Contact UsSearch
Click for Search Instructions
Home > News & Events

Letters to the editor

4th November, 2004 : Vancouver (Internal)
A selection of letters to B.C. newspapers about the Assembly

On this webpage are:

  1. Letter from Assembly member Darren van Reyen, in the Victoria Times Colonist on 04 November 2004-11-04
  2. Guest column from Assembly member Brooke Bannister in the Richmond Review, 04 November.
  3. Letter from Assembly member Cliff Garbutt, The Vancouver Sun, 03 November 2004
  4. Letter from Assembly member Diana Byford, Victoria Times Colonist 04 November 2004. (The same letter appeared in the Peninsula News Review, Sidney B.C., the same day.
  5. Letter from West Vancouver teacher Paula Waatainen, Vancouver Sun, 03 November 2004
Voter unhappiness can't be ignored

By Darren van Reyen

Victoria Times Colonist, 04-Nov-2004

Lawrie McFarlane's assessment of the alternative electoral system proposed by the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform ("New voting system would reduce accountability," Oct. 28) contains several errors on how the voting process would be carried out, and what choices the voter is able to make on the ballot.

The proposed system is a Single (voters receive a single ballot) Transferable (voters preferences are transferred to determine candidates with highest overall support) Voting system.

This system would change our current single-member ridings to larger, multi-member ridings, from which a minimum of two MLAs (in low-population districts) and a maximum of seven (in high-density districts) MLAs would be elected. The assembly was cognizant of Supreme Court rulings which stipulate all citizens' votes must be of roughly equal weighting -- that is to say, rural ridings cannot elect a disproportionate number of MLAs per person than their urban neighbours, or vice versa.

The Citizens' Assembly will provide only broad guidance on establishing voting districts. The B.C. Electoral Boundary Commission, which reviews electoral district boundaries every two years, will, as always, establish the individual ridings.

The statement "electors will no longer be allowed to vote for a specific MLA" is incorrect. Voters can vote for the MLA of their choice. The difference is: Voters will no longer make a mark besides the candidate's name -- they will rank candidates (1, 2, 3, etc.) on the ballot to indicate whom they most support among the candidates running for election in their district.

Voters can write a "1" beside only one candidate. They can rank only candidates from their favoured party, and only those preferences will be counted from their ballot. If they wish, they can rank all the candidates on the ballot.

Voters can rank whomever they think will best serve them as their MLAs, even if the candidates are from different parties. If voters support this system in the May 17, 2005, referendum, they will have more choice between election candidates than at any other time in B.C. history.

Granted, the counting system is more complex than what we are used to. However, the overwhelming level of dissatisfaction with our existing "simple" system heard by the assembly -- the lack of voter choice; the "wasted" votes; the "wrong" winners; the disproportionate results; the see-saw majority governments, and the poor voter turnout by citizens who feel their votes don't count -- could not be ignored.

Sure, counting votes on election night will be a little more complicated, but isn't it worth it to make sure the makeup of the legislature truly reflects the preferences of the electorate?

McFarlane asserts that accountability will suffer under this system, because single-issue parties will dominate the legislature. Ask the Irish -- who have used the proposed system since the 1920s -- whether single-issue parties dominate their politics or create unstable governments.

The answer is no. Stable coalitions are typically formed and the Irish go to the polls, on average, only once every 3.5 years.

Competition between different candidates from the same party for seats available in their district tends to weaken party control. Officials must continue to reach out to their constituents between elections to identify local concerns and distinguish themselves from the competition. This is because even though a seat may be relatively safe for a party, the voters get to decide who fills it, and, in the next election, can replace officials who fail to meet expectations.

The accountability of majority governments at any time other than election time is wanting. The distortion between vote share and seat share which occurs under our first-past-the-post voting system typically results in large majority governments opposed by a tiny and ineffective opposition. Is the legislature able to keep the government in check, the way it is supposed to be under our Westminster parliamentary system?

Many trade-offs must be made in designing an electoral system "made-to-fit" for B.C. For 10 months, the Citizens' Assembly laboured with these trade-offs, and recommends an electoral system that improves voter choice, increases proportionality, and still provides for strong local representation.

This recommendation was not made lightly. The assembly did not have to recommend an alternative unless it was felt that we could be better represented through another electoral system. Nearly unanimously, the 160-member Citizens' Assembly agreed that we could.

By another majority, the assembly agreed that best system is the single transferable voting system -- adapted to British Columbia's unique requirements.

Darren van Reyen is a member of the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform, representing Victoria-Hillside.

-----------------

Fairer results, and you don't have to do the math

By Brooke Bannister

Richmond Review, 04-Nov-2004

As a member of the Citizen's Assembly on Electoral Reform, I've watched with great interest the reaction from everyone (private citizens, political scientists, politicians, and various commentators, columnists and editors) at the news that we've chosen to recommend that B.C. voters replace our present "First Past The Post" electoral system with the "Single Transferable Vote," a system that has been used successfully in Ireland for the past 80 years or so.
And while I've been pleased with the many positive reviews of this successful system, I'm concerned with the focus on counting votes in the single transferable vote method, and in particular, the transfer of those votes into seats.
Some say it's too confusing for most voters to understand-a point that I won't challenge. Even for assembly members, who have spent the last eight months studying electoral systems and everything about them, the vote transfer apparatus of the single transferable vote was somewhat difficult to grasp.
But when studying the mechanics of electoral systems, the single transferable vote was no more difficult to understand than most of the other systems we looked at.
But we don't ask the voter to do the counting. The trained and neutral people from Elections B.C. will do the counting, and they will ensure that your vote goes where you wanted it to go, and that your vote will count.
Where is it written that something we don't completely understand doesn't work? I certainly don't know everything about the things I use most every day-the plumbing in my home, my cellular phone, my computer, or my new electronically-sophisticated automobile-but I know they work, and I like what they can do for me.
In my opinion, all we really need to know are the benefits that the single transferable vote can promise us. Benefits like fairer results based on all of our voting preferences, a more diverse, consensual legislature, and less power to political parties.
One of the best descriptions I've come across in trying to explain why the single transferable vote works is, according to the International ACE Project (Administration and Cost of Elections), it "is supported because it is seen as fair since it delivers proportional representation, and because of the power it gives voters to choose their parliamentary representatives by ranking all candidates in order of their choice."
That's good enough for me.
Remember, I can't tell you exactly how my TV works, but I sure enjoy what it gives me!


Brooke Bannister is the member for Richmond-Steveston on the Citizen's Assembly on Electoral Reform.

-----------------

Irish show the way for math-phobic voters

By Cliff Garbutt

The Vancouver Sun, 03-Nov-2004

Re: Voting under STV is easy -- it's the counting that's hard to explain, Vaughn Palmer, Oct. 29

As one of the 160 members of the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform, I share Vaughn Palmer's concern that counting with the single transferable vote is hard to explain. It's true: We wrestled with the problem of how the average British Columbian would react to using an mathematical algorithm as a method for generating fair and proportional election results.

We're all used to just counting and adding. We don't like math. Just count 'em, add 'em up, and tell us who won.

But then we took a good look at the Irish. They don't like math either, but they've been using this system happily for about 100 years. When asked in two separate referendums to give up on all of this STV nonsense and to surrender their precious Droop formula to the good old first-past-the-post system, they have flatly refused. Why? Because they know a good thing when they've got it. They don't want to turn their voter-friendly system over to the politicians. They relish the fact that STV puts the power directly into the hands of voters, not political parties. It is pure and potent power.

I hope British Columbians will get over the math and realize that, for the very first time, they have been offered a rare opportunity to seize the day.

Cliff Garbutt

Vancouver

-----------------

New electoral system is best alternative

By Diana Byford

Victoria Times Colonist, 03-Nov-2004

As a member of the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform I would like to say that by offering British Columbians the single transferable vote system, we honestly believe that we have given the best alternative to our current system -- single member plurality, or first past the post.

It is now in your hands. Soon you will have to decide by referendum whether to adopt the new system which offers you the three things we were asked for in all the public meetings and through all the more than 1,600 submissions put before us. They are: proportionality, voter choice and local representation.

Our final report must be delivered by Dec. 15. It will include details of how this system works and our rational for choosing it. If you believe, as many British Columbians do, that it is time for a change, this is your chance. The Assembly has given you this chance to make that choice, the rest is up to you, the voters of B.C.

Diana Byford,

Assembly member from Saanich North and the Islands

-----------------

Citizens' Assembly members lauded for their hard work

By Paula Waatainen

The Vancouver Sun, 03-Nov-2004

I would like to thank the 160 members of the B.C. Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform, and the staff who guided them through a year long process of study and reflection.

Over the past year, these ordinary citizens have given up countless hours of time from their families and careers in order to serve on the assembly. Several members and staff even took the time last April to guide students through a model Citizens' Assembly at my school, Rockridge secondary in West Vancouver.

I went downtown to watch the assembly during its last weekend of deliberations, and was struck by the complexity of the debate, and the commitment of assembly members to recommend the system which is in the best interests of B.C. voters.

While I was rooting for a mixed- member proportional system (as recommended by Rockridge students), I trust that the assembly members had the wisdom to make the best possible recommendation to voters.

Paula Waatainen

North Vancouver
© 2003 Citizens' Assembly on Electoral ReformSite powered by levelCMSSite Map | Privacy Policy