![]() | ![]() ![]() | ![]() Click for Search Instructions |
Home > News & Events |
|
News release - Weekend wrapup12th September, 2004 :
Vancouver (Internal)
Assembly "votes" on electoral values
Proportional representation, local representation and voter
choice were selected by B.C.’s Citizens’
Assembly members as their top three values in developing a
recommendation for any new electoral system for the province.
In what they described as "lively debates," Assembly members
began the process of wrestling with the issues – a
process that will ultimately result in a recommendation later this
fall on whether to retain the current electoral system or opt for a
new one.
Describing the discussions on values as beneficial, member Ray
Spaxman of West Vancouver said: "We recognized that we need a lot
more discussion before we can come to a conclusion."
Assembly members also expressed concern that all votes should
count, that the system should accommodate independent MLAs, that
voter interest must be reignited, that BC politics should be more
consensual and civil, and that the system should be responsive to
differing geographic needs.
Single-party majority government was rated a low priority.
Members discussed and prioritized their top electoral system
values Sunday after hearing nine guest speakers –
invited from the hundreds who presented to the Assembly in public
hearings in May and June – make special presentations
to the Assembly on Saturday.
The nine presentations included calls for BC to adopt a new way
of translating votes in provincial elections into seats in the
legislature as well as a defence of the current "First Past the
Post" system. Those who recommended specific systems were grilled
by members on the system's pluses and minuses.
Members may reach their final decision as early as the end of
October. If they do recommend a change, it will be the subject of a
referendum for all voters in the May 2005 provincial election. The
provincial government says that if voters approve a change, it
would go into effect for the 2009 BC election. If Assembly members
opt to stay with the current system, then there would be no
referendum.
The Citizens' Assembly is an independent, representative,
non-partisan group of 160 randomly selected British Columbians,
plus chair Jack Blaney. They have a deadline of December 15 to
report to British Columbians on their decision, its implications,
and their reasons. Then the Assembly will disband.
Details of the Assembly's schedule and work are at
www.citizensassembly.bc.ca together with texts from the nine
speakers on Saturday.
In the order in which they spoke, here are the nine
speakers:
Ian McKinnon of Victoria urged Assembly members to consider how
any potential change of electoral system would affect government
and political parties. He also urged the Assembly to think about
the consequences of repeated minority governments.
"The First Past the Post system tends to mean significant local
independence in determining who will be the local candidate. . . .
There is a tendency for looser central party control over the
choice of candidates. . . . In contrast, list-based Proportional
Representation systems tend to give more power to the central party
apparatus. A mixed system . . . can also lead to power being
exercised by a highly centralized party organization."
As for minority governments: "Recurring minority governments
drive Canadians crazy."
Bruce Hallsor of Victoria said either a Mixed Member
Proportional (MMP) system or the Single Transferable Vote (STV)
system would best suit B.C. Under MMP, voters would vote for both
their choice of local MLA and for a preferred party. In the end,
each party's share of seats in the House would reflect (as closely
as possible) its share of the popular vote. In STV, voters rank
candidates in order of preference; ballots are then counted so that
the candidates with the highest preferences are elected.
"The over-arching principle is that every citizen's vote should
count and should be treated equally with those of other voters
across the province. Perfect proportionality may not always be
possible, but we should get as close as reasonably possible to
making every citizen's vote count. . . . Using First Past the Post
in the 21st Century is like using a hand-crank telephone rather
than the internet. It was good in its day, but that century is long
gone."
Tom Hoenisch of Naramata proposed the MMP system, but with the
number of seats in the provincial legislature being reduced to 72
from the current 79. In his system, half the members would be
elected in constituencies that coincide with the 36 federal ridings
in B.C. The other 36 would come from party lists of candidates.
"We need this system so that the makeup of the legislature truly
reflects the wishes of the electorate. . . The current system
favours two large parties. It is as if we live in a black and white
world. Well, only extremists believe that we live in a black and
white world. . . .In fact, in a civil society that respects
peoples' freedoms, public policy should reflect that vast grey area
between the two extremes. . . . (Under MMP) the tyranny of the Left
and of the Right will be broken."
Katherine Gordon of Gabriola Island also opted for MMP, as used
in her native New Zealand. "Knowing that a system exists where no
British Columbian voter ever has to feel that their vote is lost .
. . surely is a compelling argument that the time has come to
change to that system."
Members asked her whether MMP, and the likelihood of it
producing coalition governments, would reduce political squabbling.
Her answer: "You will never take adversarial debate out of
politics. But the level of debate (under MMP in New Zealand) has
more integrity. There is less time for slanging matches." As for
coalitions, she said: "Think of a rope. It is stronger than any of
the strands that make it up."
Julian West of Ladysmith advocated a modified form of STV, with
constituencies of as many as 5-7 members in urban areas, and 2-3 in
remote areas. His electoral districts would be based strongly on
existing Regional Districts and municipalities. He called for a
system of "circuits" within electoral districts, so that each area
and community is represented by an individual MLA.
"The question is: How do you make sure that each person elected
represents the same number of voters? If this is the right
question, then STV is the right answer."
Asked if voters could easily understand the STV system, West
replied: "The counting system is complex; the voting system is not.
From the point of view of most voters on the morning after the
election the question is 'Who won?" and 'Who is my MLA now?'"
Nick Loenen of Richmond recommended a "Preferential Plus"
system, with preferential voting in multi-seat ridings for urban
areas and single-seat ridings for rural areas, thus producing
semi-proportional representation. In preferential voting, voters
rank candidates on the ballot in numerical order of the voter's
preference; ballots are then counted so that the candidates with
the highest preferences are elected.
"This is my dream, that starting in 2009 in Victoria, we will
have the essence of responsible government, and it will move east
and permeate Ottawa, The greatest democratic deficit is not in
Victoria; it is in Ottawa."
Loenen spoke of a second dream, too: "If we have a major
accomplishment, it will be like England where (Prime Minister) Tony
Blair had 137 members of his own party vote against his involvement
in Iraq. Can you see that happening in Canada? If that were to
happen in Canada, that would be wonderful."
Mayor Chris Morey of Fort Nelson said that representation by a
"local" MLA is particularly important in remote and rural regions,
and that any electoral system must ensure it continues. Some
electoral systems would require larger constituencies, and Mayor
Morey argued against bigger ridings.
"Increased ridings just don't work. Look at our health
authority, the Northern Health Authority. You're looking at a
region that looks after the health interests of one-third of the
people of B.C. It is too large, too unwieldy. It does not address
sub-regional issues as it should. . . . No discredit to the people
who are directors of the health authority; it just doesn't
work."
Arpal Dosanjh of Vancouver called for an Alternative Vote (AV)
system. AV systems use preferential ballots on which voters rank
candidates in numerical order of preference. If no candidate gains
a majority on the first count, the second preferences listed on the
ballots of the least successful candidate are distributed among the
remaining candidates. This process continues until one candidate
has a majority. British Columbia used AV in 1952 and 1953.
"Such a move would be a safe option," Dosanjh said. "There is
little risk at all in moving to this system (and) it does improve
on our current system. . . .Other models may have great advantages,
but also great disadvantages. . . . Since a winning candidate
requires 50% support of those voting, the constituency may feel the
elected candidate more legitimately represents the riding than a
candidate elected with less than 50%, a common occurrence in the
current system."
Jim Nielsen of Peachland, a former B.C. health minister under
Social Credit, gave a ringing defence of the current single-member
plurality (SMP) system, often known as First Past the Post.
"What is the perfect system of electing members to the B.C.
legislature? Well, there isn't one. (But) citizens of our province
have been choosing their representatives, for the most part, over
133 years by permitting the candidate with the greatest support in
a riding to represent the residents."
What about the representation of minorities and minority views,
Nielsen was asked. And he replied: "What is a minority? One person?
Two people? . . . There are many ways of expressing minority
opinions. It doesn't mean they have to be in the legislature. I've
got a minority opinion. I'd dump the Queen. I'd sell the CBC. Why
should I be in the legislature just because I have a minority
opinion?"
What about the Green Party, asked one member. It got some 12% of
the vote in the last B.C. election but no seats. Nielsen shot back:
"Twelve per cent is not a winner. Somebody who has competed in the
Olympics and has come in fourth 20 times is not a winner. Just
because you have some candidates, and some people voted for you,
does not mean you should be in the legislature."
|
© 2003 Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform | Site powered by ![]() | Site Map | Privacy Policy |