Alberta NDP Premier Rachel Notley |
Proportional Representation electoral system would have sunk Alberta's NDP
majority and put PCs and WIldrose in power - why is BC NDP supporting it?
Bill Tieleman’s 24
Hours Vancouver / The
Tyee column
Tuesday May 26,
2015
By Bill Tieleman
"The
first-past-the-post system is not serving the people of B.C."
-
BC NDP leader John Horgan,
July 2013
The
Alberta New Democratic Party did a very smart thing in drawing up its 2015
provincial election platform -- it dropped a promise
to impose a proportional representation electoral system.
On
Sunday, Alberta's new NDP premier Rachel Notley was sworn in with her majority
government and a mandate to change the province for the better after 44 years
of increasingly decrepit Progressive Conservative rule.
But
if proportional representation had been Alberta's electoral system, the
province would almost certainly have seen another Conservative government under
Premier Jim Prentice -- with Wildrose Party leader Brian Jean becoming a senior
cabinet minister and his party supporting a new rightwing coalition government.
And
Notley would be out in the cold as official opposition leader, not premier.
So
you have to wonder exactly why BC's New Democrats are promising to introduce
proportional representation after the 2017 provincial election when odds are it
will likely throw them back out of government.
What
Notley knows
Our
first-past-the-post electoral system is simple: the candidate with the most
votes in each local riding wins. Whichever party wins a majority of the
province's seats forms the government; the next biggest party is the official
opposition.
And
FPTP has served Canada well -- as it has the United Kingdom, United States,
India and other countries representing almost half
of the world's democratic voters.
That's
why voters in B.C., Ontario and Prince Edward Island have all rejected changing
electoral systems and kept FPTP in democratic referenda in the past few years.
Under
proportional representation Alberta's Notley would likely not be premier,
because the number of seats each party gets is not based simply on who wins
each of Alberta's 87 ridings but on what percentage of votes the parties get
across the whole province.
The
NDP's 40.5 per cent vote would have meant only 35 seats instead of the 54 it
won; the Conservatives' 28 per cent would get 24 seats instead of the 10 they
won; and Wildrose's 24 per cent would hold the same 21 seats but go from
opposition to junior government partner, while the Liberals and other parties
would share six seats.
For
progressive voters who want change, the current first-past-the-post system
delivered it effectively in Alberta. And for right-wing voters who won't like
the NDP government, the 2019 election could equally reverse those results.
Majorities
rule
The
BC NDP has won power three times with about 40 per cent of the popular vote but
a majority of seats -- in 1972, 1991 and 1996 -- and ironically lost several
times with a higher percentage vote.
In
fact, under proportional representation, only a few B.C. governments would have
won an outright majority -- most recently under Gordon Campbell in 2001.
So
if a future BC NDP government introduces proportional representation, it could
mark the last time the party holds a majority in the B.C. Legislature and can
introduce the progressive changes many NDP voters want and expect.
Those
who adamantly support proportional representation either don't care or argue
that some kind of alliance could be cobbled together with NDP, Green and new
parties agreeing to an environmental-labour-progressive agenda.
But
the BC Green Party is not left or progressive on all issues and other new
parties may be far right or far left.
Fringe
benefits
Certainly
the scary history of the results from proportional representation in Europe
should be of concern and a warning.
In
2014's European Parliament elections, the far right, anti-immigrant Front
National led by Marie Le Pen won 25 per cent
of the vote in France and 24 seats, up from just three in 2009.
And
two "more or less openly neo-Nazi parties -- the National Democratic Party
of Germany (NPD) and the Greek Golden Dawn (XA) -- for the first time entered
the European Parliament" the Washington Post reported.
None
of this is to say it would happen in B.C.; but proportional representation
systems certainly allow fringe parties a great chance to elect candidates and
the odds they will have a disproportionate say in government.
That's
because proportional representation almost guarantees minority governments
dependent on multiple parties for support.
So
a fringe party can make outlandish demands and often get their way because they
hold the balance of power and sell it to the highest bidder.
By
comparison FPTP generally encourages parties to moderate their views to attract
middle of the road voters while maintaining significant differences on some key
issues. And it mostly delivers majority, stable governments that can focus on
implementing their policies instead of making backroom deals with other parties
on every issue.
Of
course, any criticism of proportional representation and its many defects bring
predictable howls of protest from its ardent advocates, like Fair Vote Canada,
which is already denouncing the Alberta results.
But
for progressives, the marvelous Alberta NDP victory should give pause to BC's
NDP before it makes an ironclad commitment to implement proportional
representation here.
.
1 comment:
Thank you for noticing the change in Alberta. Maybe you could extend your sight outside of BC as far as Manitoba, where the dastardly NDP government broke their promise to raise Provincial Sales Tax; an almost carbon copy of the Campbell Liberal actions you campaigned so passionately against. Another Alberta NDP policy the BC fellow travelers could emulate is their rejection of referenda. It was not raised as an issue in this election but in 2012, Brian Mason called them "dirty American-style politics”. I had a lot of fun then trying to get my local NDP candidate to apply that term to Bill’s HST campaign.
Teasing aside, I am generally onside with Bill that PR is problematical. There is a good summary of the history Alberta election results at http://www.elections.ab.ca/reports/statistics/candidate-summary-of-results-general-elections-1905-2012/. Had PR been in place, the PCs here would have had lots of minorities in their 44-year tenure from 1971to 2015 – 5 out of 12 elections, not counting this year’s. The Lougheed “sweep” of 1971 so mythologized here only garnered 46.4% of the popular vote. They were only 5% ahead of the Social Credit. Your NDP could have been a coalition partner of the Liberals in 1989 and 1993. This is all wishful thinking, because the two parties loathed each other and these coalitions probably would not have lasted. I also think that Bill might have been a bit quick to assume that the Wildrose would not have offered support to an NDP minority in a PR scenario. WR leader Brian Jean has said all the right things so far about supporting government policy where it makes sense and I suspect that many WR voters supported the first Harper minority government’s right to form a government based on a plurality. However, this too would probably turned out to be short-lived given the wide difference on tax policy. This is where I agree with Bill; PR is not a system that leads to a lot of stable governments. Another example is Israel's PR system with its endless messy coalitions. I am not an expert on Israeli politics but I think that some fringe parties there have had more influence on government policy than the Front National has had in the European parliament so far.
If I understand its usual makeup, PR would make individual MLAs even less accountable to a particular geographic riding than they are now, and more answerable to the central party bureaucracy. There is far too little independent thought in our current system and too much careerism, but I don’t know how to fix that.
Post a Comment