The Shotgun Blog
« Lib-Dem supported Conservative minority most stable option for UK | Main | Plains of Abraham and Separatist whining »
Saturday, May 08, 2010
Electoral reform in UK will not lead to reform in Canada
John Ibbitson at the Globe and Mail is excited about the prospect of electoral reform in the UK because he thinks that it will lead to reform in Canada. He is right that due to the hung Parliament, debate about the electoral system is likely to take place in the UK, but he is getting ahead of himself. All that is being proposed is a referendum and it is very uncertain what reforms will be included in the referendum. It is even less certain how the British people will vote.
But really that isn’t the problem with Mr. Ibbitson’s column. The problem is that, as he himself points out, Canadians have had plenty of opportunity to change their electoral system. In fact British Columbia did change their system for two elections, but then changed it back. Electoral reform is not something that has proven very popular with the people. So why does Mr. Ibbitson think that Great Britain would lead the way for Canada?
It isn’t like we don’t have examples of how electoral change works in a Westminster context. In Ontario’s 2007 electoral reform referendum the example of New Zealand was repeatedly used by proponents for change. New Zealand is an apt example, not because it shows how change is good, but because it shows the danger of reform. The fact that there is now a movement to bring back ‘first-past-the-post’ in New Zealand should give both UK and Canadian reformers pause.
The reality is that the movement for electoral change in Canada was given its shot and they failed to convince. Nothing that will happen in Britain will change that.
Posted by Hugh MacIntyre on May 8, 2010 | Permalink
Comments
If anyone who ever wanted fundamental change to a system gave up after a few failures we'd still have slavery, no women voters, and for that matter, we'd still have Kings. So the argument that it hasn't passed yet isn't an argument, as long as there are people willing to try, then they should keep trying. Thats how democracy works. And polls show that more and more Canadians want some kind of change.
I believe Canadians need to be asked, after an unbiased information distribution period, whether they want change of some kind. Then a commission can study the options and initiate a public discussion about them. These referendums on a particular implementation are doomed to failure because every system has flaws (although few have as many as our current system) and the opposition focusses on those drawbacks while pretending that they support some other reform. Meanwhile, the extreme unfairness of FPTP continues.
Hopefully the UK discussion will provide cover to those politicians in our country who do want change.
Posted by: Mark Crowley | 2010-05-08 12:11:43 PM
First of all Mr. Crowley, you are welcome to keep trying whatever you want. As a libertarian I am no stranger to hopeless causes. My point is that in the short term electoral reform as an issue has been put to bed in Canada.
Secondly, how are going to define an unbiased information distribution? In the 2007 referandum, Elections Ontario was pretty fair to both sides.
Thirdly, yes oppostion focusses on the drawbacks of reforms. In the same manner that reformers ignore the strengths of the current system. That is called debate.
Posted by: Hugh MacIntyre | 2010-05-08 12:31:34 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.