Is Israel such a bad example for proportional representation?

Those of us who advocate for proportional representation have been criticized that Israel was a bad case for the concept.  To me that is mixing up results with a tool.  Proportional representation is presented as a solution to a problem and although it has many benefits it cannot by itself solve all the perceived problems of the world.  It is an important tool that all reasonable voters should consider if they really want to solve many of the iniquities in society.

 Israel's relationship with the Palestinian people is an abomination that is a problem with a global reach.  Unfortunately the Israeli voters with a proportional system have given support to restrictive laws and practices. The Israeli rulers have set up laws that are very restrictive to Palestinians, almost certainly out of fear mixed in with some ignorance.  How the rest of the world deals with this issue is much like how we deal with the Chinese persecution of Uighers.  The main difference is there is much sympathy for Jews, but not much for the Chinese autocrats.  Although we abhor perceived unfairness most nations respect the sovereignty of other nations for practical reasons.

Each Israeli election draws a fair amount of attention and for many it is the closest they are aware of proportional representation.  We understand there are political rivals who try to establish political alliances in order to get enough power to make decisions.  Netanyahu has been very prominent for over a decade and those who follow the news are aware that by allying himself with some Orthodox elements he has been able to gain power.  For the last several years the alliances have been very fragile.   Giving power to what are considered extremist minorities is one of the charges against proportional representation.

Two developments (I am sure there are many others) have been significant.  Netanyahu has been tainted with corruption charges and many voters have become leery of supporting him.  The other development is among the Arabs who have their own factions.  Some are reluctant to co-operate  with Jewish parties that are openly anti-Palestinian.  Others have looked for opportunities to gain some leverage.  With this last election balancing efforts have opened up one such opportunity.  As has been pointed out the head of the new alliance is actually more extreme than Netanyahu, but there have been slight changes with four Arab electors essential to maintaining the current balance.  If they choose to not support any new legislation the government will fall and a new election will ensue.  They of course need to be careful to maintain the current alliance if and until something better presents itself.

One example brought to my attention by Juan Cole in his Informed Comment occurred recently:  https://www.juancole.com/2021/07/parliament-unification-palestinian.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook   Essentially the Israeli Parliament failed to renew a restrictive law against Palestinians.  Many of those who automatically would have renewed this law abstained realizing otherwise they would face another election.

There may not be too many more examples of the power of the few as it is a delicate balance that allows any leverage and there are many pressures that could disrupt it.  As in any democracy there are always many factions with their own priorities, but under proportional representation they have to consider the priorities of other parties.  Hopefully enough voters will see the results have been positive and the politicians will realize their best interest lies in respecting all the voters.

Under First Past the Post system the hard line parties would not have to pay attention to 20% of the population that Arabs represent in Israel.  We may be fortunate that corruption concerns forced voters and politicians to re-evaluate their priorities.

The bottom line is that proportional representation is a tool that can help solve a lot of problems, but other tools are necessary to solve such problems as climate change, nuclear war risks, refugees, hatred, violence, crime, etc.  Some of those other tools might be balanced education and media support.  It is reasonable that when more people are paid attention through proportional representation that society can move towards solving global problems before it is too late.

Both voters and politicians need to work together instead of maneuvering to gain disproportionate power.  More will get done, but it does require a joint effort which is something lacking today.  Proportional representation is a step in the right direction.

WHEN YOUR GUY GETS IN, IS IT OK?

The title is based on a comment by a critic of proportional representation.  While many of us complain about first past the post elections our critic pointed out we were only upset because "your guy didn't get in."  Admittedly there is some truth to that.

On the other hand there is a tendency for parties to alternate winning and often each wins with less than 50% of the vote, although they can still gain majority control.  They each know that they just have to get a little edge and don't have to win over 50% of the voters.  Of course this is only true when there are more than 2 political parties.

In Canada two conservative parties split votes until they decided to merge.  This improved their election prospects, but Canadians lost a choice.  There was a difference as one of the two parties was more socially progressive so those who liked fiscal conservatism, but were open to progressive social policies and for that matter those who preferred opposite policies found they had to deal with compromise.  Compromising is not a bad thing, but when it limits the voters choices not such a good thing.  And of course different people inspire different levels of trust.

With a diverse population there are many different individual priorities and voters would emphasize different factors.  We of course need to come up with a reasonable consensus, but it would be better if it was an honest consensus hence the desirability of more than two choices.

Often because of fear we do often face only two choices.  We dread a party with what we consider dangerous notions.  We fear splitting the opposition to that  dangerous party and choose usually the most likely.  In effect we have forfeited our true preference.

From personal experience in Canadian elections I became conscious that in Canada for many the Liberal party is the default party whether you wish to avoid the Conservatives or the NDP.  Perhaps that is why Justin Trudeau preferred a ranking system and vetoed the proportional system where his party's chances would be at greater risk.  He is not alone as most politicians seem to prefer the status quo as that what allowed them to win. 

We should also bear in mind that vested interests try to attach themselves to something with more popularity than themselves.  What are vested interests?  Some examples include financial interests, oil interests, pharmaceuticals.  There are few choices that do not involve corporate wanting to effect legislation.

Lists can be publicized in advance ranking candidates as to which would be given priority dependent on how many seats a party is allowed.  Assuming my idea of lists before the election each party has a problem of how to delegate their candidates.   They need to boost confidence that they have good decision makers so those who have that reputation need to be high on the list.  Geography ie. local concerns is a key factor to spread support over as wide an area as practical.  Different, but essentially agreeable viewpoints need to be available to make sure voter nuance concerns are encouraged.  Gender has been a focal point for advocates that more women gain political power.  The list is critical for a party's platform assuring as many voters as feasible that their interests will be taken care of.  Decisions made after the election are subject to political manipulation which

Below is an example of how proportional voting could help a party in power.

Stephen Harper's party in 2006 won the majority of seats, but were lacking members from Vancouver and Montreal that traditionally would be represented with a cabinet minister.  Harper likes to present himself as a man of principle, but broke two of his principles.  He didn't approve of enticing opposition members (it had been done to him) to switch sides, but decided in one case that was his best option.  He enticed David Emerson the Liberal member for Vancouver Kingsway with a cabinet post--Minster of International Trade.  He also didn't like how the Canadian Senate was filled with appointees, but again bent his principle to take a Senator for a Cabinet position.  Actually he took a Conservative campaign organizer, Michael Fortier from the Montreal area and after appointing him to the Senate made him the Minister of Public Works and Government Services. This could have been avoided with a proportional system by listing Cabinet potential candidates to a higher ranking.  Some voters claim they vote for the "man" and not the party, but they still can vote for a slate of specific people under proportional voting.

Credibility is important to have a true mandate.  Winning 39% of the votes, but also 50%+ of the seats gives power under the first past the post system, but is the country really behind you?  More can get done when true legitimacy is confirmed by the electorate.

THE ESTABLISHMENT PARTIES AND PROPORTIONAL VOTING

It seems politics is all about power.  Once you have power you can do good things.  But politics can be about getting things done better by sharing power.

The current Canadian first past the post system has disadvantages for even the established parties.  It is often told how the minority parties lose when they get 6% overall voting, but don't get a single seat in Parliament.  Yes it is obvious that those votes are "wasted" but so are many of the votes for the establishment.  Once a candidate has achieved plurality in a riding each additional vote is unnecessary and therefore wasted.  In a proportional system those extra votes could help boost their overall number of seats.

A problem came up a few years back when Stephen Harper's party in 2006 won the majority of seats, but were lacking members from Vancouver and Montreal that traditionally would be represented with a cabinet minister.  Harper likes to present himself as a man of principle, but broke two of his principles.  He didn't approve of enticing opposition members (it had been done to him) to switch sides, but decided in one case that was his best option.  He enticed David Emerson the Liberal member for Vancouver Kingsway with a cabinet post--Minster of International Trade.  He also didn't like how the Canadian Senate was filled with appointees, but again bent his principle to take a Senator for a Cabinet position.  Actually he took a Conservative campaign organizer, Michael Fortier from the Montreal area and after appointing him to the Senate made him the Minister of Public Works and Government Services. This could have been avoided with a proportional system by listing Cabinet potential candidates to a higher ranking.  Some voters claim they vote for the "man" and not the party, but they still can vote for a slate of specific people under the proportional voting.

Although those in power under the first past the post system like to proclaim they have a mandate to do the people's will, in many cases that is pretty shoddy when the majority of the voters actually voted for other parties often specifically against the plurality winner's agenda.  Not to mention the larger numbers who for different reasons chose not to vote.  A real mandate comes only from a true majority.

Sharing power may seem like a diminishment of real power, but  it should result in real change that more people can accept.  Not because they got 100% of what they wanted, but because they (or their representatives) were consulted instead of dismissed.

A key part of how much credibility an election has is the number  of citizens who take the effort to vote.  It is often said that most people just vote reflexively without much study of the issues and personalities.  There could be truth to that, just as many non voters don't think it is worth their while to consider the consequences of a vote that would be "wasted."  And of course there is the strategic voter who has calculated their favored candidate has no chance and a vote for them could in fact enable the worst possibility to get elected unless they choose a more favorable candidate.

When the actual consequences of a single vote are realized (your vote really can make a difference) there will be a more powerful  reason to be involved.  Undoubtedly many votes will be made with little analysis, but under a proportional system more people are encouraged to study the issues beyond their seemingly narrow traditional range.

The advantages seem to shift power to the ordinary(?) voter and that politicians will have to think out platforms that appeal to a wider range of voters.  It is also true that some politicians can narrow their focus, but that is more likely to result in a narrower percentage of votes.  Engagement from citizens comes from education and the realization that one vote does count for something one can believe in.

An earlier post  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2014/12/your-guy-didnt-get-in.html

For those of you ready to get more involved check out http://fairvote.ca  For Americans check out https://www.fairvote.org for a perspective on your unique setup.