Contact UsSearch
Click for Search Instructions
Home > Get Involved

Submission BANANA-0479 (Online)

Submission By Anna Banana
AddressRoberts Creek, BC,
Organization
Date20040526
CategoryElectoral system change
Abstract
I want an electoral system that distributes seats according to the percentage of votes each party/candidate receives.  I like the idea of two votes [MMP], one for the electoral district candidate/representative, and one for the party. [2 pages]

Submission Content
What I want in an electoral system, is one that distributes seats according to the percentage of votes each party/candidate receives. I'm not clear how this is done exactly, and reading through the analysis of different systems in the ProRep/Free Your Vote newsletter doesn't entirely explain it. It sounds like the Mixed Member Proportional system is the best for giving proportional representation, but I don't understand how that can be where it states, (under the Which Voting System do You Prefer? banner): "Vote counting is simple. Local MLAs are elected in exactly the same way we currently elect our MLAs in BC". Perhaps this is a misleading statement, but if it means what it says, then what's the difference between what we have now, and MMP? (Ie. A gets 110 votes, B gets 95 votes, C gets 85 votes . . . then A gets the seat for that riding? If not, how will that deliver proportional representation?)

I like the idea of two votes, one for the electoral district candidate/representative, and one for the party.

I'm unclear about the implications of larger rural ridings/fewer constituency seats. I get and approve of the idea that some of the representatives from a given party would be drawn from the "party list," and thus the need for fewer constituency seats, but don't understand why this requires larger rural ridings. (1/3 larger?) I think this is an area where clearer information is needed. that is, who would draw up these new boundaries? On what basis would they be drawn? Population would be one of the basis, but that can be problematic, with people perceiving unfair advantages for one party or another depending on the economic make-up of the riding. For example, some federal ridings cross what I would call economic boundaries including very wealthy areas of the city with working class areas of Vancouver. This is an issue that needs to be addressed, and for all my reading of your report, I don't see any discussion of it.

I think getting voters to rank the candidates is not a good one, as generally, the public is not well enough informed/doesn't bother to find out about the individual candidates. I would prefer to have each party rank its own party list candidates, given they know them better and know which are stronger, better able to work together, represent different skills/areas of expertise, etc.

Public apathy is probably one of the biggest problems with our system, and that is partly due to the notion that it doesn't make any difference HOW they vote, since "all politicians are corrupt anyway." My personal feeling is that whichever way I vote (in our current system), I'll just be splitting the opposition to the big gun candidate who will get in because of the split vote between the smaller parties.

I definitely like the idea of smaller parties having a voice in our government, and possibly forming a government in coalition with other small or larger parties. We need more varied interests represented in our government. Single party, and single interest groups are detrimental to our economy and environment, and alienate large segments of the population by ignoring their needs and concerns. This results in voters not exercising their right to choose because they feel disenfranchised.

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