News Release - Duncan public hearing

Proportional representation no panacea

The discussion in Duncan at the Citizens’ Assembly public hearing Tuesday evening went well beyond the usual debate over which electoral system would best suit BC’s needs. Around 100 people heard one presenter question if, in fact, electoral reform is the most appropriate fix for our political woes.

While most of the 16 presenters focused on proportional representation, others offered a range of solutions – from a relatively simple but profound adjustment to the existing system to new campaign finance legislation.

Carol Hartwig, a Duncan-based biologist, questioned whether electoral reform was the answer to BC’s political problems. Commenting on the number of people who see proportional representation as "a panacea for what ails us politically in the province," she said, "’What worries me most is that proportional representation could lead to splitting and fractioning of political parties as they try to appeal to sectional or religious or regional cleavages."

Political science student Claire Gibbs, a supporter of the mixed member proportional (MMP) system, offered a diametrically opposite view. She stated that the "greatest danger in a democracy was the tyranny of the majority" and that we are experiencing this under our current electoral system. "Proportional representation puts a damper on this tyranny of the majority."

Others who supported variations of the MMP system included Keith Wyndlow, who said the shortcomings of the current first-past-the-post system could be minimized by adding some proportional representation.

Gordon Thomas also advocated MMP but adamantly opposed party-appointed lists of candidates. "It is my fundamental belief that members of the legislature should be selected by the voters rather than the leaders or officials of any particular political party," he said.

Rick Smith, another MMP proponent, argued that, given the fact of party discipline, which "prevents a politician from truly representing their constituents," a proportional system would be more democratic since it would allow more voices to be heard in the legislature.

While acknowledging that a "mixed proportional system will not achieve gender balance in and of itself," federal electoral candidate Jane Sterk argued that proportional representation "is a necessary step along a path of change". "I firmly believe that civility and collaboration would enter politics if we could achieve gender balance and that good governance can only come after we have such balance."

Two speakers offered an alternative way of achieving proportionality – by using the single transferable vote (STV). Brian White, who lived in Ireland for 35 years, held up the Irish system of STV in multi-seat ridings as a model for BC. This system – which he said "restores power to the people" – allows voters greater choice by giving them the option of ranking candidates on the ballot. An added benefit, he stated, was that "because members of the same party compete against each other in front of the voting public, the power of the party machine is curtailed."

Julian West also advocated STV with multi-member districts and introduced his own unique electoral model designed to offer voter choice, proportionality and geographic representation.

Robert Baker offered a small but profound change to our current electoral system – offering voters the option to vote both for and against candidates.

Mike McDonald of Ladysmith, a 20-year veteran of the political system, warned of the potential pitfalls of proportional representation – including expanded ridings, two classes of MLAs, greater party control and backroom politics. His solution was to use preferential ballots which allow voters to rank their preferences, offer non-voting seats in the legislature to small parties which earn a prescribed level of voter support but fail to elect candidates, and giving MLAs weighted voting power in proportion to the size of their constituencies.