The most fundamental question in a democracy is "what do the
people want?" This question takes priority over the question, "who
(or what party) do the people want?" Therefore, when a
party is entrusted with the mandate to govern, it should be
listening to, and know how to determine, what the people want on
fundamental issues, not just at election time, but during its
governance.
The opportunity given to British Columbians through the
Citizens' Assembly, in which they can directly participate in
shaping a new electoral system, is an excellent beginning towards
determining what the people want -- now, and in the
future. To build on this first step towards more
effective democracy, the following must be addressed:
1. Citizens' Assembly decision
A decision should be made by the Citizens' Assembly as to which
system of electoral reform best reflects the citizen imput gained
from the presentations. The key point is that "all systems of PR
are designed to ensure that the range of opinion in the legislature
reflects the range of opinion in the electorate." (Citizens'
Assembly Fact Sheet #10). This point indicates that any
PR system would improve legislative connectivity to what the people
want. Thus it is logical that some form of PR will be recommended
by the Assembly, based on citizen input, and offered to the people
in May, 2005, for approval.
2. What is most important in choosing a PR
system?
Canadians, including British Columbians, are facing a crisis of
disempowerment, as evidenced by the historically low voting turnout
in the recent federal election. Canadians are skeptical about both
the electoral process, and about party politics. Citizens are
feeling disconnected from decision-making and need a more direct
link to it. To attract these alienated voters back into
participation, the new system will need to be:
A single transferable vote [STV] system addresses both these
requirements. It transfers citizen authority from parties to
elected individuals. It keeps MLAs linked to the people who voted
for them. Most voters can identify a representative that they
personally helped to elect and with whom they can feel affinity.
Such a personal link also increases accountability. Especially
important is that there is no need for tactical voting. Voters can
cast a positive vote and know that their vote will not be wasted,
whatever their choice is. People can vote for what they want,
rather than feeling cornered into voting against what they do not
want.
The system is simple for the voter, and the counting is handled
by the election officers. "Electors are perfectly able to cope with
STV ballot papers. The first Northern Ireland Assembly election
under STV in 1973, which produced a 70% turnout, is a good example.
The voters elected representatives from both sides of the community
in every constituency." (see
http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/votingsystems/systems3.htm).
3. How can voters influence fundamental decisions during
governance?
Many reflective citizens despair that they cannot influence such
essential issues as:
-
transfer of ownership of public institutions and utilities to
private or foreign interests
-
changes from public to private delivery of tax-supported
services
-
constitutional changes to the role of government
It is extraordinary that collective ownership of essential
services and institutions can be transferred to private or foreign
hands without referenda submitted to the body politic. It should be
constitutionally impossible to make such transfers without
referenda. We, the citizenry, should own and control the management
of our public institutions. The Internet has now been with us for
over ten years, and it is high time that referenda were submitted
to the populace via Internet over a secure connection (Internet is
available to everyone through libraries and cafes) on such
elemental issues. This is an election reform issue and should be
addressed in tandem with the PR issue.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to express my views.