News release - Powell River public hearing

Message from Powell River: Increase proportionality 

The Powell River Raging Grannies’ musical message to the Assembly summed up the mood of the public hearing:

“…If the seats were in proportion
To percentage of the vote,
There would be an opposition
And the winner couldn’t gloat …

In proportion, in proportion,
In proportion to the vote,
We would all be represented,
Keep democracy afloat.”

While increased proportionality was the dominant message, the form proportionality should take was less clear.  Most speakers supported a mixed member proportional (MMP) system, but some argued for the single transferable vote (STV) form of proportional representation (PR).

Marilynn Mackenzie said that an MMP system would provide “more government by consensus, rather than government by ‘my way or the highway.’”  Delores Delatorre defended MMP, saying “People criticize MMP because it makes the ridings larger.  But I find that, even if you live next door to your MLA, if his ears aren’t open, it doesn’t make any difference.”

Sasha Uhlmann, arguing for MMP, said “I want to be able to vote with my heart; I don’t want to have to vote strategically.”   Andrea Goldsmith, a Gibsons town councillor, also cast her vote for MMP and offered several recommendations related to political funding and party donations which she felt would “allow more participation in government.”  Patti Gibbs and Clancy Cross favoured an MMP system, while Kathryn Kleinsteuber liked both MMP and STV, but was concerned about the potential complexity of ballot counting under STV. 

Patrick Brabazon urged the Assembly to address the “democratic deficit” by selecting an electoral system which gives voters “the maximum possible influence.”  He stated that BC’s current electoral system, first-past-the-post (FPTP), is “the worst of our choices… I believe that a combination of multi-member constituencies and MLAs chosen by a transferable vote would go far to correct the inadequacies of our present system.”  He rejected “any system that restricts the voter’s choice to a slate selected by a party’s power bloc” because it diminishes voter influence.

Bucking the trend, Phillip Fleischer argued against proportional representation, stating that it “further entrenched parties.”  His solution was an electoral system that required run-off elections, stating that “the run-off system allows compromise … builds consensus” and engages voters without entrenching parties.

Guy Hawkins expressed his concern that the Assembly’s terms of reference limited the options considered to those that conform to the Westminster parliamentary system. 

Helen Evans proposed a form of PR with half the number of ridings and two votes for each citizen – one for a party and one for a candidate, using a preferential ballot where the voter could rank his or her first and second choices.
 
“Our attitudes and ideas have changed a lot in the last 100 years,” said Pat Christie.  “Governments and how we elect them can and must change, too.”   In arguing for a more proportional electoral system, she said, “We, as citizens, are not incapable of learning to vote in new ways.”   She, too, saw a role for future citizens’ assemblies.  “We need an ongoing forum for citizens to speak with some authority to members (of the Legislature) …The Assembly … (is) one of the most important democratic processes going on today.”

Public hearings were also held Saturday in Victoria and Ucluelet.  Next week, hearings are scheduled in Chilliwack (Tuesday), Maple Ridge (Wednesday), and Langley (Thursday).  A full schedule of hearings, as well as information on how to sign up to make a presentation, is on the Assembly’s website at The Assembly is an independent, representative, non-partisan group of 160 randomly-selected British Columbians. They must decide by December 15 whether to propose a change to BC’s electoral system. If they recommend a change, it will be the subject of a referendum for all voters in the May 2005 provincial election.