electoralreform-money_thumb-1.png
electoralreform-money_thumb-1.png

Fraser Institute: giving voters fewer choices would be good for the economy

The Fraser Institute seems to believe more "choice" is the answer to everything – except when it comes to democracy.

August 3, 2016

kenneywatch-banner.gif

 

The Fraser Institute seems to believe more “choice” is the answer to everything – except when it comes to democracy.

According to the right-wing think tank’s new report on electoral reform, the economy is better served when “fewer parties” are involved in the democratic process.

This may come as little surprise considering they see no correlation between democracy and happiness and their experts say Hong Kong is “number one in overall freedom” in the world, but it still sounds a little fishy coming from the Fraser Institute considering their own motto suggests “choice” is the cornerstone of “a free and prosperous world”:

fraser-institute-choice.jpg

So what does the Fraser Institute have against giving voters more choices?

Because an electoral system based on proportional representation would lead to “the increased likelihood of electing more parties,” the Fraser Institute explains.

And although they concede “electoral rules do not necessarily affect fiscal policy directly,” they speculate anyway that this could lead to more spending on public services:

“A side effect of the incentives embedded within PR electoral systems is that they are far more likely to require coalitions to govern since it is significantly more difficult for them to secure a majority in an election … the costs of the coalition, which take the form of policies implemented in the government, are born … by the broader public.”

But a majoritarian system – like Canada’s current first-past-the-post system – is much better equipped for forcing through austerity policies, laying off public servants and gutting pensions.

The Fraser Institute highlights data they say shows a single-party, majority government is in a stronger position to take a “tough fiscal stance, particularly when politically sensitive programs, government employment and social security are involved.”

Because isn’t that what democracy is all about? Taking a tough line against your own people?

To help get their point across, the Fraser Institute also has a handy visual of two businessmen (red and blue, symbolizing a two-party system) taking a leisurely drive juxtaposed with several multi-coloured businessmen struggling for control of a car as it swerves erratically across the road: 

fraserinstitute-electoralreform.jpg

Gosh, imagine an electoral system that gave you more choices and resulted in governments spending money on issues people care about instead of one-party majorities most people didn’t even vote for taking “tough” stands against their own people?

That sounds like chaos!

Photo: Makaristos. Used under Creative Commons license.

Invest in our work

We break news and shine a light on stories Canada’s major media outlets miss. But we need your help to keep making an impact.

Subscribe to our Friday Newsletter

Too busy to follow the daily news? Get the inside scoop on the entire week’s news sent to your email inbox every Friday at noon.

Invest in our work

We break news and shine a light on stories Canada’s major media outlets miss. But we need your help to keep making an impact.

kenney-truck_thumb-1.png
kenney-truck_thumb-1.png

Jason Kenney is driving around Alberta talking about local jobs in a foreign-made truck

"The Ram 1500 is assembled in both Michigan and Mexico," a Fiat Chrysler spokesperson told PressProgress.

August 2, 2016

kenneywatch-banner.gif

 

Under the impression Jason Kenney is a ‘buy Canadian’ kinda guy?

Given the outrage directed at Earls Restaurants, you can be forgiven for thinking the leadership contender for Alberta’s Progressive Conservatives was actually, you know, consistent about supporting things that are “locally sourced” and employ “thousands of Canadians”: 

 

So, if Kenney launched a…