I thank you in the Assembly for allowing me to submit my
suggestions for electoral change in British Columbia. I am pleased
that after so many years, we in British Columbia, and eventually
hopefully in Canada, are finally getting a chance at reforming our
electoral system. It's a wonder why most countries in Europe did so
many years ago, and we continued to stick to an outdated Plurality
(first-past-the-post) electoral system that was created for the
two-party system so many centuries ago. Thus, the first obvious
problem with our current electoral system; it was created for the
two-party system. It simply does not reflect the wishes of the
population when a third (or more) party/parties contest elections
in single-member constituencies. I 'm sure that the Assembly
members have heard almost all reasons to defend all sides on this
very important question on electoral change. I would like to list
some of the reasons for changing to a system that favours
proportional representation.
First, not only have the past two provincial elections in B.C.
produced electoral anomalies but I would ask some who are following
the current federal election to explain why they think our current
system actually "works". In a number of recent polls, significant
concerns have been raised. These include the following. First, in
two recent Ipsos-Reid polls, the three leading parties have been
fairly close in their overall popular support. In B.C., the
Conservatives were at 33% in the June 10th poll, with the Liberals
and NDP tied at 27% each. However, when the pundits broke down the
numbers into seats, the conservatives would win anywhere from 23-25
seats, with the Liberals from 6-8 and the NDP from 4-6.
Furthermore, with the Green Party at about 12% in BC, it would
receive no seats. In Quebec, the Bloc Quebecois is at 12%
nationally, compared with the NDP at about 16-17%, yet the experts
forecast the Bloc will receive about 60 seats and the NDP about 23.
This, obviously, is because our current electoral system favours
regional parties, at the expense of weaker national parties. And of
course, we can not ignore the results of the last 3 federal
elections where the Jean Chretien's Liberals won almost all seats
in Ontario, with less than 50% of the vote in that province on all
three occasions. With so many people disgruntled with the current
set of choices on the ballot in recent years, there will be a trend
for more political parties to emerge to represent what the public
is searching for. Thus, with more political parties
contesting elections, the seat totals will become even more
unevenly distributed, and more people will simply be turned off
politics.
Some people continue to argue that our current system is
favourable because it, more often than not, produces majority
governments. Isn't it ironic when majority governments are created
as a result of the system rather than what the people actually
want, based on their political preferences? First, I would respond
by asking what are the great benefits of continuous majority
governments. I continually read in between elections about how many
in the public decry that our current system functions like a
"dictatorship of the majority". I would acknowledge that there are
flaws in all electoral systems, but would argue that the benefits
of changing to a system that is more proportional far outweigh the
costs of keeping the current one. Those who fear minority
governments often raise the specter of the Trudeau minority
government of 1972-74 and the shorter-lived Joe Clark minority
government of 1979-1980. The problem with both of those examples is
that they occurred in a country where majority governments are the
norm, and at a time when the opinion polls soon thereafter
indicated that one of the larger parties could achieve a majority
government if the current minority government was defeated in a
vote of non-confidence. (Remember how unpopular Joe Clark's
government became within 6 months of taking office?) However, both
of Lester Pearson's minority governments, although short-lived,
achieved a significant degree of legislative changes and reforms.
Many countries in Europe perpetually function with minority and
coalition governments because all parties realize that no one party
is ever going to receive a majority government. Thus, under
proportional representation, the incentive to defeat a minority
government after a short term of office simple to try and receive a
majority government from the electorate in the ensuing election, as
mentioned like what happens, in Canada, is eradicated, as the
electoral result would simply be another minority government. And
for those who argue that minority and coalition governments do not
produce bold decision making, then one has to ask how Europe ever
achieved its current form of integrated economies and the standard
Euro as the currency.
Another issue that opponents of proportional representation
raise is that it results in too many parties in the legislature
(like Italy and Israel). First, if too many parties representing
the people is a deficiency at all, then there is a simple solution,
implement a threshold (example 4-5% of the vote) to receive
representation in the legislature.
A fourth issue relates to an experience that my family had
recently with my locally elected representative. I went to my MP
with a question related to an immigration problem. I didn't get
far, because helping an immigrant come to Canada is simply not the
issue that my current MP raises to the forefront in Parliament. If
there was a system of proportional representation in our country, I
could have chosen to go to one of the MP's representing my
constituency (now a very large one) who would have been more
sympathetic to my concerns. In other words, in an electoral system
whereby the electoral constituencies are much larger, with several
members of Parliament being elected to represent each, there will
be a better balance of party representation for all citizens of
Canada. Under our current system, a constituent realizes that it is
fruitless to go to his/her MP if for example; the issue in concern
runs counter to what the MP or representing political party
advocates. For example, a constituent who wants to be involved in a
same-sex marriage might run into difficulty with a Conservative MP,
or a constituent demanding a taxation system similar to the United
States would not get far with their NDP representative.
A fifth issue concerns a radio commercial that just appeared
this morning regarding the federal election. It is a federal
Liberal commercial asking voters not to vote for the NDP because "a
vote for the NDP is a vote for the Conservatives". It went on to
explain it using simple math, based on 100 voters (i.e., if 40
voters vote Conservative, and 35 vote Liberal, then the 25 who
voted NDP allowed the Conservatives to get elected because they
"split the vote"). I found this commercial offensive not in any
partisan way, but because it reinforced what I have long seen what
is wrong with our electoral system. Why should someone have to vote
for another party to keep a more unpalatable party from being
elected? Shouldn't people vote for the party and candidate that
best represents what they believe in? Under proportional
representation, no "vote-splitting" occurs. Parties are rewarded
for their popular vote. I have known several people over the years
who do not vote because their vote is worthless. No wonder the
voter turnout is declining in recent elections.
Finally, there should be great concern from all Canadians
regarding the declining voter turnout in recent elections, both
federal and provincial. In some jurisdictions, our voter turnout is
not much better than the pitifully apathetic turnouts in the United
States. Although it is perhaps hypothetical to argue that changing
to a system whereby elected representatives are based on how the
people actually voted would encourage a greater vote turnout, but
there is some evidence to support that hypothesis. In Europe, why
has voter turnout declined so dramatically in Great Britain, a
country that stubbornly continues to keep our plurality that
results in wide discrepancies in party representation, when in the
countries that use proportional representation (which is most of
Europe), voter turnout remains very high?
In conclusion, British Columbia must adopt some kind of
proportional representation. Whether it is a mixed system like in
Germany or full proportional system like in most of Europe doesn't
really matter. Simply put, our current system is broken beyond
repair. The comments included on this current federal election
prove this. I thank you for your time and for allowing me to submit
this letter.
levelCMS