I favour mixed-member proportional representation (MMP) as an
electoral system for British Columbia, as it is about as close to
the ideal as we are likely to see.
As a teenager, I was utterly confused by the outcome of the 1996
provincial election, where the party with only the second greatest
share of votes managed to form a majority government. After the
2001 election--the first in which I could vote--I was again
disillusioned by seeing a party with 58 percent of the vote capture
97 percent of the seats. It is beyond doubt for me that
proportionality is the most important electoral principle, and I
hope that this Assembly will demonstrate this. With the help of
MMP, our public representatives can represent the will of the
public in as accurate a way as possible.
Another virtue of MMP is its preservation of one of the few
advantages of our current system: local representation. Making sure
that people in every part of the province have access to at least
one MLA will ensure great responsiveness when coupled with
proportionality.
And finally, when compared with other systems, MMP is relatively
easy to understand. This benefit, among others, should put it ahead
of the Single Transferable Vote (STV)--which I must admit I still
do not entirely understand, in spite of a personal interest in
electoral reform. In addition, from what I have read, it appears
that STV is not as proportional as other forms of proportional
representation, and is no better than our current system (and is
certainly worse than MMP) at representing women and minorities.
So all things considered, MMP seems to combine the best of all
worlds, and I sincerely hope to see it on the ballot in 2005.
|