I realize it is late in the day and you have many briefs to
consider. So I will keep this submission short. It is my impression
that the Citizens' Assembly deliberations are reaching the point
when a choice will be made among alternate electoral systems, and
that the choice is coming down to one between a variant of MMP and
a variant of STV. As someone who has studied electoral system
reforms comparatively for the last 10 years, I would like to draw
to your attention to certain disadvantages of the latter in
comparison to the former.
Of the two, only MMP allows retention of single-member districts,
that means that every resident of British Columbia will have one
person specifically designated to represent him or her in the
legislature. And, MMP works. The book I have just edited Steps
Toward Making Every Vote Count (a summary of which is found in my
recent policy paper for the Institute for research in Public Policy
(
http://www.irpp.org) has chapters by
leading scholars on New Zealand and Scotland, two places similar to
BC that recently chose MMP. Both conclude that, despite misgivings,
the MMP system has worked quite well. In addition, MMP elections
are also more likely to result in the parties' being fairly
represented in number of seats won than STV. And, unlike MMP, STV
does little for women or minority representation.
Moreover, MMP, while not simple, is far easier for the voter to
understand than STV. At a time when popular disillusion with
democratic politics is already strong, this is a matter of concern.
The lack of transparency of STV, which makes it almost impossible
for the voter to understand how votes are turned into seats, could
play into that malaise. In comparison, MMP makes it clear how one's
vote counts. In addition, in an environment of distrust of partisan
politics, STV offers incentives for candidates to, in effect, run
against their own party which can only exacerbate that distrust, an
unhealthy development for our democracy.
Good luck with your deliberations.
levelCMS