Contact UsSearch
Click for Search Instructions
Home > Get Involved

Submission LOENEN-0875 (Online)

Submission By Nick Loenen
AddressRichmond, BC,
Organization
Date20040716
CategoryElectoral system change
Abstract
This submission is a supplement to the previous detailed submission by Nick Loenen (Loenen 0035). The main submission recommends a mixed system labelled 'Preferential-Plus', a blending of the Irish STV and the Australian AV. [6 pages]

Submission Content

INTRODUCTION

This submission is supplemental to my earlier and main submission (Loenen 0035). My main submission recommends a mixed system, a blending of the Irish STV and the Australian AV, which I dubbed Preferential-Plus.

As the Assembly members prepare for the final deliberation stage this supplemental submission gives three reasons why the Assembly should consider Preferential-Plus, and it offers comments on a number of issues that have come up during the proceedings, so far.


IN SUPPORT OF PREFERENTIAL-PLUS

Three reasons why the Assembly should consider the made-in-BC, Preferential-Plus system.

First, because it is 'made in BC'.

There is no system like it anywhere in the world. It is made to measure for our province. It is designed to suit our geography, political culture, and governing institutions.

It was developed with input from scores of British Columbians from all over the province over a period of many years. It truly is 'made in BC'.

Second, this system is flexible. Ridings can vary from 7 seats in the Lower Mainland to single seats in the North.

When the man from Buick, Wilf Chelle, goes home he will say, 'At every opportunity I told them to not even think about enlarging our riding, and we got what I asked for. Peace River North will stay as is.' And the people will say, 'You mean the Lower Mainland folks listened, and caved in?' And Wilf will say, 'No, they did not cave in because they too got what they wanted'.

Is that not where you want to be? Under Preferential-Plus everyone can have what they want. No one need to leave the Assembly thinking they sacrificed something. That is possible with Preferential-Plus because of its flexibility.

The third reason is this: you can talk about Preferential-Plus without ever mentioning proportional representation. My submission runs 17 pages without using the words 'proportional representation', except at the beginning where it says: 'this is not proportional representation.'

The term proportional representation is open to much misunderstanding and confusion. It is best to avoid those words.

Preferential-Plus is not proportional representation. Votes are for candidates, not for parties. Nominations are conducted as under the current system. Party power is not increased. Nor does Preferential-Plus yield full proportional results.

Most importantly, while proportional representation is all about political parties, Preferential-Plus is all about people. It gives power and choice to people, not to parties.

Proportional representation evokes fears of small, perhaps extremist parties, instability, frequent elections, and weak government. Whether warranted or not such is the perception. Some of it has surfaced during the Public Hearings. In the population at large those sentiments are even more widespread.

Preferential-Plus avoids the negative connotations associated with proportional representation. Following your final decision you dont want the Vancouver Sun headline to read: 'Assembly Recommends Proportional Representation'. It will immediately provoke all the standard criticisms, and your efforts will be directed at being defensive. A more positive headline would read: 'Assembly Selects Made In BC System'.

If you cant speak of this as proportional representation how do you talk about it? You will go home and say, 'We looked at all the systems in the world and found none that could be applied to our province, so taking the best of several we designed one to suit our needs.' And people will say, 'But what is it, how does it work?'

Suppose you are Joanne Vander Meulen from Smithers. For Joanne it is easy. Shell say, 'Everything stays as is, except, instead of placing an X behind one candidate, voters will rank candidates just like we did for the 1952 and 1953 elections.'

If you are from Surrey, youll say, 'Currently, Surrey has 7 ridings with one seat each, the Assembly recommends that Surrey will have 1 riding with seven seats.' And to show how it works you will point to a Sample Ballot. Youll explain that each voter will vote for just one candidate, it is not the case that each voter votes for all seven MLAs. And youll explain that each existing riding will always retain the ability to elect its own MLA. That local representation is not diluted.

Then someone will ask, 'But why did you recommend this system, what is so good about it, what do you hope to accomplish?' The answer is: this 'made-in-BC' system is designed to yield:

  • Effective local representation
  • Less party discipline
  • Accountable government
  • A less polarized politics
And that will resonate with the people. It will resonate with people in all regions, it will resonate with the corporate interests on Howe Street and with the people at the BC Federation of Labour, and it will resonate with voters at every point of the political spectrum.

It is these four values that will unite people across the province on May 17 next, so that we will not just meet, but we will exceed the 60/60 hurdle.

There is no need to mention proportional representation.

Effective local representation
Less party discipline
Accountable government
A less polarized politics

These are the attributes that excites people, not proportional representation, and it is those four values that will unite our people.

And then someone will say, 'I like it. How soon can we expect those good things to happen?'

The answer is, 'No one knows.' There are no guarantees here.

But we do know this:

First, on all four of these values our current system fails us, and needs improvement.

Second, by changing to Preferential-Plus we open the door to new possibilities, in contrast, keeping the voting system as is, leaves that door shut for good.

Third, of all systems, the 'made-in-BC', Preferential-Plus offers the greatest potential for democratic reforms.

This is well worth doing. In fact, this is the most promising initiative since 1892 when Sir Sandford Fleming, of Greenwich time fame, stood before the Canadian Institute in Toronto and insisted that FPTP be scrapped in favour of STV to make government accountable to Parliament.

Why have we not even started to address the democratic deficit for all these 112 years? Because political parties will always protect their own interests.

During those 112 years we have not had a Citizens Assembly. We have never allowed the voice of the people to speak. Never, until now.

You are the voice of the people. Make your voice heard! Speak with one voice!
Make your decision unanimous! And you will be heard.

By standing united and speaking with one voice you will affirm the hopes and dreams of countless British Columbians for a more robust democracy.


OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED AND MISCELLANEOUS REMARKS


STV IS TOO DIFFICULT

This objection has two components. The first, claims that voters will not understand the formula by which transfers take place. That is true, but does it matter?

The voting instructions are: select the candidate you consider best, place 1 in front of that name. Then from the remaining candidates select the best, place a 2 in front of that name, etc. etc. You may rank as few or as many as you wish.

My wife Jayne can follow those instructions as well as I can. She knows nothing about Droop, Meek, or Hare. I do. Suppose Jayne, after many elections takes Cartys course and now she too understands transfers. The question is: Will it make any difference to how Jayne fills in the ballot from then on. No. Would she have filled in the ballot differently, i.e. would she have made different choices had she taken Carty's course earlier? Clearly, not.

Some object that this amounts to voting in the dark, and on nothing but trust.
Voting does not occur in the dark. Voters select those candidates they deem best. That is not voting in the dark.

Yes, but we are asked to trust that the system will actually select those candidates who on balance enjoy the greatest amount of popular support. Voters don't really know that this is so.

Well, really now, life is full of trust in that sense. When I buy butter at the super market I select a package with a label and a stamp and trust that this is butter, but don't ask how I know that this is truly unadulterated butter. I can't explain that.

The allegation that STV is too difficult has a second component. The ballot contains many more names and if people vote in a multi-member riding they will have much more choice than the current system offers. The objection alleges that this is confusing. Most people don't want that much choice. Unless it is kept simple many voters will be intimidated or at least confused.

It is true, the STV ballot gives much choice and can be used in a most sophisticated manner. But it need not be so used.

It can be used very simply. For example, ranking one candidate is all that is needed to produce a perfectly valid ballot. Every voter will elect just one candidate. So, picking just one is fine. Second and third choices don't kick in unless one's first choice has either been elected or deleted.

Also, many voters will simply go to the box listing the candidates of their favorite party and rank those candidates in the order in which the names are listed. That too is a perfectly valid way of voting and takes no particular skill or consideration. Because many will vote in this manner candidates will be randomly ordered on each ballot.

Others may vote exclusively for women. Such a voter may rank women candidates in the order in which they are listed regardless of party. Does that take skill?

The point is, one need not know much at all to vote. Perhaps that explains why the Irish have used STV since 1921 without problems. If the Irish can do it, why can't we?

As you may know, Wales appointed the Richards Commission to study their home-rule parliament. It reported this past spring. Among its recommendations is one in favour of switching from MMP to STV should the House be enlarged. They send a delegation to observe a STV election in Northern Ireland to look for confusion and levels of difficulty. The Commission reports that the delegation found no confusion or difficulties.

A few years ago the local Richmond Non-Partisan Association was over-run by
instant members from two warring Indo-Canadian groups and one Chinese-Canadian group. I was asked for advice. To avoid civil war I suggested a
preferential ballot. It worked, someone not associated with any big block won. That candidate built bridges to all camps.

I was also asked to be the Returning Officer, and found it particularly
instructive that the % of spoiled ballots was no greater than normal. Clearly, voters were not mystified, even though this was the first time they used it.

MIXED MEMBER PROPORTIONAL (MMP)

Voting systems must be appropriate for their specific jurisdiction. British Columbias political needs are very different from Albertas, which are different from Quebecs, etc. Hence, the Berger Commissions recommendations for Vancouver civic elections are no more pertinent to the Assemblys task than the Law Commission of Canadas recommendations for federal politics.

MMP is not appropriate for British Columbia. We have too much geography and not enough seats. Some proponents of MMP suggest we are just like New Zealand. A moment of reflection shows it is not true. New Zealand has 120 seats, we have 79. They have one-third our area. With fewer seats we must cover three times as much geography. If our legislature had 360 seats we would be like New Zealand.

MMP will not sell beyond Hope. Even with just one-third list seats, existing ridings must be enlarged by fifty percent. That requirement will not be acceptable.

In addition, MMP is all about proportionality, i.e. allocating seats to political parties fairly. STV-AV has a very different objective. It aims to introduce democratic reforms such as effective local representation, less party discipline, accountable government, and a less polarized politics. It is my experience that British Columbians have a much greater appetite for such democratic reforms than for proportional representation.

ELECTORAL AND DEMOCRATIC REFORMS

What is the relationship between electoral reform and democratic reforms? Electoral reform is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for democratic reforms. Changing the voting system will not by itself introduce democratic reforms, but not changing the voting system prevents the possibility of democratic reforms. It is important to select a voting system which in the BC context provides the greatest potential for democratic reform. STV/AV provides that potential.

X-BALLOTING COMPARED TO PREFERENTIAL BALLOTING

Under the current system placing an X beside one candidate expresses complete, absolute, total support for that candidate, that party, that leader and their political platform. It also expresses complete, absolute, total rejection of all other candidates, leaders, parties and platforms. Such categorical, absolute choices are most unrealistic. Few voters ever think in such black and white terms.

In contrast, preferential balloting is far more realistic. It allows voters to rank and express levels of support for various candidates, leaders, parties, and platforms. X-balloting compares to preferential balloting like an on/off light switch compares to a dimmer switch. Election results under a preferential ballot are a more accurate reflection of the voters intentions.

UNSTABLE GOVERNMENT

It is commonly assumed that first-past-the-post delivers stable government, and that consensual, coalition government is unstable. That first-past-the post fosters stability may be true elsewhere but it is not true for British Columbia. We have a highly polarized politics producing wild swings in public policy, rapid turnover of MLAs, ministers and portfolios. During a recent 10 year period we had 7 premiers. Frequently, parties are nearly wiped out even when they enjoy over 25 percent electoral support. In British Columbia, parties that seek to broker and bridge differences around centrist policies are penalized by first-past-the-post.

In addition, the claim that coalition government is unstable is open to challenge. Coalition government is very different from minority government. The two should not be confused. Minority governments are unstable, precipitating quick, frequent elections. That, too, is a function of the first-past-the post system. It delivers large numbers of seats on small shifts in the popular vote. Under first-past-the-post minority governments often engineer a quick election for partisan gain. More proportional voting systems remove such incentives and are not subject to quick elections for partisan gain. The overwhelming evidence from Western Europe is that coalition government is very stable.

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