As we look forward to a new voting in 2019 which will make every vote count, Canadians who have voted in countries using proportional representation have shared their experience with us.
We asked them: How does proportional representation make voting and political participation different from a voter’s perspective? How do you see politics working differently?
Switzerland
Germany
Scotland
Sweden
Kristine Kjeldsen
Switzerland
I lived in Switzerland for eight years and voted there a number of times. This country uses a proportional representation voting system. To me, it was reassuring that when you vote, you know that it will be counted and it makes a difference. I felt confident that the country cares about what its people want. Anyone can petition for change and bring forth a referendum with enough support (in the form of signatures) from others. Voting is made as convenient as possible- most people mail in their votes, and the voting day is always on Sunday morning when people are not working. In Canada we are ruled by parties that do not even have the support of the majority of the population- not very democratic to me. The first past the post system does not make me feel like voting as I feel it often does not make a difference.
I think all Canadians deserve to have the assurance that their votes count. The current system does not work. I strongly believe we need proportional representation.
Sibylle Walke
Germany
My name is Sibylle Walke, I met my Canadian husband in 1980 at college in Britain. Afterwards we both worked in my native Germany until the fall of 1987, when I followed him to Canada.
I remember the welcoming attitude of Canadian society with fondness, which eased my integration and adaptation. The First Past the Post election system however was a shock. I followed the 1988 election ,when the results were unofficially announced before Manitoba and the rest of the west had voted. I was flabbergasted.
Until 2007 I did not bother to become a Canadian citizen, feeling there was no point in voting. I feel that 60%+ of votes going by the wayside is very discouraging and unfair. There ought to be an element of proportionality reflecting the voice of the population, otherwise power accumulates disproportionately in every system .
Let me describe the system I have grown up with: The German parliament is made up half of candidates elected with the “first voice” on the left side, there person list of the ballot, half of candidates selected through the right side of the ballot, where a party is checked. There are 299 ridings and 598 MPs.
Everyone knows the right side of the ballot, determining proportionality and giving voice to the party program closest to you is the important one. The personal list is a bit of a crap shoot. Just like here, people vote strategically, trying to eliminate the party they really don’t want and going with the most feasible candidate.
When the candidates voted in through the personal list are determined, the other half of the seats in each “province “(Land) is allotted according to the proportional votes garnered by each party in the district. This might mean that some party might not get very many more seats, if their seats were already filled through the personal vote segment.
There are two criticisms of proportional representation which I hear again and again: I don’t like parties determining the lists of candidates, I want a local representative.
To this I would say: Parties determine the candidates here and there, but you have the vote of who is in the top positions on the list, if you are active in one party. Canada can also choose an open list system where you vote not just for a party, but for a person on the list. There is pressure to comply with the party program to a certain extent, however discussions are more substantial, because there isn’t only one candidate in each riding, and it isn’t a horse race, where a wrong word can absolutely kill one’s chances.
The MPs are quite local, quite accessible and depending on how industrious and effective they are, they get into committee work and on the media more than a back bencher here. It is true that a German MP doesn’t look after your passport, or doesn’t send you a card to your 100 birthday.
The other bone of contention is the fact that they will always be coalitions in a proportional system. To this I want to say: Thank Goodness! Coalitions guarantee a modicum of continuity. The reigning parties must compromise, yes, but they are both responsible for outcomes. The spectre of rushed legislation or sneaky omnibus bills is less likely.
Another benefit I find is the full use of political talent. Both coalition partners provide members of cabinet. While I lived in Germany for example the liberal Hans Dietrich Genscher was Foreign Minister both in coalition with centre right and centre left at different legislative periods, even though the Liberal Party at the time had only 8% popular vote. Joschka Fischer of the Green Party held the same post later. Both served the country very excellently and would have run against a wall in a FPTP system.
George Grams
Scotland
I reached voting age in Scotland in the late 60’s when the only voting regime available was the first-past-the-post system (FPTP). It was a two party world, Labour and Conservative, with the Liberal party scooping a handful of seats but not enough to challenge the majority party. As is the case in Canada, the FPTP system enables a party with less than a majority of electoral support to obtain the majority of seats in parliament. In the half century that I have been an elector, no UK party has achieved more than half the votes at an election yet landslide victories have been achievable and have been delivered, allowing one party dogma to predominate despite the wishes of the majority of the electorate.
That circumstance changed dramatically when the Scottish parliament was established in 1999, with elections conducted on the basis of a system of proportional representation (the additional member system). Proportional representation saw, for the very first time in Scotland, minority parties winning seats. The Green party, the Scottish Socialists and one independent returned Members to the Scottish parliament not on the basis of constituency votes, but on the basis of the percentage of votes received across the country.
For the first time in British politics, electors who, like me, favoured minority parties could do so knowing their vote wasn’t wasted. At last in British politics one could vote for a minority party with commitment. The necessity of tactical voting, which amounts to voting not in accordance with one’s conscience but for the lesser of two evils, became redundant overnight. It took the country another four years to awaken to that reality and in the 2003 Scottish parliament election 7 Green party members, 6 Scottish Socialists and 4 independent MSPs were returned out of a total of 129 MSPs.
A significant advantage of PR is that it rarely produces single party majority governments. That fact alters the dynamics of parliament. Instead of a combative system comprising a majority, ruling party and a minorities in opposition, the governing party must maintain the cooperation of those minorities in order to make progress with its legislative programme. The disdain our last Canadian ruling party displayed for parliament and towards the opposition would, in a minority government, eventually disable their ability to govern. Respectful conduct towards other parties becomes a necessity if one is to govern successfully. Over time I believe that essential shift away from the combatorial to the collaborative and the consultative effects a positive change in the approach of politicians to their work and to each other. That breeds respect for the electoral system that promotes engagement by the electorate leading to larger turn outs at the polls.
Peter Hilton
Sweden
I am a dual Swedish-Canadian citizen and can vote in all elections in both countries.
I am more satisfied with the Swedish system than the Canadian system because of its use of PR (Proportional Representation).
The Canadian system is prejudiced against smaller parties. The NDP for example usually get about 23% of the vote but only 12% of the seats while the Liberals get 60% of the seats with only 40% of the popular vote. It is even worse for smaller parties such as the Green Party. With our First past the Post system, most people I speak to who may support the Green Party refuse to vote for them because they have no chance of winning in their riding so they end up voting for another party whom they don’t really support—-This doesn’t sound to me like a functioning democracy!
In Sweden, all parties who reach a bar of 4% of the vote nationally are guaranteed representation in the parliament. Right now, there are 8 parties represented in the Swedish parliament. These representatives are distributed by the percentage of votes they receive in each region (about 24 regions in Sweden). One feels one’s vote actually counts in Sweden.
The one area in which I like the Canadian system (and it is only in this one area) is that we know in Canada who represents our riding and that person (i,e, the MP) has a responsibility to represent all his/her constituents whether they voted for him/her or not. In Sweden, we know which MP’s were elected from our region, but there are a number of them so you don’t have this direct connection to one MP.*
In Sweden, because of the many partied, there is often a coalition government. While many people in Canada with whom I speak politics think this is ineffective, I feel quite the opposite. Laws/policies are not simply rammed down the public’s throat as often happens in Canada but are often debated in parliament and covered by the media more fully–and I like this openness.
* Fair Vote Canada’s note: All proportional models for Canada keep local MPs.
The post Canadians who have voted with PR share their experiences appeared first on Fair Vote Campaign 2015.