Let me begin with the things I respect about our electoral system
and my participation in it. Firstly, I deeply respect our model of
responsible representative government. In this, the Westminster
model, the government is responsible to the legislature and the
legislature is responsible to the electorate, each member
responsible to the electors in that member's own constituency.
Electoral reform must strengthen this basic model. I have voted in
every provincial election since I became old enough to vote and I
pride myself in saying that I vote for the person. I do not vote
vote for the party; in fact I have never held any party
membership.
In my view, party politics corrupts responsible representative
government and supplies the source of the distortions that have
spurred creation of this electoral reform process. Our Members of
the Legislative Assembly are, in reality, held responsible, not
just to their constituents, but also to their respective political
parties. This split in the direction of responsibility creates an
undue conflict for each and every MLA. Unfortunately, the power of
the party currently overrides MLAs' responsibility to constituents.
I agree with others who have expressed reservations about the role
of political parties; this is the grave distortion of responsible
representative government that we live with today. The answer lies
less with change in the way we vote and more with breaking of the
authority of party whips within the legislature, even eliminating
party politics altogether from our broader political life. If every
elector voted only for the person and each MLA felt responsibility
only to that MLA's own electing constituents, the distortions
currently being addressed would not even exist.
Is politics possible without political parties? Certainly it is;
just look to our two recently constituted sister legislatures in
the Northwest Territories and Nunavut. Better yet look at our own
history. For over thirty years after our confederation with Canada,
British Columbia governed itself without political parties.
Although this period often gets cited as turbulent, with too many
short-term Premiers (the position of Premier or any other single
personality in government just did not have the power significance
accorded it today), on closer examination the underlying themes of
provincial governance were actually more stable than superficial
appearances. In fact, this was the time when our MLAs were most
truly responsible solely to their own constituencies. Responsible
democracy actually thrived and far less power resided in the
Premier's office than at present; more power resided in the
legislature as a whole. Unfortunately, Richard McBride very
deliberately brought an end to our freedom from the distortion of
democracy wrought by political parties.
Of the alternatives currently under consideration, I have to say
that I oppose any form of proportional representation based on
political parties. Make no mistake, whether party lists are open or
closed, members placed (I dare not say elected as no voter could
actually make a direct judgment on the member as a person apart
from party affiliation) off a party list would see themselves as
responsible to no constituency but their own party. This may
succeed in including minority voices but such minority voices will
feel no responsibility to anyone but their own parties. The most
marked effect of having any MLAs in the legislature who are
responsible to only their own parties and not to any other
identifiable constituency can only be to further strengthen the
power of each party over all its MLAs, including those elected from
geographical constituencies. This can only increase current
corruption of responsible representative government in favour of
party politics.
Not only would proportional representation based on political
parties enhance the current power of party over person among our
MLAs, I suspect it would also increase the longevity of parties. We
are fortunate in that we can, and do, "get rid of the rascals" for
good. How long has it been since the British Columbia Conservative
Party formed a government? Where is the British Columbia Social
Credit Party today? Decades ago, before New Zealand brought in its
MMP, I visited that country during an election. I was impressed at
how New Zealand political parties came and went over the course of
its history to that time. No party had ever come back to power
after more than two stints as government. Parties whose time had
come and gone no longer existed or had withered to minor
participants. Today, in contrast, the same two parties routinely
alternate in power. I suspect that, with any form of proportional
representation, we will lock ourselves into a near unchanging set
of alternatives that may allow addition of new minor parties but
not prune parties that have had their day.
The other idea getting the most consideration, that of the
single transferable ballot [preferential voting], has my
wholehearted support. Although it was before I was old enough to
vote, British Columbia did use a single transferable ballot in the
past and I regret I have not had opportunity to exercise this sort
of vote. This is obviously more fair to the candidates within their
constituencies. When people vote for people rather than parties,
the single transferable ballot does not imply multiple member
ridings as has been claimed. Today we have the technology that the
counting should not impose the burden on the electoral process that
critics hold against this type of ballot. Let us bring this reform
back.
In fact modern technology may well permit us to enhance and more
accurately reflect voter preferences through a single distributed
vote. For instance, among candidates A, B, C, D, and E, voter 1 may
prefer candidate D but have some liking for candidate A and, thus,
assign a 75% vote to candidate D and a 25% vote to candidate A.
Voter 2 may give a 100% vote to candidate C only. Voter 3 may find
two candidates indistinguishable and grant candidate D 40% and
candidate E 40% while leaving 20% for candidate A. Voter 4 may wish
to rank all candidates giving 50% to candidate B, 25% to candidate
A, 15% to candidate D, and 10% to candidate C. Each voter could
express that voter's choice in any of a diverse variety of patterns
(in this example, at this point, candidate A has 0.70 votes,
candidate B, 0.50 votes, candidate C, 1.10 votes, candidate D, 1.30
votes, and candidate E, 0.40 votes for a total of 4.00 votes cast).
A plurality would remain sufficient to elect.
What about giving expression to the diversity of points of view
that go into our diverse society? I suggest a constitutional change
would serve far more effectively than electoral reform. We should
consider changing to a two chambered legislature that serves both
our common interests and our diverse identities. In fact we could
call them the Chamber of Our Common Interest and the Chamber of Our
Identities. The Chamber of Our Common Interest would be largely
indistinguishable from our current legislature (except, I would
hope, it would be free of political parties), the source of the
government responsible to the legislature and the senior of the two
chambers, elected from geographical constituencies by openly
scheduled general vote for terms of no more than four years. It
could still question its own confidence in the government and
precipitate an unscheduled election (nothing is more vital for
truly responsible democracy than the power to question confidence
in the government!). This chamber needs no further elaboration in
this discussion. The Chamber of Our Identities, able to review
legislation initiated in the Chamber of Our Common Interest and
initiate its own legislation, is a novel concept (that could also
apply federally with Senate reform), in response to our diversity.
It also could question its confidence in the Chamber of Our Common
Interest and precipitate an election for that otherwise senior
chamber.
I suggest we identify the five most significant distinct
elements of identity to which British Columbians hold. These may be
by gender, age group, mode of making a living, ethnic derivation,
level of education, religious affiliation, generation count since
immigration to Canada, etc. through the entire selection of
identities by which all of us live. Every twenty-five years a
commission, very like this forum, would examine British Columbia
society and identify the five areas of identity British Columbians
currently regard as most significant. The Chamber of Identities
would be divided into five caucuses with equal numbers of members,
one for each of the accepted significant areas of identity. Each
Identity Caucus would include members elected to constituencies
defined by the identities that make up that caucus with the number
of members of each constituency in direct proportion with the
numbers of British Columbia citizens who self-identify with that
specific identity. Self-identification at voter registration would
be vital to avoid having caucuses hijacked by external identity
related organizations. For instance, if ethnic derivation were
considered a significant identity, the Ethnic Derivation Caucus of
the Chamber of Our Identities would consist of elected members from
constituencies such as British Columbians of British Origin,
British Columbians of Han Chinese Origin, British Columbians of
French Canadian Origin, Native British Columbians etc. through the
entire diversity of ethnic origins within our current population,
including British Columbians of Broadly Mixed Ethnicity.
If gender were considered a significant identity, the Gender
Caucus of the Chamber of Our Identities could consist of two large
constituencies of men and of women or of an appropriate number of
paired geographic caucuses for men and for women. In the case of
age grouping being considered a significant identity,
constituencies of children, elected by children, could exist. The
actual membership structure of the Chamber of Our Identities would
be defined and reviewed every twenty-five years to keep the chamber
relevant to British Columbia society.
Each identity caucus within the Chamber of Our Identities would
be elected for a fixed five year term, one caucus at a time in
succeeding years. This would give a fixed schedule election every
year and a turn over of chamber membership independent of of the
membership turnover in the Chamber of Our Common Interest. The
first five years after each identity review would be a transition
period with each previous identity caucus giving way to its
successor identity caucus at each identity caucus election. The
system may be more complex than our present legislature, but it
would give real voice for us to express both our common interests
as British Columbians and our special interests within the various
identities we hold to make up our diverse population.
Electoral reform alone cannot resolve the very real problems
that brought this Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform into
being. These problems require us to curtail the power of political
parties over our Members of the Legislative Assembly. We also need
constitutional change to permit us to express our diversity and
special interests within our legislature, separately from our
common interests.