True, all elected members have some influence even if not actual power, and in some situations even a minorty even just one member can stop all the rest.
Us oldsters remember Elijah Harper and his feather stopping process of approving the Meech Lake Accord in Manitoba. He stood up for what was right against Mulroney's deadline-bent brinkmanship and became a hero to the Indigenous movement.
But then if we have rules that give minorities power like that, we have to worry about a minority of members in a chamber having power over the majority.
Majority rule seems to be a fine principle; giving minority power (against will of the majority) seems bad.
Functionally in a legislative chamber, (often or always) you do need unanimous approval for a course of action - such as change to the schedule, and then having just one member gives leverage. filibusters are famous techniques for single members holding up the majority.
Just as protests or even occupations was once technique only used by the left (with the right being in power, people of right-wing sentiment did not have to resort to protests or actions in the street, they could go for drinks after the opera or "friendly" games of golf to get attention of member of their ilk who also wore hats as elected politicians) now filibusters and protests /occupations may be used by far-right forces to grab attention or hold up the rest, in times when the relatively-progressive (centrist) majority have wrested political control from the elite or well-heeled minority.
To be even-handed and fair-minded, we should ascribe to minority rights - rights for minorities to not feel threatened - but that should not go so far as to be at expense of majority -
It should not give minorities power against will of majority.
if there is any truth in Trudeau's fears of extremism it is fear of a bigoted or violent small group grabbing power over majority, over the masses, over the people. (Hitler)
I think PR's big benefit is ensuring that majority of voters would elect majority of members in the chamber, and that majority would have power to do things, without hindrance by the entrenched feet-dragging rump of the old voted-out government or a few members of extreme sentiment.
=====================================
Even under PR, there are winners and losers.
there is sharing of power but only up to extent needed to assembly majority of legislators in the chamber, or as much as the party in power is willing to share.
Any party or group of parties that has support of majority of seats will have power. all others will have a voice but no power - other than moral force or the implied threat that the government will not be forever in power if it screws up. but
PR is scientific - parties get basically the seats they deserve based on votes cast.
more-popular parties get more seats than less-popular ones, as measured by actual votes cast.
Under a clean PR system. a party cannot take majority of seats unless it has majority of votes.
This measurable fairness is important...
Not all can win, but the winning and losing should be achieved through a contest constrained by rules of the game, including acceptance of its basic fairness and that the winner has right to benefits of winning.
But elections must be made fair and wins and losses fairly handed out for that to be a reasonable expectation.
Comments