Election reform shenanigans and Canada’s Large Unsolvable Problem.

Electoral reform. These words have been placed at the head of this newspaper column so that the busy reader who does not want to hear more about electoral reform can move on briskly. The rest of you will have to sit through another brief review of the Large Unsolvable Problem with electoral reform — the problem that ruined the federal Liberal government’s efforts on this topic last year. Regrettable, perhaps, but until the reformers go away they will remain in the news, and news is our business.

The Large Unsolvable Problem with electoral reform begins with the fact that, as a general idea, “reform” is popular — more popular, overall, than the first-past-the-post system under which most Canadian elections are conducted. On Wednesday, the Angus Reid polling agency released survey results from British Columbia that provide a convenient practical example. B.C.’s NDP government has scheduled a referendum on election reform for sometime later this year.

Angus Reid asked a sample of B.C. voters whether they prefer first-past-thepost for provincial elections or “a new system of proportional representation.” The answers are good news for reform! Fifty-seven per cent of voters like the idea of a new system, and only 43 per cent support FPTP.

The aforementioned problem, however, appears here: 57 per cent to 43 per cent is no enormous margin, and when reform supporters are presented with a specific scheme, its weaknesses hover into view, and advocates of different flavours of reform begin to argue with one another. Versions of PR proposed in the past in B.C. have involved the creation of big multi-member electoral districts. “BC-STV” would have obliged voters to rank candidates on a long, unwieldy ballot, with no actual guarantee of overall proportionality. Other PR systems involve the election of atlarge makeweight deputies with no geographic tie at all — sometimes from a central party list. Electoral outcomes under PR can be hard for even sophisticated voters to understand, and are not immune from strategic gaming.

The election reformer has to make choices, and once he has made them, and subjected his program to discussion and critique, Generic Reform’s 57-43 advantage can disappear quickly. This is especially true if the 43 are initially less likely to defect than those on the other side. Every newspaper consumer has heard generations of complaints about FPTP: those who like it anyway are probably pretty convinced that change is dangerous or undesirable.

This brings us to the very latest news from B.C. The caucus of the governing New Democrats, along with the caucus of the Green Party on which the NDP majority in the assembly depends, has issued a “joint submission” on the proper way to execute B.C.’s election reform referendum. It offers a solution to the Large Unsolvable Problem: don’t let the B.C. public vote on a specific plan at all!

“Our recommendation,” the document says, “is a single, straightforward referendum question presenting a clear choice between keeping the existing first-pastthe-post-system and moving to a system of proportional representation.” Only after the vote will the process of designing the new system begin. It is to be left in the hands of “a transparent and independent advisory body of trusted experts and diverse citizen representatives.” (Trusted experts? Trusted by whom? Perhaps some explanatory footnote has been misplaced.)

B.C. Attorney General David Eby has been given broad power to determine the details of the referendum and the question or questions on the ballot. He may be able to ignore the “joint submission” from legislators. Nevertheless, it ought to be pointed out now that the caucus solution to the Unsolvable Problem is fake. It is a proposal to demand a blank cheque from the electorate of B.C.: vote for change, and then see what we end up giving you.

As much hostility as a specific plan would inevitably invite, this seems sure to attract more. Reform advocates are often strong moralists: they favour reform because first-past-thepost does not incorporate what they regard as crucial underlying ethical principles of democracy. Some of these people, the relatively serious and reflective ones, will vote No to non-specific change on democratic principle. A vote on an undefined electoral system is sham democracy, poisonous to the spirit of the real thing.

It would also make rubbish of the foundation document of this B.C. government — namely, the written confidence-and-supply agreement under which the NDP was brought to executive power in the first place. You can look it up: these same two caucuses agreed to “work together in good faith to consult British Columbians to determine the form of proportional representation that will be put to a referendum” and “to both campaign actively in support of the agreed-upon form of proportional representation.”

Doesn’t that word “form” imply that a specific plan, a particular incarnation of PR, would be put before voters? The authors of the original GreeNDP pact made a big fuss about “the principle of ‘good faith and no surprises’.” It is definitely a surprise to find them ignoring inconvenient undertakings made in the presence of British Columbians — and made very much for the purpose of impressing everyone with their seriousness.

THE CAUCUS SOLUTION TO THE UNSOLVABLE PROBLEM IS FAKE.