News release - Victoria public hearing

Return to BC’s 1952 electoral system advocated

Opinions figuratively covered the electoral map at the Citizens’ Assembly public hearing in Victoria Thursday evening – with advocates for virtually every major electoral option.  Some of the 15 presenters offered Assembly members – and the 120 members of the public – detailed original research, while others passionately recounted personal experiences.

Two presenters promoted the alternative vote (AV) system – a system used by BC in the 1952 and 1953 provincial elections.  AV is similar to BC’s current system, except candidates must win by a clear 50 per cent majority in their ridings and voters rank order candidates on the ballot. 

Both Dave Flavell and David Godfrey recommended the AV system to the Assembly.  The advantages, they claimed, were: improved voter choice, continued local representation and simplicity.  “It has the advantage of being a relatively minor change,” stated Flavell, “and I think gradual change is the best way to go.”  AV is the system most likely to be adopted by British Columbians, concluded Godfrey.
 
The proportional representation (PR) view was well represented by a number of speakers including Jim McDermott, Josephine Doman, David Turner (former mayor of Victoria and current federal electoral candidate), Rob Wipond and Al Reford.  “Proportional representation can be an effective way to give significant minorities a voice,” said Wipond. 

Saying he had boycotted elections for the past 20 years, Reford announced that he had just registered to vote, hoping to have the opportunity to support a PR system – should the Assembly recommend such a system – in a possible referendum on May 17, 2005.

Bruce Hallsor, speaking as vice-president of Fair Vote Canada, a national organization committed solely to promoting proportional electoral systems, told Assembly members that “citizens, not politicians, should determine the nature of our voting system.”   He went on to provide four objectives in a voting system: broad proportionality, extended voter choice, stable and responsive government, and maintaining the link between representatives and geographic constituencies.

Hallsor told the Assembly that there are two families of electoral systems which, if well designed, would meet these objectives: the single transferable vote (STV) system and the mixed member proportional (MMP) system.  MMP, he said, would require expanding the number of representatives to work optimally; STV – which was recently recommended by Vancouver’s Berger Commission on Electoral Reform – has the advantage of increased voter choice, but may not be as proportional as MMP. 

Green party leader and MMP campaigner, Adrian Carr, said the current system doesn’t work when there are more than two parties contending the election. She urged the Assembly “to recommend a new voting system that gives young new parties with fresh ideas a chance to get elected.”

“Democracy cannot be taken for granted,” admonished Don Scott.  “It is a fragile construct, vulnerable if not valued, protected and promoted by its beneficiaries – its citizens.”   His focus was the “lawless world” of party nominations and leadership contests.  “Every electoral system is founded upon the selection of candidates,” Scott concluded.  “Failing to address the fraud and corruption permitted by the lack of electoral laws governing nominations and leaderships will doom this Assembly’s efforts to build more legitimacy, credibility and respect for our democracy and our elected assemblies.” 

Handing the Assembly a ream of original research on past BC elections, Sylvia Korican offered her conclusions:
• Having MLAs elected in ridings should be preserved.  “It is extremely important that the residents of a particular area fell that their MLA is their voice in the House.”
• The current system – where the winning candidate is the one with the most votes and the winning party is the one with the most seats – is fair.
• A limited degree of proportionality could be achieved by adding eight more MLAs selected from parties whose share of seats was less than their share of votes.

“The best electoral system for BC is whichever system the voters are most likely to support on election day,” Michael Wheatley told the Assembly. “I would rather you recommend a flawed system that is more likely to be adopted than have you recommend an ideal system that has less chance of being adopted.”

The next public hearings are in Vancouver and the Queen Charlottes on Saturday (June 12).  Next week, hearings move to the Princeton, Merritt, Lillooet and Kamloops.  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.