Weighing electoral systems
The government has launched its website “How We Vote” which is “Giving the people of B.C. the power to decide how we vote.” Except, of course, the website doesn’t actually do that. It is a site for information, filling out a questionnaire on the electoral system and uploading written submissions. But it does promise “Your input will help shape the future of our democracy.”
The site provides a brief synopsis of five major electoral systems along with references to two much more detailed websites.
The first up is our present “First Past the Post” or “Single Member Plurality” system.
It is the system used throughout Canada – inherited from Britain and France. The term comes from horse racing where the first horse over the line is the winner, regardless of where the rest of the horses place. This could also be said for pretty much any form of racing in sports.
Voting is fairly simple. You have a list of candidates and you mark the one you would like representing you. The winner goes on to represent all of the voters in their riding. It does not necessarily produce proportional results but typically results in single-party majority governments.
The advantage to such a system is clear local representation via a simple process. The disadvantage is a majority government is not required to co-operate with other parties in the legislature although they often do.
The second system is “List Proportional Representation” in which each party provides a list of candidates to be voted on. This could be on a riding-by-riding basis or across the whole province and the lists might be either open (all names are listed on the ballot) or closed (only the party name is listed).
It would require multiple MLAs from each electoral district. It has the advantage, though, of producing highly proportional results provided enough MLAs are elected from each riding (typically, more than five). Its weakness is it almost always generates a minority government as a single party rarely gets more than 50 per cent of the popular vote.
The third system is “Single Transferable Vote” which was the system recommended by the Citizens Assembly and defeated in referendum. Voting requires ranking the candidates in preferential order and then a complicated mathematical procedure determines who has sufficient votes to meet the quota.
Any version of STV necessitates multiple MLAs in each electoral district – and the more MLAs, the better. It typically takes five or more MLAs from a single riding to generate proportionality. But it does have the advantage of giving voters choice on the ballot and the opportunity to rank all of the candidates presented. Indeed, candidates within a party even have to compete with one another.
The disadvantage is a reduced connection between voters and their MLAs.
The final two systems presented are “Mixed-Member Proportional” and “Mixed-Member Majoritarian.” Both have ridings with single MLAs elected by a first past the post system but they also reserve a portion of seats which are allocated after the election based on the relative percentages of the popular vote.
For example, if 30 seats are allocated to be provincial, then for every 3.3 per cent of the popular vote, a party would get one additional MLA in the majoritarian system. In a proportional system, the 30 seats would be allocated to the parties to generate a legislature with a composition dictated by the popular vote.
Both versions lead to identifiable local representation and a ballot which is almost as simple as first past the post. Both versions have the weakness of creating two classes of MLAs – electoral district and provincial party appointed – which may make it difficult to hold some MLAs to account.
Of these systems, the vast majority of democracies employ a first past the post approach. In part, this is due to its simplicity but it is also tied to the fundamental notion of “one person, one vote.”
The big issue with the proportional representations systems is they will disenfranchise the rural population of the province. We are a big province with a small population.
Consider the three ridings of P.G. Mackenzie, P.G. Valemount, and Nechako Lakes. They have a combined area of 125,695 square kilometres and a population of just 118,930 people.
Logistics alone argue against such mega-ridings. Imagine trying to cover a territory as vast as Valemount to Granisle effectively.
This is the case for pretty much the entire interior.
And perhaps more to the point, the vast majority of votes reside in the Lower Mainland and Island, so our voice will be muted at best.