As the feuding politicians take a breather in their efforts to woo Canada’s 22.7 million

eligible voters, stories abound, once again, about the alleged shortcomings of our first-past-the-post electoral system.

To the champions of change, particularly to proportional representation, or p.r., our current electoral methodology is badly flawed, the primary cause of our embarrassingly low electoral turnouts.

It is typically Canadian that if something isn’t going the way we think it should we either set up a royal commission or judicial inquiry and/or impose a new bureaucracy to throw money at it.

As you likely have heard, the “problem” with our current system is that governments can win a “majority” in Commons – or provincial legislature – while only managing a “minority” of the votes.

When New Democrat Bob Rae won Ontario in what now seems like another lifetime, for example, his party got less than 38 per cent of the vote, yet still enjoyed a “majority” government.

Indeed, with multiple parties vying for attention, the chance of any party collecting a true majority of the vote is pretty slim.

Critics – who don’t appear to understand how representative democracy actually works – claim that if the representative of Party A is elected with, let’s say, 40 percent of the votes, the other 60 percent who voted for Parties B, C and D, are unrepresented. Therefore, they claim, we need a system where everybody’s votes are counted and seats are distributed according to the percentage of votes garnered.

Well, that sounds plausible, but it’s not.

For one thing, the winning candidate in the riding represents everybody there, not just those who voted for him or her. To say those who voted for somebody else aren’t “represented” is complete hooey. Only an idiot – or somebody not wanting to ever get re-elected – would refuse to take calls from somebody who didn’t vote for him.

The champions of p.r. love to tout the socalled advantages, but rarely talk about the overwhelming disadvantages.

Under p.r., for example, voters don’t even necessarily vote directly for their eventual “representative.” These systems normally involve party hacks cobbling together a list of who will represent their party once the votes are tallied. Under our current system at least you know who, among a list of public options, will represent you.

Then there’s the matter of voter turnout. Last time, only 60 percent bothered. Chances are it will be even more disgraceful on Jan. 23. There really aren’t many good reasons, short of death, not to vote, a privilege many people are still denied and one we enjoy thanks to the many sacrifices of previous generations who fought, and often died, for it.

But critics claim low voter turnout is proof we need a change, ignoring the fact that for much of our history, using the same system, turnouts were markedly higher year in and year out. In short, it’s not the system, it’s the politicians, stupid.

So what is the problem? Well, I believe what discourages people from voting is the feeling that politicians are “all the same,” i.e. not to be trusted. So, they rationalize to themselves, why bother to vote? In the last Ontario election, recall, Liberal Dalton McGuinty publicly signed a pledge not to raise taxes and the first thing he did upon assuming office was slap a punitive health tax on the public.

And what of Paul Martin? When he made then-Tory MP Belinda Stronach an offer she didn’t refuse – a cabinet post– she not only crossed the floor, thus dissing all those constituents who had supported her as a Tory, but Martin had the gall to put her in charge of democratic reform and send her out across the land speaking to youth in particular about why they aren’t more involved in the process. She is a walking poster child about why our current politicians discourage public involvement.

While it’s true that governments can win a “majority” with a “minority” of the vote, the biggest flaw with p.r. systems is that they virtually guarantee perpetual minority governments. So what’s wrong with that, you ask? Well, what it means everywhere it is practiced is a proliferation of splinter political parties, frequent elections, and results which, since governing parties need to form coalitions to survive, afford the smaller, often more radical, parties way more power than the electorate meant to give them.

Our current system, although not perfect, is better than any other system on the planet.

We don’t need to change it. All we need is politicians who will keep their word.