Canada's pre-eminent left politician of his time, J.S. Woodsworth, called for "Proportional Representation with grouped constituencies" in a book of his speeches published in 1929.
"Proportional Representation with grouped constituencies" at the time meant STV - ranked votes, single voting and multi-member districts.
Peel 10437: Woodsworth, J. S. (James Shaver) (1874-1942); Cohen, Jacob Lawrence (1898?-1950) (editor) ; Canadian Brotherhood of Railway, Transport and General Workers. Labor's case in Parliament: A summary and compilation of the speeches of J.S. Woodsworth in the Canadian House of Commons 1921-1928. [Ottawa]: Canadian Brotherhood of Railroad Employees, 1929.
The book also contains a logical appeal for for that type of electoral reform.
In a chapter headed "Proportional Representation", Woodsworth is quoted:
"The need of electoral reform has been recognized by Labor for some time. The determination of Labor to take its proper part in the affairs of the nation has time and again been thwarted by the arbitrary nature of the present system of representation, which neither anticipated nor is designed to meet the needs of minority representation. Gerrymander and majority vote [plurality] vote are two very useful instruments in the hands of capitalistically-controlled governments, and will not be easily yielded.
[In 1929, not many countries had progressed to PR -- perhaps only Belgium, Ireland, Malta and a few others. But now (in 2023) most of the countries in the world use a form of PR to elect some or all of their national legislators. So the outlook is perhaps not as bleak as Woodsworth foretold. And Woodsworth does go on to say that many western Canadain cities had adoted P.R. even by 1929.]
In some Western communities, Labour has succeeded in introducing the idea of Proportional Representation with satisfactory results. Under this system of voting, minorities are reasonably assured of being represented according to their proportion of the votes cast. It is therefore in the interests of Labor and its parliamentary programme that this change in the electoral and votoing system is to be made.
The question was raised in the House in 1923. Speaking on the 19th of February (Hansard 1923-396) Mr. Woodsworth stated that for some time Proportional Representation had prevailed on Winnipeg both in provincial and municipal affairs and that it had worked well in that city, there being no movement whatever in either branch of public life to return to the old method of voting. [Winnipeg did keep its provincial PR until 1955 and its municipal PR until 1970.]
It has been suggested tht democracy is based on majority rule. Democracy is not going to be interfered with nor will the majority rule be interfered with by Proportional Representation. The very principle of democracy, said Mr. Woodsworth, is that all the people shall have a voice in the govetnment. It is not the underlying principle that one particular section of the people shall rule over other sections.
The danger is or might be in minority rule, but the fact that there are minorities in the House does not mean that minorities rule. The fact is that, under Proportional Representation, the minorities would have a chance of expressing themselves in the House, to some extent, in the same proportion that they express themselves out of it. It has also been suggested that group representation cannot be in the interests of the country, that if we had group representation it would simply mean that men would be free to further their own selfish interests and to disregard the interests of the country.
If there are in fact various groups outside the House, asked Mr. Woodsworth, why then should those groups not be heard inside a House that is supposed to be representative of the people?
There are Western interests, and there are other interests in Canada represented by the people from the Maritime provinces. We have interests represented by the people in the central part of the country.
Surely we approve of the principle in this country that it is well worth our while to hear, not merely the representatives of the Western provinces, but also the representatives from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, not merely the the representatives from Ontario but the representatives from Quebec.
We proceed on that principle, but there are also divergent interests that are just as important as, and even considerably greater then the geographical divisions.
"We have within any city certain divisions i.e. manufacturers, bankers, railway people, we have the business man, we have those generally known as labour people. The interests of these different groups are often by no means identical or the people themselves do not think they are. As long as we have these divergences among people, as long as we have these divergent groups, surely they have a right to be heard."
We obtain the very highest and best results when each man or group speaks out as to what is his or its essential principles. Otherwise there is more or less autocracy and the exercise of force by the majority over the minority.
"I do not know that we ought to be afraid to have the minority express their views, for if we are going to suppress any particular body of public opinion,by in some way refusing it a voice in Parliament, we are thereby giving those who hold that opinion a direct incentive to express their opinion in a different way. It is in the best interests of the country as a whole that they should be able to express themselves, as is so often said, through constitutional means. If we deny them the right to express themselves through regular parliamentary agencies, it is inevitable that sooner or later they will try to express themselves in some other way."
We are on the side of a thoroughgoing democracy if we say that it is in the general public interest that suitable machinery be provided. Proportional representation means simply that that machinery will and should be established so that, as far as possible, we shall have represented this House every considerable body of public opinion in any section of Canada." (Woodsworth (Cohen, editor). Labour's Case in Parliament, 1929. p. 76-79)
=========================
Workers do make up majority of society
But many/most workers think their interests are same as their employers, or are less important than the interests of their employers.
I forget where i read it but some one once wrote those who vote Labour are
those who work for a living
of those, those who know they are workers
of those, those who understand the needs of workers
of those, those who vote to satisfy the needs of workers (Labour).
In Woodsworth times (as now), most workers do not make it to the last of that list of achievements.
So he was correctly speaking of (self-aware) workers as a minority of society.
And PR is a system that secures minority representation.
under PR each gets its due share but in almost all systems, the majority (or even just the largest group) has no problem getting its due share of representation (and usually more than that). But in non-PR systems, minorities are under- or non-represented except for those times when the minority takes all the power and does not give representation to even the majority. in non-PR systems the minorities has too little representation unless it is the only group that has representation at all.
============================================
コメント