Quote:
Originally Posted by Flash Walken
proportional representation is of course the obvious and most effective means of ensuring democratic representation to a population of constituents. There are precious few arguments against, even fewer legitimate arguments, that don't revolve around the established and indentured need for power and control of the political apparatus for the self serving few who have managed to attain and wield it.
|
I can think of a few reasons to avoid PR.
The first being geographical representation. An MLA should represent his constituents first and his party second. It is his job to argue for the region that he represents to make sure that the area gets fair treatment in both policy and spending. Under PR the MLAs represent a party and it removes any local representation.
Another complaint of PR is that it can give too much power to the small parties. It is more likely to result in a minority government which means that for anything to pass the largest party will have to compromise with one of the smaller parties to gain the votes. This sounds good, but what happens when 5% of the population votes for a racist party who now holds the balance of power.
Using the results from the last election and true PR the seat count would have been.
PC's 38 seats
WRA 30 seats
Liberal 9 seats
NDP 9 seats
Alberta party 1 seat
The clear result of this system is that Allison Redford would have been found in contempt of Legislature.
I am not specifically against PR but don't think it is fair to claim that it is the obvious and most effective choice.