Members of the Citizen's Assembly;
I am green with envy. I'd give nearly anything to share the
experience you're having, let alone be instrumental in bringing our
electoral process into the 21st century. I do believe FPTP to be
the anachronistic reminder of the two-party era; entirely unsuited
to the multi-party races that typify the present day.
You've read endless submissions by now and hardly need be lectured
on the failings of FPTP. Suffice to say that when MLAs, and
governments consider Chretien's last
term. The
Liberals came to power with less that 40 per
cent of the vote but we need to focus on the more significant fact
that they were voted against by 60 per cent; an extremely sad
comment on the state of democracy in BC and in Canada and a
perfectly plausible reason for voters to deny the moral right to
claim a legitimate mandate.
A fault of FPTP that I see little mention of in other submissions
is its tendency to promote strategic voting. Anyone with experience
in national party politics can tell tales of Liberals voting
Conservative to cut out the NDP or vice versa. In Quebec, many Bloc
members are said to have voted Conservative to slow down the
Liberals. Thus the concept of voting against becomes as important
as voting for.
I canvassed vigorously in the recent campaigns to 'Recall Them All'
and to promote Proportional Representation. I was an organizer of
the former and an enthusiastic supporter of the latter. I knocked
on door after door meeting well-informed people with interesting
opinions who were not registered to vote. A typical excuse I wrote
this one down and saved it was, 'Why would I take an hour out of my
life to stand in line to mark a ballot when the best I can hope for
is that it ends up in the recycle bin and not the garbage dump?'
What can I say? In this FPTP world she's dead right.
So, like the song says, 'Somethin's gotta give.'
Though I supported PR because it was 'the only game in town' and,
in the absence of any alternatives, a desirable first step, it was
not my first choice of electoral systems. Simple proportionality,
while desirable, is not enough. PR, with its party lists, tends to
make the candidate the tool of party-central. Democracy is not
well-served in the absence of a tight, direct connection between
the candidate and the voters.
I strongly believe that to have credibility indeed, to inspire
voters to go to the polls - every MLA must be elected by a majority
of their own constituents.
Of the few ways that I have discovered to accomplish this, I am
most impressed with the Single Transferable Vote. You are, of
course, intimately familiar with the details of STV and the
significance of '50% + 1'.
Elements of STV that render it irresistible to me are;
-
It compels a consensus lacking in the current system by forcing
candidates to work to gain second-choice support from voters whose
first choice was another party.
-
Its natural pro-activism encourages more women and minorities
into the mix.
-
Vote-splitting quickly becomes a non-sequitur as one can only
lose to a party with a clear majority on the first ballot.
-
A government comprised of MLAs who have each been elected by a
majority of their own constituents would command the respect and
legitimacy sorely lacking in the present system.
-
Voters demonstrably will not turn out for FPTP. Experience
elsewhere in the world gives ample reason to believe that they will
turn out for STV
-
Democracy is better served by the inclusion of members
representing small constituencies unsupported by major parties.
-
FPTP compels a vicious focus on our differences whereas STV
tends to enhance dependence on our similarities.
Here then, surprisingly limited to a single page, is my pitch
for STV. Thank you for your time, attention and consideration.
|
levelCMS