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.
…
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
