Skip to main content

“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.” ~~ John G. Diefenbaker

“First Past The Post” works close to home by focusing on electoral districts first … “Proportional Representation” tries to fit a size 10 foot into a size 7 shoe by bastardizing electoral districts


MEL ROTHENBERGER: There are so many things wrong with the referendum on proportional representation, it would take as long to cover it all as it would to explain the convoluted and foggy alternatives on the ballot.

So let’s just talk about the hocus pocus of proportional representation (also known as prop rep, pro rep or PR) math. This one giant flaw should be enough to make us run, not walk, away from prop rep.

Throughout the months leading up to this vote, prop rep boosters have relied heavily on a simplistic abracadabra formula to convince us their system makes sense.

Their favourite line is “40 per cent of the votes should equal 40 per cent of the seats,” or variations thereof.

With the current First Past the Post, they say, “39 per cent of the votes = 54 per cent of the seats = 100 per cent of the power” but with PR “39 per cent of the vote = 39 per cent of the seats = Compromise, cooperation, collaboration.” This is labeled “Proportional Representation Math.”

I once called it “voodoo math.” It’s magical, catchy and easy to understand. “It’s that simple,” they say. No need to think about it, just have faith that under prop rep “every vote will count.” With prop rep, everyone will surely sit around singing Kumbaya as they compromise, co-operate and collaborate. Sure, that’s what politicians do.

In reality, of course, it’s just spin. The subtext of prop rep math is a different story.


The myth of prop rep is that it’s more democratic. But by definition, an “at large” or total-popular-vote system — which is what prop rep is — centralizes electoral power at the expense of local communities.


It works from the top down rather than from the bottom up. FPTP is a ward system that does the opposite. That’s the fundamental difference between the two.


The grade school algebra used in the pro-PR campaign is designed to divert attention from the shortcomings of the at-large system, as well as from the ridiculously complicated and largely untested algorithms of the prop rep alternatives we’re being asked to choose from in the referendum.

PR puts the power base in big population centres. The at-large system of government is inappropriate for a major jurisdiction like B.C. In order to retain ridings at all it must resort to complex combinations of elected and appointed representatives.

One of the PR options on the ballot even proposes combining completely different systems — one for urban and semi-urban centres and another for less populated “rural” British Columbia. Want cheese on that?

Two of the three PR options have never even been tried before.

Though electoral maps for these various PR systems have never been released, boundaries will be moved, ridings combined, or ridings grouped into regions, some MLAs elected and others assigned higgledy-piggledy by parties, all in aid of attaining the electoral grail of “40 per cent of the votes must equal 40 per cent of the seats.”

The First Past the Post ward system is straight-forward. Wards, of course, are called ridings, constituencies or electoral districts at the provincial level. We usually associate ward systems with civic elections and I’m not a fan of them for any but the largest cities. In the case of a sprawling province with widely diverse economies, cultures and aspirations, however, FPTP works and here’s why.

The best explanation I’ve heard of FPTP is that it’s actually 87 mini elections. That’s how many ridings there are in the province.

The people of each riding get to choose who will represent them in the Legislature without anyone else interfering. Some ridings have more or less population than others, bigger or smaller turnouts and different priorities. Some might elect their MLA by a huge margin, and others might elect their MLA by a smaller margin but in the legislature they’re equals.

The winning party may or may not get more than half the popular vote with FPTP but the people who represent us will get the most votes here at home, and there will usually be a majority government.

If I elect Joe or Josie Schmotz I want to see him or her in Victoria, not eliminated because of some complex PR formula that decides they’re not from the right party. If Bill or Beckie Blotz and the other candidates from their party get 10 per cent in every single riding it doesn’t mean they should get 10 per cent of the seats. Sorry, but you should have to win somewhere.

In other words, FPTP works close to home by focusing on electoral districts first. PR tries to fit a size 10 foot into a size 7 shoe by bastardizing electoral districts.

Forty per cent of the votes should equal 40 per cent of the seats? Mathematical nonsense is not what’s needed here. In fact, prop rep isn’t needed at all, except by the Greens.

No vote is ever wasted when we take the trouble to use it. But don’t be sucked in by this “40-40” stuff. Don't vote for prop rep just because the slogans sound good. Something this important shouldn’t be decided with slogans, it should be decided by substance. Go to the Elections BC website and try to figure out the three PR alternatives on offer.

If you do, you’ll see that the mathematics of proportional representation doesn’t add up.


Mel Rothenburger is the former Editor of The Daily News in Kamloops, B.C. (retiring in 2012), and past mayor of Kamloops (1999-2005). He continued to write columns for The Daily News until it ceased publication Jan. 11, 2014, and did regular commentary for CBC Radio.


Comments

  1. Well done Mel. Written in a way even I can understand. FPTF looks like it will work well.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you for writing such an easy to understand article that I can share on social media.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

GORDON F. D. WILSON: When The Trick Masquerades as The Treat

Thirty-seven years ago, Halloween 1987, I became the leader of the BC Liberal Party.   British Columbia was badly polarized. Social Credit held one side and the NDP the other. It had been twelve years, 1975, since Liberal MLAs Garde Gardom, Pat McGeer, and Alan Williams had walked away from their party to join Social Credit, one year after the lone Progressive Conservative MLA Hugh Curtis had abandoned his party to sit with Bill Bennett, the son and heir apparent to long-serving BC Premier, WAC Bennett.   An unwritten agreement by the biggest Canadian political shareholders, the federal Liberals and Conservatives, decided that if British Columbia was to remain a lucrative franchise from a revenue perspective, they couldn’t risk splitting the electoral vote and electing the real enemy, the NDP, so no resources would be used to finance either a Liberal or Conservative party provincially.   “There are two sides to every street,” I was told by a very prominent Canadian businessman who cont

FORSETH: As a BC Conservative member, and campaign worker, I will again state that the fact these errors were found -- AND brought to light BY Elections BC -- shows the system IS working

Sadly, two and a half weeks after the BC provincial election campaign, those who want to undermine our political process are still at.  PLUS, we also have one who doesn’t even live in our country, never mind our province. I speak of the buffoon running for President of the United States, who has poisoned the well when it comes to faith in the electoral process. Just today alone, comments such as the following, were being made of posts that I shared online: ... all the votes they keep finding has just favoured NDP on in all critical ridings and soon they will flip another riding in favour of NDP, Come on. ... Elections BC has ridiculed British Columbians, and I no longer have confidence or trust in their process and competence regarding the results Then there are others online, with comments like these – who are claiming fraud in the October 19th election: ... Who is the oversight for Elections BC? They should be investigated for election fraud! ... Fraudulent election ... should be red

“With the talent and dedication of this caucus we will hold David Eby to account for his government’s out of control spending and ongoing failures in healthcare, public safety and addictions" — John Rustad

Today, John Rustad, Leader of the Conservative Party of British Columbia, proudly unveiled his shadow cabinet, a dynamic team of talented individuals ready to hold David Eby’s disastrous government accountable and present a strong alternative vision for British Columbia. “ Our shadow cabinet is a diverse and experienced group, committed to restoring prosperity, public safety, and affordability for every British Columbian ,” said Rustad. “ With experts in every field, we are focused on delivering real solutions for the challenges our province faces .” Rustad emphasized the historic appointment of Aaliya Warbus as House Leader. The shadow cabinet reflects the Conservative Party’s vision to build a brighter future for British Columbia. The appointments are as follows: Leadership Positions : Aaliya Warbus – House Leader Bruce Banman – Whip Sheldon Claire – Deputy Whip Portfolios : Tony Luck – Municipal Affairs and Local Government Sharon Hartwell – Rural Communities and Rural Development I

Labels

Show more