There are a large number of people who would probably be triggered by the title of this post. To them the FPTP voting system is an anti-democratic abomination of a voting system. They are wrong of course. It is a tried and true voting system that predates Confederation and that has served Canada well.
All that being said I will agree that it has some very serious flaws but I would also assert that all of the alternatives that are proposed to replace it have different but equally serious flaws. In the end the flaws of the different methods of voting cancel each other out so opponents of the FPTP system need to come up with much more compelling reasons for changing how we vote.
There are some specific reasons why this system is an effective method for electing people.
First, every politician in this system must face their constituents, which means that local election campaigns can hinge on local issues. Certainly the national campaign is important but I have seen elections where a local issue has dominated the local election and the national campaigns were less important. For example, I worked for an Ottawa Member of Parliament in the late 90s. During that time there was a proposal before the National Capital Commission, the government department charged with taking care of government buildings and facilities in the Ottawa area, to widen one of the bridges that crosses the Ottawa River and connects Ontario to Quebec. My MP lobbied against the project because of the impact on traffic it would cause on both sides of the bridge. However, the MP for the Quebec riding on the other side of the bridge was a Cabinet Minister and his views prevailed. In the 2000 election all of the Opposition candidates going up against my MP focused on this failure to stop the bridge expansion. The Chretien government had just announced $100 billion in tax cuts but it was the bridge issue that dominated the local campaign in Ottawa West-Nepean in 2000. Federal politicians need to be able to address local issues and the FPTP system is very effective at forcing them to do that.
Canada is a huge country, with with six different regions, Eastern Canada, Quebec, Ontario, the Prairie Provinces, British Columbia and the North. Each of those regions have different interests and different ways of looking at politics in Canada. The FPTP system allows them to express those differences very effectively. It is an open question of whether other systems would be as effective. Unfortunately, Canada is not a political petri dish so switching to a new system only to find out it is not as effective is not an option. However, it should be noted that with the increasing polarization of the electorate, which is falling along regional lines, the FPTP system may be losing its effectiveness in dealing with regional interests. That is a situation that needs to be examined and ways have to be found to mitigate any negative impacts it might have and that would include looking at how we vote. However, it will also need to be addressed by looking at facts and evidence in a non-partisan way which is not going to happen.
Third, as I alluded to in my introductory paragraph Canada has used the FPTP system to elect its governments since before Confederation. It is a proven method of electing the government that we want and the governments that we need. I shudder to think what would have happened to Canada if John A. MacDonald would have had to share power with Opposition politicians who did not have the same vision for Canada he did. Or MacKenzie King having to share power during WWII or a succession of governments during the Cold War. The simple fact is, more often than not, the FPTP system elects stable governments, which all countries need to thrive.
The FPTP voting system is not perfect. No voting system is. However, it has proven effective and it forces federal politicians in this country not to forget about local issues. Although its flaws are well documented they are not enough to ditch the system without having another alternative whose flaws are just as well documented, acknowledged by the proponents of these systems, and ways to mitigate the impacts of these flaws worked out before switching systems. Just saying we should switch because you have faith that your preferred system is better, or "more democratic" without sound evidence to prove that is not enough.
No comments:
Post a Comment