I understand that the public input phase of your electoral
reform investigation is ending and that you are hearing final
submissions from people who represent each of the major options
open to you, namely Status Quo, Single Transferable Vote and
Mixed-Member Proportional Representation. I also understand that
the public presentations to your website and at your public
meetings around the province showed a strong public preference for
MMP and a very small desire to stick with the status
quo. Although I understand that the STV option was
promoted by someone at many of your public meetings, I could not
help but notice that the lone STV presenter in Nelson (the public
meeting I attended) was not a local person, and was in fact
sponsored by the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation.
It's no secret that there is a lot at stake when electoral
reform is considered. It would be very surprising if
interest groups with a lot to gain or lose did not attempt to
influence your process. I hope, of course, that when
you receive submissions from identified special interest groups
such as the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation you will keep in mind
the difference between the interest of a lobby group and the
interest of the public.
But what I principally want to suggest to the Citizens' Assembly
are the following:
-
That the status quo need not be of much concern to you, because
if you propose an electoral reform concept which becomes a future
referendum question, the public will always be able to opt for the
status quo by failing to support electoral reform.
-
If MMP was by far the most popular electoral reform option
expressed throughout your process, then it should be regarded as a
primary option for your final report--unless the arguments in its
favour contain logical or technical flaws. My
impression of presenters for MMP on your website and in Nelson was
that they were generally quite familiar with their subject and
spoke of realistic scenarios. People want their
democratic elections to reflect the will of the voting public, and
MMP is a means to achieve that goal. No other electoral
reform option, including STV, would be as effective in doing
so. I hope the Citizens' Assembly will not be diverted
by artificial constraints, such as keeping the number of seats in
the legislature at today's level, from advocating the electoral
reform that can do the best job of revitalizing democracy in
B.C.
-
MMP as proposed by most submissions generally is silent on the
method of election of "local members" (MLAs elected directly from
constituencies). The implication is that the first-past-the-post
system would be retained for local member election.
This need not, and should not be your conclusion. FPTP elections
anywhere in the province are not made any more democratic or fair
just because there may be a "topping up" of seats from party lists
at the end. All our elections should be as democratic
(i.e. reflecting the popular will) as possible. Since
MMP can't be used to elect one MLA in a single seat constituency,
and FPTP is known to frequently elect MLAs who are preferred by
only a minority of voters, the Citizens' Assembly should consider
use of a modified form of STV for local elections under
an MMP system.
The modified STV system I have in mind is simpler than the Irish
model. It could elect single members from
constituencies about the same size as those we presently
have. Every ballot would have a first, second and third
choice on it. Voters fill in as many as they want (i.e.
just their first preference, first and second preference, or all
three) but must fill in a first preference. Voters
should be encouraged not to place the name of the same candidate in
more than one preference level, but if they do so, it should be
made clear that second and third preferences of the same candidate
will be discarded. Obviously, voters should be
encouraged to place on their ballots only candidates who would be
acceptable to them.
When the vote count takes place, if the first choice votes alone
constitute a majority for a candidate out of the total number of
ballots cast, he/she is declared elected. If not, the
second choice votes are combined with the first choice votes and if
any candidate receives enough total votes to equal a majority of
the ballots cast, she/he is declared elected. If not,
the third choice votes are combined with the first and second
choice votes, and if any candidate receives enough total votes to
equal a majority of the ballots cast, he/she is declared
elected. If more than one candidate at this stage
receives enough total votes to equal a majority of the number of
ballots cast, then the candidate with the larger number of total
votes is declared elected. In the unusual event that
there is still not a majority, the candidate with the largest
number of total votes is declared elected.
I chose three as the best number of choices on each ballot
because often there have been more than two parties running with
similar election platforms. Voters could leave their
2nd or 3rd choices blank if they desired. This variant
of STV is well adapted to single member constituencies, is
relatively easy to understand and administer, and--most
important--would ensure that the person elected will always be
acceptable to the largest possible number of voters (nearly always
a majority).
The use of a modified version of STV for local elections in an
MMPR electoral system is within the Citizens' Assembly mandate as I
understand it. It puts an end to the unfairness and
undemocratic outcomes we have in the past experienced with today's
FPTP electoral system. STV does have a place in a
greatly improved electoral system for B.C., but only if modified so
it can work within an MMP system.
Thank you for your consideration of my submission. I
am impressed with the process and the work of the Citizens'
Assembly and proud of you all for what you are trying to do for
democracy.