I am in favour of a mixed electoral system that would combine
single-member constituencies, having representatives elected on a
plurality system, with an at-large proportional representation list
system to correct for distortions in party representation in the
Legislature [MMP].
Voter participation and representation of
views
I believe that a PR system will encourage wider voter
participation. Many of those holding minority views
know their candidate cannot get elected and see no point in
voting. A PR system would allow a wider spectrum of
views to be represented in the Legislature and, at times,
representatives from minor parties can have real influence on
government policy in forming coalition governments or making deals
for their support on individual votes.
Party agendas
A PR system will make it more difficult for parties to win a
majority of the seats because it is unusual for a party to get more
than 50% of the vote. As the parties come to appreciate
this, I expect that it will have a moderating effect on the
positions they take on issues. They will need the
support of other parties to implement their programs, rather than
being given a 4-year mandate to implement any policies they want
regardless of whether or not they were articulated in their
election platforms.
Although a PR system should accommodate minority views, there
need to be checks so that small minorities are not able to impede
measures favored by larger pluralities or to dictate extremist
terms as conditions of supporting larger parties. I
therefore support a minimum threshold percentage of the overall
popular vote to be required for a party’s votes to be
translated into seats. A 5% threshold has been
suggested; I defer to those who have studied this in greater
detail.
Stability
There is some valid criticism of PR that it produces unstable
governments. At first I expect that the parties will
continue to behave opportunistically and may precipitate elections
when they think they can win them. Over time, though,
they will learn that overall majorities are difficult to achieve
and that, even if they win a plurality of votes, they will still
have to compromise with other parties to accede to and remain in
power. The current legislation setting a 4-year term
would prevent governments from directly calling elections at their
convenience, although they will still be able to deliberately lose
votes of confidence. Smaller parties may trigger
elections by withdrawing their support of the governing parties,
but they will have to be careful not to antagonize the electorate
by using this power for frivolous or opportunistic
reasons. Overall, I expect that we will have elections
more frequently under PR, a prospect that is not desirable but
outweighed by the benefits of more democratic representation.
Mixed plurality/PR compared with other voting
systems
I favour the mixed electoral system adopted in New Zealand,
giving voters one vote for a constituency representative and one
for a party representative. Direct accountability to a
group of constituents is a cornerstone of representative
democracy. Constituents should have access to a
legislator who will work for them and represent the needs and views
of their region. These could continue to be elected
under the current plurality system. Parties would also
submit lists of candidates, allowing voters to indicate their
preferences from among the candidates the parties put
forward. Following the election of the constituency
representatives, the party list candidates receiving the most votes
would be assigned legislative seats in order to bring about party
representation in the Legislature in approximate proportion to
their popular vote. Candidates should be able to run
for both constituency and party seats, but if they win a
constituency, would be eliminated from the list
vote.
I favour the proposal originally advocated by the Green Party,
dividing the Legislature’s seats 50/50 between
constituency representatives and those elected from party
lists. I do not support the Greens’ recent
adjustment to 67 constituency/33 party list, which speaks to rural
concerns about constituency size. While the goal of
accommodating these concerns is valid, the proposed system could
realistically result in an undesirable outcome. It
would be possible for one party to win almost all of the
constituencies with 50% or less of the popular vote.
That party would form a majority government and there would not be
enough seats reserved for party lists to sufficiently correct
representation to reflect, or even reasonably approximate the
popular vote.
The present plurality system delivers results that do not
reflect the will of the electorate most of the time.
Governments seldom achieve 50% of the vote, which means the
majority of voters have actually voted against the government that
is elected. The 1996 and 2001 provincial elections
illustrate the faults of this system, allowing one party to form a
government with fewer votes than its opponent, and another party to
win almost every seat with just over half of the total votes.
A majority system would do little to widen the spectrum of views
represented in the Legislature. It is true that voters
would be given a chance to indicate a fall-back position if their
first choice fails to receive a majority. However, it
would leave many voters’ first choice
unrepresented. A second choice will often be a very
reluctant one, and some voters may drop out of the process if there
is not a second option with which they feel they could
support. While larger parties may have to cater to
parts of the platforms of smaller parties to attract their voters,
the larger parties would often be reluctant or superficial
representatives of views not originating from within.
I do not favour the single transferable vote system of
proportional representation because I do not feel it effectively
represents constituencies. Members from different
parties are likely to work at cross-purposes on local issues, and
there may be duplication of effort and turf wars among
representatives in the same constituency.
Constituencies would also have to be overly large to deliver a
representative vote among several parties. The
Citizens’ Assembly fact sheet notes that a substantial
reduction in proportionality occurs when the number of seats per
district drops below 5 if there is a large number of
parties. To maintain a legislature of the same size, we
would have to increase the constituency size by 5. I do
not feel British Columbians would be well served by huge
constituencies with multiple representatives of different
parties.
A pure PR list system would also require larger constituencies
in order to adequately reflect proportionality. A
hybrid of the plurality and list systems would deliver both
effective representation at the constituency level and
proportionality at the provincial level.
How the question is asked
One of my biggest concerns about the referendum to be put to
voters in 2005 is the way in which the question will be
asked. There should be a clear two-choice question on
whether the voter chooses to retain the current system of voting or
a proportional representation system. If the
Citizens’ Assembly selects only one PR option for
consideration, the result will be a fair representation of what the
electorate wants.
On the other hand, if the Assembly wishes to present us with a
choice of PR systems, the ballot needs to be carefully
structured. The question should be put in two
parts. First, there should be a question asking whether
the voter favors the present system or a form of PR.
The second question would then ask what type of PR system they
would favor if a majority answers ‘yes’ to
the first question. This gives those who may oppose a
change a say in the type of PR system that is adopted, along with
the majority who support a change. The second question
should be structured to achieve the highest degree of consensus
possible, either by restricting it to two choices so that one
receives a majority, or allowing for marking multiple choices in
order of preference. The requirement of 60% support in
all constituencies should apply to the first question, which would
clearly indicate a will for or against PR. Once the
general will of the electorate has been established with the first
question, the second question should require only a plurality.
It is critical to avoid a question that mixes a choice for or
against PR with a vote on the type of PR system desired, such as a
ballot giving these choices:
Current
system
PR option 1
PR option 2
This will split the pro-PR vote, making achievement of a 60%
majority unlikely. It also does not give PR opponents
the option of selecting a system that is least offensive to them if
a majority favours change.
Thank you for giving British Columbians the opportunity to
present their views on this very important political question.
levelCMS