Long Live Westminster 2

This is just a quick follow-up on my Westminster vs. Proportional post. I wanted to quickly talk about the effectiveness of Westminster governments. The nature of the system –parties don’t need a majority of the popular vote to win- means that one party usually ends up with a majority of the seats in the house. This gives it nearly absolute power on decision making for the length of its mandate. In other words, for four years, it can pass nearly any piece of legislation.

Not everyone considers this to be a good thing, but it undeniably makes for a more effective government. In the ever changing world, the capacity for quick response and strong decision making is absolutely crucial. A government needs to be able to pass a bill without having to waste time securing the support of another party.

It also makes it possible for the government to pass unpopular necessary legislation. Sometimes, governments are ahead of the people. They know the necessity of a reform but the majority of voters want to keep things the way they are. A classic example would be Paul Martin’s fight against the national debt. At the time, the cuts he made were unpopular, but Canadians quickly changed their minds once the deficit ended. The government had been ahead.

It would have been a nearly impossible task for that Liberal government had they not had a majority of seats. If given a chance, the other parties would have blocked most reforms in an effort to regain popularity. It should come as no surprise that European countries under proportional representation such as France and Germany have had terrible difficulty getting their debt under control.

I agree that Westminster is fundamentally undemocratic because a party can be in power without the approval of a majority of voters, but I don’t think the objective of our electoral formula should be to create "fair" representation; it should be to create a good government.