Stability Wars: FPP vs PR

“Granted, some minority or coalition governments do manage to deliver solid, progressive government. But they are rarities. More commonly, governments in proportional systems are divisive, unstable, short-lived and paralyzed by conflict.” —Toronto Star

In one corner we have “strong, stable” Canadian FPP. In the other, “chaotic” Western European PR.

Drum roll…

And the winner is…

Average post-war election term (years)

Country	From	To	Years	Terms	Avg
Luxembourg	1951	2009	58	12	4.83
Italy	1948	2008	60	15	4
Norway	1949	2009	60	15	4
Switzerland	1951	2011	60	15	4
Finland	1951	2011	60	16	3.75
Germany	1949	2009	60	16	3.75
Belgium	1950	2010	60	18	3.33
Netherlands	1952	2012	60	18	3.33
Austria	1949	2008	59	18	3.28
Sweden	1948	2010	62	19	3.26
Canada	1949	2011	62	20	3.1
Denmark	1950	2011	61	23	2.65

…Luxembourg??

Clearly the above quote from the Toronto Star is pure and utter bunk. Canada does not have “strong, stable government” under FPP. European PR is not “divisive, unstable, short-lived and paralyzed by conflict.”

Strong government vs good government

No doubt, we often dole out absolute corrupt power to minority parties — excluding the vast majority from government. This foolishness produces a “benign dictatorship” which certainly qualifies as “strong government.” But it doesn’t give us good government.

Good democratic government means a majority of voters is represented and parties work together to come up with compromises that best reflect the will of the people.

We will need PR or PV ranked ballot to achieve good government.