Click for Search Instructions |
||
Home > News & Events |
|
Guest column, Seattle Times18th November, 2004 :
Vancouver (Internal)
Lessons from a Canadian experiment in
democracy
By John Gastil and Ned Crosby
Special to The Seattle Times
[From the Seattle Times, Thursday 18 November 2004]
With the election over, many Washingtonians are relieved to put
politics behind them. Many grew weary of partisan rancor and the
half-truths that littered the campaign trail like confetti. But we
hope this past election can serve as an opportunity to look for a
better way of conducting politics in our state.
For civic inspiration, we suggest looking north. While we
Washingtonians tinkered with our primary system through the
Legislature, the courts and Initiative 872, British Columbia took a
novel approach to redesigning its electoral system.
In 2003, the B.C. government established a Citizens' Assembly,
made up of 160 randomly selected citizens — one man and
one woman from each electoral district, plus two at-large
Aboriginal members. On Oct. 24, the assembly reached an important
milestone in its historic experiment by voting 146-7 to recommend
replacing the current system with a "single transferable vote"
model, which lets voters rank candidates within multimember
districts. If the B.C. electorate approves this new model in May,
the provincial government will make it law.
The assembly's plan emerged from months of deliberation and
hearings (which are accessible online at www.citizensassembly.bc.ca).
The plan deftly addresses the most contentious issues regarding
B.C. elections.
The proposed system establishes four-to-seven-member districts
in urban areas, and two-to-three-member districts in sparsely
populated regions. This reassures rural residents, who wanted to
keep their districts of manageable size.
At the same time, the system prepares a seat at the table for
any third party or independent candidate who garners enough
support. Assigning seats in proportion to a candidate's share of
the vote gives third parties and independents a voice.
By taking into account the concerns of citizens from across the
entire province, the assembly achieved a 95-percent supermajority
vote in favor of its final proposal.
The substance of the proposal merits attention, but we can learn
larger lessons from the assembly process itself:
On controversial matters, it is sometimes easier for citizens to
make bold recommendations than it is for our legislators or
executives. After all, when the BC Liberals won 77 of 79
legislative seats in 2001, who would have trusted them to retool
the voting system in a way that is fair to all parties?
Imagine what we could do here in Washington if we followed this
example. A cross-section of the public could examine our own
electoral system. I-872 may have settled one question (for the
moment), but we should consider ideas to improve our process.
Should there be instant-runoff voting, so that a vote for a
third-party candidate is not "wasted"? Should there be a "citizens
initiative review," allowing a microcosm of the public to review
each statewide initiative and report back to us in the voters
pamphlet?
We could convene an assembly to draft guidelines for our tax
system. The briar patch of local, regional and state taxing
authorities and policies has created a system that nobody in
Washington supports. A gathering like the B.C. Citizens' Assembly
could cut through the thicket and craft a fiscal framework that the
larger public could support.
Those who suspect that deliberation is better suited to
Canadians than Americans suffer from either self-pity or envy.
Across the United States, the Jefferson Center in Minneapolis has
conducted citizens' juries in which randomly selected citizens
effectively tackle complex public-policy issues.
In 1993, for example, the center facilitated a national
citizens' jury in Washington, D.C., which reviewed the federal
budget and made recommendations to Congress. Commenting on this
project in The Washington Post, columnist William Raspberry noted,
"This citizens' jury has done what the Founding Fathers intended
Congress to do... . The politicians can't do what has to be done.
The people can't afford not to."
For their time, the Founding Fathers had a great trust in the
American people. Let's follow our Founders' faith — and
our Canadian neighbors' example — and bring together
Washington citizens to deliberate on our most-pressing issues.
Together, we can make our own modest contribution to the modern
history of democratic innovation.
John Gastil is an associate professor of communication at the
University of Washington and author of "By Popular Demand:
Revitalizing Representative Democracy Through Deliberative
Elections" (University of California, 2000). Ned Crosby who lives
in Port Townsend, founded the Jefferson Center in Minneapolis and
authored "Healthy Democracy: Bringing Trustworthy Information to
the Voters of America" (Beaver's Pond, 2003).
[COpyright 2004 by John Gastil and Ned
Crosby. Reproduced here with their permission.]
|
© 2003 Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform | Site powered by levelCMS | Site Map | Privacy Policy |