First of all, I congratulate the Campbell government for setting
up the Citizens' Assembly and applaud the Assembly's members for
their evident dedication to their mission.
I am a BC born retired newspaper editorial writer (Saskatoon,
Lethbridge, Calgary) who closely observed the Canadian political
scene occupationally for 35 years and continues to do so.
It seems to me that an electoral system should be judged by
three criteria:
-
Workability -- the degree to which it contributes to "peace,
order and good government".
-
Representation -- the degree to which it reflects the
electorate's ballot-box wishes.
-
Acceptability -- the degree to which it encourages citizen
participation in politics, at the ballot box and elsewhere.
To some degree, all three are related. But each can be
considered separately. Here is my judgment on them:
-
At first blush, the first-past-the-post system is more likely
than any other to provide stability in government by giving one
party a clear majority of the seats in the legislature. But it
doesn't always do so, as past federal experience and our recent
federal election have shown. Moreover, majority government's are
not always true to their election promises (witness, among others,
the federal Liberals in 1993, 1997 and 2000 and the B.C. Liberals
in 2001) and that failing undermines respect for both the electoral
process and the entire political system.
-
By definition, proportional representation best reflects the
voters' wishes. That is a huge plus. Its disadvantage
is that it may lead to governmental instability by encouraging the
division of the legislature's membership among a multiplicity of
parties. This may lead to compromise policies reflecting the lowest
common denominator of agreement (which may or may not be a good
thing) or new elections every few months (which is certainly not
desirable).
-
Judging by experience in other democracies, proportional
representation is more likely to engage the political interest and
participation of the citizenry. That is an even greater plus. After
all, a democracy in which a large proportion of the citizens don't
participate is really a democratic facade.
Above the level of the fully attended town meeting there is no
perfect way of choosing our governors. How, then, can we best
reconcile the three consequences I have outlined to get the
best possible electoral system?
I submit that we must begin by accepting the concept of
proportional representation as the basis and then consider how it
may be modified in order to reduce its disadvantages to a
reasonably workable level. The
result will differ from country to country and perhaps even from
province to province. But for British Columbia I believe that a
combination of proportional representation and first past the post
is most desirable [MMP].
Under this arrangement, a proportion of the MLAs (say, 60%)
would be elected on a constituency basis. The remainder of the
seats would be filled from party lists -- lists made public well
before voting day -- in order to match each party's representation
with its share of the overall vote.
This modification could require that a party garner a specified
minimum of the total vote in order to be entitled to
representation. Also, given the geographical (mal)distribution of
our population, it could entail an increase in the number of
legislature seats so as to avoid vast constituencies in which
contact between individual citizens and their MLA would
be difficult.
Again, I thank the Assemby for its work and for the opportunity
to submit my ideas about its task.
levelCMS