The Freedom Party of Ontario (hard-core Libertarians who usually rake in a good 0.2% of the Ontario vote) has come out against proportional representation, a method of selecting a government that Ontarians will, come this October, be asked to chose or reject in favor of the current "first past the post" system.
What doesn't the FPO like about PR?
"When we replace majority government with minority or coalition government...we move from a system that accommodates ethical decision-making, to a system based on the rejection of ethics and the substitution of whims and numbers...we move from a government guided by reason, to one guided by emotion; one guided not by what's right, but simply what you want.
"[The committee] is not truly dealing with the issue of democracy. It is dealing with the issue of right versus might; with the issue of ethical rule versus majority rule; with the issue of individual freedom versus the tyranny of majorities.
This is a bit unclear, but it sounds like the FPO doesn't like the fact that minority governments, the most likely outcome of voting system that employs proportional representation, require compromise. Under the current system you can get 75% of the seats with 45% of the vote (roughly Dalton McGuinty's seat count and vote total), and this allows the winning party to govern based solely on its own principles of right and wrong.
Proportional representation yields a government that is not ideological enough for the FPO, in other words.
But of course that is exactly the point. If I think Conservative ethics are cock-eyed, then it makes sense for me to want to lay the kind of constraints upon a Conservative governments that PR provides. And vice versa.
Look at it this way: if Ontario had used proportional representation in the 1990s, both Bob Rae and Mike Harris could have been stopped, or at least the damage they caused could have been mitigated.
Now, if you assume (as you safely can) that the days of the Ontario Big Blue Machine are over, then supporting PR seems logical for an Ontario Conservative. If you assume that the provincial Tories will always have enough support to, potentially, form a provincial government, then supporting PR seems logical for an Ontario Liberal. If you assume that the NDP will never otherwise get a sniff of power until the sun goes supernova, supporting PR makes sense for a Dipper. And if you assume that the Greens will otherwise never win a seat in the provincial legislature, it makes sense for Green Party supporters as well.
So, unless you like ideologically extreme politics, what is the problem?
Wow. Their argument is absolutely terrible. The pros/cons list seems completely opposite reality. In fact, you get more democracy with minority/coalition governments. It's just a huge contradiction. Rather odd coming from a libertarian party. I would think they would support such reform, although I guess playing politics is just too darn fun for anybody to sit out on.
ReplyDeleteBigCityLib, just trying to remember here. After the big blue machine sputtered, how many times were the libs elected into office in Ontario? Checking on Wiki, between 1943 and 2003 the libs formed the govt for a grand total of only 5 years. With your latest win in 2003, that makes a grand total of 3 so I wouldn't be writing off the NDP too soon no matter how much you wish it was different.
ReplyDelete"Proportional representation yields a government that is not ideological enough for the FPO, in other words."
ReplyDeleteNope. Just wrong sort of ideology. Most Libertarians are laissez faire free market absolutists. Most Canadians aren't.
Minority governments have to follow the actual will of the people much closer than in first past the post Canadians in general are much more likely to support interventionst governments and macro-economic reality than any classic Libertarian is aver going to be comfortable with.
Remember Ayn Rand in a nutshell: If the weak band together for communal protection and support, this reduces the natural and therefore rightous advantage of the strong. Bad.
Scratch a right-wing libertarian and you usually find an elitist authoritarian.
Their argument is absolutely terrible.
ReplyDeleteMovement Libertarians are always good for a laugh. Take a look at all the hi-jinks and zany antics they get up to in the US. It's usually a laff-riot.
The only argument I have ever agreed with on the issue of FPTP is that with politics and a society that are generally progressive, majority governments can get a lot done. But I don't think we can count on politics and politicians being progressive anymore.
This is too bad. A leading U.S. Libertarian was at the Fair Vote AGM in June and made several rousing speeches (and a generous pledge of financial support) and repeatedly said how he and most other U.S. Libertarians were cheering for MMP in Ontario.
ReplyDelete