Submission SMITH-0598 (Online)
|
Submission By | Richard Smith |
Address | Duncan, BC, |
Organization | |
Date | 20040611 |
Category | Electoral system change |
Abstract
|
There is no perfect electoral system but, under current conditions,
the system that optimizes democratic representation within the
government is the system of Mixed Member Proportional
Representation (MMP). [2 pages]
|
Submission Content
|
There is no perfect system for electing Democratic Government. Any
of the proposed systems will work, but, under current conditions,
the system that optimizes democratic representation within the
government is the system of Mixed Member Proportional
Representation (MMP).
The current system is no longer optimal for many reasons, two of
which are the related factors of party discipline and the changing
culture of our communities.
Party discipline prevents a politician from truly representing
their constituents, as the politician supports their party's
platform on which they ran, not necessarily the will of their
community. If they truly represented their electorate then a
candidate elected with only 37% of the vote would frequently vote
against their party's mandate, reflecting the other 63% of
constituents; this is not what we see. Instead, the majority has no
voice in their own Government. This is not democratic, but this is
the current situation in the Victoria Hillside riding (Elections
BC).
The culture and composition of our communities is changing and our
electoral system should reflect those changes. Previously, regional
communities were the only prevalent types of communities
acknowledged by the electoral system. This was adequate when
communities were more homogeneous. For many reasons this uniformity
no longer exists. Between 1989 and 1998 non-metropolitan BC
communities underwent a dramatic 10% shift from goods based
economies towards more diversified service based economies.
Predictions are that this trend will continue (Stats BC, May 2001).
This establishes the importance of a second type of community, the
community of interest. A community of interest is one that is not
limited by geographic boundaries; it is created by common goals,
values and concerns. These communities will have no voice in the
Legislative Assembly despite having greater absolute numbers than
the majority in any given regional riding that does get
representation.
Recognizing that Party Discipline will continue, a system that
allows these other voices to be heard will be more democratic. The
MMP system is such a system. For example: Currently 17 % of voters
in BC rank The Gun Registry as the primary issue influencing their
vote in the upcoming Federal election ( Vancouver Sun May
21, 2004). This represents a community of interest. Likely such a
community would have included 17% of the people in Victoria
Hillside, and they would have voted with unified interest in the
last provincial election. Under MMP this group of the electorate
would then be added to the scant 37% that did get representation.
If another community of interest also exists, then it is quite
possible to have over 50% of the people in that riding represented
in their Legislative Assembly. Now that would be more
democratic.
In a MMP system regional representation will be diluted. This is an
acceptable tradeoff. Regional communities are still important, but
with our dynamic culture, advancing information technology,
increasing service based economies and expanding globalization they
are becoming less so. Eventually regional communities may lose
their importance all together requiring further adaptation to our
electoral system. That will be for a future Citizen's Assembly to
decide. For now the MMP system gives political voice to the
greatest number of British Columbians and is thus most
democratic.
My suggestions for how this would look would be:
-
Not significantly changing the size of the Legislative
Assembly
-
Seat allocation of 50-70% regional and 30-50% proportional
-
Consider maintaining some specifically rural representation by
either: maintaining a disproportionate amount of regional ridings
in rural districts, acknowledging that urban centers will have more
influence over popular support allocated proportional seats; or
dividing the Legislative Assembly into urban and rural seats. 30%
to rural and 70% to urban. These will then both be divided into 50%
each regional vs proportional (ie 15% rural riding and 15% rural
proportional).
|