Eliminating Horse Races

At a dinner gathering earlier this week, the conversational theme turned, as it often does here, to politics. Canadians we know tend to be astonished at our political machinations, although continually curious out of a recognition that they well-being of Canada relies so dominantly on the US – although interestingly enough China is very close to having the same sphere of influence these days.

The conversation turned specifically into variously shared dissatisfactions with the representative form of government practiced here, especially how patronage is so blatantly practiced – the condition of the road passing through one’s own ‘riding’ (the term used for our electoral districts – depends on how many people voted for the person representing that riding in the provincial Assembly and who live on that section of the road. (all of this is our equivalent of the “pork” garnered by a particular senator or representative.)

This dissatisfaction is finding expression in a growing support for changing the electoral process from “first across the line” wins the seat (riding/district) to proportional representation. The advantage, they say, is that by having a slate of candidates listed under the banner of a particular party, then the party’s platform becomes the deciding matter, not just which candidate achieves sufficient popularity as to win the election. It also, they claim, can provide for more equitable representation, as a party can create their candidates’ list to reflect gender, ethnic, economic balance. But the primary strength is that a slate representing a particular platform is given to the voters to decide.  After the election, each party selects the number of candidates in proportion to the percentage of votes they received. It’s the party that continues to be held accountable to the citizens and can be more easily replaced.

Additionally, they claim, the cost of elections can be greatly reduced. Individual candidates, in ‘first across the line” must raise a considerable amount of money personally in order to be elected and then re-elected. In the PR (proportional representation) system, the party is responsible for funding their campaign. They also claim this reduces the influence of special interests, who usually come into a candidate’s back-door through campaign contributions.

In almost all instances of PR form of elections – and there are far more countries using this method than I at first realized (New Zealand is one which relatively recently went to the PR system) – the governments formed are “minority” governments in which the parties must work together to develop coalitions and compromise, resulting in a plurality of perspectives rather than just one dominant power base.

Would such a system work in the US? It’s hard to imagine we could make the shift; it probably would take a major collapse of our electoral system for that to happen.  But it’s interesting to contemplate given the rancor and obscene expense of conducting elections in the US, the power of special interest groups, the incapacity we have to regulate campaign finances and the rise of the political class of professional politicians, who primary question seems to be: how can I get re-elected.