Why bad mouth incremental electoral reform?

Having been highly involved for years in two British Columbia campaigns on electoral reform, and having watched the campaign in Ontario as well as the recent referendum in Britain, I have to say I am very disappointed in the Green's latest press release against the Liberals.  (pan choice of alternative vote)

The defenders of the status quo, and the least democratic system (single member plurality), feast on the fact that supporters of electoral reform are so insular about the particular change that they wish that they are willing to attack each other.  This was what happened in BC, when the Green's in 2005 got so into MMP (which has its own set of flaws, as does any system) that they refused to support STV.  Similar things happened in Ontario and Britain, when the status quo persevered some claimed "there are better alternatives".

Yes, I understand why "proportionality" seems to be such a powerful pull for small parties.  If you are going to have a system in which people really disregard their local candidate and a party leader is going to whip the votes, then you may as well try to get the seats to match the party preference.  

However, from a democratic perspective and voter's perspective, (rather than a party fairness) is party vote share really so important that we will disregard other beneficial changes.

Firstly: are parties and proportionality that big of a deal?  

Yeah, the Green Party platform is pretty nice, but if the only hope under PR system is to have some sort of coalition, then really the individual party platforms will be tossed out the window come governancy in return for some sort of collaborative arrangement.  Yes, it is good to get different views and ideas in parliament, but few voters really read the platform, most voters don't agree with all of the perspectives anyways, and vote share on its own doesn't tell us much.  Exact party proportionality is really a mythical concept, and doesn't really give us any substantial benefits.  It is more about perceived fairness, than substantial representation.  

The only distinct substantial benefits that PR offers are some sort of ability for minority representation, (which can be delivered in more than one way.) The two other benefits are: a) preventing false majorities, where one party can  achieve unilateral power without actually winning a majority of support in a majority of ridings.   (Views that may be detested by a majority of people).  b) and perhaps preventing majorities period (which some may argue is actually a negative factor)

Secondly: what is the true characteristics of good government?

Government is never going to be able truly represent everything.  The whole purpose of government is to make trade offs.  To offer more services, government will have to raise taxes.  To protect environments, it may have cut down on short term economic growth.  One person's road is another person's eyesore. Government is about compromise, about spending the time to weigh options and making decisions that will have broad support.  It may also be the role of individual members both to listen to community input as well as sell their community on the solution or compromise.

The best government is the arguably the one that is able to represent the broadest range of concerns, and is probably less about any sort of party affiliation than about the individuals who compose it and the motivation of parties of voter mobilization. 

PR systems on their own work by electing individuals who appeal to a narrow range of voters, and then forcing them to compromise or negotiate.  Different systems may compose more constituency representatives and then some transient representatives who get their position through a list.

Once they get elected, we are then trusting people who are fairly ideologically motivated to try and negotiate and find a compromise.  It may be challenging sometimes, although the saving grace is that most people in the world are reasonable and as such with the exemption of a few issues, most people can find enough agreement to make things work, even if not ideally.  

The non-party perspective for electoral reform.

On the reverse side, there is the non-party perspective for electoral reform which focusses less on parties and ideological representation, and more on ensuring that the best people get elected, and that artificial barriers (such as vote splitting and strategic voting) do not shut out new ideas that have the potential of winning support.  The STV system proposed in BC was great, as it focussed on representation rather than parties to deliver proportionate results.  However, it was complex to explain (even if this should not be a consideration in an electoral systen) and it requires multimember ridings, or different ridings size, that are not popular in sparce areas that are huge already. It is, though, the only system that can reach out to minority candidates in a geographical area. (rather than appointing them on a list, or forcing minorities to form their own party like the Maori party in New Zealand)

The alternative vote is far more democratic than many "fair voters" claim.

Parties seem to have no problem adopting converts.  A former liberal or NDP will switch parties and get elected under a different label, and even the Greens love to adopt a person who switches party affiliations.  Party platforms and policies change from election to election, even while the average voter never reads the platforms anyways and tends to give up and vote on their perception of leader most of the times anyways.  Parties are far more similar on most issues that we like to claim, and the average candidate or supporter could run or support any party and no one would blink an eye. Most differences are artificial, highlighted to win votes rather than their general importances.  (59% of conservative supporters, in a recent poll supported legalization of marijuana. I hear Green supporters complaining about gas prices.)

So, would a non-proportionate system deliver just as democratic of a government?  There is no clamour for electoral reform in Australia which uses AV. (Although, they have a PR senate)  While on one level, AV and the current system seem close, the difference is far greater than on face value.  

Firstly, no candidate can win without being able to have the support of their community.  No one wins when 69% of voters really don't like them.  This is the biggest problem with FPTP, when bad ideas get in without popular support.  Rather, to win, a party and candidate must be able to convince the majority of voters that the policies they support, or plan is better than the next persons.  The candidates with broad support tend to get elected, but only if they get an outright majority or come ahead in the preference of voters who support less popular candidates.

Secondly, small parties are free to pitch their ideas to the electorate, without cannibalizing the support of a similar party or candidate who may differ on all the ideas but that one.  If you are left wing, and find the current left wing candidate is lousy, you don't have to risk the riding going right to challenge them.  The best candidates, regardless of party, prevail. And frankly, if the Greens cannot put forward a candidate or platform that a majority of voters can support, is it democratic to negotiate a policy that voters would not otherwise choose?

Third, preferential system provide a unique centrifugal effect that forces parties and candidates to reach beyond their traditional support base.   If a small party of candidate can put forward a compelling policy, then it makes sense for larger parties or candidates to support them.  To win a majority of support, candidates have to find ways to reach out to minorities.   Candidates/representative who refuse to change, or act dynamically are the losers in this system.  Keep this in mind, versus the traditional PR system.  Under a PR system, there is no incentive (in fact a deterent effect) from many parties broadening beyond their base, to change their policies, or reach out. Even more so, than under pluralities.  By gaining supporters, you risk loosing supporters.  Under preferential systems, another parties supporter can be essential, so not only does it encourage less cross candidate attacks, it also encourages candidates and parties to really listen to their constituents.

Fourthly, there are more than one route to getting some sort of PR in place.  One is by adding a corrective mechanism to AV.  The second it also by pushing PR on the senate, which most Canadians would favour replacing with anything.

The point though, it not to force one system on the Greens.  There are advantages to each.  The more important thing is to realize that rather than opposing changes that others support, and therefore leaving us in the forever limbo in which no change happens because of difference, realize there are benefits to each and that the last thing we should be doing it is panning incremental changes or anchoring our self without a next best alternative.