аЯрЁБс>ўџ 57ўџџџ4џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџьЅСM №П‘#bjbjт=т= .€W€Wwџџџџџџl€€€€€€€”ŒŒŒ8Ф а”%№№"ЄІІІІІІ$9 YЬЪ€ЪР€€пРРР^€€ЄРЄРф РЄ€€Єф €МЈЩЅХ”јŒp.ЄЄѕ0%Є%ž"%ЄР””€€€€йThe Case against Proportional Representation   More than 1,500 written submissions to the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform in British Columbia have been published on the Internet. Most criticize the present, so-called plurality or first-past-the post system used to elect members of the legislative assembly. This system gives the seat in the parliament to the candidate that has received the largest number of votes in the riding. The main criticism against the plurality system is that it has allowed the formation of government by parties that have received much less than one half of all of the votes cast, mainly because the rest of the votes were split among competing parties. The system polarizes politics and right and left wing governments often succeed each other and disrupt the continuity of government programs. Because smaller parties under the plurality system often gain fewer seats than is indicated by the proportion of the votes received, most of the submissions to the Assembly consider this system to be unfair. They believe that it encourages voter apathy and prevents minority views from being heard. To eliminate this unfairness, most submissions recommend the adoption of an electoral system that basically assures that seats in parliament given to individual parties reflect the proportion of the total popular votes they received. There are variants on this basic model of proportional representation to fix shortcomings known to exist from the experience of other countries, but they do not alter the basic outcome produced by the simple model and need not concern us here.   One of the main criticisms of the present plurality system – that is prevents minority views from being heard – is invalid. As a Member of the Federal Parliament I spent much time listening to the minority views of my constituents, be it in private meetings, political gatherings, parliamentary committee hearings or through emails, letters and phone-calls. These views were discussed during the design of party platforms, in party caucuses and on the floor of the House of Commons.   The views expressed by these constituents all boil down to demands for more government spending, changes in regulations or lower and different taxes. All of these demands have merit. I have always listened to them carefully. Many are based on deeply moving personal experiences and needs. They reflect the Canadian values of compassion and the sincere desire to alleviate human suffering, to create a fair society and a livable, sustained environment. The problem with most such policy proposals is that they are not in the general public interest. Politicians reach this judgment not because they lack compassion but because society has only limited resources, as they learn quickly after entering parliament when civil servants confront their demands for new spending initiatives with the hard facts about existing taxes and spending. Taxes cannot simply be raised to finance new initiatives because Canadians want to keep most of their earnings for private consumption and savings for their retirement. They punish tax-increasing governments at the ballot box. To find room for new initiatives while tax revenues are held constant means that other spending programs have to be cut or eliminated. The hard fact is that healthcare, education, social insurance programs absorb most tax revenues while other valuable programs take up the rest. While I served on the House of Commons Finance Committee, witnesses lobbying for new spending always were asked what programs they think should be cut to accommodate the costs of theirs. No answers were ever given and most often we were told that to figure that out was our job as politicians. I know that the government representatives dearly would have loved to assure themselves the votes of the beneficiaries of new spending, but had to face the reality that cuts to existing programs would certainly have lost them an equal or greater number of votes. The many demands for more regulation in support of good causes voiced by the public also run into serious obstacles. The problem here is that regulations impose costs of compliance and reduced freedoms on all Canadians. The more regulations there are, the slower is economic growth and the smaller is the future ability of the government to tax and spend on good causes. Politicians reject the demand for most new regulations because of considerations submitted by civil servants, which are based on thorough studies by academics and government employees and which detail carefully the fact that for the proposed regulations the benefits are not large enough to cover the resultant costs.   The fundamental job of all governments in the world is to decide how the country’s limited resources are divided among the many competing uses. The plurality and proportional system for selecting legislators in democracies make these decisions in different arenas. Decisions over taxes, regulation and spending under the plurality system take place within parties, elected caucuses and cabinet. Under the proportional system they are made in parliament. If the allocation decisions were made in the full knowledge of their benefits and costs and all citizens had the same value systems and ideological views of what constitutes a good society, the arena for decision-making would not make a difference to the outcome. Under both systems, governments would maximize the well being of all Canadians. Unfortunately, these ideal conditions do not exist in the real world. As it turns out, therefore, the tax and spending decisions under the two systems are different. Under proportional voting systems countries often get “pizza parliaments”, so called because a seating map of the legislature resembles a pizza cut into many pieces. In pizza parliaments even the biggest parties rarely have enough seats to form a government and they are forced into alliances with smaller parties. Such alliances give great leverage to small parties that demand legislation and regulation for the benefits of their members in return for voting with the government. As a result, some taxes, regulation and spending programs that under the present system are rejected, under the proportional system are adopted, not because they have become socially more desirable but as a result of the new electoral system. An empirical study published recently in the prestigious American Economic Review by Torsten Persson and Guido Tabellini lends strong support for this view. Countries with proportional representation have higher spending and levels of regulation than parliaments elected under the plurality system. The switch from the present to the proportional system has the strong support of the NDP and the Green Party because it would give them more seats in the House of Commons and more leverage to get their ideologically preferred policies enacted. Canadians who do not share these ideological views should therefore oppose the adoption of the proportional voting system. They should also oppose it on the grounds that the resultant bigger size of government reduces economic growth in the longer run, as many studies have proven. The absolute living standards of their children and grandchildren will therefore be affected negatively and the ability of the government to finance existing social programs will be endangered.   Canadians who are impressed by the arguments for proportional voting systems should remember that its advocates are not giving us the whole picture. Like ideologues of all stripes, they criticize the existing system without considering its benefits while they present a utopian view of their preferred alternative without considering its shortcomings. Canadians should not let themselves be misled by this technique.     Herbert Grubel, Professor of Economic Emeritus, ЖЁЯудАAV; Senior Fellow, The Fraser Institute; Reform MP for Capilano-Howe Sound, 1993-97   Word count: 1200 PAGE  PAGE 1 ,-V W qrTlFGIJФ"Х"a#b#t#u#v#w#x#~##€#‚#ƒ#‰#Š#‹#Œ###‘#іюырырыкырызырыЬырЩзТПТПТПТЗТПз0JmHnHu0J j0JUCJCJOJQJ^JaJ$CJ 6]aJ$CJOJQJ^JaJaJ$5CJPJ\0J5CJ \aJ$!-/КЛFGwxW Y > @  tuНОrt=>?@G§ћћћћћћћћћћћћћћћћћћћћћћћћћћћћw##§§GJ@A!!!Х"Ч"Щ"b#d#u#v#w#€##‚##Ž###‘#§§§§§§§§§§§ћ§ђь§ђь§§§„h]„h„јџ„&`#$Аа/ Ар=!А"А# $ %А i4@ёџ4 NormalCJ_HmH sH tH <A@ђџЁ< Default Paragraph Font.>@ђ. Title$a$ 5CJ$\0B0 Body Text B*phџ™"W@Ђ" Strong5\, @", Footer  ЦрР!&)@Ђ1& Page Number‘.џџџџ-/КЛFGwxWY>@   t u НОrt=>?@GJ@A!ХЧЩbduvw‚Ž’˜0€€˜0€€š0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€š@€€š@0€€˜@0€€ ‘#G‘## !•!џ•€ЦбpwxŠ“vw‚Œ’vw‚Œ’vw‚Œ’џџHerbert Grubel{C:\Documents and Settings\Herbert Grubel\My Documents\My Documents\Papers 2004\Case against Proportional Representation.docHerbert GrubelŠC:\Documents and Settings\Herbert Grubel\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of Case against Proportional Representation.asdHerbert GrubelŠC:\Documents and Settings\Herbert Grubel\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of Case against Proportional Representation.asdHerbert GrubelŠC:\Documents and Settings\Herbert Grubel\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of Case against Proportional Representation.asdHerbert GrubelŠC:\Documents and Settings\Herbert Grubel\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of Case against Proportional Representation.asdHerbert GrubelŠC:\Documents and Settings\Herbert Grubel\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of Case against Proportional Representation.asdHerbert GrubelŠC:\Documents and Settings\Herbert Grubel\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of Case against Proportional Representation.asdHerbert GrubelŠC:\Documents and Settings\Herbert Grubel\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of Case against Proportional Representation.asdHerbert Grubel{C:\Documents and Settings\Herbert Grubel\My Documents\My Documents\Papers 2004\Case against Proportional Representation.docHerbert Grubel ReEtiredŠC:\Documents and Settings\Herbert Grubel\My Documents\My Documents\Frontpage Website\_private\Case against Proportional Representation.docџ@€Lє‘€@џџUnknownџџџџџџџџџџџџG‡z €џTimes New Roman5€Symbol3& ‡z €џArial]6€ џџџџџџџщ?џ?Arial Unicode MSMS Mincho"1ˆ№аhА›˜ІА›˜Іђ 7“ 7!№ЅРДД€0мЊ2ƒ№пџџ,The Case against Proportional RepresentationHerbert GrubelHerbert Grubel ReEtiredўџр…ŸђљOhЋ‘+'Гй0Ј˜амє  <H d p |ˆ˜ ф-The Case against Proportional Representation9.0he Herbert GrubelterberbNormal Herbert Grubel ReEtired2rbMicrosoft Word 9.0i@@ЈоЊЅХ@ЈоЊЅХђўџеЭеœ.“—+,љЎ0 hp€ˆ˜  ЈАИ Р љфRetired7 мэ -The Case against Proportional Representation Title ўџџџ !"#ўџџџ%&'()*+ўџџџ-./0123ўџџџ§џџџ6ўџџџўџџџўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџRoot Entryџџџџџџџџ РFpшЏЩЅХ8€1Tableџџџџџџџџџџџџ%WordDocumentџџџџџџџџ.SummaryInformation(џџџџ$DocumentSummaryInformation8џџџџџџџџџџџџ,CompObjџџџџjObjectPoolџџџџџџџџџџџџpшЏЩЅХpшЏЩЅХџџџџџџџџџџџџўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџўџ џџџџ РFMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.8є9Вq