I think that a new electoral system needs to do a few things.
First it needs to allow for the election results to be an accurate
reflection of the will of the voters. Second it needs to be simple,
so as to encourage voter participation. Third it needs to be
transparent.
In my opinion the Mixed Member Proportional
[MMP] system meets all of these requirements. MMP leaves
our current system of one local representative per riding intact,
then achieves proportionality with the second vote for the
preferred party. It is simple to understand and vote counting is
straightforward and transparent. It would be very easy to make the
transition from our current system. Where MMP is in place in other
countries, and increase in voter turnout has occurred, as well as
increased representation by women, and minorities.
The "Single Transferable Vote" system on the other hand, is too
complicated, is not truly proportional, and the complicated vote
counting will make it less transparent. Complicated voting systems
will lead to even lower participation in our democracy. If STV were
put to a referendum it will be defeated because of this undue
complexity. MMP on the other hand has widespread appeal among
voters, and I suspect it would stand an excellent chance of passing
in a referendum.
It is my understanding that thus far 70% of submissions to the
Citizens Assembly have favoured MMP, and only 4% have favoured STV.
Despite this, 3 of the 9 final presenters are STV advocates as well
as being members of an organized advocacy group. Only two people
are being allowed to speak for MMP and neither are experts. This
concerns me deeply.
Given the submissions received, if the CA is truly to be an
exercise in democracy, clearly the CA will be advocating the BC
government hold a referendum on instituting MMP, and will not be
advocating any other electoral system be put to referendum.
|