But our perfect democracy, which neither needs nor particularly wants voters, is a rarity. It is important to remember there still exist many other forms of government in the world today, and that dozens of foreign governments still long for a democracy such as ours to be imposed on them. – Jon Stewart
With Obama’s overwhelming success in America’s recent election, Jon Stewart echoes an inspiring point. But is the American “democracy” really that enviable? How about other democratically elected governments in the western world, such as Canada’s directly representative House of Commons and Germany’s proportionally representative Bundestag?
The American Electoral College system has a few drawbacks. Primarily, criticism centres on the possibility of electing a minority president, one without the absolute majority of the popular vote. This system also has an inherent tendency to suppress voter turnout due to its indirect nature. You do not vote for the presidential candidate you want to be in power; you vote to show a third person, the elector, how you want them to vote for you. This, in turn, leads to another potential problem: the faithless elector. There is no guarantee that the elector will follow the democratic majority of his electoral district whilst casting his/her vote in the Electoral College. Sounds confusing? I certainly think so. Furthermore, the American system gives way to a bipolarisation of the political landscape. The winner of any state will take all electoral votes of that state. This prevents any significant showing of a third or independent party candidate. On the other hand, the system gives way to a strong, limited term presidency, wherein a democratically elected president is free to implement politics as he/she sees fit, provided congress plays along. That strength allows for major political shifts with the election of a new President.
The Canadian direct representation offers a bit more accountability. Each member in the House of Commons is elected by a plurality of popular votes in separate constituencies (ridings). The party that gains most seats in the House (parliament) fills the position of prime minister. The advantage of this system is that members of parliament (MPs) needing to vote on any bill can be subjected to direct scrutiny and influence by voters in each riding. If voters pressure their MP to take a specific stance there is a good chance that this MP may vote faithless to party lines – there is a long standing history of voter influence in ridings in Canada. The disadvantage is, however, the possibility of a minority government such as the current conservative government. This article details very nicely some of the perils of a minority government. Also, similar to the American system, there is a good chance of over- or under-representation in the Canadian parliament. As an extreme example: if in every riding a member of the Conservative Party won a marginal majority, they would fill 100% of the seats in parliament (one of my worst nightmares), thus starkly skewing the make-up of popular political preferences.
Finally, looking at the German version of proportional representation in parliament, the plurality of political representation in the Bundestag makes a seductive first argument in favour of such a system. Similar to Canada, the party gaining an absolute majority or majority coalition may fill the Chancellor’s seat. Any party gaining five percent of the popular vote (barring minor electoral adjustments) will gain the same proportion of seats in parliament. This system, installed by the allies post WWII, has proven immensely stable and truthfully reflective of the popular political fabric. There can, however, be made an argument that a voter will quickly feel disenfranchised as the impact of his or her vote is not immediately apparent. The plurality of political platforms and virtual impossibility of a majority government by a single party forces the government to negotiate for virtually every aspect of daily business, leading to perpetual compromises. This prevents the occurrence of bold moves and frequently bogs governmental business down in trench wars.
Which system is best? The short answer is very political: it depends. It depends on your set of priorities and political affinities. For me personally, the Canadian one suits best. It allows bold moves within reason. It limits US-like bipolarisation without the paralyzing effects the Bundestag frequently endures. Either way I look at it, any of these systems, no matter how skewed or imperfect they are, supply the best answer to our current political challenges. It is the plurality of ideas – allowing for more than just one idea to be right - that will win the struggle against tyranny and totalitarianism that some people unfortunately have to endure.
As Winston Churchill put it, “Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried”.
I am still not sure I understand perfectly but that was very educational. I think I prefer Canada's best, but I would have to live with it to decide. I am certain ours is broken!
ReplyDeleteYou said, "The advantage of this system is that members of parliament (MPs) needing to vote on any bill can be subjected to direct scrutiny and influence by voters in each riding. If voters pressure their MP to take a specific stance there is a good chance that this MP may vote faithless to party lines – there is a long standing history of voter influence in ridings in Canada."
ReplyDeleteI would appreciate some examples here. Winner-take-all voting generates rigid party discipline in Canada. Canadian MPs vote the way they are told, every time, or they don't last long.
You said, "The disadvantage is, however, the possibility of a minority government such as the current conservative government."
While the current Conservative government is surely a bad example, Canada has done very well under minority government. The minority governments of Lester Pearson gave us the Canada Pension Plan, a new Canadian flag, Medicare, and much else. Minority government is better than our usual phony majorities, and coalition government, common under proportional representation, is better still.
@ Wayne – First off, thanks for visiting my blog! I really appreciate your participation in this specific topic and you raise some interesting points.
ReplyDeleteIt is generally true that MPs will adhere to the party line for fear of consequences. That, however, is not my point. I was focusing on the ability of voters to take influence, regardless of the consequences to the MP. A couple of MPs who took a stance against their party are Bill Casey and Joe Comuzzi.
The long-standing tradition of an MP’s ability to take a stance against their party reaches back as far as 1896, when 16 Conservatives voted with Laurier and the Liberals to adjourn a Conservative measure pertaining to the restoration of Catholic schools in Manitoba.
Your second interesting point is the fact that Canada generally has done well in the past with minority governments. I did not mean to say, or imply, that minority governments, per se, are inferior to phony majorities. I was merely hinting at the potential instability of a minority government and the often recognised negative economic spill-over effects of political uncertainty. Lester B. Pearson is probably one of the best examples not only of a successful minority government, but possibly of government in Canada in general.
With this post, I mainly tried to explore very rudimentary differences between the three different forms of political representation in its abstract form. Most important to me was the conclusion of this post – acknowledging basic advantages and drawbacks to each form of political representation, yet proposing that whatever form you live with in the west is probably the best answer to tyranny and fundamentalism. As long as the west maintains their pluralist political process, religious and political fundamentalism will invariably lose out.