Timing and location prohibited my attendance at any of the
public meetings held in rural BC, but I assure you of my interest
in the issue you are pursuing. Electoral reform is
critical: The system is dysfunctional as it is
presently structured and threatens to get worse if not
adjusted. I appreciate the time and effort of the
committee members to engage in this work and urge the
recommendation of Mixed Member Proportional Representation (MMPR)
as the electoral method of choice for BC.
My comments fall into two categories: What is wrong,
and Fixes.
I appreciate that you are seeking input from the
public. Please note that the rural person is frequently
uncounted and unheard. Large urban centre gather, not
only concerned citizens, but also the lobbying voices of
specialized interests. I would hope you take special
note of the rural voice.
What is Wrong
Party platforms are unkept promises. Except for tax
reduction, seldom is a promise given by a party before the
election, designed to ensure its election, kept.
Party loyalty is anachronistic - if the party does not keep its
promises, the electorate to whom it purports to be responsible has
no way of knowing what the MLAs will enact.
Conscience voting by MLAs does not represent the
electorate. Seldom does an MLA seek input from all
his/her electorate and vote issues according to the majority
wishes.
Instability of party politics - it's a race for seats at the
next election based mostly on rhetoric rather than substance
Voting machines - no - machines are much more likely
to err and to be tampered with than the oversight of real
people. No voting machines in BC or Canada.
The current political situation is adversarial with points made
by besting the opponent. This is not very
productive. Electoral reform should seek to end
competitive, adversarial politics, and move into a cooperative,
consensual model.
Currently voters are disenfranchised if they did not vote for
the "winning" party ("winning" in " " because that very
word emphasizes the competitive nature of the game).
There is very little public debate on legislation
Parliamentary committees, which are usually made up of all
parties to study and critique provincial legislation, are presently
comprised of members of the majority party who simply rubber stamp
support for their government's policies. Our system
needs to have broader representation.
Many decisions are made by order in council, by the majority
government, behind closed doors, without any public
debate. Sweeping legislative changes occur that people
have had no opportunity to debate.
Strengths of the Current system
In the preliminary statement the committee listed three items as
strengths of the current system that we would wish to
continue. I disagree that all of them are
strengths. Many of my observations reflect the rural
perspective, wherein the urban situation may indeed reflect these
points as strengths.
Local representation and accountability: although
this is often given as a strength of our system it is not so in
practice. It does not exist in my riding where the MLA
refuses to listen to certain individuals if their ideas differ from
his, where he never asks for opinions / voices from his
constituents but only follows the party line, and where the local
citizenry have been cast aside for some grand scheme of his
leader. He was elected based on campaign "promises",
most of which have been unfulfilled, ignored, or changed.
Style of governance and tenure - ensures security of
tenure: the system does ensure tenure for the electoral
period but this is not necessarily a strength. It also
allows for ramming through legislation without debate or
alternative possibilities, swings of legislation, party politics
and lack of cooperation between parties.
Simplicity, familiarity and transparent counting.
- I agree these are strengths. Other
systems ensure these as well.
Weakness of the Current System
The three weaknesses identified I agree with: lack
of proportionality, government dominated politics,
impacts)
How to Fix the System
Mixed Member Proportional
Representation [MMP] in British Columbia
would greatly improve the present electoral system and democracy in
British Columbia.
With MMP, a party's share of seats in the Legislature equals its
share of votes received province-wide.
Citizens have two votes, one for a local representative and one
for the party of their choice. This would ensure that
each vote counts and gives greater assurance of the fulfillment of
promises.
MMP would ensure that the voice of BC, as demonstrated by the
"popular vote", and end single party majorities and dominance of
parliament.(unelected by popular vote.
It would give opportunities for representation by women, youth,
rural people and minorities.
There would be a climate of increased and debate, which would
lead to legislation reflective of all BC.
More representation, more public debate, more choice, more
diversity, more public input, fairer elected representation,
benefits us all, our lives, our communities and the province as a
whole. MMP would give us that.
Thank you for the opportunity to add my voice.
levelCMS