BC Voters will soon be flooded by a growing amount of information
about the superiority of proportional representation (PR) over the majority
system (MS) presently used for allocating seats in parliament. If the past is a
guide to the future, this information will be almost totally about how PR
produces a “fair” distribution of seats, avoids having a government whose
members in parliament received less than one half of the votes and thus leads
to “wasted” votes.
The expected flood of information is likely to provide
little detailed explanation the three different types of PR systems under
consideration, mainly because the explanation is extremely difficult as each
system involves complex, wide-ranging and fundamental changes in the size of
electoral districts, the number of candidates in each and the procedures for
allocating votes.
The forthcoming information can also be expected to be short
on the discussion of important changes that PR will bring to the political institutions
and environment.
First, the political environment will be changed
fundamentally by the highly likely increase in the number of parties contesting
elections. This prediction is based on a review of academic studies by Lydia
Miljan and Taylor Jackson, which showed that the number of political
parties is 2.5 in MS countries and 4.6 in PR countries.
Most of the additional parties that BC can expect under PR
are likely to represent small groups representing narrow regional, industrial,
religious or labour interests and, most disturbingly, members of distinct
ethnic populations. The increased number and objectives of the increased number
of parties will raise the divisiveness of election campaigns, parliamentary
debates and the adoption of laws.
Second, the time it takes to form government after elections
is 32 days in MS and 50 days in PR countries.
Such an increase reflects the more turbulent political environment brought
about by the enlarged number of parties and will reduce the efficiency of the
electoral system.
Third, coalition governments formed under the PR system have
shorter life-spans than those under the MS system, mainly because political
differences among parties in the coalition after some time turn out often to be
irreconcilable. The costs of the extra elections fall on taxpayers and the
shortness of the life-span of governments impedes their ability to adopt
complex legislative programs.
The forthcoming information campaign will also be short on
the effects PR has on economic performance. Thus, the PR system gives small single-issue
parties leverage over the passage of legislation that is greater than is
justified (or fair) in the light of the share of the votes they received. This
leverage arises because large parties need the votes of these small parties to
form government, which they get only on the condition that they adopt some of
the smaller parties’ legislative priorities.
This problem exists presently in BC, where the large NDP
party has formed a coalition with the small Green party to form government. The
legislative agenda of this government includes a resolute opposition to the
construction of a pipeline, which was the priority of the Green party and
played a much less important role in the NDP election platform.
The political agendas of small parties in PR countries often
are designed to advance the ideology of the extreme political left, which they
have not been able to achieve under the MS system and which explains why
demands for the adoption of PR comes from them: more income redistribution,
spending on social programs, culture, the environment and subsidies to select
economic activities. All these policies result in higher government spending.
The extent to which government spending in PR exceeds
spending in MS countries has been studied in a number of academic studies,
which were summarized by Clemens
et.al.: spending as a percent of national income in recent years has
been 2.3 percent for MS countries and 2.9 percent for PR countries. Important
is the fact that this higher spending leads to correspondingly higher taxes to
pay for it and often is financed through deficits, which raise taxes on future
generations.
Why should the expected increase of government spending
under PR be the focus of the public discussion? As revealed by many academic studies,
increased spending beyond a certain optimum level
leads to lower economic growth, lower per capita incomes and reduced freedom.
The present levels of spending and taxation in BC have been
determined in past MS elections. Voters in the forthcoming referendum should consider
that under PR their taxes will go up to finance increased spending that may or
may not benefit them.
Let us hope that this fundamental issue will receive the
attention it deserves, especially since supporters of PR are highly unlikely to
bring it up.
Emeritus Professor of Economics
Simon Fraser University
Published in the Vancouver Sun editorial, October 20, 2018
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment