 |   |  Click for Search Instructions |
| Home |
|
|
Final Report: text only
Making Every Vote Count
The case for electoral reform in British
Columbia
The British Columbia Citizens’ Assembly on
Electoral Reform
Final Report
December 2004
We are here to invent a new way to engage citizens in
the practice of democracy….
The Final Report of the British Columbia
Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform
To the Honourable Geoff Plant, Attorney General, and
To the people of British Columbia
The members of the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral
Reform feel exceptionally honoured to have been given this historic
opportunity to serve British Columbians on a matter so central to
our democracy.
Our mandate was to assess different models for electing members
of the Legislative Assembly and to recommend whether our current
system for provincial elections should be retained or whether a new
model should be adopted. Elsewhere, such a task has been given to
politicians or to electoral experts. Instead, British Columbia
chose to make history and to give this task to the voters.
For eleven months we have studied voting systems, we have
listened to thousands of British Columbians in 50 public hearings
and received and read 1,603 written submissions. What we most
wanted to learn was what values, hopes and desires should underlie
our electoral system and which principles should direct our
decisions and recommendation. This work has led us to the following
recommendation:
The Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral
Reform recommends our province adopt a new voting system, which we
call "BC-STV." This single transferable vote system is customized
for this province. It is fair and easy to use, and it gives more
power to voters.
BC-STV is easy to use. Voters rank candidates
according to their preferences.
BC-STV gives fair results. The object is to
make every vote count so that each party’s share of
seats in the legislature reflects its share of voter support.
BC-STV gives more power to voters. Voters
decide which candidates within a party, or across all parties, are
elected. All candidates must work hard to earn every vote, thereby
strengthening effective local representation.
BC-STV gives greater voter choice. Choosing
more than one member from a riding means that voters will select
members of the Legislative Assembly from a greater range of
possible candidates.
On May 17, 2005 the referendum question placed before all voters
will be this:
Should British Columbia change to the BC-STV
electoral system as recommended by the Citizens' Assembly on
Electoral Reform? Yes/No
We know that a new voting system will take time to become a
smooth working part of our political life and we believe that it
should be reviewed after it has been used for three provincial
elections and that citizens should be involved in the review.
In the rest of this report we compare our current voting system
with BC-STV. We outline how BC-STV will work and why we believe
this system will best serve this diverse province. A second volume,
the Technical Report, addresses all aspects of our work and
deliberations in detail. Information on how to get a copy of the
Technical Report can be found on the last page of this
report.
Together these two reports complete our work. The next decision
belongs to all British Columbians.
Basic values
Through our work and by listening to British Columbians, we have
identified three basic values which we believe should form the
basis of our electoral system. These are:
Fair Election Results through
Proportionality
Democracy is "rule by the people," therefore, the results of an
election—the number of seats won by each
party—should reflect the number of votes each party has
earned from the voters. The results—votes to
seats—should be "proportional."
No electoral system does this perfectly, but that does not
reduce the importance of proportionality. Proportional election
results are the fairest election results. The preference of voters
should determine who sits in our legislature. That is fair.
Effective Local Representation
Each community has a distinct personality; each makes its own
unique contribution to our provincial life. To be effectively
represented, each community needs the opportunity to choose the
people who speak for it in the legislature, and to hold them
accountable in democratic elections.
Effective local representation has long been a principle of our
democratic tradition. It is central to our electoral politics.
Strengthening local representation should be a test of any
electoral reform.
Greater Voter Choice
As citizens, we all are responsible for the health of our
democracy, and therefore we must have the fullest possible
opportunity to choose the candidates that best represent our
interests. Our choice in elections should include choosing among
party candidates, as well as across all parties. To give voters a
stronger voice, greater voter choice should be part of our voting
system.
In addition to these values, two issues were consistently
highlighted in our discussions on choosing an electoral system.
The Voter and Political Parties
There is a groundswell of opposition in this province to the
current imbalance of power between voters and parties. Indeed, some
of the submissions we received called for banning parties on the
grounds that they so dominate electoral politics that local
representation is undermined by party discipline and practices, and
voter choice is stifled.
While concerned about this imbalance, we recognize that
parliamentary government depends on parties to conduct elections,
organize the work of the legislature and carry out the business of
government. We believe that the solution lies in adopting an
electoral system that encourages voters and politicians to work
together in a balanced partnership.
The Voter and Majority, Coalition and Minority
Governments
Most often in Canada—both provincially and
federally—parties that form majority governments earn
much less than half of the vote, but take well over half of the
seats. These are called "artificial majorities." Nonetheless,
Canadians are so familiar with single-party majority governments
that we easily assume they are the natural outcome of
elections.
A majority government, real or artificial, will claim a mandate
and act on it. And it can easily be held accountable at the next
election. However, we are convinced that the simple nature of
majority governments should not override the basic values of fair
election results, effective local representation, and greater voter
choice. Most other successful western democracies do not depend on
majorities, yet have stable and effective governments, governments
that often are both inclusive of different interests and consensual
in making decisions.
We have all seen ineffective or divisive majority governments,
and we have seen progressive and successful minority governments
that work through legislative coalitions, particularly the federal
governments of the 1960s.
We believe that our electoral system should not override
fairness and choice in favour of producing artificial single-party
majority governments.
The current system of voting in BC
The Case for Majority Government
For most of our history this province has used a "single-member
plurality" electoral system, popularly referred to as
"First-Past-the-Post" (FPTP). The first candidate to cross the
finish line—the one with the most
votes—wins the seat and represents the local district
in the legislature. Governments are formed by the party with the
most seats. It is a simple system.
Supporters of FPTP typically argue for its ability to produce
majority governments, often cautioning against the unequal power
small parties might exercise in coalition or minority governments.
Governments with a legislative majority may claim a mandate for
action. They do not have to bargain with other parties to act on
their policies, but can plan and take the administrative and
financial decisions necessary to implement their program.
Similarly, at election time, voters know who is responsible for the
government’s successes or failures and can clearly
indicate which party they wish to govern the province.
This tendency toward majority government is FPTP’s
most important feature: without it, British Columbia would not have
had majority governments throughout much of its recent history. In
fact, British Columbians have only rarely given one party a
majority of their votes.
Does FPTP Meet the Needs of British
Columbia?
A basic principle of FPTP is local
representation—every corner of the province is
represented in the legislature. Voters directly choose who they
wish to represent them and their community, with every area of the
province choosing one representative.
We believe local representation must be a fundamental objective
of any British Columbian electoral system. However, although local
representation based on the FPTP system has worked in the past, it
is now seen as too easily compromised in at least two ways.
· Citizens wishing to support a particular party must
vote for the single candidate the party offers and not necessarily
for the local candidate they may prefer. This often means that the
real competition is for a party’s nomination and not
for the voters’ support on election day.
· Party discipline quickly turns members of the
Legislative Assembly into party advocates rather than local
advocates. Many British Columbians now see MLAs as providing
"Victoria’s" voice to the people, rather than the
people’s voice to Victoria.
FPTP is a simple system—voters need only place an
"X" beside the name of an individual. However, FPTP does not
promise or provide fair election results. There is no logical or
systematic relationship between a party’s total share
of the votes cast and its seats in the legislature. Local
candidates do not have to win a majority in their district to win a
seat. In exceptional cases—for example, in British
Columbia in 1996—this meant that the party with the
most votes lost the election. Governments elected with fewer votes
than their opponents are not legitimate in a modern democracy.
The FPTP system can produce other undesirable outcomes. In the
2001 election, the opposition was reduced to two of 79 seats in the
legislature, despite winning 42% of the popular vote. Not only is
this obviously unfair, it weakens the opposition so greatly that
the legislature cannot hold Government to account. The very
principle of responsible government, the heart of our constitution,
is thrown into question. Many citizens understand that the current
system is responsible for these results and believe that they are
neither fair nor acceptable.
A great many British Columbians told us that political parties
too easily dominate this system, that it produces a style of local
representation that is easily stifled by party discipline, that it
fails to connect voters’ decisions with election
results, and that it offers minimal choices to voters. We
agree.
BC-STV: A new way of voting in BC
BC-STV is a "single transferable vote" (STV) system. The main
feature of these systems is that, rather than marking an "X" beside
one name, voters number candidates from most favourite to least
favourite (i.e., 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.). If a voter’s
favourite candidate (#1) is not elected, or has more votes than are
needed to be elected, then the voter’s vote is "moved"
to his or her next most favourite candidate (#2). The vote is
transferred rather than wasted. The aim of this system is to make
all votes count.
We are recommending that British Columbians adopt BC-STV as
their voting system. We are convinced that this system best
incorporates the values of fair election results, effective local
representation, and greater voter choice.
Fair Election Results
Proportionality—ensuring that each
party’s share of seats in the legislature reflects its
actual share of votes—is the basis of fair election
results. A proportional system needs multi-member districts so that
the share of seats in the legislature can reflect the votes cast by
British Columbians and that voters can elect candidates that
represent their true preferences.
Proportionality is not possible in our current single-member
districts, so electoral districts will be amalgamated to provide
between two and seven members for each new district. To provide for
the fairest results, districts will be designed to have as many
members as possible. The number of MLAs in the legislature will not
necessarily change; nor will the number of MLAs for any particular
region change.
BC-STV will produce fair results but not the kind of extreme
fragmentation that different proportional systems have promoted in
countries such as Israel.
Effective Local Representation
There are two road blocks to effective local representation in
British Columbia. The first is geographic, the second political.
BC-STV removes both of these.
Geographic: MLAs are expected to represent
their local communities. In British Columbia this can mean
providing effective representation for citizens that live in
relatively small, densely populated urban areas, or in large,
thinly populated rural areas of the province. Those of us from the
rural and more remote corners of the province understand the
problems that long distances create for participating in public
meetings or contacting an MLA.
How BC-STV Works
*A full description of the technical aspects of the proposed
system can be found in the section entitled "The Recommended BC-STV
Electoral System" in the Technical Report.
BC-STV will adapt to different regional needs. Electoral
districts in our new system will be organized to reduce these
difficulties while ensuring proportionality. In the north and
south-east this means adopting districts of two to three members.
In the south-central and south-west of the province this means new
districts of between four and seven members. The number of members
for each region will remain the same; no region will lose
representation, but each will contribute to better
proportionality.
Political: In our current electoral systems,
political parties, not voters, control the way MLAs represent their
communities. BC-STV corrects this imbalance by being voter-centred
and candidate-focused: to be elected, candidates will need to put
communities first.
Greater Voter Choice
BC-STV increases choices, allowing voters a much greater say in
determining who will be their local representatives. It allows
voters to choose between candidates and parties, it lets voters
show which candidates they prefer and in what order, and it ensures
that their preferences count. This will provide increased
opportunities for candidates from under-represented groups.
BC-STV is also the only proportional system that allows
independent candidates a real chance to be elected. Although
increasingly rare, we believe that independents must have
opportunities to participate in our provincial elections equal to
candidates who work through political parties.
BC-STV responds to British Columbia’s basic values.
It provides for fair election results, effective local
representation, and greater voter choice, and it best balances
these three values of electoral politics. Similar systems have been
used successfully—in some cases for
decades—to elect members to various positions in
Australia, the United Kingdom, and the Republic of Ireland,
countries that share our Westminster parliamentary tradition. The
Irish government has twice tried to use referendums to abolish STV,
but the voters said "No." This is a system designed by voters for
voters.
Ballots and By-elections
Ballots in multi-member districts can be organized in a number
of ways. Because we know that parties play an important role in our
parliamentary system, and because some British Columbians will want
to vote for a party, we are recommending that candidates be grouped
by party on the ballot. However, in order to ensure that no
candidate or party benefits from the order that names appear on the
ballot, we recommend that both be randomly ordered on individual
ballots.
We further recommend that when a legislative seat becomes
vacant, the by-election to fill the seat should use the same
ballots. Where there is only one seat to be filled, the winning
candidate will need to get 50% + one of the votes cast to be
elected.
What happens if we adopt
BC-STV in BC?
If British Columbians vote to accept the BC-STV electoral system
on May 17, 2005, the politics and governance of our province will
change.
For some British Columbians it is clear that the greatest
change—and the greatest regret—will be the
loss of easily achieved majority governments. BC-STV can produce a
majority government if a majority of voters vote for one party.
While this is possible, the province’s history suggests
that governments under the new system will likely be a minority or
a coalition of two or more parties. This will mean a change in
party organization and practices; parties will need to be more
responsive to the voters and less adversarial with their opponents
and partners.
Our electoral districts will grow geographically under BC-STV,
but the number of voters per MLA will not change. Voters will have
more than one MLA representing them in Victoria, more than one
person to turn to for help. Because each district is likely to
elect members from different parties in proportion to the votes
cast, voters may well be able to go to an MLA who shares their
political views. This will help provide more effective local
representation.
Perhaps the most significant change for voters and candidates
will strike closer to home. There will be no more "safe seats" that
a party can win no matter who it runs as its candidate.
Changes for Voters
Voters will have more power. This means voters will make more
and different kinds of choices.
For example, voters will be able to consider candidates and
parties, rather than simply putting an "X" beside one
person’s name. Staunch party supporters will be able to
rank their party’s candidates. Both of these changes
will mean that candidates will have to work hard to earn
voters’ first preference support.
Changes for Candidates and MLAs
With the loss of safe seats, no candidate, including sitting
MLAs, will be able to count on winning election. Under BC-STV,
voters will decide which of a party’s several
candidates are elected in each district. A party’s
candidates will compete not only against those in other parties for
first preference support, they will also compete against candidates
from their own party. Recognizing that they may not be "first
preference" on enough ballots to win a seat, candidates will need
to encourage supporters of other candidates to mark them as their
second or third preference. This need to appeal to a greater number
of voters should lower the adversarial tone of election contests:
voters are unlikely to respond positively to someone who
aggressively insults their first choice.
In order to stand out from other candidates, MLAs will need to
clearly represent their districts. This will reinforce effective
local representation and encourage MLAs to resist party discipline
when it is not in the community’s interests. MLAs will
have to work harder to ensure that their party’s
positions reflect their constituents’ views.
Changes for Parties
Parties will run several candidates in the new multi-member
electoral districts. This should encourage parties to nominate a
diversity of candidates within a district so that they can appeal
to the groups and interests that have been under-represented or
ignored in our current "winner-take-all" FPTP system.
Because the voter will have real power in determining who is
elected, parties will have a reason to involve more citizens in
their organizations and to make their nominating processes more
open and accessible. Because legislative caucuses will include MLAs
whose continuing electoral success will depend on representing
their local communities, regardless of party policies, the
pressures of party discipline will decrease. Our politicians will
be better able to represent faithfully the interests of our
communities, as well as the province as a whole.
And finally, a party’s strength in the legislature
will reflect its actual support among voters—not more,
not less. Having lost the ability to win artificial majorities,
parties will have to learn to work together. This will not reduce
the competitive character of British Columbia’s
politics, but it may engender a more consensual style of
decision-making in which broad agreement is sought for major policy
changes.
Changes for the Legislative Assembly
The most immediate and dramatic change to the Legislative
Assembly will be that its power to choose and effectively supervise
governments will be restored. The basic theory of our parliamentary
system is that governments are chosen by, and are responsible to,
the legislature. However, the presence of strictly disciplined
parties, enlarged by artificial majorities, has reversed this
principle, making the legislature a creature of the government.
BC-STV will end false majorities. Governments will need to
depend on winning the support of a majority of the legislature and
will be able to pass only those laws that a majority of MLAs
support.
The Legislative Assembly will adapt to these new realities. MLAs
will be more sensitive to local interests, and the concerns and
hopes of voters will be more commonly heard in the legislature. At
the same time, legislative committees will take on a more important
role in debating and deciding important public policy issues.
Changes for Provincial Governments
The BC-STV system will end majority governments built on a
minority of votes. No single party will be able to implement a
platform without meaningful public debate in the legislature.
Unless a majority of voters support candidates from one party,
future governments will likely be minorities or coalitions of more
than one party. Some coalitions will form before elections in the
hope of attracting enough votes to gain a majority; others will
form when the elected members find out how much support the voters
have given them.
Coalition governments, and the more consensual decision-making
they require, are normal in most western democracies. The
experience of coalition governments in other successful
parliamentary systems has been positive and we expect no less from
our elected representatives and parties. Governments will depend on
members from different parties deciding to work together and making
agreements that command broad public support. With BC-STV, the
people will get the government they vote for.
In conclusion
We are convinced that British Columbia will improve its practice
of democracy by adopting BC-STV. Election results will be fairer,
reflecting a balance between votes and seats, voters will have more
choice and candidates will work harder to earn their support.
Political parties will remain at the centre of the electoral
process, but they will give up some of the excesses of party
discipline and the adversarial style that alienates many voters.
The Legislative Assembly will be strengthened in its ability to
hold governments accountable.
No one in the Assembly is so naive as to think that BC-STV will
answer every call for change or correct every inequality or
inefficiency in our province’s political system. We
have come to believe, however, that by changing the electoral
system we can build a political climate that is more faithful to
the values that most British Columbians want as the foundations of
our political life.
British Columbians have an unprecedented opportunity to take
control of some of the most important rules of democracy. After
considering all of the options—including doing
nothing—we are convinced that by adopting the BC-STV
electoral system the voters will create a system where they, the
voters themselves, are closer to the centre of the system. In a
democracy, that is what "fair" is about.
<<<Signature>>>
On behalf of the 160 members of the Citizens’
Assembly on Electoral Reform
Other issues raised by British Columbians
Our mandate as a Citizens’ Assembly was focused and
clear. This helped us complete the task we were given on time and
on budget, and led us to our decision to recommend the BC-STV
electoral system.
A number of other issues were also raised by the thousands of
British Columbians who spoke to us at public hearings, community
meetings and through their formal presentations and submissions. As
these issues are beyond our mandate, we deliberately did not engage
in sustained debate on them, nor do we presume to make any
recommendations or discuss them in detail here. However, the fact
that they speak to the deep concern many citizens have for the
health of our democracy gives them a place in our second volume,
the Technical Report.
In brief, the non-mandate issues dealt with:
This discussion reflects both the wide public approval of the
government’s decision to create a Citizens’
Assembly and the importance of encouraging public debate and
involvement on issues important to our democracy.
British Columbians attach a great deal of importance to strong
local representation and the need for MLAs to stay in touch with
their districts. This is of particular concern in Northern and
rural ridings.
British Columbians recognize the central role of political
parties in the democratic process, but believe that more openness
and responsiveness—particularly in the nomination
process and issues related to parliamentary
reform—would help reduce what are often referred to as
gaps in the democratic process.
British Columbians are concerned with declining voter turnout
and increased public cynicism, believing that we need to build a
more participatory political process. A system that fully involves
women, First Nations peoples and minorities would make a major
contribution to strengthening our province’s
democracy.
From selection to decision-making: How the Assembly
completed its work
Prior to the last election the Liberal party made a commitment
to:
The membership of the assembly "is to be appointed by a random
selection process."
In September 2002, the government appointed Gordon Gibson to
advise on the mandate and make up of a citizens’
assembly. Mr. Gibson’s Report on the Constitution of
the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform, tabled
on December 23, 2002, led on April 30, 2003 to the creation of a
Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform. On May 8, 2003,
the legislature unanimously appointed Jack Blaney, former president
of Simon Fraser University, to the chair of the
Citizens’ Assembly. The chair brought together the core
staff for the Assembly
The following sections briefly describe the Assembly, how it was
formed, how members were selected, the training members
participated in and the deliberations that took place from
September 2003 to December 2004. A detailed description of the work
of the Assembly can be found in the Technical Report.
Choosing the Assembly
The members of the Citizens’ Assembly were chosen at
random from the province’s 79 electoral districts. The
process began with Elections BC, "a non-partisan Office of the
Legislature," updating the BC voters list in the late summer of
2003.
From that list, Elections BC drew a randomized list of 200 names
for each electoral district—100 males and 100 females
per district. These names were grouped by age (i.e., 18-24,
25-39, 40-55, 56-70, 71+) and gender to produce a list
representative of the provincial population.
In mid-September 2003, Assembly staff sent an initial letter to
15,800 British Columbians randomly selected by Elections BC. This
letter explained the purpose of the Assembly, outlined the major
tasks and responsibilities of an Assembly member, and asked
recipients to consider participating in the Assembly. Responses to
the letter were grouped by electoral district, gender and age
cohort. Elections BC produced a second set of 200 randomly selected
names for districts where not enough responses were received to
represent the district adequately. In the end, a total of 23,034
letters produced a positive response from 1,715 men and women.
This pool of names provided the basis for invitations to one of
27 selection meetings held at various locations across the
province. Nine hundred and sixty-four men and women attended these
meetings where staff provided an overview of the
Citizens’ Assembly and described what would be expected
of members, as well as the eligibility criteria set by the
legislature. Attendees confirmed their eligibility and willingness
to serve, then had their names placed in a hat. A draw was then
held and one female and one male from each electoral district were
selected until 158 members had been chosen.
A review of the Assembly members at that point made it clear
that the province’s First Nations peoples were not
represented. To address this, the government was asked to amend the
Terms of Reference so that two people could be selected from
the aboriginal community. This was done, and every person who
attended a selection meeting but was not selected in the first
round was canvassed to determine their aboriginal status. People
who confirmed aboriginal status (and their interest and
eligibility) had their names placed in a hat and one man and one
woman were selected, bringing the number of members to 161,
including the chair of the Assembly.
Over the course of the selection process, but before the
Assembly met in session, eight people who had been selected
withdrew for different reasons. They were replaced by random draws
taken from the pool of names of people who had put their names
forward at the selection meeting for their area.
A detailed examination of the Selection Phase is included in the
Assembly’s Technical Report.
Learning
The members of the Citizens’ Assembly presented a
wide variety of backgrounds and experience: they reflected the
diversity of this province. They also had varying degrees of
knowledge and understanding of electoral systems, so a three-month
Learning Phase was provided to prepare members for the tasks and
challenges represented by the mandate.
The Learning Phase consisted of six weekend sessions held
between January 11th and March 26th, 2004. The sessions were
conducted in Simon Fraser University’s Morris J. Wosk
Centre for Dialogue located in Vancouver. Kenneth Carty and
Campbell Sharman, political scientists from the University of
British Columbia, designed and delivered the learning sessions. An
advisory committee of experts from various universities and other
groups assisted with the design of the program. Leading
international experts Elizabeth McLeay from New Zealand and David
Farrell from the United Kingdom conducted one weekend session.
David Farrell was also the author of the primary text provided to
all Assembly members.
Each weekend session typically consisted of three major
presentations, each delivered in an interactive lecture style,
supported by presentation and pre-session reading materials.
Following each presentation, the Assembly broke into 12 discussion
groups facilitated by political science graduate students from the
University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University. The
discussion groups provided the members an opportunity to increase
their understanding of the learning materials and the lectures, and
to discuss the principles and practices of electoral systems. The
Learning Phase was supported with a well-maintained website.
Assembly members also learned how to work together, developing a
set of "Shared Values" and approved policies to guide their work
and the deliberative decision processes of the Assembly.
The Learning Phase culminated in the publication of the
Preliminary Statement to the People of British Columbia. The
Statement outlined the Assembly’s progress and
expressed the values the Assembly thought should be part of the
province’s electoral system. The Statement also
provided a basis for discussion during the public hearings.
A detailed examination of the Learning Phase is included in
Assembly’s Technical Report.
Public Hearings and Submissions
Fifty public hearings were organized throughout the province
during the months of May and June 2004. Hearing locations were
chosen to allow the greatest number of citizens to attend. The
hearings were scheduled from 6:30 to 9:30 pm on weekdays (Monday to
Thursday) and from 1:30 to 4:30 pm on Saturdays.
From four to sixteen Assembly members attended each hearing.
Each of these Assembly panels included members from the local
electoral districts, the neighbouring districts and at least one
member from another region of the province. This mix helped
Assembly members to gain an understanding of the local issues and
concerns of citizens in all parts of the province.
In the course of the public hearings, approximately 3,000
British Columbians attended presentations given by 383 people.
Following the formal presentations, the hearings were opened to all
attendees for comments and suggestions, and for discussions with
Assembly members.
A summary of each formal presentation was posted to the Assembly
website where it was available to other members of the Assembly and
the public. The dominant themes of the presentations included the
need for change, more proportionality, local representation and
increased voter choice. Contact with the public continued
throughout the province as Assembly members met with community
groups, service clubs and schools. Many presenters and attendees
commended the government for initiating the Citizens' Assembly.
The other significant opportunity for public participation was
through written submissions. Over 1,430 individuals made 1,603
submissions to the Assembly, the majority via the
Assembly’s website where they were posted for public
scrutiny. Over time, submissions began to refer to previously
posted submissions, creating a running dialogue.
A research staff member read each submission as it was received
and prepared an abstract. A full set of abstracts was then provided
to each Assembly member along with a summary of submissions and a
searchable data file organized by category. As with the
presentations, the submissions overwhelmingly supported the
adoption of a new electoral system. Many provided detailed examples
and arguments supporting their position.
At the conclusion of the public hearings, the Assembly met in
Prince George to review what they had heard and read. The Assembly
also approved a plan on how it would approach deliberations and
decision-making in the fall.
A detailed examination of the Public Hearings Phase is included
in the Assembly’s Technical Report.
Deliberation and Decisions
The Deliberation Phase brought the Assembly’s work
to a conclusion. During sessions held at the Morris J. Wosk Centre
for Dialogue from September to November 2004, Assembly members
considered what they had learned through study and research, and
what the people of British Columbia had told them.
Members framed their discussions within a well-defined set of
democratic values: fair (proportional) electoral results, effective
local representation, and greater voter choice. The first sessions
focused on the features of electoral systems that best reflected
these values. This included a series of formal presentations on
various electoral systems from people that the Assembly had
identified in public hearings as excellent representatives of their
respective positions.
Members then moved from a discussion of fundamental principles
to an examination of what a new electoral system for British
Columbia might look like, and how it would operate. The Assembly
did this by building two detailed models, one a "single
transferable vote" (STV) system, the other a "mixed-member
proportional" (MMP) system. Each system addressed the basic values,
but they did so in quite different ways.
The final discussions involved a careful and systematic
comparison of the two alternatives. Members explored not only how
each system worked and the consequences of adopting one or the
other, they also considered the effect each system would have on
how our political parties work, on the legislature, and on the
pattern of government in the province. At the end of a thoughtful
and comprehensive debate, the members made their choice.
ASSEMBLY VOTE – OCT 23, 2004
Which of the two alternatives would best serve British
Columbia?
MMP - 31 STV – 123
Having clearly identified an electoral system that could provide
effective local representation, fair election results, and greater
voter choice, the Assembly then went through a thorough review of
the current electoral system. Members had decided to recommend a
change only if they were convinced that the proposed alternative
was demonstrably superior to the current system. This led to a
comparison between the STV system and the current FPTP process.
Members then took two important decisions.
ASSEMBLY VOTE – OCT 24, 2004
Do we recommend retaining the current First-Past-the-Post
electoral system in British Columbia?
YES - 11 NO – 142
Do we recommend the STV (BC-STV) system to the people of British
Columbia in a referendum on May 17, 2005?
YES - 146 NO – 7
The final sessions of the Deliberative Phase were devoted to
shaping the STV system to meet the particular needs of British
Columbia, and producing the Assembly’s final report and
recommendation.
A detailed examination of the Deliberation Phase is included in
the Assembly’s Technical Report.
Mandate
The mandate of the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral
Reform is outlined in the Order-in-Council:
Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform Terms
of Reference – issued May 16, 2003. The
complete Terms of Reference and Duties of the Chair can be
found in the Assembly’s Technical Report.
The Terms of Reference which speak most directly to the
Assembly’s mandate are:
1. The Citizens’ Assembly must assess models for
electing Members of the Legislative Assembly and issue a report
recommending whether the current model for these elections should
be retained or another model should be adopted.
2. In carrying out the assessment described in section 1, the
Citizens’ Assembly must consult with British Columbians
and provide British Columbians with the opportunity to make
submissions to the Citizens’ Assembly in writing, and
orally at public meetings.
3. If the Citizens’ Assembly recommends under
section 1 the adoption of a model for electing Members of the
Legislative Assembly that is different from the current
model:
a. the model must be consistent with both the Constitution of
Canada and the Westminster parliamentary system; and
b. the model must be described clearly and in detail in its
report.
4. The assessment described in section 1 must:
a. be limited to the manner by which voters’
ballots are translated into elected members; and
b. take into account the potential effect of its recommended
model on the government, the Legislative Assembly and the political
parties.
In addition, the Terms of Reference speak to the
Assembly’s responsibility to produce a report on its
final recommendation.
10. The Citizens’ Assembly must present its final
version of the report described in section 1 to the
Attorney-General no later than December 15, 2004, for tabling in
the Legislative Assembly.
11. On presentation of the final version of the report to the
Attorney General, the chair may arrange for the publication of the
report.
Note from the Chair
Never before in modern history has a democratic government given
to unelected, "ordinary" citizens the power to review an important
public policy, then seek from all citizens approval of any proposed
changes to that policy. The British Columbia Citizens’
Assembly on Electoral Reform has had this power and responsibility
and, throughout its life, complete independence from
government.
I want to acknowledge this unique gift by first thanking Premier
Gordon Campbell for creating the Assembly. While several community
leaders promoted the idea, it was the premier, in collaboration
with Attorney General Geoff Plant, who took the steps necessary to
create and secure the Assembly.
I also want to recognize the role of the provincial legislature.
The Terms of Reference, as well as the conditions governing
any referendum, were approved by the Legislative Assembly in
unanimous votes. Members of our Legislative Assembly united in
making history.
The members of the Citizens’
Assembly—British Columbians who unstintingly gave their
time and energy—demonstrated how extraordinary ordinary
citizens are when given an important task and the resources and
independence to do it right. Over the eleven-month course of the
Assembly, only one of 161 members withdrew and attendance was close
to perfect. Their great and lasting achievement is the birth of a
new tool for democratic governance.
With an impressive commitment to learning so many new concepts
and skills, and with a grace and respect for one another in their
discussions that was truly remarkable, the Assembly members
demonstrated a quality of citizenship that inspired us all. My
deepest thanks and regard go to each and every one of them.
The idea of a citizens’ assembly—its
unique authority and its importance as a democratic
process—clearly exerted a powerful force, attracting
highly-talented staff, researchers and administrators to its cause.
Their work enriched the Assembly’s work, and all staff
members performed their tasks with exceptional professionalism and
integrity. Twelve-hour days, seven-days-a-week were common: they
willingly provided anything that the Assembly needed to get the job
done and done right. In each session’s evaluation
Assembly members consistently gave to staff their highest
marks.
The facilitators—graduate students in political
science from Simon Fraser University and the University of British
Columbia—were also exceptional. These outstanding,
exemplary colleagues deserve enormous credit for the
Assembly’s achievements.
All Assembly members and staff are indebted to Gordon Gibson. At
the government’s request, he prepared the
Constitution of the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral
Reform. With few variations, we followed Mr.
Gibson’s clear and sensible plan. And, during the
Assembly’s tenure, I often consulted Mr. Gibson for his
wise, helpful and objective advice.
I also want to thank and recognize the contributions of Harry
Neufeld, Chief Electoral Officer, and Linda Johnson, Deputy Chief
Electoral Officer, of Elections BC who were essential and very
helpful partners throughout the Assembly’s work; Neil
Reimer, David Winkler and Carol Anne Rolf of the Attorney
General’s ministry who helped us use government
services in ways that supported our independence; members of the
Research Advisory Committee from the University of BC, Simon Fraser
University and the University of Victoria; community leaders who
helped to promote the idea of a citizens’ assembly; and
the staff of the Delta Vancouver Suites and Morris J. Wosk Centre
for Dialogue, who adopted us as a special family.
And the heartiest of thanks to those citizens who attended
hearings and made presentations and submissions, and to all British
Columbians—your support made possible this wonderful
invention in the practice of democracy.
Jack Blaney, Chair
Further reading
The source book used by the Citizens’ Assembly for a
general discussion of STV is:
Farrell, David M, Electoral Systems: A Comparative
Introduction
(Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave, 2001), especially chapter 6.
References to a range of information on the STV electoral system
from a variety of countries can be found on the
Citizens’ Assembly website. Go to:
http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/public
and enter ‘STV resources’ in the search
box.
An animation showing how the BC-STV system works can be found on
the Assembly website.
Technical Report: Contents
Final Report
The Recommended BC-STV Electoral System
Other Issues
Designing and Implementing the Citizens’ Assembly on
Electoral Reform
Selection Phase
Learning Phase
Public Hearings Phase
Deliberation Phase
Communications
Supporting Materials
_____________________________
Copies of the Final Report and the Technical
Report are available at public libraries, universities and
colleges throughout the province, and at
www.citizensassembly.bc.cauntil May 17, 2005.
Copies of the Final Report are available in
French, Chinese and
Punjabi at www.citizensassembly.bc.cauntil May 17,
2005.
The provincial government intends to open a Referendum
Information Office. Phone Enquiry British Columbia
(604-660-2421 or 1-800-663-7867) or email
EnquiryBC@gems3.gov.bc.cafor contact information.
|
| © 2003 Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform | Site powered by  levelCMS | Site Map | Privacy Policy |