Last Monday’s elections revealed a significant imbalance between the percentage of the popular vote and the number of deputies elected by party. It was enough to revive the debate on the voting system where commentators and analysts advocate a proportional system more representative of the vote cast.
Posted at 10:00 a.m.
If these claims seem legitimate, I believe that it is important to proceed with rigor and circumspection before jumping to conclusions. Some point to the dangers of too much proportionality, which often can hamper the government’s ability to govern (eg Israel). But it is not on this ground that I would like to intervene. Two elements of reflection seem important to me and seem to have been ignored in the debate on the reform of the voting system.
First of all, the defenders of the proportional system seem to pose as a premise that all the deputies of a political party form an ideological monolith. This would mean that all the members of the Coalition avenir Québec (CAQ) are unanimous on the issues and policies that the party could adopt. This is obviously not the case. It seems unlikely that the 90 members of the CAQ have the same point of view on the role of the private sector in health care.
Within the ruling party, there are discussions, debates that lead to political decisions. Often these decisions reflect a certain consensus of party deputies. Under a proportional voting system, these discussions and debates would take place between the parties rather than within the ruling party.
Thus, one way of thinking about the voting system is to know if we want the discussions to take place inside the caucus of the party in power (current voting system) or outside, that is- that is, between the parties of the governing coalition (proportional voting method).
Analyzed from this angle, it is not clear which voting method is preferable, which brings me to my second point of reflection.
The current debate is based on comparing the percentage of the popular vote obtained by a party with its percentage of seats obtained. Too large a difference is considered “unacceptable”, even indecent. But before questioning the voting system on the basis of such observations, it is important to ask what is the role of the voting system. It is to “name” the political formation that will take power, and therefore indirectly, to decide on the “orientation” of the policies that will be put in place over the next four years.
If, instead of focusing on the relationship between the percentage of votes and that of seats, we examined the orientation of the policies put in place, I think we would see that, despite our “non-proportional” voting system, the policies implemented reflect very well the composition of the Quebec electorate.
Take, for example, taxation and the reduction of inequalities. Quebec is the highest taxed state or province in North America, and wealth is redistributed through various programs and transfers. Of course, Québec solidaire would like to tax more and redistribute, but it failed to attract more than one voter in six. In contrast, the Conservative Party would like to tax and redistribute less, but it also failed to rally more than one in six voters to its cause. We can therefore think that a majority of Quebecers do not share the aims of one or the other of these parties. The current tax system therefore seems to suit a majority of Quebecers, despite our “non-proportional” voting system, which has been decried by many over the past week.
In conclusion, it is important to realize that political parties are made up of individuals with a diversity of ideas and that the debates and discussions that take place within parties should certainly not be minimized. Finally, the validity of an electoral system cannot be judged simply on the comparison of the votes cast and the seats obtained. It is also necessary to analyze the performance of the political system with regard to the orientations of the policies put in place compared to those that the majority recommends. A rigorous reflection and analysis would perhaps lead us to different conclusions from those heard since Monday…