Anyone who has ever sat in on an Anglican Church Board of Management meeting will be familiar with the words, ‘We’ve never done it that way before’.  Change is a scary thing to most people.  So why should we change our electoral system.  We have elections.  Governments get created.  So what is wrong?  In the United States, which uses the same system, the answer is a simple nothing.  America has a very narrow political culture and this is reflected in their two party political system.  The United States lacks a genuine conservatism and an indigenous socialism.  All Americans are some shade of liberal, from the classical laissez-faire liberalism of a George Bush to the reform liberalism of a Ted Kennedy.  With only two parties in play the single seat plurality system works just fine because it mimics a majoritarian system.  Once the universe of ideas expands the system begins to break down and cause problems. 

Proponents argue that the single seat plurality system (SSP) or first-past-the-post is preferable because it can produce a majority government with a minority of the vote.  The underlying assumption here is that majority governments are better governments because they are more stable.  The evidence in Canada shows that SSP fails to deliver on this approximately half of the time.  Half of all elections since 1921 when Canada’s political landscape began to expand beyond the Conservatives and Liberals, have resulted in minority governments.  Most of those minority governments have lasted two years or more with the odd exception.  Some like Mackenzie King’s 1921 minority lasted a full four years.  Provincially in Ontario, the only province with a healthy multi-party system, the final Davis Conservative minority government lasted from 1981 to 1985.  It is difficult in the face of the evidence to argue that minority government is inherently unstable.  Minority governments have often shown themselves to be very legislatively active as well.  Many of our most favoured policies such as our current health care system were the product of minority governments.  So good policy gets passed and elections are not held every other day, so what is so terrible about minority governments?  Of course you have to know how to govern.  A minority government forces compromise, negotiation and cooperation among the parties.  If you are a simple minded ideologue who cannot fathom that other people might have ideas and you must always get your own way then yes a minority government would be a problem (Not to mention any names but we all know who we are talking about here).    But those sorts of people should be discouraged from public office anyway.  Look what happened to Germany when they elected someone like that in the 1930s. 

The most consistent problem facing Canada is unity.  At times it has reached crisis level as in 1995.  SSP contributes to and exacerbates this very problem.  Our current system rewards regional parties and punishes national parties.  Let’s look at the 1993 election results.  The Bloc Quebeςois received 13% of the national vote to win 54 seats in the House of Commons and become Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition (great irony); the Reform Party received 19% of the national vote to win 52 seats just behind the Bloc; the Conservatives received 16% of the national vote to win 2 seats.  Now you don’t have to be a mathematician or a political junkie to look at this and know that something is wrong.  The two regional parties (the Bloc in Quebec and Reform in the West) received 27  and 26 times respectively the number of seats in the House compared to the Conservatives with 3% less and 3% more respectively of the popular vote.  Therefore in our system it pays to focus on a regional agenda fanning the flames of distrust between the West and Central Canada and between English and French Canada.  If there ever was evidence of the absence of character of our elected representatives this is it.  Our electoral system is tearing our country apart and they refuse to change it because they receive petty personal benefits from it.  Any parliament can change the electoral system in a matter of days if they want to.  It requires only a simple majority vote in the House of Commons and Senate.  Shame on them that they have so little regard for the nation they purport to represent.  

The more obvious and general problem with SSP is its distortion of democracy.  Democracy is supposed to mean rule by the people or the mob depending on your view.  Aristotle, from whom I derived the name for this blog, saw democracy as the best of the worst systems of government.  It appears today that many who claim to defend it are really supporting what Aristotle called a Polity, rule by the many.  In reality we are actually an elected Oligarchy, rule by the wealthy and powerful.  SSP supports this system very well.  Proportional representation would weaken but not undermine it.  As you know from my previous post no electoral system meets my standard for democracy.  But proportional representation (PR) is a step in the right direction. 

The critics of PR say it leads to perpetual minorities but I have already established that minority government does not necessarily equate to bad government.  They argue, even in the face of the historical evidence in Canada that minority government in this country is relatively stable, that should PR be adopted this would break down and elections would be a constant fact of life.  The example of choice is invariably Italy.  Now it is true that at some times Italy changes prime ministers more often than I change my underwear.  There coalition governments have been known to be quite fragile.  But that is the result of Italian political culture and not proportional representation.  Anyone familiar with Italy knows that North Italy and Southern Italy are almost two different planets.  Critics never seem to want to talk about Sweden or Germany or The Netherlands, only Italy.  Governments are stable in stable political cultures and unstable in unstable political cultures.  So there is no reason to believe that Parliament Hill would become a grand national game of musical chairs because we adopt PR.

Does the tail wag the dog in PR systems?  This is another common argument.  Proportional representation gives too much power to small parties.  I have alluded to something of that difficulty in my previous article on the upcoming Israeli elections.  Yes smaller parties become necessary partners to form governments in this type of system.  This can be a problem in Israel particularly because it is a pure proportional system.  The entire country is one single constituency so that even a party with one or two percent of the vote can win a seat.  If we were to adopt PR here in Canada it would be absurd to attempt to make the entire country one large political constituency.  As now we would divide the country up in numerous constituencies, much larger than our current ridings.  For example we might take six of our current ridings and meld them together.  In that new riding the vote would be counted and six seats would be apportioned to the parties.  This is but one example.  We might divide Canada in any of a number of ways but divide we must.  If we take the six example I have used a party would need at least 10% of the vote in the enlarged riding to receive one of the six seats.  So in Canada we are not talking about parties with one or two percent seating members in the House.  Smaller parties would still have influence and a voice but would not wag the dog.  And as much as larger parties need the smaller parties to form governments the smaller need the larger to influence policy so it is in both interests to compromise, negotiate and cooperate. 

Proportional representation would benefit Canada by easing our regional tensions and expanding our democratic culture.  Liberals, Greens or NDPs in Alberta would finally be recognized and have MPs who sympathize with and share their views to appeal to as would Conservatives and NDPs in Quebec.  There is only one real argument against adopting this system:  The self-serving pettiness of the people who have the ability to make the change.

I have only one thing that I am asking for this year, a new system for choosing our representatives in Ottawa and Ontario and for that matter around the world.  There are many electoral systems out there to choose from, some of which I like and some of which I think are bad.  But what I really want is not a new electoral system but no electoral system.  When people are forced to vote for one or another candidate, no matter what the system used, it always favours those with money and power to begin with. 

Santa what I want is a lottery system.  If we want democracy as we always say we do then this is the only system that can deliver.  But I don’t believe most people when they say they want democracy.   Most people believe our society is stratified (the politically correct term for a class-based society in a classless society).  Some are born to lead and some are born to follow.  You and I know that that is bogus, Santa.  We know that any average normal human being given the same information can make good decisions.  Maybe sometimes bad decisions too but no one can tell me the jokers there now have never pulled a boner.  So why not give everyone a chance, Santa?  Maybe having a single parent on social assistance contribute to the debate on a national child care program would have some benefits.  For instance, getting one!

The biggest problem with our current governments is their disengagement from reality.  None of them interact effectively with ordinary folk.  Oh they come back and live in their ridings but mostly they socialize with the local elites.  My local representative has never sat down with his wife to a meal at my nephew’s house and shown an interest in their struggle.  My nephew works a low pay job in a service industry.  He works long and hard hours to try to make ends meet.  His wife has a chronic illness that limits how much she can contribute but she does what she can.  Truth is with the medical expenses (prescriptions and such) they would be better off on social assistance.  Maybe if my member of parliament could see and understand that first hand he might make a more rational contribution to debates on alleviating poverty in Canada rather than the ideological claptrap he spouts now.  If there ever was a stupid policy it is one that makes people fools for trying to help themselves.  But this is indicative of the kind of policy being produced by our governments all the time.  So maybe it would be better for my nephew or his wife to engage in the debates and decisions themselves because they understand the situation, they live it.  Few if any of our elected representatives grew up in poverty.  Oh money was tight in my home as well and I sure knew the meaning of the word ‘no’, but there were others who were truly bad off.  And truth to tell I have yet to meet an MP that didn’t come from higher up the economic food chain than I. 

Part of the disengagement problem is the lack of diversity among our current representatives.  In any of the provincial parliaments across Canada and in the federal parliament at any given time most, sometimes as much as 75% or more, of the members are lawyers.  No need to repeat here the litany of lawyer jokes, you have all heard them I am sure.  That aside, even if all of the lawyers in the legislatures are good and talented people (gag), how is that representative of our society.  Most people in our society are not lawyers.  Now someone out there is thinking, of course they are lawyers, lawyers are the only ones who can understand all that stuff.  True, because lawyers were the people who wrote it in the first place.  If non lawyers started making policy maybe it would make more sense.  In actuality our MPs don’t write the legislation the bureaucrats do.  Politicians decide policy, what we want to accomplish.  Bureaucrats figure out how to do it.  A lottery system would create a parliament that reflected our society.  A parliament that reflects society cannot help but set goals and accomplishments that reflect the needs and visions of that society.  In the end that is what democracy is supposed to be. 

Some will say that ordinary people are just not smart enough, they don’t know enough to be able to govern effectively in a complicated world.  The world is only as complicated as we make it.  It is not the technical questions which divide us and create the chronic suffering of humankind.  It is the ethical, the principle questions.  What does our society deem just in dealing with those who face challenges in their lives?  What is a just health, education, social or security system?  What world do we want to see?  Gandhi said “Be the change you want to see in the world.”  This would be our chance to do just that.   Each of us is capable of making good decisions as I said above; we just need the information. 

Here is how it would work.  The names of all eligible Canadians would go into the pool.  Individuals who for specific reasons such as physical or mental infirmity etc. could not serve, would be excluded.  Also there would be a process to apply for specific exemption.  This is exactly how our grand jury system works.  Individual names would be selected at random to fill the 308 seats currently in parliament.  Those individuals would be notified by registered mail that they will be serving in parliament for the next however many years we decide.  It could be four or we might opt for shorter tenures.  Their employers would be expected to guarantee a return to their jobs when they are finished.  (Don’t even go there if anyone is thinking that that is an onus on employers given how many jobs in our society today are contract anyway.  I spent 5 years on renewable four month contracts before I was hired full time by the college.)  The prime minister and cabinet would be elected from amongst the selected group just as jury foremen are selected now.

This does brings up why I don’t believe most people when they say they want democracy.  I have heard it many times whenever this concept is brought up.  ‘But I don’t want to serve in parliament.  What about my life.  That is too much to ask people to do.’  As Shakespeare said, “There’s the rub.”  In western industrialized societies we only want democracy if it doesn’t inconvenience us.  Hell almost half of the population can’t even be bothered to go out and vote and their major excuse; ‘I’m too lazy to find out what is going on so I don’t know enough to vote intelligently’.  I have news for you, you just aren’t intelligent.  People get the governments they deserve.  If you want to take the time and effort to browse through the specialty shops and research the product before you buy it, you most often get a quality product.  Or you can just go to WalMart because its convenient and get crap.  Take the Stephen Harper mannequin we have as prime minister today.  Now there’s an example of cheap plastic crap.  (before anyone gets in a tither, the options currently are Mr. Potato Head and a wind up rat).  I want them all gone and in a lottery system they would be. 

So Santa, you see, if we can trust ordinary citizens, chosen at random, to determine the fate of a defendant in a court of law, why can’t we trust the same people to make intelligent decisions for the whole country.  In each case they are acting on our behalf.  Perhaps we should ask the question in reverse.  If we don’t trust them to make political decisions, how can we, in good conscience, put the life of a human being in their hands?  Here in Canada we don’t have the death penalty but 25 years and sometimes more, even natural life, is an important decision I would think  And what about those societies like the United states that do have the death penalty.  I know that you and I Santa have commiserated many times over that industrialized despotism.  There this very system is trusted to decide whether the state, in the name of its citizens, can take the life of an individual.  Is there ever a more demanding decision than the decision of life or death?

I hope you can fit this in your sack tonight.  I know I have given you a tall order.  So if you can’t deliver I understand.  I want you to make sure all the little peoples around the world are taken care of first.  So if you can’t get me this maybe you could just remind people on your travels to have faith in the human spirit and each other and just maybe my gift will create itself. 

Merry Christmas Santa.  The milk and cookies will be on the Chinese bar next to the tree as usual this year. 

Michael