Contact UsSearch
Click for Search Instructions
Home > Get Involved

Submission FONTAINE-0783 (Online)

Submission By Daniel Fontaine
AddressNew Westminster, BC, Canada
Organization
Date20040705
CategoryElectoral system change
Abstract
Preferential voting [AV] should be adopted for BC coupled with the direct election of party leaders.  This would address the concerns of British Columbians without significant change to the system that voters have become familiar with. [3 pages]

Submission Content
 

A proposal to fix the way we elect our MLAs

There is no question that many British Columbians are frustrated with the political process. We see Members of the Legislature being elected by a small minority of voters in their constituency. New political voices get squeezed out by the polarization that sets in as voters feel compelled to vote for a second or third choice candidate for fear that 'splitting the vote' will elect a party that is even less desirable.

What are the roots of the dissatisfaction with the current system? Is it a fundamental contempt for the current system or is it a concern with how that system is working? Are there other systems that would work much better or is it a case of some thinking that anything would be better than what we have?

So what is the problem? What is it about the current system that British Columbians don't like? In my opinion, the problems are in three areas all of which are interrelated.

The minority wins: One is the fact that many MLAs are elected with less than a majority. In the 2001 election 19 candidates won their constituencies with less than 50% of the vote and 3 won with less than 40%. In 1996, it was even more pronounced with only 50 getting elected with more than 50%.

New voices never have a chance: The second is that smaller parties never get a chance to establish a base because, while they can get 10 20% of the popular vote province wide, they fail to win a single riding. In the current BC context, the Green Party got 12% of the vote in 2001 and yet failed to elect a single member leaving that political perspective unrepresented in the Legislature.

Who do you hate the least? The third problem is that the polarization of BC politics leads voters to vote against the party they like the least rather than for the party they like the best. Recent polls show that half of voters who indicated which party they would support made their choice not because of the party they liked the most but rather as a vote against the party they did not want to have win. In the 2001 election, the Unity Party got 3% of the vote. How many voters voted BC Liberal not because the BC Liberals were their first choice but because they feared that splitting the 'centre-right' vote might reelect the NDP? Conversely, how many supporters of the Green Party would vote for an NDP candidate out of concern that the 'centre-left' vote would be split?

The question that the members of the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform should be asking is: Do we throw out our existing system and import something new from another country or do we make changes to our existing system to address some of the shortcomings?

The existing system does have its merits that should not be overlooked. As some have expressed, we should be careful not to 'throw the baby out with the bath water'. The single member constituency is, in my view, a strength of our existing system. Much of the MLA's work is to assist constituents with their problems in dealing with government. It is important that they can identify with their member as being someone from their area. The public concern about the size of constituencies was best highlighted in the 1996 election when the BC Liberals promised to reduce the number of seats in the Legislature to 50. Northern residents reacted very negatively to the idea, as it would mean that their constituencies would become much larger.

So if the current system has some elements that are worth saving, what are some of the ways that it can be fixed to address some of the concerns outlined above? There are two changes that would improve the current system. One that has been talked about before is the preferential ballot  [AV]. The second, which needs to complement the preferential ballot, is a new and innovative way that we elect party leaders to the Legislature.

Preferential Ballots: The ability of voters to rank their choices in order of preference was tried in BC in the 1952 and 1953 elections. While cumbersome at the time, computer aided voting would make this system much simpler today. It would allow voters to vote for their most preferred candidate and not fear that by doing so a split vote would elect the candidate they least favoured. In the 1996 election many NDP seats were won because of the split between the Reform and the BC Liberals. In 2001 many BC Liberal seats were won because of the split between the Greens and the NDP. Also, could the Green or the Unity/Reform Parties have elected some MLA's in those elections if everyone had voted for their first choice rather than casting their vote against the party they liked the least? The latest polls showing the BC Liberals and the NDP in the 40% +\- range and the Greens and the Unity 10% +\- range could be quite different if the poll also showed they were casting a positive vote rather than the 50% who indicated their voting decision was based on who they liked the least.

Direct election of leaders: Even with the preferential ballot, there is still the possibility that a political party could get a significant percentage of votes and still be totally shut out of the Legislature. In the last election, the Unity Party and the Green Party would have got more first choice votes if there was a preferential ballot but they still may not have elected any MLAs.

One change that could be implemented is to provide a seat in the Legislature for the leader of any political party that gets in excess of 10% of the first choice votes province wide. In the last election, that would have resulted in Green Party Leader, Adrianne Carr getting a seat. When combined with the effect of the change to a preferential ballot, it probably would have resulted in Unity Party Leader, Chris Delaney, also becoming an MLA.

In addition to ensuring that supporters of smaller parties have a voice in the Legislature, it also has advantages to the leaders of the parties that form government or the official opposition. One of the challenges of the current system is that party leaders simply do not have time to spend in their own constituencies either during the election campaign or throughout the term of the parliament. This system would allow them to view the entire province as their constituency.

Party leaders may still want to let their names stand in a constituency as well. A smaller party may not think they can get the 10% overall but their leader may be able to win a particular riding. If the leader won a constituency seat, they would then not need to exercise their right to a seat if the party also got more than the 10%.

Conclusion: There are merits to these two changes to how we elect our MLAs. First, it addresses the main concerns that British Columbians have with the current system. It provides for a more dynamic political environment where voters can feel comfortable voting for a party rather than against. In addition it makes sure that parties with significant public support are not frozen out of the Legislature simply because their support is spread out around the province rather than concentrated in a few ridings.

Secondly, it achieves these objectives without significant change to the system that voters have become familiar with. From the voter's perspective, the only change would be the need to rank the candidates as 1, 2, 3, etc rather than an 'X'. The rest would be taken care of by the computer.

© 2003 Citizens' Assembly on Electoral ReformSite powered by levelCMSSite Map | Privacy Policy