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.
If you want an anti-poster boy for PR, look no further than that great bastion of human rights and democracy, Israel.
TIL, very good point.
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
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.
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
The difference is that a coalition represents the population more accurately, and because they are separate parties, the “party whip” is less effective. The NDP can split from the Liberals in a way that members of the Liberal party cannot.