Op/Ed: Countering Misinformation on Electoral Reform
By Antony Hodgson, President, Fair Voting BC
In a recent editorial entitled “Financial Responsibility is the Top Priority“, the editorial board of the Times-Colonist newspaper in Victoria criticized the NDP and the Green Party for agreeing to strike an all-party committee to consider preferred methods of proportional representation.
Times-Colonist Editors Indulged in Unsupported Speculation
While the Times-Colonist editors are entitled to their opinion about what might happen if we changed our voting system, we feel that they irresponsibly ignored expert opinion, indulged in unsupported speculation, and used provocative and prejudicial language. Fair Voting BC tried to correct them by sending a letter to the editor, but they declined to print it, so instead we’re sharing our letter with you here.
Fair Voting BC’s Letter to the Editor of the Times-Colonist:
“In your recent editorial on the governing accord signed by the B.C. NDP and the B.C. Green Party, you do your readers a major disservice by portraying possible voting reforms as some kind of bogeyman to be afraid of. You use highly loaded language and present no reliable evidence to support your dire speculations.
I can appreciate your concern for B.C.’s finances. Ironic then that academic experts generally find that more inclusive voting systems tend to produce stronger economic outcomes than our current winner-take-all system, primarily because all sectors are represented at the decision-making table, so the resulting policies address more people’s concerns.
In a recent review article entitled “Democracy and Economic Growth” (2020), Ghardallou et al. explains, “proportional electoral rule allows for higher growth by reducing the likelihood of a sudden change in the composition of parliamentary seats after the elections. Consequently, the policies undertaken by the governments elected under this rule will be more sustainable and will be adjusted rather than reversed should a change be decided. The low risk of sudden policy changes improves the business climate and encourages domestic and foreign investment.”
Likewise, in an article on electoral systems and economic growth (2015), Alfano et al. observed that voting systems that are in what Carey and Hix (2011) call the “Electoral Sweet Spot” (in which a moderate number of parties are elected – say 3 or 4) essentially “solve the problem of the accountability-responsiveness and … government instability trade-offs. As a consequence, they reach relatively higher growth rates” than under winner-take-all systems.
In short, experts say we have tremendous flexibility to design more-inclusive voting systems that are win-win-win, producing better representation, greater accountability, and better economic performance than we currently have.
Why in the world wouldn’t we endorse the government exploring these possibilities?”
We hope you find this information useful in your own conversations with people who might be harbouring their own prejudices against more inclusive and proportional voting systems.