Proportional representation means that any looney tune who can muster up a third of a percent of the population in support gets a seat. In Canada, that would mean most likely a seat for virulent racists, as well as some for the PLMs. (Po-tay-to, po-tah-to?) While it would indeed be lovely to see the Liberals greatly reduced (in next to last election they took 99% of Ontario's seats with well under 50% of the votes) the cost would be too high.
The two most prominent countries with proportional representation, Italy and Israel, also have the most unstable governments to be found in the democratic world. To hold power there for more than a year is commendable, and to hold it for less than a month is common. The result is a huge proportion of time and money being spent on the mechanics of elections rather than on governing. Small parties also hold inordinate sway when they are all that stands between the ruling party and a no-confidence vote.
There are some countries that blend proportional representation with other methods to damp down the influence of extremists. In Israel for instance a party must have about 5% of the popular vote before being able to hold a seat, which ensures that the real crazies are left out. In Germany, some seats are allotted to PR while others are differently allocated. Australia I believe also uses a combination of the two. Pure proportional representation, though, is a recipe for corruption and stagnation. Wait -- how would we tell the difference in Canada?
Posted by Clio at January 6, 2003 06:33 PM