Message to the members of the Citizens'
Assembly
It is clear that any change to our current system of electing
members of the provincial Legislative Assembly will involve
additional complexity and expense, perhaps drastically
so. It is also clear that there is no "perfect"
electoral system (whatever that may mean); there may not even exist
a single system that is preferred by a majority of our
citizens.
To start with an example, by extending our current system to one
having a run-off between the top two candidates could almost double
the cost of elections, given that few ridings achieve the magical
50% level for one candidate, but that might be the price to be paid
to ensure that the elected candidate does exactly that, which many
voters favor. No other change to our current system can
guarantee that the winner reach the 50% level: ONLY a contest
between two candidates can assure such a result.
But why is this really necessary? There is no need
to worry about this, or about the possibility of a system that
results in minority governments with increased
probability. That could be a good thing.
I'd like to suggest the following, which is THE SIMPLEST
POSSIBLE CHANGE TO OUR CURRENT SYSTEM: Any voter can make an X for
ANY NUMBER of candidates, from zero up to a vote for every
candidate (although such extremes would be silly and
rare). Then just count the X's. And NO
RUNOFF ELECTION, although it may be preferable to what's below.
A much more complicated alternative is the transferable vote
system. Mark first choice with a 1, second choice 2,
and so on (where would one stop?). This may seem simple but it is
not. Complete ballot counts would have to be made after
each lowest ranked candidate is eliminated, with his or her votes
being transferred to 2nd choice, then 3rd choice, and so on, until
the presumably desired 50% level is attained by one
candidate. BUT THIS IS NOT GUARANTEED TO HAPPEN: only a
run-off between two candidates can do that. Any such system is
going to be a lengthy process, perhaps taking days to accomplish in
ridings with many candidates to choose from. We are not
likely to rely on computers to do our counting as they are only as
reliable as their fickle programs. The complexity (in
practice!) of such a system renders it a poor choice, especially as
the very much simpler system outlined in the previous paragraph
accomplishes the same objective.
Your Assembly will receive many persuasive
communications to convince you to adopt a proportional
representative system. I am not really in favor of such
a system, mainly because it fails a basic principle: that members
of the legislature be elected LOCALLY, by their
neighbours. Nor is it really compatible with the idea
of local ridings. Nor is it compatible with the idea
that the electorate determines which individuals are sent to the
legislature; the idea that such members be appointed by a political
party is preposterously at variance with our
traditions. Of course, most candidates running in an
election would be representing a political party, but they need
not. Individual candidates must take precedence over
political parties which traditionally like to appoint their
insiders to positions of influence and power.
But given the reality that you will certainly consider some form of
proportional representation, I suggest the following as the most
acceptable method for such a system: 1. No more than
50% of the seats in the legislature (even less, one hopes) be set
aside for proportional party representation, the remaining seats
filled based on individual ridings as at present (but with
unavoidably larger ridings), with, perhaps, changes as suggested
earlier. 2. Members going to the legislature must,
MUST, be elected by the people and not, NOT, be appointed by any
political party after the election is over. We must
vote for people, not parties. ONLY candidates running
in the election can be awarded a seat in the
legislature. Here's a simple way to accomplish this:
The "Blue" party's first "proportional member" is that individual
running somewhere in the province on behalf of his or her party who
LOSES in his or her own riding BUT achieves the highest proportion
of votes than among other unelected members of the "Blue"
party. And the remaining seats would be filled
similarly, with the second highest proportion of votes, and so on,
with the number of seats for that party in the legislature rounded
DOWN to the nearest appropriate whole number. Once the
nomination process is over the parties HAVE NO FURTHER SAY in who
represents the party in the legislature: the electorate
decides. This point is exceedingly important and
crucial.
I wish you the very best in your deliberations. You
really have an impossible job!
levelCMS