I ask that the Citizens Assembly recommend the adoption of a
run-off voting system. I will explain why, and I will
compare it to the pro-rep system in the context of the major
problem with our democracy, which is parties.
There has already been a lot of public discussion and media
coverage of electoral systems recently, in BC
particularly. I perceive some consensus already forming
around the notion that our simple two party system with FPP is
undesirable, and that some kind of opening up or broadening in
candidates and elected representatives would be a good thing.
Quick definitions
By run-off, I mean the system where several rounds of voting may
be required to choose a single candidate using a ballot from which
candidates names may be removed as they fail to get sufficient
votes. By pro-rep I mean the system where half the
assembly is elected by first past the post in electoral
districts and the other half come from ordered party lists
according to a party proportioning vote count.
Unrepresentative Election Outcomes
The pro-rep system has become better understood recently as
electoral systems have become topical in BC. The
pro-rep system is being promoted as a system that could have
avoided some of the 'unbalanced' or 'unrepresentative' election
outcomes that we have suffered from. Some people think that pro-rep
is advantageous because it would allow minor parties who have some
support throughout the province to elect representatives when they
do not have enough geographically concentrated support to elect
anyone in an electoral district.
The run-off system responds to these concerns as well and in
fact has further advantages over pro-rep. One is that
it will not further entrench Parties as pro-rep will.
Parties
Political parties recruit candidates and work to get them
elected. Once in power, parties use patronage to stay
in power. That is they direct the tax payers money to the interests
of Party insiders who will recycle some of it back in campaign
contributions. All major successful and effective
Parties do this. We see this all the time.
It is criminal but rarely is it properly investigated or
prosecuted. There are several reason for
this. One is that those involved have the power to
influence the investigative procedures. Another is that
they have opportunity to manipulate the funding processes
themselves in such a way as to 'build in' the avenues of plausible
denial and avoidance of audit.
We often refer to Political Parties as 'machines'. It is a very
appropriate metaphor. Given the context in which they exist, the
inputs, outputs, and the way feedback works, it is not surprising
that Parties do what they do. Given such an environment
with the rules as they are and the available rewards, what would be
surprising would be that Parties would not spontaneously emerge and
act exactly as they do. For democracy to exist, Parties
need be carefully and deliberately contained by structure and
rules.
Political parties control their candidates and elected
members. Parties tell candidates what the issues are
and they dictate how their elected members must vote in the
assembly. The parties 'package' issues so that some
issues do not get the fair and independent exposure and debate they
deserve. Some issues which the people may think are important are
dropped through the cracks because the major Parties do not want to
debate them.
For representative democracy to work, candidates and elected
representatives should be allowed to be independent of the Parties,
or at least the potential of being independent. The
pro-rep system will mean that candidates must become even more
dependent on parties. If an independent candidate were
allowed to run within a pro-rep system, where the voter has a
candidate vote and a Party vote, in order for the
system to be fair to independents, the voter who votes for an
independent candidate should be allowed to cast two votes for that
candidate (and no party vote).
The run-off system
The run-off system is the only system where the electorate get
to exchange information (negotiate with themselves) and reflect on
their priorities during the election process. So after looking at
the first ballot results in the last bc election, the electorate
would have been clearly aware of what was happening and the second
ballot would provide an opportunity to address it.
If one views a province wide election as collective decision
making process, this ability of the run-off system to allow the
electorate to negotiate with themselves is especially valuable and
adds a whole new dimension to such a collective decision making
process.
The run-off system allows compromise and provides channels for
alternative and minority ideas. On a second or third
round of voting, the first choice candidates of some voters are not
available. What might have been cast as less noteworthy issues and
positions during the campaign may make the critical difference for
second ballot results in some districts. Candidates would be
motivated to be clear on a wider range of issues while the issue
packaging and the narrow party line would become more of a burden
to candidates. The run-off system builds consensus, is
engaging and allows voters to have something positive to vote for
at each stage. It can work with parties but it does not
structurally necessitate them.
Finally
In the ideal representative democracy, the ideal candidate
should be honest and forthcoming about his own positions on the
issues, and then, if elected, demonstrate reasonable consistency
with these positions in his legislative work. This may
happen with or without political parties but, the way it works now,
within the major parties who actually have control, it is much
harder for the candidate to be an ideal democratic
representative. If we move to a system where half the
votes are dedicated to parties, before the nominating even begins,
it will be worse.
levelCMS