June 29, 2004
FPTP Injustice
Note well that the NDP has a greater share of the popular vote than the Bloc. Then why should it have less than half the seats? You may respond, "Them's the breaks! They didn't work hard enough to get the right constituencies." But this response misses the forest for the trees. The NDP is a "class-based party"; it seeks to represent disadvantaged groups and those who support their interests. These people have a common interest predominant in their views that does not directly relate to their geographical locations.
The First Past The Post system is a system primarily designed to support the interests of property/feudal title. It was designed for a time when democracy was only intended for male property-owners. Of course, their common interests were best seen as being represented geographically. They were all effectively of one class. When long ago the Industrial Revolution happened and when the franchise was extended beyond property-owners, the FPTP lost its representative power. It fails/failed to account for class and other forms of non-geographical disparity. It doesn't represent these groups.
FPTP unfairly loads the political dice towards the interests of property, preventing creative solutions to the problems that increasingly face us. It also happens to disproportionately increase the importance of another kind of geographical grouping: nationalists and separatists. I have no illusions that under the present arrangement (looks like we have a tie in Parliament—the NDP is not enough *frown*) we will get full proportional representation or even Mixed Member Proportional Representation, the German kind where there are still constituencies, but it has been painfully clear for a long time that we need electoral reform. And maybe we might get some small measure of it.
Archive URL for this entry: http://www.pointsofinformation.ca/archives/individual/2004/06/29/Mandos_fptp_injustice_161.html
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.pointsofinformation.ca/poi-ping.cgi/132
