Submission FONTAINE-0783 (Online)
|
Submission By | Daniel Fontaine |
Address | New Westminster, BC, Canada |
Organization | |
Date | 20040705 |
Category | Electoral 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.
|