![]() | ![]() ![]() | ![]() Click for Search Instructions |
Home > News & Events |
|
SFU News article18th March, 2004 :
Vancouver (Internal)
Overhauling our electoral process
[The following article appeared as a "Comment" feature in
Simon Fraser University's
SFU News. It is reproduced here by permission of SFU's Media and Public
Relations department.]
The average British Columbian is now painfully aware of
how the quality of our electoral system can directly influence the
years in between elections.
BY IAN GREGSON At a time when British Columbians are turning out in fewer
numbers for their elections, the B.C. Liberal government has
initiated the Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform. This public
consultation process will, if implemented, essentially revamp our
aging electoral process in favour of one that more accurately
reflects how people vote.
There may not be too many highlights in the B.C.
Liberals’ first term as government. The Citizens
Assembly on Electoral Reform, however, is the one progressive
reform that very few people are voicing their opposition to. The
average British Columbian is now painfully aware of how the quality
of our electoral system can directly influence the years in between
elections. There is no greater argument for electoral reform than
the results of the last B.C. election.
The Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform has come about in the
midst of an otherwise horrendous first term as government. The
Liberal inspiration for the Citizens Assembly is subject to debate.
One clear example was the 1996 B.C. election. Despite winning the
most votes in that election, the B.C. Liberals lost to the NDP. The
NDP won more seats, with fewer people actually voting for them, and
therefore won the election.
If the NDP had had the foresight to implement some form of
proportional representation in their 10 years as the government, we
would have a better form of government in Victoria today.
Instead, we have a disproportionate circus show that revolves
around one Liberal telling the other Liberals how great they all
are. The more serious consequence of the NDP’s lack of
vision is that we see legislation being passed that we know nothing
about. If the NDP had put some of their electoral reform research
into practice, we could have seen the following scenario:
In the 2001 provincial election the Liberals claimed 58 per cent
(917,000) of the total vote, the NDP received 21 per cent (343,000)
and the Green party received 12.4 per cent (198,000) of the votes
cast. Yet in the legislature we saw 98 per cent of the seats
occupied by Liberals, 2 per cent by the NDP and no seats held by
the Green party.
In 2001, given the proportion of voting preferences, the
Liberals would have ended up with 45 seats, the NDP would have had
16 seats and the Green party would have ended up with 10 seats. A
far different picture from what we have now. If this is not an
example of how our voting system needs an upgrade, I
don’t know what is.
Our existing electoral system, commonly known as first past the
post (FPTP), found its origins in the British parliamentary system
150 years ago. Back then, there was a two party domination, which
still exists today. Therein lie the limitations of FPTP
– it maintains the status quo of the two party system.
Any new party that is not a mere duplication of the existing two
will find obtaining elected representatives very difficult, if not
impossible. There is no better example of this than in B. C., where
the Liberals essentially duplicated the political void left by the
Social Credit party in opposition to the left-leaning New
Democrats.
Amazingly and somewhat suspiciously, there has been little
opposition to the Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform. The
provincial government has dedicated $5 million to its completion
and the Vancouver Sun has dedicated a considerable amount of copy
to covering the process. We have yet to see a definitive statement
from the union movement on the process. The large corporations and
business sector have been quiet on the issue.
It is generally agreed the electoral process in British Columbia
is in need of change, so what do we change it to? Our first
indication of the need for change came about around Adriane
Carr’s citizen’s initiative on proportional
representation. This low budget campaign had 4,000 volunteers
eventually collecting 98,000 signatures. While the campaign fell
short of the needed number of signatures, it did show anyone with
the slightest interest that the citizens of British Columbia
were/are interested in reforming their electoral system.
The system that seems most suited to our needs is one used in
New Zealand. New Zealand’s form of mixed member
proportional representation takes the existing first-past-the-post
process and adds a second ballot that uses proportional
representation. Why New Zealand? New Zealand has a similar
socio-economic and geographical profile to British Columbia. It has
a vocal native population, similar proportions of urban and rural
populations and political parties spread throughout the political
spectrum.
New Zealand’s adoption of the mixed member
proportional representation only arrived after a number of years of
royal commissions, referenda and a decidedly nasty anti-democracy
campaign by the Kiwi business elite to the tune of $1 million in
the week prior to there final referendum.
Upon implementation, New Zealanders found that voter turn-out
increased, the gender imbalance was reduced significantly, more
native candidates ran (and were elected) and while not all the ills
of government were reduced, the population of New Zealand elected a
profile of candidates that more accurately represented them.
That being said, New Zealand still suffers from political
scandal and political fear-mongering. Governments can still
theoretically win with large majorities, although post-election
coalitions seem to be the rule of thumb. Even this varies from one
issue to the next. Noticeably reduced is that vicious ideological
swing from left to right and back again that has plagued British
Columbia for the last 20 years.
Can British Columbians follow the example set by New Zealand
(and 60 other nations) and make the leap to proportional
representation ?
The most significant barrier to us adopting a new electoral
system is too many choices. I fear that if the assembly cannot
decide on one particular process it will throw up its hands and
leave things the way they are, which would be a big mistake, not to
mention a waste of personal time and $5 million. It is therefore
important for those who feel strongly about the issue to speak out
at the various public forums being held around the province.
Starting in May 2004, these open meetings will be an excellent
opportunity for the rest of us to speak on the issue of electoral
reform.
My perfect scenario for the 2009 election is to see the first
implementation of B.C.’s version of mixed member
proportional representation. We would see more women, more visible
minorities and a far healthier legislature in Victoria. After that
election we would see parties working in coalitions to resolve
differences. However, the most important factors would be that B.C.
voters would feel like they were voting for something as opposed to
voting against something. Imagine not one vote going to waste.
Between now and 2009, we have to ensure that mixed member
proportional representation is the voting method of choice decided
on by the citizens assembly and we get the voters in 2005 to vote
in favour of implementing mixed member proportional representation
in 2009. Once we have this in place, we can then decide the future
of this province in a far more fair and equitable manner.
Ian Gregson is the vice-president of CUPE 3338 and was a
volunteer with the 2002 proportional representation initiative on
electoral reform. He was an unsuccessful candidate in the 2001
provincial election.
|
© 2003 Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform | Site powered by ![]() | Site Map | Privacy Policy |