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:
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.