B.C. Greens eye electoral reform prize
At this point it’s anyone’s guess who will form the next government of British Columbia. Certainly we should not make the mistake of assuming it will be Christy Clark’s Liberals, merely because they won the most seats.
There are ballots still to be counted, and close decisions to be recounted, and unless one party emerges with the 44 seats needed for a majority — at present the standings are Liberals 43, NDP 41, Green party three — nothing can be said with certainty about the shape of the next government.
What can be said is Clark, as the sitting premier, has the right to test the confidence of the legislature, and if she receives it, to attempt to govern. She may decide not to, if it seems certain she will fail. Or if she tries and is defeated, Lieutenant- Governor Judith Guichon would have the option of calling upon someone else, likely NDP Leader John Horgan, to form a government.
What if Clark demanded i nstead she dissolve the legislature and call fresh elections? Most scholars say Guichon would not be bound to follow her advice — not after she demonstrably lost the legislature’s confidence, and not so soon after the last election.
But the lieutenant- governor’s decision would be a great deal easier if the NDP and Greens were to form an electoral pact of some kind — either a formal coalition, with Greens included in cabinet, or what is sometimes called a “supply and confidence” agreement, where the Greens would commit to sustaining the NDP in office for some period of time.
There is also the option of the Liberals and Greens cutting a deal. And this is where things get very interesting.
The Greens have made clear what they would demand in exchange for their support: cleaning up B. C.’s “wild west” system of campaign finance, including an end to the corporate and union donations on which both the Liberals and NDP have feasted; and reform of the province’s electoral system, on proportional representation lines.
Intriguingly, Green party leader Andrew Weaver has been much less adamant on other issues, including the party’s signature environmental concerns. And wisely so: a concession on this pipeline or that dam is one thing, but a fundamental change in how B.C. elections are conducted holds the promise of transforming the Greens into a major, and permanent, force in B.C. politics, opening the way for many more such policy gains in future. That’s the prize worth playing for.
It isn’t just that the party’s seat count would more accurately reflect its share of the vote — the Greens got 15 per cent of the vote, but only three seats — it is that Green supporters would never again have to fear that by voting Green they were “wasting” their vote, throwing it away on a candidate with no hope of winning. Neither would t hey f eel obliged to vote “strategically,” that is for a party they like less, to prevent a party they detest from slipping in. The likelihood is the Greens would take a greater share of the vote, as well as the seats.
So the Greens have, if not all the cards, a strong hand at least. How will they play it? While the party’s policies generally are more in line with the NDP’s, it doesn’t necessarily follow that they will or should throw their support to them.
NDP governments across Canada have a histor y, though they supported PR in opposition, of forgetting about it once in power. The unstable and likely temporary nature of even a formal coalition, in such a closely divided legislature, would make collecting on t he pledge no sure thing.
And there remains the alternative of supporting the Liberals. It is not inconceivable the two could strike a deal, unlikely as it sounds; certainly it is in the Greens’ interest to cultivate that possibility if they wish to have any bargaining leverage with the NDP. I can’t see campaign finance reform being a deal-breaker: the experience of the federal Conservatives shows it is far from a losing proposition for a right- ofcentre party. And, arguably, neither should PR be.
It might be assumed the Liberals would have no in- terest in PR, preferring to see the non- Liberal split between the two parties to their left, as under the current system. But that fails to reckon with the dynamic nature of electoral reform: when you change one thing, you change everything, including party strategies. As it stands, the Liberals must take care to lock down their right flank, lest they face an insurgency from the Conservatives ( or some such party: it was Reform before them, and Social Credit before them) — a bust in the current election, but with Green- like numbers not so long ago. This limits their ability to reach out across the centre.
Under PR they would be as free of the fear of votesplitting as their rivals to the left. Let a party to their right spring up. That would allow the Liberals, no longer so easily painted as the “rightwing” party, to reposition t hemselves as centrists: centre- right, that is, a mirror to the centre- left B. C. NDP. The likelihood is under PR we would see the parties arrange themselves in two broad groupings on either side of the median voter, much as under two- party politics.
Of course, it’s unlikely the Greens could persuade either party, the Liberals or the NDP, to implement PR without a referendum. But could either be persuaded to grant them that at least, in exchange for power? I wouldn’t rule it out.
Keep your cards close to your chest, Greens! And let the bidding begin!