Xanthippa's Chamberpot

Many European countries have adopted ‘proportional representation’ as their means of electing their elected representatives.

Yes, there are many variations of how ‘proportional representation’ is implemented, so, let me be at least a little bit specific.

I am referring to a system where registered parties are listed on the voting ballot and voters (again, the qualifications for who is ‘a voter’ may vary, but that is not a path I want to explore in this post) cast their votes for a specific party.

If ‘Party A’ receives 20% of the vote, they are allotted 20% of the seats in the house/chamber/etc. of the representatives. The party that received that portion of the votes/seats (the translation may not be 100% accurate, but as close as possible without chopping representatives into fractions, figuratively – or time based) then names its members who will take these seats and represent the voters who had chosen this party.

This seems like a very fair system in one aspect: the populace is represented proportionally. If your party got only 8% of the votes overall, that party would still get 8% of the representatives.

Let’s compare one alternative, which is based mostly on the Anglosphere culture: a country is divided up into areas – hopefully representing roughly similar number of voters per area (but, again, this and jerrymandering are topics for another post). Real world is not ideal and burdened with history, but, the ideal would be for each ‘riding’ to represent roughly similar number of voters. Then, the voters chose candidates in ‘their’ riding – where they reside – based on the character and political positions that candidate has put forward.

Some candidates (most, these days) are affiliated with political parties: political parties will actually have internal contests as to who can represent that party in a specific riding. But, independents are just as able to put their name on the ballot, and, if they appeal to enough voters, they can win ‘the seat’ to represent their constituents.

The benefit of this system is that the voters have chosen to represent them in the legislative body – and, that person is personally responsible to them for each and every vote they cast, each and every piece of legislation they put forward.

If their constituents overwhelmingly disagree with the way their elected representative’s party is moving forward, they are (theoretically) free to vote their conscience rather than the party line, because they are (again, theoretically) responsible to the voters in their riding, not the party they are affiliated with. It happens seldom, but it does happen.

It also happens that elected representatives, if their party becomes too extreme, leave their party and sit as independents or members of another party. This is not an everyday thing, nor is it rare or unheard of. The point is, whatever they do, these folks are answerable (theoretically) primarily to the people wo directly elected them, and only secondarily to their party.

The problem with this system is that with multiple parties, a person can win a seat with 30% of the vote in a multi-candidate race and a party can form a government with barely 33% of the popular vote. So, yes, a party with 51+% of the popular vote can lose, if the contested ridings are skin tight loses while the ridings they win in are blowouts. More votes does not translate to more seats, and the seats have it.

In this light, proportional representation sounds rather nice…except that…

In proportional representation, it is the party that gets the seats and appoints its members to it. These members now have no responsibility to any group of actual voters – their only responsibility is to the party, as it is at the pleasure of the party that they have their seats.

Yes, I have used the term ‘theoretical’ rather frequently regarding party vs voter affiliation/responsibility/responsiveness. And, yes, the parties ‘whip’ the vote of members by threats of all kinds, but, the members are still responsible to the people who elected them and a representative that crosses their will too far will be voted out, regardless the party. Not often, but it has been done.

Still, the primary responsibility of an elected representative is to champion the causes the majority of their constituents support.

This is the problem with proportional representation: the sitting member is not responsible to any group of voters, only to the party that appointed them to one of the seats they had won.

Being responsible to voters is one thing. Being responsible to the party that placed you into your seat is quite another.

Yes, in both systems, it is a balancing act.

And, the more powerful parties become, the less responsive representatives will be to their members.

So, let us strive for a system where the majority of representatives are independent of parties as much as possible and responsive to the will of their voters, whom they are supposed to represent.