A
democracy based on proportional representation is attractive. It makes every
voter feel like their vote counts.* The practicalities, however, fall well
below the high standards that PR sets out.
PR can result in a lack of cooperation and productivity as well as a
lack of relations and interactions with constituents.
*(Seeing as all votes
are counted, all votes count. People feeling otherwise has always struck me as
odd. Feeling vulnerable and powerless is understandable, though.)
PR:
Lack of Cooperation and Productivity
PR
increases the chances of a coalition forming. As coalitions mean a higher proportion
of the public’s views will be acted upon, in an ideal world all parties would
work together to bring about these changes. But we can see across the world
that parliaments with coalitions are becoming more and more divisive and,
consequently, less and less proactive. This is a problem with people’s refusal
to cooperate rather than with PR but PR is more susceptible to antagonism than
first-past-the-post.
Baby
steps into the right direction are far better than saying, “Do exactly what I
want otherwise I won’t help you.” By doing that, you’re getting in the way of
your own cause; you are preventing one of the things you were elected for from
actually happening. Free healthcare for children isn’t nearly as good as free
healthcare for everyone but at least someone is benefitting. Yes you may not
get where you want in one leap but baby steps help change society’s attitude
which, in turn, will lead to your desired outcome. Also, if you tell someone to
radically change their mind or not change it at all, they’ll choose not at all.
PR:
Lack of Constituent Relations and Interactions
In
some PR democracies, the individual parliamentarian themself isn’t elected but
rather people vote directly for the party, often with multiple representatives
per constituency. This
system means that the legislature is the most reflective of the will of the
people a country can have. It also, mostly, sidesteps gerrymandering.
Yet,
which representative does the constituent turn to when they want change or are
unhappy with the path of the government? With no single set politician to turn
to, a constituent has to choose one (and hope they care) or pester them all
(and get multiple, conflicting responses to the same questions). Maybe the
representatives distribute topics so as to not step over each other’s feet when
they first start their job?
This
problem is amplified when citizens vote for a party on a countrywide basis
without a constituency in sight. Yes this shows the preference of the populous
in the clearest manner and there is no gerrymandering. But if the populous
change their preferences then they literally have no one to turn to until the
next election. Representation of the people’s problems actually decreases as
the session of parliament goes on.
PR:
Solving the Disadvantages to Constituents
Selecting
a PR system without multiple representatives such as the alternate vote
entirely avoids these issues. Further, computer programmes can define
constituencies in an unbiased way, abolishing gerrymandering.
Then
have the countrywide preferences so that everyone has one person to talk to
(the person that most represents the views of the constituents) and then others
to fill in the views of the country as a whole. Like Scotland, only swap first-past-the-post
with alternate vote. Or maybe have the countrywide preferences as an upper
chamber, so if 40% of people voted Labour then the House of Lords would have a
membership of 40%.
These
don’t resolve people working together and the deadlock this can cause. The only
way to do this would be to either encourage first-past-the-post or for the
elected to be more personable and negotiable. The first dismisses everything
good PR can achieve. The second relies entirely on good will, being luck of the
draw rather than something we can work towards.
No comments:
Post a Comment