News release

Assembly tours electoral world

Members of the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform took a tour on the weekend of countries from Australia to Switzerland, by way of such stops as Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Italy, New Zealand and Scotland.

At least, sitting in Vancouver, they examined electoral practice and results in a range of countries that use Proportional Representation (PR) systems to elect their politicians to parliaments. PR systems are designed to allocate seats in a legislature according to the share of the popular vote won by parties and/or candidates.

Assembly members also took a look at what might conceivably have happened (given some key "ifs") under proportional representation in B.C.

For example, under various forms of PR, the current 79-seat legislature would not have its 77 Liberals and two New Democrats. The Liberals (with 57.61% of the popular vote in the 2001 election) might have got anywhere from 46-59 seats, and the NDP (with 21.56%) anywhere from eight to 15. The Green Party (with 12.39%) could have got five to 13 seats, and the Unity and Marijuana parties might have collected up to three seats each.

In the 1996 provincial election, the NDP got 39 seats (with 39.45% of the vote) and the Liberals 33 seats (with 41.82%). The Reform Party won two and the Progressive Democratic Alliance one. Under various types of PR, the Liberals could have got anywhere from 32-35 seats, the NDP 30-35, Reform four to seven, the PDA one to four, and the Greens one or two.

"But the ifs are awfully big," warned Prof. Ken Carty, a UBC political scientist and leader of the Assembly's education program. "These very simple guesstimations assume you have the same parties, and the same voters, and that they would have voted the same way. . . .

"A proportional representation system might well have produced more parties running. More voters might well have been prepared to support minority parties if they knew the party's candidates stood a chance of winning a seat."

PR systems tend to produce minority and coalition governments, Carty added. "We get majority governments in our country because the (electoral) system produces them. In these (PR) countries, the system generally produces coalition governments. . . . Is that a strength or a weakness of PR? That depends on your point of view."

Assembly members saw how PR systems vary in practice from country to country, with differing outcomes. Some give more power and opportunity to the political parties, and some more to the candidates and local representation. And some "mixed systems" seek to offer the best of both.

Prof. Campbell Sharman, Carty's colleague, showed, though, how a PR system initially designed to rank candidates on popular choice can be manipulated by politicians through technical ballot design and voting rules.

The Assembly’s next meetings are in Vancouver March 6-7. Members will focus on criteria for choosing electoral systems, and the impact of change. Meetings are open to the public, but seating and spaced is limited.

In May and June, the Assembly will hold 49 public hearings throughout B.C. Those will be immediately followed by a meeting in Prince George June 26-27 at which members will review and discuss what they heard from British Columbians during the hearings. Then in the fall, members then hold five or six full weekends of deliberation, culminating in a final recommendation.

They must decide by December 15 if they will propose a change to B.C.’s current system of translating votes into seats in the Legislature. If they recommend a change, it will be the subject of a referendum for all voters in the May 2005 provincial election. Any change approved by the voters would take effect with the 2009 BC election.

The Assembly's 160 members (80 women and 80 men) come from all over B.C.