[To view the document in its scanned format with
three attached tables, see the linked document below; the original
typed document and attachment can be viewed at the Citizens'
Assembly office. The second linked document is an
article on the Regional Seats system published by Theo Hart in the
Canadian Parliamentary Review.]
A Regional Seats (RS) System of Elections for
BC
Enclosed is some material on the Regional Seats system of
elections. Had the RS system been used in the 2001 BC elections,
the legislature would have had a functional size of Official
Opposition. For example, say there had been 17 regions with four
directly elected Members each, giving a total of 85 seats in the
Assembly: 68 single—Member seats plus 17 Regional
Members.
The outcome of the 2001 elections would most likely have been66
Liberals, 17/18 New Democrats and one or two Greens. In this casual
Regional seats would have gone to opposition parties. This
characteristic feature of a Regional Seats system assures a
functional size of Opposition in the face of a
lop—sided victory.
Applying the Regional Seats system to the 1991 and 1996
elections demonstrates other useful attributes of this electoral
system. Suppose there had been 15 Regional seats in addition to the
75 directly elected Members -For those two general elections. With
Regional seats the ‘91 outcome would have seen greater
regional balance in party representation, while the ‘94
outcome with Regional seats would have better reflected
voters’ intentions.
The ‘91 elections gave a comfortable majority
government with a sizeable Opposition and a significant third
party, the results being50, 17 and 8 seats respectively. With 15
Regional seats this would have become 52, 28 and 10 seats, still a
comfortable governing majority. What is important here is the
distribution of those additional seats. Of those 15 Regional seats,
11 would have gone to a party not otherwise represented in the
region, while in 3 instances the party getting the Regional seat
had but one Member directly elected in the region.
Considering only the directly elected Members, the Government
was represented in 13 regions, the Opposition in 7, the third party
in 5.Including Regional Members (had they existed), the Government
would have been represented in all 15 regions, the Opposition in 14
and the third party in 7. The geographical representation of both
Government and of Official Opposition would have been enhanced.
[see tables in linked document below]
This is very typical of an RS election. Having applied the RS
system to over fifty elections, I can say that typically both
Government and Opposition wind up representing all or nearly all
regions once the Regional seats are included. The
Opposition’s geographical reach especially is often
much extended. The 2001 elections in BC would obviously have been
an extreme example of this. From representing only one region, the
Opposition would have gone to representing almost all regions in
the province (except the one or two won by the Greens).
Regional Seats enhances the Opposition’s presence
province—wide thereby putting it in a better position
to gain seats at the next general election. It is likely that under
an RB system two consecutive terms in government is all any party
could reasonably expect. By the third go round the Opposition
should be poised to win (and woe betide the Opposition leader who
then fails to). Under an RS system one would expect parties to
alternate in power with somewhat greater frequency than under
unadorned first past the post voting.
On the whole, such turnover in government is a Good Thing for
society. It provides for different personalities, priorities and
approaches to governing to have a turn. Not to mention philosophies
and predilections peculiar to different political parties.
The 1996 election was tight and would have been tighter under a
Regional Seats voting regime. In fact the party leading in popular
vote came up second in directly elected Members, infusing them with
the unmistakeable aura of “we wuz robbed”.
The two main parties had39 and 33 seats, but the Regional Seats
(had they existed) would have gone 5 and 10 respectively, yielding
a legislature with 44 and 43Members plus 3 Members for two very
minor parties. It would have been a minority government situation
no matter who governed and either major party could have. Most
likely there would have been another general election within two
years. Surely an outcome more preferable for everyone than what
actually occurred.
To recap, a Regional Seats system of elections always provides a
functional size of Opposition, single party government if at times
minority government, and in close elections it yields a close
result. What it thankfully does not do is unduly foster formation
of small narrow interest parties led by intransigent leaders. That
is characteristic of any proportional system of representation be
it of mixed Member type or otherwise. These may be called
“tail wagging the dog” electoral systems
because of the extraordinary influence such intransigent leaders of
minor parties exert in skewing the shape of governing coalitions.
Their practical effect on politics is negative whatever their
theoretical appeal might seem.
Coalition governance is often slow to make decisions and the
electorate may be mystified as to who was responsible for what. A
single party governing cannot hide. It has no partners to blame for
unpopular actions. The electorate knows who to praise or vilify for
what the government of the day has done or has failed to do. Single
party governance is therefore more accountable than coalition
government.
If the electoral system is to be changed, single party
government should be retained if possible. The Regional Seats
system does just that. RS is an improvement on first
past the post while keeping its best features. Go for it.
levelCMS