Saturday, August 06, 2005

Proportional Representation

It was Direct Democracy that Forced Socrates to Eat the Hemlock.
What’s interesting about the proportional representation debate is the fact that it is equally supported by both sides of the political spectrum. In Alberta nobody pushes harder for electoral reform in Alberta than the NDP and Alberta Alliance. The Alliance refers to the Swiss model, championing direct democracy as the individual’s way to ward off the inevitable bureaucratic aims of the state through the legal right of referendum. The NDP, always vague, wants a complex system of run off votes, a systgem that terrified the BC public so much, the left coast voted against it. I bet the NDP would be in favor of an electoral system where we simply drew names (Yay! A 1 in 4 chance) or worse, a mandatory rotation to ward off corruption (Yay power is inevitable… and as soon as we are in we will veto the rotation to protect the public interest. Look at all the inefficiency of the warring Liberals and Tories. We are the common man’s only friend!). In truth though all fringe parties see it as prudent to bring in proportional representation, as it’s easier to obtain a small percentage off the over all vote rather than a single majority in an ascribed area. They defend their views on the basis of them being a purer form of democracy. In truth it is an unprincipled approach which they seek only for the benfit of themselves. And here is why Proportional Representation is bad for Canada
A proportional system fails to give voters a clear ideological choice when voting.
Some countries have over a hundred parties running in federal elections, turning politics into an absurdity of overlapping policy and special interest aims.
We would have to endure endless debates between members of the Black feminist Socialism party, the Black Socialist party, and the dogmatic Socialist Party. (Race is the only difference between parties in many European counties—See Schroder vs. Kohl)
2) Minority party votes are constantly sold for funding towards whatever special interest the selling party represents.
The proportional representation methodology increases voter apathy as it quickly becomes a system where votes must be bought in order to form a coalition government which has consequences.
a) It validates the public’s sense of government corruption as it’s an electoral system that favors and demands political deals.
b) The ridiculous amount of compromise eradicates ideology and makes long term vision impossible
c) Logically concluding with the move from an electoral system where the majority party determines policy into one in which the party with the fewest votes does.
(Studies confirm increased gov. spending and proportional government are inexplicably linked – Israel and Belgium)
3) The proportional system is in fact less proportional as it has the uncanny ability to lock old political hacks into their position.
I.E Italy.
When a party receives 10 percent of the vote they allowed to choose which members of their party will represent their party in legislature, which is good for longtime serving senior party faithful, but is counterproductive to getting new blood and ideas into government.
Proportional representation is inherently against principles making it range of the moment pragmatic whim worship.
Long range vision requires principle
5) Once Proportional Representation has been legislated further electoral form becomes next to impossible. Picture Canada’s attempt at negotiating a charter between three regionalized interests, and the endless amounts of stalling, compromise and redundancy, and ultimately futility involved that process. Imagine trying to agree on similar monumental reform with over 100 special interest groups being represented. Change would only happen through revolution. Reason would be invalidated as a political tool and thus parties world switch to force when trying to mandate change.
6) A proportional representation obliterates all regional accountability. Suddenly all policy is biased towards urban voters as there is no incentive to create policy affecting rural or more remote location do to the few number of voters


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home