Why Minority Governments Are Better

"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things: Of shoes -- and ships -- and sealing-wax" and what the hell we're going to do in this province to bring about the critical changes to our system, a system that has about a quarter of the electorate electing a sizeable majority.

The numbers are simple. About 50 per cent vote and 40 per cent of that vote elects a majority. That majority has an iron grip of the tools of power for four years, leaving the rest of us relying on the Opposition to make noises that show up the government's failings although there is nothing they can do about them. There was a time when the mainstream media held government's feet to the fire but that hasn't happened since Campbell & Co were elected in 2001.

This system is called first past the post (FPTP). Canada is one of the last so-called democracies to operate under this system

It's interesting that as I write this that German Chancellor Angela Merkel has been returned to office with 41 per cent of the vote but because her nation operates under a partial proportional representation (PR) system which means that Ms. Merkel must form a coalition. The German system is much like that of New Zealand's mixed member proportionate (MMP) which I'll get to in a bit.

In a pure PR system, voters are offered platforms from several parties and they select whom they wish with seats in the legislature being in proportion to the votes the parties receive. Each party selects a list of proposed members and for a party to gain any seats they must meet a threshold of five per cent (or whatever per cent is the law) before they can take a seat. Under this system there are no constituencies -- the formula is a simple matter of Grade 1 arithmetic.

Making every vote count

Before I go further, let's talk about constituencies.

These came into existence because of the long distances between centres from the capital. Even to represent Hope, B.C., was a considerable chore for an MLA, let alone the Peace River Country. If FPTP is in place, people in remoter areas feel comforted in knowing that they have someone in Victoria especially mandated to look after their affairs.

Those who have been MLAs, if they speak honestly, will acknowledge this is rubbish. The government is run by the premier and his or her, forgive the lack of manners, henchmen in cabinet. In B.C. there is, effectively, one super leader with the rest of the government MLAs doing what they're told. The distance from, say, Fort St John is of little consequence now that email gives instant contact for voters with their MLA.

With a proportional representation system, however, there is this to consider: parties will be forced by circumstance to demonstrate concern for all voters, since all votes count.

In fact, let's look at a constituency like Vancouver Hastings where the NDP's Shane Simpson won about 60 per cent of the vote. The 60 per cent are now powerless to alter the agenda of the Liberals. Under PR, however, every vote counts, even the minority who voted other than for the party with the most overall votes. The fact is, no area can be ignored just because it doesn't "vote right."

Mix it up

I prefer the Mixed Member Proportional system where half the members come off the party list and half from constituencies. (New Zealand is a close example; however they have four seats set aside for Maoris).

Let's look at a bit of B.C. history. In 1999, Gordon Gibson, Nick Loenen, Gary Lauk and I -- all former MLAs and from different parties, studied various systems. This started with a speech I gave in 1998 at Trinity Western University, which held a dinner in honour of the late Mel Smith, a prominent expert on constitutional law.* In essence I asked why we couldn't forget about Ottawa and change our system in B.C. I had a spare copy of Catherine Drinker Bowen's masterpiece Miracle At Philadelphia, the amazing story of the making of the American constitution, which I gave to Gordon Gibson who had been on about electoral reform in B.C. for much longer than I.

The four of us, thanks to the provision of office space by radio station CKNW, met several times and came up with a report containing, amongst other things, a recommendation of a constituent assembly to recommend how we should govern ourselves.

I took this report to a radio interview I did with then opposition leader Gordon Campbell and he vowed to take it to his caucus and when he became premier, he brought the recommendation to fruition. The constituent assembly, 50 men and women from all corners of the province, recommended something called STV which, to my way of thinking, was the best recommendation I had seen. Unfortunately it was complicated and easy to throw nasty one-liners at. Insiders like Bud Smith for the Liberals and the NDP's Bill Tieleman fought it tooth and nail. Insiders always like the status quo and many would rather spend ten years in the wilderness, able to achieve nothing, on the hope of a chance themselves to have a four year absolute dictatorship.

The main arguments marshaled against the STV proposal were that multi-membered constituencies would be too clumsy and the system would lead to minority governments.

To take up the first complaint, let's return to the New Zealand system. In that country, constituencies are made larger because half the seats are off party lists. In these times of emails and live face-to-face telephones (Skype), servicing such ridings is easy enough.

I believe that minority governments make good sense. They drastically rein in the premier's powers as he can easily be brought down. This is rare, as I'll discuss in a moment. The minister of finance no longer is able to cram his budget through the legislature but must face serious debate by MLAs with power. The sham debates that now take place will be one gone as all MLAs now have a say. Most important of all, the MLAs now has power and dignity. Voters will be able to insist that the MLA pay attention to their opinions because the MLA, now no longer chained to the party whip, has the power to act upon his constituent's wishes.

Minority retort

Minority government doesn't mean a rudderless government at all. In many places where PR or MMP are in place governments have been very stable indeed, the shining example being Germany.

The overarching fact is that parties are never in a hurry for an election. The system in fact creates a mutual assured destruction element meaning that parties will cooperate. Most minority governments last the full term but only by trashing the arrogance that is the hallmark of FPTP and listening to all.

Why shouldn't minorities, say the Greens, have MLAs proportional to their electoral support? The Greens are, for example, a major player in Germany and have given environmentalists a role in government and why shouldn't they have a voice?

(Here I must offer a caveat. One cannot assume that since the Greens got, say, 10 per cent under FPTP, they would get the same under MMP. Under the latter they would likely do much better.)

As with all things, there are problems. Unfortunately we've been taught to make perfection the enemy of improvement.

The main problem with the PR part of MMP is the party list. Will nominees be selected because they're large donors to the party or someone the party seeks to reward? It seems to me that a province of two major parties which stacks leadership meetings and candidates for the legislature would be loath to worry about such things. Remember that each party has to put up its best lest the other have better lists. In any event, this is easy to overcome -- by a system of "primaries" as in the U.S.

If we are not content to continue a system where a quarter of the voters gets 100 per cent of the power we should do something.

I throw my modest proposals on the table.

*Dates corrected Oct. 1, 11:20 a.m.