Electoral Reform: In Defence of First Past the Post

A stated priority of the New Democratic Party in the 2004 election was to hold a national referendum on electoral reform, namely a referendum on replacing the current first past the post system with some form of proportional representation. In my opinion, such a move would be a mistake. Canada needs to keep its first past the post system in order to maintain stability and accountability.

The first past the post system provides more political stability because it more easily delivers majority governments. There are several advantages to this. First of all, majority governments can actually get things accomplished. Minority governments, on the other hand, tend to get bogged down in partisan bickering (or in the case of the current Liberal minority, filibustering its own legislation). Also, coalition governments, as are likely in a proportionally representative system, usually result in bloated budgets due to all of the compromises that must be made in order to garner support. (To see an example of this, look no further than the $4.5 billion the Liberals added to the budget bill to ensure the support of the NDP.) To make matters worse, proportional representation would allow the rise of many small parties, each demanding concessions in return for their support.

The economy also benefits for the political stability of first past the post. In the days leading up to the confidence vote in the House of Commons in late May, a time of great political uncertainty, one could virtually track the political developments by observing the fluctuations in the exchange rate. The value of the Loonie erratically rose and sank with the government's chances of surviving. Turbulence like this is the exception to the rule in our current system. With the perpertual minorities of proportional representation, it would be the norm.

Moreover, changing the electoral system would degrade the accountability of government. A majority government (which is much more likely with the current system) is judged based on the execution of its platform. A majority government that does not fulfill its commitments would have no excuses to offer and would (ideally) be voted out of office.

More worryingly, the use of party lists in proportional electoral systems (such as in New Zealand, which has a mixed system of both regional and proportional representation), creates a system of party patronage. Rather than have MPs be accountable to their constituents, Parliamentarians would need to earn their spot on the list by impressing the party's top brass. A program on electoral reform aired on CPAC today featured a journalist from New Zealand complaining that it is impossible to vote out MPs who are doing a lousy job. They could lose their riding, but still end up in parliament via a high position on their party's list.

Certainly, the current system is not perfectly representative of the population's will. The major attraction of a proportionally representative system is that it would ensure sufficient diversity in Parliament, representing all conceivable segments of the population. However, it is far more vital for our government to be functional and accountable than it is for it to be politically correct.