Proportional Representation

 Nigel Farage is now running for a seat at Westminster. He complains, however, that the “first past the post” system that Canada shares with Britain makes it difficult for new parties. The current government of Canada managed only 33% of the vote last election, and fewer votes than the opposition Conservatives. Reform in the UK could surpass the Tories in votes, but win almost no seats. This does not reflect the popular will.

I’m not convinced majority rule is the end-all goal here. It is more important to have a system of any sort that ensures an orderly transition of power. Since first past the post is tried and true, it is risky to tamper with it.

Second, majority rule always risks oppression of minorities. Nazi Germany is the obvious example. It makes sense to have checks and balances, like the riding system, which elects representative voices by region, to protect regional minorities.

Third, first past the post is simple; making elections harder to steal.

Fourth, proportional representation almost never produces a majority government. This makes it hard for any government to pursue a consistent and rational policy; they must govern as part of an unstable coalition, making ad hoc deals. That leads to inconsistency and unpredictability which makes it harder for people to manage their lives. And said coalitions could fall at any moment. A lot of fuel is burned just taking care of business.

But let us suppose we nevertheless want proportional representation, or some form of voting that more justly reflects the popular will. Here’s my proposal:

For the House of Commons, go to the Irish system of ranked ballots: if there are five candidates in a riding, you can number your preferences on the ballot, 1 through 5. If no candidate gets 50%, the bottom candidate is dropped from the count, and his votes reassigned based on second preference; and so on until one candidate reaches the 50% threshold. This would end the problem of wasted votes and the need for strategic voting. The system is still simple enough that fraud is unlikely. All the current systems could still be used, including the same ballots. If some voter is confused by or does not know about the ranked ballot, his ballot, simply marked as now with an x beside one candidate, could still be counted just as it is now. So nothing is lost.

And then the Senate; widely criticized now for being unelected and serving no purpose. For the sake of illustration, say it has 100 seats. These seats could be assigned proportionally, based on the percentage each party achieves in the popular vote for commons seats. This way, every small or new political party would have a voice, given that they attract as little as 1% of the vote. Each party puts up and advertises their ranked slate of 100 candidates. One party gets 40% of the vote—they seat their first 40 candidates. One gets 30%--they seat their first thirty. Again, this requires no change in the actual voting system, only in how the vote count is applied. Little chance of fraud or gumming things up.

A Senate majority would be almost impossible; a problem with proportional representation. But it need not matter. The Senate would, as now, not be empowered to initiate legislation. Allow it only to repeal existing legislation, and legislation in effect for at least a year (or some other time span). 

This way, it would not hamstring the government in the Commons, but would be a check on bad policy and a force preventing government from getting too large or regulations too Byzantine. The incsntive would be to always be looking for things to repeal.

By electing the Senate by this method, from the national vote totals, it would also be a voice for national unity, in counterbalance to the regional voices of the riding system.

Britain could do the same with the anachronistic House of Lords.

Who’s with me on this?