I favour the Alternative Vote electoral system.
The biggest problem we seem to have in politics today is the
electorate's disregard for Politicians. The general
comments one hears are “It doesn’t matter
which party is in, they don’t listen to us
anyway” or “They are all the
same” or “Out to feather their own
nests” or “Why bother to vote, they will
just do as they please” or “They are all a
bunch of crooks”.
It would appear then that you must devise an electoral system
that makes the MLAs responsible to the electorate, rather than
responsible to the party. (One might add, good luck). Having said
that, it should be recognized that the majority of the electorate
vote for a party rather than a person: despite any denials we might
get.
From what I have read, and from what I heard at the Holiday Inn,
May 15, there appears to be a consensus coming down on the side of
the Mixed Member Proportional system. It was worthy of
note that five of the fourteen presenters at the Holiday Inn were
from the Green Party, six if you include Joan Russow, all of whom
supported this system. More power to them for turning
out. As an aside, I was not aware of any rationale for
supporting this system, other than it would have given the Green
Party a voice in the House. Perhaps it was this that encouraged Ms
Martin’s request than any submissions to the Assembly
carry supporting rationale.
As I understand it, the Mixed Member Proportional system would,
using the last Election in British Columbia, have given the Green
Party a voice in the legislature, without having elected one member
of the House. It is conceivable, that the Green Party would have
wielded the casting votes in the House with a Minority government;
I reiterate, without having elected a single member to the
House.
Part of the complaint from the Green Party seems to be the
difficulty of forming and keeping a Party without representation.
The Canadian Communist Part (CCF), which is now the New Democratic
Party, faced the same problem. They did not let this difficulty
defeat them and we have to thank them for our Universal Health
Care.
Another argument put forward is that the Mixed Member Proportional
system would ensure more women and minorities in government. I feel
this is a spurious argument; the one way of ensuring more women and
minorities in government is for them to run for office.
The Mixed Member Proportional system would require either an
increase in the number of seats in the House (do we want even more
Politicians?) –- which is not within the mandate of the
Assembly –- or increasing the sizes of the electoral
districts.
This leads us to lists. In either case, closed or
open list, the political party compiles the list. This makes those
persons on the list even more answerable to the party: particularly
in respect of a closed list, since if given a seat, they owe that
seat to the party, not to any electoral district. If they do not
toe the line, they are off the list next time round. The open list
has a little more going for it, but the order of the names on the
list, decided by the party, would be of paramount importance.
Don’t we all tend to read only the top items or names
on any list?
In theory our present First Past the Post system makes the MLA
answerable to the electorate in her/his District, I say in theory
since we all know that it is not the case. Toe the Party Line or
leave the Caucus and see what chance you have in the next
Election.
By instituting the Alternative Vote system, minority parties
could run in elections, making their vote count by making a second
choice who might well get elected even though not having had a
majority of the votes the first time around. You can see that it
would be necessary to institute a majority vote system at the same
time as the Alternative Vote system, so that to be elected the
person running would need 50% plus 1, minimum, of those voting to
get elected.
The minority parties could then have a voice in the House,
albeit by osmosis. Other parties would have, by necessity, to be
aware and considerate of the opinions of the minority parties
– looking for their second time around support. It
would also give the minority parties the opportunity of regularly
putting their case before the electorate, and thereby, perhaps,
eventually forming a major party.
I also suggest that one half of the House come before the
electorate every two years. This would be fairly easy
to establish. This would surely make the parties if not the members
more susceptible to public opinion. The electorate would be less
likely to forget the misdemeanors committed in the previous two
years, four years is a long time. This would be a bit more
expensive than our present system, not mush, but I would say well
worth the money, if we can make these Politicians listen to the
electorate.
Other things I would like to see:
Mandatory Voting: with a $50 fine for not Voting. How to
collect? Simply add a $50 line to the Provincial Income Tax Form,
which line can be ignored on presentation of a “Free
Get Out of Jail” slip handed out at the Voting
Station.
A Line “None of the Above” on the voting
slip. If this line garners the largest number of votes, then the
Lieutenant Governor prorogues the House and governs until the
political parties have got their houses in order to the
satisfaction of 50% plus 1 of the electorate.
I thank you for accepting this presentation. I believe I have
covered all eventualities, but if the Assembly would like me to
appear before them, I would be happy to accept their
invitation.