Canada remains one of the few western democracies which continue
to vote using the First Past the Post System (FPPS). Federally,
this means according to the latest Ipsos Reid poll that the Liberal
party might win a majority with just 38% of the vote. Such a system
ensures a continuation of the arrogance and sense of entitlement
which accompanies the parties which win majorities because of the
FPPS. The dysfunction which ensues is systemic and cannot be fixed
except by changing the voting method. Huge majorities like that
currently in existence in British Columbia are also a common
result.
The consequences of the current system are vast and I believe they
threaten the very substance of our democracy.
-
First, fewer and fewer British Columbians vote because they feel
disillusioned and believe they don't count. And in fact they don't
count especially with inflated majorities like the one in BC.
-
Second, the system perpetuates the tremendous gender imbalance
in governance. Women represent 52% of the population but a minority
in the legislature.
-
Third, the system also reduces the likelihood of fair
representation of the ethnic and cultural groups that make up our
community, including First Nations.
-
Fourth, once in power, the government behaves with impunity,
ignoring the input of the citizens of the province. A cogent
example is the working forest legislation. The Government of
British Columbia invited citizen input. Ninety-seven percent of
those who made submissions were opposed to this legislation. With
there majority, however, the government can behave as if the
opinion of citizenry does not matter.
-
Fifth, huge majorities leave the governing party open to the
influence of lobbyists who represent particular vested interests
whose goals may differ from the long term well being of the
citizens of the province. The lobbyists in question generally
represent very wealthy corporations and super-rich individuals and
provincially likely include forestry, pharmaceutical, oil and gas,
and communications giants. These folks are motivated by bottom line
economics for their companies, not by the common good.
-
Sixth, the FPPS fosters divisiveness within the population.
Instead of looking for things upon which we can agree and then
exploring creative methods for handling areas of disagreement, the
populations is deliberately polarized into no-win frustrating
disagreement. The resulting entrenched positions lead to chronic
disappointment and disillusionment with the system of
governance.
The system of voting which generally best represents the will of
the people is a mixed proportional representational system
[MMP] and I encourage you to recommend such a system.
There are many examples of this system resulting in stable,
creative governments, particularly in European countries like the
Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, the Scandinavian countries and New
Zealand. New Zealand's transition to a mixed proportional
representation system of voting is relatively recent and I am sure
their experience of making the transition can inform your
deliberations.
One of the concerns raised about proportional representation
relates to the emergence of radical, one-issue parties. The mixed
proportional system solves this to some extent in that a portion
(one-half) of the members are elected to the legislature through
direct voting, i.e. FPPS. The remaining one-half of the members are
selected from lists provided by the parties and making up the
proportional differences. The second way to make the system
function effectively is by having a threshold - say five percent of
the total vote - that any party must reach before any of its
members gain seats.
Some people question transitioning to this kind of
voting system because it generally means no party gets a majority,
although the current government would have had a majority because
they polled over 50% of the total vote. However, the present
government and the citizens of the province would be better served
because we would have a functional opposition.
Historically, I believe the best, most creative governments in
Canada have been the result of minority situations. Parties must
form alliances to form the government and with appropriate
collaboration and give and take, a healthy and robust legislative
agenda can be achieved. As well, such governments tend to foster
healthy and thorough debate on the issues and they involve citizens
as a meaningful part of the process.
Finally, such systems can lead to longer range planning.
Currently, our government is focussed on the four year voting
cycle. With the polarized nature of British Columbia politics,
governments tend to implement drastic reforms early in their
mandate followed by a spending spree just prior to the election.
With the mixed proportional representation system, party
distribution might change somewhat from one cycle to the next but
there is a core of legislative intent that will continue from one
election cycle to the next. As a result, governments can begin to
think in longer than election cycles. How could British Columbia be
different if we were to think in ten, twenty, one hundred year
planning? I expect our whole way of thinking about the future
health and well being of the citizens, other species and the
environment of this special place would be dramatically altered to
preserve the common good.
|
levelCMS