While I greatly admire the Citizens' Assembly process, I believe
the electoral reform process as a whole has been designed by the
Liberal Government to fail. The Liberal Government
rules for adoption of electoral reform give every vote against
adoption 3 times the effect of a vote in favour. As a
result, the best electoral system for BC is whatever system the
voters are most likely to support, regardless of its technical
merits or shortcomings.
While the Citizen's Assembly consults with the public according
to its mandate, that consultation needs to focus on which system
the broader public, which is not currently involved in this
process, will be most likely to support when called to vote.
I suggest the Assembly should, as part of it's public
consultation, commission a professional study to determine which
electoral reform will receive the most support at election
time. The one sided sound bite campaigning for and
against that can be expected to proceed the vote should be
anticipated in this study.
At present, the Citizens Assembly will be aware of a popular
preference for MMP as a result of the many submissions supporting
this system. This will not give a valid indication of
which system the broader public is most likely to support at
election time.
The views of the Assembly members after many months of careful
study and debate will also be a poor reflection of broad public
preference at election time. By the time the public is
asked to vote on electoral reform, the voters will have been
exposed some months of propaganda by various interest
groups. This may give the public an impression of
electoral reform that is very different from the view held by the
Assembly in December.
I will now explain how I determined that votes against electoral
reform will carry 3 times (actually 2.96 times) the weight of a
vote in favour of electoral reform.
First, consider the least support needed for the adoption of
Electoral Reform.
According to the criteria set by the Liberal Government, and
assuming the same number of people vote in each electoral district,
in order for any recommended Electoral Reform to be adopted it must
be voted on at the time of the next provincial election and must be
supported by both 50% of the voters in 48 electoral districts (60%
of the 79 electoral districts) and 60% of the voters province
wide.
The first requirement, 50% in 48 districts, requires, at
minimum, 30.38% of the number of votes cast province wide.
The second requirement is greater than the first at 60% of the
number of votes cast province wide. It is necessary to
meet both the first requirement and the
second requirements. As a result, the least support
needed for adoption of electoral reform is 60 % of the number of
votes cast province wide.
60% minimum support for adoption
Now consider the least opposition needed to block the adoption
of Electoral Reform. The reform will not be adopted if
it is opposed by either 50% of the voters in 32 electoral districts
(40% of the 79 electoral districts) 40% of the voters
province wide.
The first requirement, 50% in 32 districts, requires, at
minimum, 20.25% of the number of votes cast province
wide. The second requirement is greater than the first
at 40% of the number of votes cast province wide.
However, for those opposed to Electoral Reform it is only
necessary to meet either one requirement or the other.
As a result, the least opposition needed for failure of Electoral
Reform is 20.25% of the number of votes cast province wide.
20.25% minimum opposition for failure
If you compare the minimum support needed for adoption, 60%, to
the minimum opposition needed for failure, 20.25%, you see that
every vote against carries 60/20.25 or 2.96 times the weight of a
vote in favour.
I have assumed that the same number of people will vote in each
electoral district. If you abandon this assumption and
consider the matter in greater detail, I expect you will find that
the advantage for those opposed to adoption of electoral reform is
even greater than three to one.
The Liberal Government has declared the need for a double 60%
majority, resulting in a 3 to 1 advantage for those opposed, so
that Electoral Reform can be easily defeated.
The example of New Zealand gives a good indication of what may
happen in BC if there is a chance of Electoral Reform succeeding
despite it's disadvantage at the polls. Shortly before
the vote in New Zealand the larger corporations spent millions of
dollars opposing Electoral Reform. They managed to
drive support down from 65% or so to 53%. Fortunately
for New Zealanders it was a fair contest and the proposed electoral
reform was adopted. They needed a single 50% majority
to adopt Electoral Reform.
It will not be a fair contest in BC. Large
corporations that are able to increase profits by lobbying in the
Government back room will oppose any reform that gives voters more
effective representation because any gain for the voters may result
in a loss of advantage for the corporations. If
threatened, these corporations will work together, selecting the 32
electoral districts where they can most easily manipulate the
voters. Getting a 50% no vote in 40% (or 32) of the
electoral districts should be an easy target and voters in the rest
of the province will be irrelevant. They may already
have the districts selected and the campaign prepared.
Thank you for considering this.
levelCMS