From the Vancouver Sun
Douglas Todd: Five empirical reasons to lean to pro-rep
Pro rep is strong in five areas: Representing the population, reducing government debt, producing more benevolent societies, creating stable governments and combating extremism.
Maybe academics aren’t collectively the sexiest bunch. And it’s true that policy wonks can’t compete with movie or sports stars for the spotlight. Nevertheless, opinion polls consistently show that the public places some trust in professors.
So why are scholars’ studies too often ignored in B.C.’s referendum over proportional representation?
Researchers are often going through data to compare nations that use some form of proportional representation to those that use versions of the first-past-the-post system, such as B.C. and Canada.
Their systematic analyses of government performances are more convincing than the
cherry-picked anecdotes most of us trot out to stoke either fear of or utopian thinking about one electoral system over another.
Scholars have carefully developed many empirical systems, including international indexes, to measure how countries perform in regards to economics, the environment, individual freedoms, taxation, minority rights, gender equality and governance.
Professors have crunched the data to reach conclusions about how first-past-the-post electoral systems (often called majoritarian) compare with proportional representation voting systems (often called consensual), which are more likely to lead to coalition governments.
It turns out proportional representation is strong in at least five areas: Representing the diversity of the population (including women and minorities), producing more benevolent societies, reducing government debt, creating stable governments and combating extremism.
The most renowned specialist on pro-rep is Arend Lijphart, a political scientist at the University of California, San Diego, known for his book Patterns of Democracy, which closely compares 36 democracies.
Lijphart’s pioneering research has been followed by many, who have generally concluded pro-rep leads to at least five improvements:
Kinder, gentler societies
Lijphart adapted a phrase made famous in 1988 by George W. Bush: “I want a kinder, gentler nation,” to illustrate that compassionate nations are less likely to arise out of majoritarian systems, like that of the U.S., and more likely in pro-rep nations.
“Consensus democracies demonstrate kinder and gentler qualities in the following ways: They are more likely to be welfare states; they have a better record with regard to protection of the environment; they put fewer people in prison and are less likely to use the death penalty,” Lipjhart writes. “Consensus democracies in the developed world are also more generous with their economic assistance to developing nations.”
More responsible economic policy
Even though most critics of proportional representation concede coalition governments will lead to fairer societies, they are quick to say consensus governments are inclined to spend more.
The Fraser Institute’s Herb Grubel said in a recent
opinion piece in The Vancouver Sun that spending as a percentage of national income in recent years has been 2.3 per cent for first-past-the-post countries and 2.9 per cent for those using proportional representation.
But that’s not the whole economic story. In his book, How Diversity Can Improve Policy Making, University of Michigan prof Salomon Orellana maintains regions with pro-rep are more fiscally responsible — they build up more budget surpluses and run fewer deficits.
Consensus societies are also more equitable, since they are more likely to redistribute wealth. Scholars such as Norway’s Carl Henrik Knutsen, author of Which Democracies Prosper?, even argue that countries with proportional representation produce stronger economic growth.
More minority representation
Proportional representation systems are called such because they are designed to
better “represent” the wishes of more diverse voters.
Pro-rep typically elects more women, minorities and Indigenous people, show the trans-national studies that have looked at consensus democracies in Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany, Iceland, Spain, Paraguay, Chile, Fiji, Australia and New Zealand, among others.
Orellana also found consensus democracies have greater gender equality, more openness to homosexuality, divorce and assisted suicide and more tolerance of so-called “out groups,” Majoritarian governments, Orellana found, rank 44 per cent lower on formal “prejudice scales.”
More stable governments
Using global indexes created by the World Bank, the Brookings Institute and other organizations, Lijphart was unable to positively prove consensus democracies are better at all aspects of government.
But Lijphart did come to a firm negative conclusion about majoritarian democracies, saying “They are clearly
not superior to consensus democracies in providing good governance, managing the economy and maintaining civil peace.”
First-past-the-post elections typically create systems with two dominant parties, which fight to obtain more than 40 per cent of votes so they can dominate government. Proportional voting, on the other hand, tends to lead to coalitions between parties that have to share power and cooperate.
A major drawback of majoritarian governments is “policy lurch,” when newly elected parties summarily dismantle their opponents’ legislation. But while some say majority governments can make quicker, bolder decisions, Lijphart is among the scholars who have provided evidence that consensus governments often make slower choices that better stand the test of time.
Combating extremism
A central accusation made by B.C. opponents of proportional representation is that it will lead to more extremism. Some anti-pro-rep ads feature neo-Nazis and foreboding jackboot military parades
But
fears about extremism have little basis in empirical evidence. Democracies whose governments are based on consensus, including in Africa and Asia, are less likely to be violent, according to researchers Wolf Linder, Bingham Powell and others.
Opponents have also warned pro-rep could lead to more people wanting to restrict immigration rates. But Orellano found “citizens in countries with proportional systems are not more likely to hold anti-immigrant views.”
Indeed, Orellano found that under consensus governments there is less pandering to single-issue groups and to the moneyed interests of the elite.
The additional good news is it’s not only politicians who become more conciliatory and sophisticated under consensus political systems. So do the media.
Judy McGregor and Janine Hayward have found in studies in
New Zealand and elsewhere that the media move away from “horse-race” political reporting when there is a shift to consensus government. Under majoritarian governments, media outlets tend to focus on political manoeuvring. But with consensus governments, more journalists put their focus on interpreting the pros and cons of actual policies.
That alone would be refreshing.
dtodd@postmedia.com
@douglastodd
