Skip to content

Letter: Cutting through the noise

Our first past the post voting system made some sense back when there were two political parties.
13969479_web1_copy_181003-TDT-M-ballot

Our old-fashioned first past the post (FPTP) voting system made some sense back when there were only two political parties — the winning party that got to rule would usually have the support of at least 50 per cent of voters.

However, now that we have more than two parties, FPTP leads to undemocratic election outcomes because, due to vote-splitting, a party with less than 50 per cent of voter support often wins more than 50 per cent of the seats (i.e., a false majority) and the power to push through whatever legislation it likes.

At least two recent letters to the editor claim that proportional representation (ProRep), where the number of seats is approximately equal to the percentage of voter support, is bad because it tends to result in a weak minority and coalition governments. But FPTP also often results in minority governments and, more importantly, this argument fails to distinguish between minority and coalition governments, which are not the same.

A minority government can be weak, as a single party tries to pass legislation without having majority support. However, ProRep usually results in a coalition government, where two or more parties that find common ground govern with majority support. Jurisdictions that use a ProRep electoral system, such as the Scandinavian countries and economic powerhouse Germany, have thrived under coalition governments. Some of the many reasons why include policy supported by the majority, higher voter satisfaction with the quality of democracy, and less adversarial legislatures.

One letter claims that our province’s great accomplishments would not likely have been possible without a majority government. This is only an assumption. Under coalition governments, maybe the great accomplishments would not only have happened but would have been made even better by having a wider range of input. A coalition government spreads decision-making between at least two parties and, maybe more importantly, between at least two party leaders. This incorporates more ideas and also prevents a single leader acting like a dictator and taking drastic actions not supported by the majority of voters, such as seems to be happening in Ontario. Coalitions would also provide greater scrutiny of government actions and maybe could have avoided the corrupt political donations system and given a proper pre-appraisal of the Site C Dam.

Coalition governments force politicians from more than one party to cooperate and work together to improve our lives, instead of constantly attacking whatever the other party proposes. How often do we see members of one party viciously attacking a plan proposed by another party, only to promote the same idea when their party gets into power? Different parties have different ideas on how to achieve the same goals, and I would prefer to see them working together instead of against each other.

As for the letter from “No BC Proportional Representation” about local representation, it goes on at length about how ProRep will not improve local representation. Fine by me. Neither would FPTP, and I would prefer that my vote was at least counted to have an MLA in Victoria for a party I support, rather than get a local rep from a party I don’t support.

It astounds me that people can say that our current electoral system is not broken when almost every election results in a false majority and where half of the voters are not able to elect a representative aligned with their values. If you believe in democracy, make sure you vote to support ProRep in the upcoming referendum. Who knows when we will get another chance.

Gerry Naito