VOTE NO TO PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION
A few weeks ago I was downtown in the market district of Toronto. An older woman was handing out flyers for proportional representation which will be voted on in Ontario on October 10th. She asked me if I had educated myself on the issue. Here is a rough transcript of the conversation.WOMAN: Have you educated yourself on proportional representation?
NICOL: Yes.
WOMAN: So you understand and have educated yourself as to what it is about?
NICOL: Yes. I am educated enough to know I will not be voting for it?
WOMAN: But a citizens coalition of your peers decided it was best for Ontario to take this route.
NICOL: Citizens coalition? No, maam. It was a coalition of judges, lawyers and academics. Hardly a 'citizens coalition'.
WOMAN: That's not true. I have the list.
NICOL: Yes it is. It was actually quite elitist. Were there any, say, houswives on the coalition?
WOMAN: I...I think there was one I know.
NICOL: What was her name?
WOMAN: There definitely was one.
NICOL: What was her name? You said you have the list.
WOMAN: Well, there were students.
NICOL: Exactly. Sounds pretty elitist to me. And very left wing.
WOMAN: What! What are you talking about?
NICOL: Do you know about the German concept of realpolitik?
WOMAN: No.
NICOL: It's the politics of how things play out in the real world. You and your friends just want to tilt the province irrevocably hard-left. It will give the fringe left-wing parties like the NDP the constant balance of power and make the government always tilt ideologically to the left. 15% of the hard left will hold more power than say 36% moderate or right. In Italy it allowed communists to have immense power in governement and now they can never vote to them out.
WOMAN: But we need more women in government.
NICOL: What kind of women?
WOMAN: Well...women.
NICOL: So you would be fine with a pro-life, evangelical woman in government?
WOMAN: Well, we need all views.
NICOL: So you would be fine with a pro-life evangelical woman in government?
WOMAN: Well...
NICOL: You can't say it can you. You are a hard leftist and are not being up front with people about this issue.
WOMAN: I have not at all told you what party I vote for.
NICOL: You're NDP.
WOMAN: How do you know that?
NICOL: Tell me I'm wrong. You're NDP.
WOMAN: I....I...how do you...I never said...
NICOL: Be honest with people maam.
On October 10th vote NO to proportional representation.
posted by Nicol DuMoulin @ 9:16 AM
10 Comments:
Great conversation!!
Nicol, very interesting discussion. I've been on the fence on this one.
I was hoping that it might discourage a majority government such as what we have had the last several years.
On the other hand, if this province becomes any more left-leaning, we'll fall off the cliff.
Please continue posting info on this subject. It needs to be addressed. Thanks.
Proportional representation would give more power to the people voting, and take away power from the Bloc Quebecois.
Imagine conservatives voting in Toronto. Our votes are worthless. PR makes them worth something.
Thanks to you all for your comments.
PR looks great on paper but in reality it gives a stronger voice to a significant minority. I understand why many conservatives like it. The thought is that it will make their vote count. And there is some truth to that.
But here is the rub...
It always ends up favouring the minority that is stronger. There are more NDP types in Ontario than say people who would be willing to get behind a strong conservative/Republican type party. Even though you have a voice, that voice will be cancelled by the NDP, who will always partner with the left wing Liberals and Red Tory types to create a majority on any issue.
Imagine always living in a world run by the Jack Layton/Paul Martin type coalition. You will - ALWAYS -be outnumbered. That's because the demographics of Ontario/Toronto does not favour you.
And once this system is in, it is virtually impossible to get rid of because the minority parties that get power through it will never relinquish it.
I know it is a complex issue that no one is talking about yet, but the media will push - HARD - for it in the fall.
There is a reason why the biggest proponents of it are very left-wing.
I am only hoping the Liberal Party's quest for power hurts the push.
I will write more on this.
"It always ends up favouring the minority that is stronger. There are more NDP types in Ontario than say people who would be willing to get behind a strong conservative/Republican type party. Even though you have a voice, that voice will be cancelled by the NDP, who will always partner with the left wing Liberals and Red Tory types to create a majority on any issue."
And that is the ebb and flow of politics. Right NOW PR might hurt the Ontario Progressive Conservatives but there may also be a day when it will help them.
If instead of a vote on PR, it was a vote to allow absolute rule by the next party that forms the government and the PC's were up in the polls by 15%, I wouldn't vote for it. Why? Because I love democracy over partisanship.
I might not like the effects of PR but it is a system that best represents the peoples voice.
PR is a scam to help socialists get elected.
PR is NOT democracy.
One person one vote is...!
PR is all about electing more politicians and their friends and family are the ones who will benefit most, think 2 or 3 times the politicians we have now, is that what we want?
PR is all about diluting the popular vote, we will end up with dozens of political parties, the majority of which ..will be left-leaning..we all know and have seen how the left votes as a block.
Essentially ... PR is BACK_DOOR socialism, they can't get elected on their nationalize this-nationalize that mandate..so.. skewer the system, dilute the right-wing vote, propagandise the electorate into believing
MORE politicians will somhow make things better.
Ps...PR will not solve the problem of politicians LYING through their teeth..!
Our current "First Past The Post" (FPTP) system acts like a filter so fringe groups never get power. PR removes that filter in the vain hope of producing government which is more responsive to the voters. What it produces is constant minority governments at first and eventually it produces constant, short-lived coalition governments as the major parties end up fracturing into many smaller "single issue" parties. It's a nightmare Canada does not need to relive. In case you were not aware, PR was tried in the past.
PR is good in theory. Having a government which has to compromise various points of view is a good thing. While yes the left will use their minority as a lever to get more out of the sitting governments, there is nothing to stop say the liberal and conservatives to get together on issues which are really important (snowballs in warm places not withstanding).
The problem with the ontario proposal is that the PR is filled from lists of candidates supplied by the parties. These people who will be sitting in the legislature will have had NOBODY vote for them. They are accountable to NOBODY except the party, and the party has every incentive to use these lists as a patronage appointment -- except that this differs from situations like the senate, the legislature appointees will have REAL POWER.
There are better solutions to the PR problem. The Ontario proposal is not one of them and should be roundly defeated.
Mmm.. Seems like more cons than pros at the moment.
The problem with the ontario proposal is that the PR is filled from lists of candidates supplied by the parties. These people who will be sitting in the legislature will have had NOBODY vote for them. They are accountable to NOBODY except the party, and the party has every incentive to use these lists as a patronage appointment...
David, those are very valid concerns. We need to have a lot more discussion on this as the referendum nears.
Wow. That was a really aggressive conversation.
To me, the problem with proportional representation isn't so much who it will elect--it's how.
Consider this: in the current first-past-the-post system, every MP or MLA is accountable to a constituency, which they are deemed responsible for. They are expected to (but don't always) consider the views and needs of their constituents when voting in the legislative house. If they too often flout the needs or interests of their constituents, they'll lose the next election.
But under a PR system, there is no direct link of accountability between representative and constituent. These representatives don't have to worry about being voted out in the next election (as they are actually chosen by the party) and as such are only responsible to their party whip.
Even under mixed-member systems, a large block of unaccountable representatives would be elected, with no one to be accountable to except their party.
As such, PR would actually polarize the partisan system in absolute terms. Never could someone like Joe Comuzzi break with his party in defense of his constituents, because he'll have the party whip to answer to, and with no constituent voters to anger, the whip will be merciless.
PR is a bad deal. First-past-the-post may be imperfect, but it's actually the best system available, with the possible exception of single-transferrable-voting.
Post a Comment
<< Home