Proportional vote a disaster

LAST week the Rudd government put a federal charter of rights in the reform rubbish bin. Progressives deplored the move. After all, their campaign for a charter was a first-order ideological fight. A charter would have enabled the Left to entrench an agenda of special interests that would have no chance of finding support under Australia's traditional Westminster democratic system. So that begs the question: what's next in the Left's bag of anti-democratic tricks? It's hard to imagine that the progressive disdain for Westminster democracy is suddenly at an end.

Their next line of attack against democracy may come from a different angle. It's possible we may start hearing a whole lot more from progressives about the merits of proportional representation. The argument will have that same feel-good quality used to push a charter of rights. You know the schtick. Someone has to look out for the little guy (read: special interest minority groups) against the majoritarian evils of Westminster democracy. If they can't be protected by judges wielding a charter of rights, then at least let's get a similar result with a proportional system in parliament.

You need only cast your eyes towards Britain to witness this new assault on democracy. The rise of Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg is being hailed as a progressive moment not to be squandered, a chance to repair a broken political system. Commentators in The Guardian are excited at the prospect of a "well" hung parliament with a vote for Clegg being described as the equivalent of hitting "a bloody great big reset button".

The reason is that Clegg wants to cement proportional representation into the British electoral system. Indeed, Clegg's kind of electoral reform is described as the deal breaker, the price a minority government must pay for the support of the Liberal Democrats.

And you can see why British voters may find this talk appealing. So wretched is the British economy and political system, electoral reform is now referred to as the "the hygiene issue". The stench of the expenses scandal lingers. Who can forget the toffy Conservative MP wanting taxpayers to pay for clearing the moat at his country manor house, not to mention having the piano tuned and fixing the stable lights? And Gordon Brown's government is left to explain unemployment at a 15-year high and a pound stg. 167 billion ($279bn) budget deficit, more than 11 per cent of gross domestic product.

Not surprisingly, the electoral office has reported a sharp surge in voter registrations, with more Brits keen to decide how to fill their 650-seat House of Commons on May 6. If the polls are correct, many disaffected Brits are heeding Clegg's call to "do something different this time".

But make no mistake. The Tories and the Brown Labour government have created Cleggomania. When the two main parties bring politics into disrepute, a large protest vote follows. Unthinkable just a few weeks ago, the Lib-Dems now sit second place in the polls on 28 per cent, just behind the Tories on 32 per cent and ahead of Labour on 26 per cent. After the first leaders debate, Clegg won a 72 per cent approval rating, up there with Winston Churchill at his height. After the second debate, the Liberal Democratic leader said "something really exciting is beginning to happen".

Exciting only if you fall for the myth that proportional representation is good for democracy. Truth is it's rotten for democracy. Proportional representation will bestow disproportionate influence on minor party leaders to become kingmakers. Forget democratic principles of voters knowing what they voted for and politicians being accountable for their promises. Post-election horse-trading between minor parties and minority governments will mean election promises count for nought.

Just look at the Tasmanian tale so far. A month after the March 20 election, Tasmanians still had no clue who would govern them. The resulting hung parliament delivered disproportionate influence to the Greens, the party that attracted votes from only one in five Tasmanians. The result? A series of broken promises. Labor Premier David Bartlett said the party with the highest proportion of votes should govern. Didn't happen. Bartlett said he would not deal with the devil: there would be no Labor-Greens coalition. He did. Senior Labor MPs said they would never sit in a cabinet that included Greens. They do.

To be sure, all governments, no matter the electoral system, break some election promises. Witness Kevin Rudd's latest broken promises in the past week alone: the government won't be building 260 new childcare centres and has dumped its emissions trading system until 2013. But Rudd will be accountable for all his broken promises come election time. By contrast, broken promises are part of the fabric of proportional representation. Indeed, the only pre-election promise a party can keep once elected is that all other pre-election promises will probably be broken as part of the negotiations of minority government. So much for democratic accountability.

And when minority governments become the rule, forget about strong, stable governments making tough economic decisions. The sort of gutsy reforms that transformed the British economy under Margaret Thatcher won't happen again if Clegg gets his way with proportional representation. Of course, this is precisely what the Left has in mind, hence their catch-cry about voters embracing a progressive moment.

All the big reforms that transformed the New Zealand economy happened before the introduction of mixed-member proportional voting, the NZ version of proportional representation. Since then, deals with minorities have wound back reforms and special interests have prevailed. For example, ridiculous concessions were given to the Maori Party to grease the passage of an emissions trading system. And NZ has anti-smacking laws thanks to Greens MP Sue Bradford despite 85 per cent of New Zealanders opposing the laws.

Thankfully, a referendum on NZ electoral reform in 2012 is a chance to do away with a system that was introduced there only by accident when then Labor prime minister David Lange misread his debate notes in 1987 promising a system of voting that neither main party supported and one that NZ voters still do not understand. But don't count on it.

The Left is canny at pushing anti-democratic agendas using slogans about improving democracy. You can see it happening in Britain now. And it will happen again in the lead-up to the NZ referendum. Perhaps it's only a matter of time until the same people who lobbied for an Australian charter of rights will start pushing for proportional representation here, too. If so, just remember that it's like getting a tattoo. Proportional representation may seem cool at the time. But what follows is a lifetime of regret.