If that type of referendum, with a partisan-skewed
topic, were to be perceived as having a non-partisan topic (such as the referendum
on the prohibition of alcohol in 1898), then it would erroneously be perceived
as “fair,”** and would provide a false cover of legitimacy. This erroneous
perception would do more damage to the cause of fair voting and voter equality
than not having a referendum at all.
Here is what would motivate a proportional representation (PR) referendum
voter to be partisan: Since the outcome of a PR referendum would greatly
influence how much power a political party would obtain in future elections, it
is very likely that a voter’s answer on the referendum question would take that
into account and therefore be influenced by their allegiance to their chosen
party. Even without taking that into account, that referendum voter would be
influenced by those in their chosen party who do take that into account.
**Our current
system is unfair because in a winner-take-all election races in
individual ridings, the only voters who have the unequal privilege of
influencing national election results are those voters who happened to vote for
the party candidate who won their riding. Other voters do not get that
privilege, hence the inequality.
Details:
How
the results of a PR referendum could be erroneously perceived as non-partisan by large numbers of people
There is a probability that a person’s
answer on that referendum question will be influenced by their allegiances to
their chosen political party. That probability is much higher than if that same
person were to answer a referendum question on Prohibition (1898), Conscription
(1942), and/or the Charlottetown Accord (1992).
Because of that difference in that
probability, it is illusory to think that a referendum on proportional
representation is the same as those other
referenda.
And yet that illusion is precisely what
some people, who have a long term political agenda, want us to believe. These
people have money to spend on pushing this illusion.
Others simply believe that illusion because
they have not yet been made aware that it is an illusion. There is less money
spent on debunking this illusion, than on pushing this illusion.
………………………………………………..
Some corollaries
Because of the above, it is a mistake to
have a referendum on PR. It always has been a mistake and it always will
be…anywhere. This includes all of the provincial referenda in Canada, and all
of the national referenda around the world. The decisions to have these
referenda perhaps all involved people falling into the trap of believing the
illusion that referenda on PR are not inherently partisan.
New Zealand, and other countries, shouldn’t
have had to wait for the political
landscape to be strategically correct*** before they switched to PR. No one
should have to wait before making
their voting system fair. No one should have to wait for basic justice. Justice delayed is justice denied.
*** A ”strategically
correct” landscape meant a combination of 1. a minority government situation, and
2. a referendum that they could have a chance of winning (because of that minority gov’t situation).
The
moral basis for protecting the equal voting rights of those who vote for
smaller parties
The protection of the rights of voters who
vote for smaller parties is based on the logic of the Golden Rule (the
principle of reciprocity) which states, “Treat
others how you wish to be treated.”
Too few
referendum voters will use this logic. The only hope for a referendum on PR is to force voters to use this logic by stating the referendum question in a way that will make it impossible to for voters to avoid that logic.
*Proportional Representation occurs when the percentage of seats a party gets is proportional to the percentage of votes they get.
*Proportional Representation occurs when the percentage of seats a party gets is proportional to the percentage of votes they get.