguistic divisions in that country.

I respect their choice and understand that it is working well for them, all things considered. In B.C., in the last provincial election, we ended up with the sort of result that would be normal under a proportional system, in which no party obtains a majority of seats based on 40 per cent of the vote.

This did not lead to gridlock, and but rather to a more collaborative form of government involving two parties that together secured 57 per cent of the popular vote. If that is what proportional representation is all about I say, “Bring it on!”

I would encourage MLA Tegart to do the same. We can do better than our current winner-take-all system of politics. 

Real Lavergne
President, Fair Vote Canada
Ottawa, ON

2 Comments

  1. Michael Ufford

    November 8, 2017 at 12:07 pm

    The electoral reform activists encourage us to look at the many countries in the world that use party proportional voting. Yes, please do and see how poorly these countries are served by PR.

    Belgium has been mentioned. They have a linguistic divide similar to our own and went over a year without a government while their multitude of parties struggled to form a coalition. Spain recently took a year and two elections. Austria’s government collapsed this year and elected a Trump-like right winger under an open list PR system. Germany’s MMP PR election last month brought in a far right wing party and splintered the Bundestag. It may be months before they can sort things out there. A fringe party now drives the bus in New Zealand.

    If you prefer the stability, accountability and simplicity of BC and Canada’s current voting system, join our non-partisan Facebook Group: FPTP It works for Canada.

    • Peter Vogt

      November 10, 2017 at 11:15 am

      One can always cherry pick and find examples of political systems that don’t work. One only has to look to the UK or the USA to realize that stability and accountability do not go hand in hand with simplicity.

      Belgium is, and has been for some time, a nation on the verge of break up. The election process there simply underscores that fact. There is no indication that a FPTP in Belgium would have made any difference to what are obviously becoming intractable differences between regions of the country. The Belgian issues are not similar to those in Canada.

      Austria’s government did not “collapse”. Agreement among the largest parties to dissolve the government is not collapsing.

      It’s pure speculation about how long a coalition will take to build in Germany and the “splintering” is part of any proportional system as it allows voters a greater opportunity to vote for a party that represents their views. It is then up to the parties to work together to form a government – a process that calls for cooperation and balancing of views.

      Proportional representation makes more sense than allowing provinces and the federal government in Canada to give an absolute majority to parties that fall far short of getting the absolute majority of votes.

      It should also be noted that voter turn out is typically higher in countries with proportional representation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *