GREENS FACE OBSTACLES TO ELECTORAL REFORM
Imperfect alternatives, chance pact with NDP will crack loom over party
No political priority looms larger for the B.C. Greens than reforming the electoral system to establish proportional representation and improve their chances of winning seats in the legislature.
The commitment is foremost in the power-sharing agreement they struck with the New Democrats for obvious reasons.
In May, the Greens won 17 per cent of the vote but only three seats. With a system that allocated representation in proportion to the share of the vote, they would have 15 seats.
Still, Green Leader Andrew Weaver is not lobbying for any particular system, so long as the replacement meets the test of proportionality.
“I honestly have no preference, and the B.C. Green party has no formal preference,” he told me last week on Voice of B.C. on Shaw TV, before acknowledging the limitations of some of the options.
“The purists, as you know, love STV,” continued Weaver, referring to the single-transferable vote option that was twice put to referendum in B.C. and twice fell short of the legislated threshold for approval.
“I’m not sure British Columbians want to go and vote a third time for STV,” he said, citing the mathematical complexities of the system’s methods for counting votes and distributing seats.
“My philosophy on a system is if you can’t explain it to your grandmother, it ain’t a system that’s going to work in B.C.,” said the professorpolitician with a doctorate in applied mathematics. “I don’t think I could explain it to you.”
He also gave short shrift to the system of preferential balloting that was touted then shelved by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
“Preferential balloting isn’t proportional representation,” said Weaver, with a nod to how the system can favour large parties over smaller ones no less than the status quo system of first-past-thepost.
Even as the Green leader avoids endorsing an alternative to the status quo, that’s not the case with his partners in power-sharing, the NDP.
“The New Democrats support MMP,” said Weaver, using the shorthand for mixed-member proportional representation.
“Mixed,” because political parties would still have a crack at electing MLAs in local constituencies. But if their seat count fell short of their share of the popular vote, representation would be topped up from a pool of nominees selected at large.
How to create the pool? One option would be to double the size of constituencies, reducing local representation to make room for MLAs elected at large. Or they could simply increase the size of the legislature to add the necessary dozens of additional MLAs.
Weaver says if B.C. opts for MMP, it should strike a balance between adding MLAs and reducing local representation.
“A system, to me, that works is one that recognizes the regionality of our province and doesn’t increase the number of MLAs by a lot, because we don’t want to be subsidizing more MLAs in this province.
“Also,” he continued, venturing into the realm of controversy, “a system that means that your vote counts — whether it be in Fort St. John or Victoria or Nelson or Haida Gwaii — and each vote is worth the same.”
Both New Democrats and B.C. Liberals have supported additional representation for hinterlands communities on the grounds that they are more spread out and diverse than urban ones.
After the last redistribution of seats in the house, half of those with the smallest populations were represented by the New Democrats and half by the Liberals.
But in May two of the NDP seats switched, making an imbalance in favour of the Liberals, while the NDP gained several of the more heavily populated urban ridings.
Given Weaver’s hint about ensuring all votes count the same, perhaps the NDPGreen alliance will reduce the seat count in the rural and hinterlands regions where they have little to lose in terms of representation anyway.
Any move to do that could undercut public support for changing the system in parts of the province with the most to lose in terms of local representation.
But all that is prelude to the debate that is expected to unfold with recall of the legislature in September.
Under the terms of the power-sharing agreement, one of the first orders of business is the introduction of the enabling legislation for an October 2018 referendum on electoral reform.
First off, as the Green leader readily acknowledges, the parties have to consult the public on the variation of proportional representation to be put to referendum.
“There will be some form of legislation to enable a special committee to go and consult with British Columbians, much akin to what happened federally,” said Weaver.
He must hope the consultations go better than they did for the federal Liberal government, which by its own admission never established a broad public consensus on a preferred option for electoral reform.
Weaver’s acknowledgment of limitations of STV, MMP and so on hints at the challenge ahead as well.
Consensus tends to break down when discussion turns to the advantages and disadvantages of a given replacement.
There’s also the question of whether the NDP- Green partnership will survive long enough to stage the referendum, carry the day in favour of proportional representation, and then get the new system implemented before having to face the electorate.
Much as the Greens need proportional representation to put them on a more secure footing in the legislature, as things stand today, they are still a long way from accomplishing their goal.
A system, to me, that works is one that recognizes the regionality of our province and doesn’t increase the number of MLAs by a lot, because we don’t want to be subsidizing more MLAs in this province.
ANDREW WEAVER, Green party leader