ELECTORAL REFORM

Evening Post, Volume CXX, Issue 133, 2 December 1935, Page 9

ELECTORAL REFORM

CANADIAN POLICY

PROPORTIONAL METHOD

There is now iikely to be a good deal of discussion of proportional representation, since one of the things to which the new Government at Ottawa is pledged is: "To measures of electoral reform to ensure a true Parliamentary representation of the people," says a writer in the Winnipeg Free Press." The weakness and utter inadequacy of the old system of voting has been strikingly shown in recent elections in Ontario and' other provinces and finally in the Dominion election just held, with its absurd results as far as parliamentary representation for the divisions of political thought in the country is concerned The Conservative Party elected 40 members, less than half the number to which it was entitled by its strength in the Dominion. The C.C.F. elected eight members, considerably less than half the number it should have. And the Reconstruction Party, with more electoral support than the C.C.F., elected only one member. With 182,000 votes in Ontario the Reconstruction Party elected no candidate; nor did the C.C.F. with 126,000 votes in the same province. Altogether,. the results -of the election are simply , a travesty ou Parliamentary representation of the people.

But this beautifully antiquated electoral system still has its supporters. They are opposed to exchanging it for a system that would always give more rational results. They are afraid o£ groups'and instability of government. "TOO MUCH STABILITY." It might be well to remember- that there is a possibility of having too much "stability" of government. The Government that l-^s just gone out, for example, was put in office in 1930 by a minority of the electors. It had a large majority in Parliament, but its strength in the country soon began to wane, and for the last three years it did not represent the.will of the Canadian people. But it remained inoffice and enforced its policies That was contrary to the basic principle o£ democratic government. The P.R. system, which ensures a' fairly accurate representation of the parties or groups, is opposed by some of those who are active in the party organisations., They want nothing to interfere with the prospect of a decisive party triumph or with the power ' of the party if it takes office. There are other sincere opponents -of P.R. who say that it is impractical because it would frequently result in no party,. having a majority, and that government would then depend on log-roll-ing and intrigue. Many opponents will admit that P.R. is based on a good principle, but they say that the danger of "instability ofi Government" is a fatal objection. FATAL OBJECTION. The fact is that the fatal objection is to a system that ignores so seriously, the representative principle, the principle of majority rule, and the necessity of government being "broad based, upon the people's will." .Those fundamental principles cannot be abandoned for the sake of the convenience of parties that gain office, or from unwarranted fears that the couniry will go to ruin if there is not always a party that has a clear Parliamentary majority. It is a first considerate oil that Parliament should really represent the people, should be close to the people. Other considerations are secondary. • - ■ In free, democratic countries there is liberty of discussion and there should be no bar to the expression o£ new ideas, and no. bar to new political movements or their fair representation, in Parliament. People may criticise* and oppose a new political movement, but no one can dispute its right to make such headway as it can. But the present' electoral system hinders new political movements and denies them their due representation in-Par-liament. It is said that P.R. encourages new groups. The'fact is that the present system tends to repress them, while P.R. would simply give them the right to which they are entitled in any truly democratic country, POSITION UNDER P.R. If it is fundamentally right—as it is —that the people should be properly represented in Parliament, there will be no'insuperable difficulties resulting. The two old parties will never again have the field to themselves. Politicalthought does not fall into that- simple lvision. Under the present system it is quite possible now, here or in Great Britain, that no party will come out of an election with a clear majority. If that happened under P.R. the parties would have to recognise that government must be carried on and that the parties, that are best able to co-operate in maintaining the government, must do so. Co-operation through. compromise is a common and reasonable practice in many other spheres of national life, and there is nothing1 to make it impossible in political life. Policies which are approved by groups forming a majority in Parliament, 'can be carried out. The progress of the country will not be retarded by such a situation. Progress will be advanced by a Government which is most closely in touch with opinion in the country.' CO-OPERATION NECESSARY. When it is recognised that the socalled "stability" of government—that is a strong government by one party —cannot be counted on under the present system and that compromise and co-operation may be necessary under the new conditions of today whetherpeople like it or not, the possibility of carrying on under such conditions will be more generally recognised. Mr. King and Mr. Fielding, declared themselves in favour of P.R. in a d e . bate in Parliament in 1923. Mr King in the spring of 1930, again said that he favoured that electoral system and wished to see it adopted. In GreatBritain, many prominent public men have supported P.R. Sir John Simon has said: "Proportional representation is the necessary accompaniment : oi! complete franchise reform." -He said that there should be "some fair way oD securing that the casting of a vote, whoever casts it, is going to produce its proper and adequate result in representation."