Making History in British Columbia
Facebook
Reddit
del.icio.us
Stumble Upon
When British Columbians go to the polls in a provincial election on May 12, they will be doing more than choosing a new government. For the second straight election, they will also be voting in a referendum asking them whether they are in favour of transforming the province’s electoral system. If the vote is 60 percent in favour, a new voting system will be in place for the next provincial election in 2013. If voters say no, the current voting system will remain in place.
It has been evident for some time that people are unhappy with the "first-past-the-post" electoral system currently in place, not just in BC but right across the country. Back in 2004 the government of Premier Gordon Campbell convened the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform. The Assembly, consisting of 158 members from all over the province, studied the issues involved, held a series of public meetings and, in December of that year, issued its final report recommending that BC adopt a new system of voting, the single transferable vote. (The Assembly dubbed it BC-STV.) The recommendation was put to electors during the 2005 provincial election and was narrowly defeated. The result was so close that the government felt obliged to put the question a second time in next month’s election.
The referendum question will read: "Which electoral system should British Columbia use to elect members of the Legislative Assembly? The existing electoral system (First-Past-the-Post). The single transferable vote electoral system (BC-STV) proposed by the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform." To become law, the measure must be approved by at least 60% of the total province-wide popular vote and more than 50% of the votes in at least 51 of the 85 electoral districts. One of the perceived deficiencies of the first-past-the-post system is that entire governments may be elected by a minority of voters. This happened in British Columbia as recently as 1996 when the NDP won a majority of the seats in the legislature while winning fewer votes province-wide than the Liberals. As well, the plurality system does not allow for any representation from political parties that fail to elect any members, no matter how many votes they may have received. For example, in the 2005 election Green Party candidates obtained more than 9% of the popular vote. Yet that party did not win a single seat. Would the system be fairer if those 161,842 Green voters were represented somehow in the legislature? Many people think so.
After examining the issue, the Citizens' Assembly recommended the single transferable vote. The single transferable vote is a form of proportional representation. Proportional representation is intended to make election results correspond more closely to the number of votes cast. Whatever proportion of the popular vote a political party receives, be it 9% or 59%, it would receive a corresponding proportion of the seats in the legislature. This is the basic principle of proportional representation, though there are different ways of achieving it.
Under the BC-STV, voters would be given the opportunity to rank candidates in order of preference, marking a 1, 2, 3 and so on next to the names on the ballot. All constituencies would elect between two and seven members to the legislature. Candidates who received more than 50% of the votes would be elected, but if no candidate received 50% then second and third preferences might be calculated into the tally to find the winning candidates.
The Citizens' Assembly acknowledged that the STV might result in a higher incidence of minority or coalition governments. In the Assembly's view, this would force political parties to work together more cooperatively and become more responsive to the wishes of voters.
Neither of BC’s major parties, the Liberals and the NDP, seems to be doing much to support or oppose BC-STV, which doesn’t mean the issue is being ignored in the election campaign. Both sides of the question have active lobby groups that are publicizing the pros and cons of each system. The No side www.nostv.org argues that STV is too complicated, that not everyone’s vote will carry the same weight and that the system will result in less local representation. The Yes side www.stv.ca argues that STV is a well-established voting system that works well in other parts of the world and delivers fairer electoral outcomes and more effective representation.
It is not often that a provincial election in BC has the potential to influence events in the rest of Canada, but if the referendum passes this might be one such instance. If STV becomes law, and BC becomes the first province in the country with a form of proportional representation, the pressure would increase on other provinces to follow suit and initiate their own plans for electoral “reform”. In that sense, every Canadian voter has a vested interest in the decision that will be made on May 12.
It has been evident for some time that people are unhappy with the "first-past-the-post" electoral system currently in place, not just in BC but right across the country. Back in 2004 the government of Premier Gordon Campbell convened the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform. The Assembly, consisting of 158 members from all over the province, studied the issues involved, held a series of public meetings and, in December of that year, issued its final report recommending that BC adopt a new system of voting, the single transferable vote. (The Assembly dubbed it BC-STV.) The recommendation was put to electors during the 2005 provincial election and was narrowly defeated. The result was so close that the government felt obliged to put the question a second time in next month’s election.
The referendum question will read: "Which electoral system should British Columbia use to elect members of the Legislative Assembly? The existing electoral system (First-Past-the-Post). The single transferable vote electoral system (BC-STV) proposed by the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform." To become law, the measure must be approved by at least 60% of the total province-wide popular vote and more than 50% of the votes in at least 51 of the 85 electoral districts. One of the perceived deficiencies of the first-past-the-post system is that entire governments may be elected by a minority of voters. This happened in British Columbia as recently as 1996 when the NDP won a majority of the seats in the legislature while winning fewer votes province-wide than the Liberals. As well, the plurality system does not allow for any representation from political parties that fail to elect any members, no matter how many votes they may have received. For example, in the 2005 election Green Party candidates obtained more than 9% of the popular vote. Yet that party did not win a single seat. Would the system be fairer if those 161,842 Green voters were represented somehow in the legislature? Many people think so.
After examining the issue, the Citizens' Assembly recommended the single transferable vote. The single transferable vote is a form of proportional representation. Proportional representation is intended to make election results correspond more closely to the number of votes cast. Whatever proportion of the popular vote a political party receives, be it 9% or 59%, it would receive a corresponding proportion of the seats in the legislature. This is the basic principle of proportional representation, though there are different ways of achieving it.
Under the BC-STV, voters would be given the opportunity to rank candidates in order of preference, marking a 1, 2, 3 and so on next to the names on the ballot. All constituencies would elect between two and seven members to the legislature. Candidates who received more than 50% of the votes would be elected, but if no candidate received 50% then second and third preferences might be calculated into the tally to find the winning candidates.
The Citizens' Assembly acknowledged that the STV might result in a higher incidence of minority or coalition governments. In the Assembly's view, this would force political parties to work together more cooperatively and become more responsive to the wishes of voters.
Neither of BC’s major parties, the Liberals and the NDP, seems to be doing much to support or oppose BC-STV, which doesn’t mean the issue is being ignored in the election campaign. Both sides of the question have active lobby groups that are publicizing the pros and cons of each system. The No side www.nostv.org argues that STV is too complicated, that not everyone’s vote will carry the same weight and that the system will result in less local representation. The Yes side www.stv.ca argues that STV is a well-established voting system that works well in other parts of the world and delivers fairer electoral outcomes and more effective representation.
It is not often that a provincial election in BC has the potential to influence events in the rest of Canada, but if the referendum passes this might be one such instance. If STV becomes law, and BC becomes the first province in the country with a form of proportional representation, the pressure would increase on other provinces to follow suit and initiate their own plans for electoral “reform”. In that sense, every Canadian voter has a vested interest in the decision that will be made on May 12.
Comments
I'm not so concerned as some others about the under-representation of the Greens. My (unscientific)guess is that at least half the Green vote is a protest vote and not a vote for Green policies. The Greens just seem to be the most anti-establishment party.
Changes in electoral systems sometimes also have unintended consequences, as BC has more reason to know than most. It experimented in 1952 with the Alternative Vote in an attempt to keep Social Credit out of power and ended up with a Socred government for the next twenty years.