In its Throne Speech Friday September 8, the new NDP government of B.C. promised a referendum on electoral reform, in the autumn of 2018.
Good! Maybe….
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made a similar commitment. The 2015 election, he declared, would “the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post system.”
It proved harder to replace than he had expected.
Until I see the exact wording of the planned NDP referendum, I can’t tell you how I would vote.
If the question asks, “Do you want to replace the present first-past-the-post voting system?” I would unhesitatingly vote “Yes.”
A system that allows two successive federal governments, with dramatically different leaders and policies, to be elected with almost identical shares of the popular vote, clearly lacks some consistency. Roughly 60 per cent of Canadian voters didn’t want Stephen Harper’s Conservatives in 2011, but he won a majority of seats in parliament anyway. In 2015, a fractionally smaller percentage gave Justin Trudeau’s Liberals an even greater majority.
“First past the post” really means “front runner takes all.” In any riding, the candidate with the highest number of votes wins. Period. Even if a small proportion of rabid extremists turn out in force to out-vote a selection of middle-of-the-road candidates.
As long as everyone else has lower cards, a pair of eights takes the pot.
If the Conservative Party had elected its new leader using the first-past-the-post system, Maxime Bernier would now be its leader -- with just 29 per cent support.
Complicated system
But if the question asks, “Do you want to replace the present voting system with a proportional voting system?” I would have to vote “No.”
That may seem odd, because in the past I have argued in favor of preferential voting, where you mark your ballot choices in order: 1, 2, 3… But there’s a big difference between preferential ballots, which Justin Trudeau seems to favour, and proportional voting.
As I understand proportional voting, every political party that gets a certain proportion of the popular vote -- perhaps, five per cent -- deserves representation in the provincial legislature. Even if not one member of that party wins in any riding.
One way around that dilemma is to increase the number of seats in the legislature, to make room for appointed representatives of the minority parties. I don’t like that solution. I don’t like back-room appointments of any kind. Also because those appointees have no direct responsibility to anyone but their party.
Proportional representation puts the emphasis on the party, not the person.
Another option, cited during the last referendum on electoral change in B.C., would create larger, multi-member ridings. Presumably, if the whole of northern B.C. elected, say, seven members to the legislature, at least one of them might be an Ayn Rand Libertarian. Or perhaps a Groucho Marxist.
I think it’s more likely that all five members would represent the same segment of the political spectrum. Municipal elections tend to work that way.
Currently, only one municipality in B.C. currently elects councillors for local wards -- Lake Country. I like having one person directly responsible to me and my neighbours. So far, I’m pleased with his performance.
If the Conservative Party had applied proportional voting, it would now need a leader split 13 ways.
If it’s good for the goose…
I can’t help wondering, why would political parties want to impose a voting system on the public that they won’t use for themselves?
Political institutions generally use either a run-off system or a preferential ballot. France, to take one example, uses a run-off to elect its president if no candidate wins an instant majority. All Canadian parties have used run-off elections in their conventions.
A preferential ballot is like a run-off, without needing a second (or third) election. The lowest candidate gets dropped. His or her votes go to each voter’s second choice. And so on. Votes keep transferring, until one candidate has at least lukewarm support from a full majority of voters.
There may also be other possibilities worth consideration. In one of his novels, author Neville Shute suggested that citizens could earn multiple votes, based on education, community service, work experience, etc. Shute seems to have assumed that such a voter would throw all his or her votes behind a single candidate, but not necessarily.
I hope this makes my position abundantly clear. Depending on how the NDP government in Victoria puts the question to us, I am either in favour of a referendum, or against it.
*******************************************************
Copyright © 2017 by Jim Taylor. Non-profit use in congregations and study groups encouraged; links from other blogs welcomed; all other rights reserved.
To send comments, to subscribe, or to unsubscribe, write jimt@quixotic.ca
********************************************************
YOUR TURN
Not as many letters this week, about the implications related to the fireball over southeastern B.C., but still interesting. Most of the reactions were to my comment, “There is no master plan…”
Frank Martens wrote, “That’s exactly what I, and all the other atheists in the world, have been saying all along.”
Note: I didn’t actually say anything about there being no God. I’m often surprised by how tenaciously “atheists” like Frank cling to an outdated concept of God.
Ralph Milton also agreed: “Rabbi Harold Kushner makes the same argument coming at it from a very different angle. His son was afflicted with a disease that had him aging rapidly, so that before he reached his teens he had become an old man and died. Why him? Pure chance.”
On the other hand, Steve Roney argued, “There is indeed a master plan. There are indeed laws to which the universe conforms. This is basically what Copernicus worked out; added to, of course, by Newton’s law of gravity, and by others. We can indeed reliably predict the motions of celestial bodies. We have that science.”
Steve is quite right that we can predict the paths of solar objects, with remarkable precision. But he didn’t attempt to explain how the master plan included the demise of an earthworm in the forest floor.
Tom Watson expanded on the absence of a master plan: “Consider what has been happening in Florida. Barely a few days ago, life was sailing along beautifully well. Then yesterday, with notice of Hurricane Irma on the way, we were told to evacuate our home immediately. In what seemed like the twinkling of an eye, everything changed and we were cast adrift.
“One of the hardest things we humans have to deal with is ambiguity. Because we need to understand why things are as they are in order to cope, and because we need to be able to predict outcomes in order to live with some kind of plan. The mention of things happening by chance erodes all of that and shakes us to the core.”
Bill Franzman combined traditional and modern views: “I like to believe that God, in the beginning, created everything that needed to be created and set it in motion. God does not create floods, fires and great disasters; they unfortunately happen by their motion in our universe. Sometimes our free will can cause a disaster just as it can cause a happy event. God knowing everything before it happens cannot be. Or can it? I hope not.”
Isabel Gibson mused, “And aren't you glad that neither the non-existent master plan nor the collapsing probabilities resulted in a meteorite in your hot tub?”
Isabel went on to comment on some of last week’s letters: “Like Fran Ota, I also saw the interview with Senator Sinclair. While I take to heart the quote from Dr. King, it's also true that people seeking justice can legitimately differ in their opinions about what's needed or helpful.”
********************************************
TECHNICAL STUFF
If you want to comment on something, write me at jimt@quixotic.ca. Or just hit the “Reply” button.
To subscribe or unsubscribe, send me an e-mail message at the address above. Or subscribe electronically by sending a blank e-mail (no message) to sharpedges-subscribe@lists.quixotic.ca. Similarly, you can un-subscribe at sharpedges-unsubscribe@lists.quixotic.ca.
My webpage is up and running again -- thanks to Wayne Irwin and ChurchWeb Canada. You can now access current columns and five years of archives at http://quixotic.ca
I write a second column each Wednesday, called Soft Edges, which deals somewhat more gently with issues of life and faith. To sign up for Soft Edges, write to me directly at the address above, or send a blank e-mail to softedges-subscribe@lists.quixotic.ca
********************************************
PROMOTION STUFF…
Ralph Milton ’s latest project is called “Sing Hallelujah” -- the world’s first video hymnal. It consists of 100 popular hymns, both new and old, on five DVDs that can be played using a standard DVD player and TV screen, for use in congregations who lack skilled musicians to play piano or organ. More details at www.singhallelujah.ca
Ralph’s HymnSight webpage is still up, http://www.hymnsight.ca, with a vast gallery of photos you can use to enhance the appearance of the visual images you project for liturgical use (prayers, responses, hymn verses, etc.)
Wayne Irwin's “Churchweb Canada,” an inexpensive service for any congregation wanting to develop a web presence, with free consultation. <http://www.churchwebcanada.ca>
I recommend Isabel Gibson’s thoughtful and well-written blog, www.traditionaliconoclast.com
Alva Wood’s satiric stories about incompetent bureaucrats and prejudiced attitudes in a small town -- not particularly religious, but fun; alvawood@gmail.com to get onto her mailing list.
Tom Watson writes a weekly blog called “The View from Grandpa Tom’s Balcony” -- ruminations on various subjects, and feedback from Tom’s readers. Write him at tomwatso@gmail.com or twatson@sentex.net