Fort Frances Times October 2007 What are the advantages of the 2 different election systems ? 1.
First past the post system has the advantage of quick response to the
parties as to not vote for them again and give then a smarting hit.
Those of us old enough will remember how far the PC party fell from
151 seats to just 2, although they lost “only” half of
their votes. . This was too bad for the woman’s cause, being
her the only female Prime Minister ever. With me there are many
convinced it wasn not her fault but much more the voters being
still mad at Brian Mulroney. Obviously they had more support than
that, but just didn’t win more ridings as first choice of the
voters. So if a party can loose seats fast, they are more likely to
act on the short term more responsible. The disadvantage of course is
the sometimes huge difference between how many seats a party won and
how much percentage of the vote they actually got. A simplified
example: Lets say there are 100 ridings and only two parties, the A
party and the B party. In all 100 ridings the As get 51% of the vote
and subsequently 100 % of the seats. The Bs got 49% of the vote but
not one single seat. One fear with this system that I have is : Lets
imagine a very charistimatic, lets say religious or better guru type
person appears on the scene. This person is so good that he fools
almost all the people for a short time, being exactly election time.
His or her party will easily collect enough votes to garner the
absolute majority and within 4 years or so could ruin everything we
love. Not possible ? That is how Hitler did it ! 2. Proportional
system has the advantage of the parties getting exactly as many seat
as the % of the vote. One disadvantage is that if a MP is not
supported by the majority of his riding, he or she has nothing to
fear, as long as they are among the top names on the partys list.
That way they will get into parliament even though they pissed
off their electorate. That takes a little out of the direct
response in their riding. On the other hand, that Guru mentioned
above , will probably win a lot of ridings, but the core party voters
that always vote for their party will give their party enough votes
to get seats over the status quo;, even if it is say only 20%.
Those members , with the other nonguru parties will have a fighting
chance in parliament to avoid disaster. Another disadvantage is that
this system is very sluggish for change. What I mean is, new ideas,
new parties, new movements have a very hard time overcoming the
established encrusted paths of the old boys and girls
who over the list and thanks to their traditional voters will become
Mps again. Many fear with the proportional system there will be just
too many parties in parliament for it to work properly or at all. One
way to avoid that of course would be a set minimum % a party needs to
qualify for instance 3 or 5%. Still, it would be hard for one party
to get a majority, which is true, but just like the PC right now has
to make backroom deals to keep governing, the party with the most Mps
will have to join up with a other party and both will have to make
compromises, then again a percentage of a whole is better than 100%
of nothing. Which system do I favor ? The proportional system will
give the Green Party at least a 10x boost in their ability to make
changes for a better Canada.