Here is a blog post about Stephane Dion’s recent agreement with the Green Party’s Elizabeth May to “consider” electoral reform.Â
It sounds like Dion is very much against pure list-PR, but gives credence to MMP. As for what agreeing to “consider” electoral reform entails, I don’t know.
Based on an interview with Dion from May of last year, it sounds like his biggest problem with our single-member plurality system is that it exaggerates regional differences. His example: In the 1990s, based on about 50% of the vote in Ontario the Liberals could virtually sweep that province, while “with 1/3 of the votes in the West we were unable to have a significant number of seats. It gives the sense we’re a party for Ontario and a party unable to have support in the West, when it’s not really the case.“ He also talks about MMP a bit, which he calls a “German” “compensatory seats” system.
The funniest thing about this is that the NDP always made electoral reform a requirement for full support of Martin’s government, but Martin would never go for it. Now Dion is willing to consider making a deal with the Greens to get what, exactly?
My snide aside aside, as The central party, the Grits have a lot to gain from electoral reform. In an STV-based system, they’re every voter’s second choice. In any system that creates minorities or coalitions, they win because they have some policies in common with everyone.
Well, Dion didn’t agree to electoral reform, he agreed that it should be “considered”.
That is a good point about the Liberals being dominant players in most coalition governments under a PR system. The question is, would the Liberal Party prefer a system where they almost always share power, or a system where they often have full control?
But yeah, I don’t understand the limited non-agression pact between the Liberals and the Greens. What does Dion expect to get out of it?