I'm against Proportional Representation for many reasons, most best illustrated in John Pepall's excellent book AGAINST REFORM.
He provides many well researched arguments but the two most compelling ones he gives are:
1. Canada is more than 150 years old and is among the most stable and corruption free democracies in the world. In fact, we've had so few actual (as in real, not media created) controversies that any suggestion to change anything should be met with very serious skepticism
2. The skepticism comes out how reforms have occurred in other countries - not one example is available where a reform to the election system didn't benefit the party putting in the reform at the expense of the opposition. It makes sense - what sort of idiot is going to reform something to hurt them?
But there's a third reason I'm against it, and that's the Law of Unintended Consequences. The best example I can give of this is the 2014 redrawing of Electoral Districts in Canada.
The Harper Government and their Conservative Controlled Parliamentary Committee proceeded to argue for and then add an additional 30 seats to the House of Commons. Now most Canadians would argue that the last thing Canada needed was more paid politicians running up expenses with their travelling around and constituency offices and what have you, and despite the fact Conservatives say Canada is spending too much, they never to seem to have an issue with increasing expenses when its to their benefit.
Wait, what, you say? How was this to their benefit? Well, half of those 30 new seats were put in Western Canada, where Conservatives traditionally have more strength. The rest were added to areas of Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada, but not where populations have increased the most - as would be logical, but to break up Liberal strongholds.
For example, the 2 seats added to Mississauga required the Electoral Districts there to be redrawn.
Throughout history the lines of Districts have been very simple, following major roads and natural barriers; but the Conservatives have been gathering hard demographic data across Canada. They know how much support each street gives each party, and even which side of the street favours them.
Following the lead of their Republican brethren in America they began to re-district those areas where Liberals were strong, cutting Liberal leaning neighbourhoods in half, splitting the vote through a method known as GERRYMANDERING.
He provides many well researched arguments but the two most compelling ones he gives are:
1. Canada is more than 150 years old and is among the most stable and corruption free democracies in the world. In fact, we've had so few actual (as in real, not media created) controversies that any suggestion to change anything should be met with very serious skepticism
2. The skepticism comes out how reforms have occurred in other countries - not one example is available where a reform to the election system didn't benefit the party putting in the reform at the expense of the opposition. It makes sense - what sort of idiot is going to reform something to hurt them?
But there's a third reason I'm against it, and that's the Law of Unintended Consequences. The best example I can give of this is the 2014 redrawing of Electoral Districts in Canada.
The Harper Government and their Conservative Controlled Parliamentary Committee proceeded to argue for and then add an additional 30 seats to the House of Commons. Now most Canadians would argue that the last thing Canada needed was more paid politicians running up expenses with their travelling around and constituency offices and what have you, and despite the fact Conservatives say Canada is spending too much, they never to seem to have an issue with increasing expenses when its to their benefit.
Wait, what, you say? How was this to their benefit? Well, half of those 30 new seats were put in Western Canada, where Conservatives traditionally have more strength. The rest were added to areas of Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada, but not where populations have increased the most - as would be logical, but to break up Liberal strongholds.
For example, the 2 seats added to Mississauga required the Electoral Districts there to be redrawn.
Throughout history the lines of Districts have been very simple, following major roads and natural barriers; but the Conservatives have been gathering hard demographic data across Canada. They know how much support each street gives each party, and even which side of the street favours them.
Following the lead of their Republican brethren in America they began to re-district those areas where Liberals were strong, cutting Liberal leaning neighbourhoods in half, splitting the vote through a method known as GERRYMANDERING.
It resulted in Mississauga Centre going from a near rectangle...
...to something even the residents of Mississauga can't describe.
Now, typically Canadian voters tire of a Prime Minister after 9 years so the 2015 loss to the Liberals wasn't unexpected, but it wasn't about 2015, it was about 2019 and beyond. It's going to be easier for the Conservatives to approach the numbers needed to beat the Liberals this election. It's going to be easier for Conservatives to get a majority and it's going to be harder for the Liberals to get a majority.
And since the party in power is the one that will get to redraw the districts again after the 2021 Census, it doesn't matter whose in charge until then, that period is the critical one.
And that's why I'm always suspicious of anyone suggesting a reform.
And since the party in power is the one that will get to redraw the districts again after the 2021 Census, it doesn't matter whose in charge until then, that period is the critical one.
And that's why I'm always suspicious of anyone suggesting a reform.
No comments:
Post a Comment