Nick Loenen article, The VancouverSun 

So what do voters want anyway?

By NICK LOENEN

[The following article appeared in The Vancouver Sun on Monday January 12, 2004. It is reproduced here by permission of Nick Loenen. The Sun also accompanied the article with some questions, asking readers to comment on them in letters. Those questions are reproduced below. They generated a page full of letters on Saturday January 17, including one from Assembly member Cliff Garbutt.]

The Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform is learning the mechanics of different voting systems -- a task about as interesting as reading a dishwasher manual.

While the assembly does that, we should ask: What do we want?

Finding fault with the current voting system is much easier than finding consensus on what to do about it. It is not because alternative voting systems are too few, but too many. Before we start shopping, British Columbians would do well to first engage in a dialogue about shared goals.

To initiate public discussion, I submit that most British Columbians have the following five expectations when it comes to their voting system. But what do you think?

BROAD PROPORTIONALITY:

Looking at the makeup of the legislature, you would think everyone in the province voted Liberal. In fact, 42 per cent did not vote Liberal. But they received just two seats. Is this good for democracy, for accountability, for keeping government honest?

From 1991 through 2001, the voting system produced distortions even more extreme. During those years, the party in power was supported by just 40 per cent of the voters. For 10 years, we had a government not supported by 60 per cent of the voters. The majority did not want that party, those leaders, those policies.

A broadly proportional voting system would avoid such extremes. No 40 per cent of the voters should be excluded, nor should any 40 per cent have all the power.

The goal of greater proportionality is to ensure that people get the government they vote for. The current voting system often distorts the will of the people because it wastes most votes.

Wasting fewer votes has additional benefits. It will give voters in the Interior, who often feel "beyond Hope," more significance. All votes should count, and count more equally in every region and riding.

The possibility of "safe" seats should be eliminated. All seats should be contested on Election Day. No seats should be contested in party backrooms, or by busloads of instant party members at unseemly nomination battles.

But why broadly proportional, why not aim for a system that is proportional? There are five goals, not just one. As so often in politics, here too, compromise and trade-offs cannot be avoided.

A broadly proportional system would give some seats to a party receiving 12 per cent of the vote as did the Green Party in the last election, but no seats to Unity and Marijuana parties until their support is more than the three percent garnered last time.

MORE CHOICE

For many British Columbians, casting a ballot is often constrained by strategic calculations. Many voters never vote for their first choice, lest they waste their vote and help a party they favour even less. Vote-splitting must end. The system should allow people to express their true intentions without fear of wasting their vote.

Enlarging choice on the ballot enables voters to influence a wider range of political issues. Currently, elections do not allow input on more than one issue. For example, in the last election "Get rid of the NDP" trumped all other issues.

Elections should allow voters to express an opinion on many issues.

The amount of choice voters have depends on the system. For example, placing an X behind one name indicates total support for that candidate, that party, that leader and absolute rejection of all others. That is unrealistic.

In contrast, preferential balloting is like ranking candidates on a scale. Then support for candidates and parties is not all or nothing, but more balanced. Such voting enlarges people's choice on Election Day and civic participation becomes meaningful.

STABLE GOVERNMENT

Elections are meant to produce a government capable of governing. Do British Columbians want an Italian pizza parliament full of splinter parties or extremist groups? I doubt it. We want stability. Governing coalitions should not fall apart every six months.

From 1991 to 2001, B.C. had seven premiers, many cabinet shuffles and an excessively rapid turnover of MLAs. To the rest of Canada, we were a joke. The province needs stability.

INSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Also, our politics suffer from extreme polarization. Premier Bill Vander Zalm's first act was a major overhaul of the Labour Code. Five years later, almost to the day, premier Mike Harcourt performed a NDP refit to favour its supporters -- only to be undone by the Liberal government, immediately upon taking office.

We must lessen the wild swings in public policy, and more consistently serve the long-term public interest. Being captive to short-term partisan interests is unworthy of a democracy.

Then there is severe party discipline. MLAs tend to become party property the day after the election. Often, they represent Victoria to their constituents more than their constituents to Victoria. MLAs must be able to speak for their constituents.

Closely related to the lack of independence for MLAs is the question of accountability in government. Between elections there is little accountability. Under most premiers, the concentration of power in the premier's office is excessive, and the legislature is unable to place a check on the powers of cabinet. MLAs need a measure of independence, both to represent their constituents and to hold government accountable.

In addition, MLAs need a law-making role. Decisions of importance should be made by the people's representatives on the floor of the legislature. U.S. congressmen make laws. In contrast, B.C. MLAs are ombudsmen for their constituents but, under most administrations, lack a law-making role.

MAINTAIN LINK BETWEEN MLAS AND GEOGRAPHIC CONSTITUENTS

It is important to have a local MLA, someone elected by and responsible to the voters of a particular community or geographic area. The personal service MLAs give to constituents should not be diminished.

The nomination of candidates and the election of MLAs should depend less on favourable party standing, and more on being known to and popular among the voters of a particular constituency.

Nick Loenen is a former MLA and author of Citizenship and Democracy, a case for proportional representation.

nloenen@attcanada.ca

 

Here are the questions posed to readers by The Vancouver Sun to generate letters of response:

CITIZENS' ASSEMBLY: REDESIGNING DEMOCRACY

Questions to ponder: