If STV had been in use in the 1921 election, electoral reform Ronald Hooper stated in 1922, the government would have been more stable.
Many say proportional representation create unstable governments but when minority government are created which they are increasingly being created even under First past the post, they re more stable under pro-rep than under FPTP.
Ronald Hooper a hundred years ago explained how this is.
A hundred years ago, FPTP also caused the loss of valuable members of House of Commons and the exaggeration of regionalism.
The see-saw effect of FPTP was demonstrated in the federal elections as held in Alberta during and after WWI.
The Conservative-dominated Union government of Borden rigged the 1917 federal election to ensure that it would be re-elected to a majority of the seats. Alberta was no exception - Edmonton MP Frank Oliver lost his seat not because he was not popular with Edmonton voters but by the way government officials distributed the soldier vote. Only one Liberal won a seat in Alberta.
The next election, after the leash was taken off, Alberta voters elected no Conservatives, and no Liberals either. Labour and United Farmer candidates took every Alberta seat, with just 64 percent of the votes. Farmers were elected in other provinces as well (under the name Progressives) and the Liberals, the largest single party, took less than a majority of the seats.
The election held using mostly single-member districts, yielded a minority government. Due to the rise of a third party, this government would be followed by another minority government. Thus twice in a row FPTP did not fulfill its most vaunted purpose – majority government.
This would be repeated in 1925. The Farmers and Labour MPs held the balance of power and used it to force the start of a federal pension plan. They were unable to pass electoral reform though.
In 1922 Ronald Hooper said he did not expect the government to survive more than two years (in reality it did last four years).
If STV had been in use in the 1921 election, Hooper believed, the government would actually be more stable - there would be little expectation that a new election would yield a different result. Under FPTP, a party in the House of Commons may cause the government to fall prematurely, hoping to get lucky -- another election would probably yield a very different result.
Loss of valuable members of government just due to district voters
As well, the leader of the Conservative party was defeated in his district as were 10 of his cabinet minsters thus, the new government could not call on them as opposition members to share their wisdom.
Regionalism exaggerated by FPTP
Frank Oliver, former Liberal cabinet minister running in Edmonton, also was not elected. The election followed a recurring pattern in several ways. Alberta elected no Liberals, so the province was not represented in the federal cabinet until a by-election or the next election allowed a change. It exaggerated the political complexion of different sections of the country. Quebec, PEI and Nova Scotia elected all Liberals. Alberta elected all UFA and Labour candidates. In all these provinces a very considerable percentage of votes went to minority parties and these voters now have no representation.
Montreal elected 12 Liberal MPs while under STV nine Liberals and three Conservatives would likely have been elected. Toronto elected nine Conservatives while under STV five Conservatives and four Liberals would likely have been elected. 40 to 50 MPs were elected with just a minority of the votes in their districts.
Hooper noted "clearly we ought not to retain a system of election that so threatens the unity of Canada as to give whole cities and whole provinces over to one political creed." (Proportional Representation Review, Jan. 1922 (available on-line))
===============================
keywords: wexit, electoral reform, federal government, separation, separatism
==============================================================
Stability is shown by the length of time between elections.
A society that does not experience frequent un-necessary elections has political stability.
Canadian Constitution
4. (1) No House of Commons and no legislative assembly shall continue for longer than five years from the date fixed for the return of the writs at a general election of its members.
(2) In time of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection, a House of Commons may be continued by Parliament and a legislative assembly may be continued by the legislature beyond five years if such continuation is not opposed by the votes of more than one-third of the members of the House of Commons or the legislative assembly, as the case may be.
..
There has been very little judicial commentary on this Charter provision. Presumably, the purpose of section 4 is to preserve the democratic character of the House of Commons and legislatures by ensuring that no House of Commons or legislature should last for an excessive period and not reflect the will of the people.
=====
if reflecting will of the people is important, then how can Government defend the use of FPTP?
too bad Constitution does not actually state that reflecting will of the people is goal of our government system...
if we assume four-year term is full term, then only two since 1996 went full duration.
2011-2015 and 2015-2019
1997, 2000, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2011 and 2021 were called prior to four years after previous election, so less than even four years, not to mention the five years allowed in our Constitution.
Recent FVC info shows difference PR makes:
"Since New Zealand adopted proportional representation in 1996, every government except one has lasted for a full term (and even the lone early election was just three months early)."
Which system truly produces instability?
==============================================
Comments