ELECTORAL REFORM WON’T BE A SIMPLE ‘YES’ OR ‘NO’
B.C. residents might have to pick from proportional representation models
The New Democrats left no doubt Wednesday of their effort to stack the deck in favour of proportional representation in next year’s referendum on electoral reform.
“Government takes action to modernize democracy,” declared the news release on the enabling legislation for the fall 2018 ballot-by-mail.
All part of a drive to “bring B.C.’s democratic institutions into the 21st century,” added Attorney General David Eby, clarifying the objective as he saw it.
“Government will promote active debate and discussion by providing information about electoral systems to voters through public engagement in the months ahead,” continued the release. “All British Columbians will be encouraged to engage in this process.”
But the New Democrats will establish the process for public engagement, appoint the overseers, and set the mandate, in co-operation with the Greens.
They are even more enthusiastic about switching to proportional representation, a system that would improve their chances of winning seats and perhaps holding the balance of power in future legislatures.
“I am deeply encouraged that the premier has repeatedly voiced his support for proportional representation,” said Green MLA Sonja Furstenau via a supporting news release. “I look forward to working with the government on the campaign to engage British Columbians in this important discussion about the future of our democracy.”
But the wily New Democrats exacted a price for that participation.
“If a new voting system is approved, it will require government to introduce legislation to implement the new system in time for a provincial general election to be called after July 1, 2021.”
But not in a provincial election called before that date. If the New Democrats were defeated on a confidence motion before July 1, 2021, the election would be held on the bad, old system.
Which also means that if the Greens want a shot at improving their position via proportional representation, they will have to prop up the NDP government for most of the next four years.
Overseeing the process of engaging the public and crafting the referendum will be none other than Eby himself: “The attorney general will act as an independent official and refrain from engaging in debate, and will recuse himself from any cabinet or caucus discussion regarding the referendum.”
The pose of neutrality comes a little late in the day.
Eby ran in the election as a leading light in a party that promised to fight for proportional representation: “A New Democrat government would not only consult British Columbians on the specific proportional reform to be put to a vote, but would campaign strongly in favour of that reform.”
He renewed the vow when he, along with the other New Democrats and Greens, signed the May 29 powersharing accord.
“The parties agree that they will work together in good faith to consult British Columbians to determine the form of proportional representation that will be put to a referendum,” it reads. “The parties agree to both campaign actively in support of the agreed-upon form of proportional representation.”
Note the singular in that last sentence, indicating that voters would be asked to turn thumbs up or down on a single form of proportional representation. But as they waded in to the challenge of framing the referendum, the New Democrats recognized that alternative voting systems can be both complex and contentious.
Some systems of proportional representation (PR) reduce local representation, others are so mathematically driven as to pretty much defy explanation.
The New Democrats also realized that a single yes/ no question on one form of proportional representation risked alienating voters who might dislike that option and prefer another.
Enter the most clever part of the enabling legislation, at least from the point of view of advocates for changing the system.
“The bill is structured so that a ballot with more than one question could be accommodated,” says the background paper.
So much for thumbs up/ down on a single version of PR.
Instead the ballot might offer several options, allowing voters to rank their preferences 1, 2, 3 and so on. If no alternative won 50 per cent of the first choices, the one with the lowest support would be eliminated, and second choices distributed accordingly.
The status quo system, first past the post, would probably not fare well in such a run-off. The second choices of supporters of one system of PR would probably be another form of PR.
The prospect of a referendum with multiple questions and multiple voting options provided another that-wasthen, this-is-now moment for Premier John Horgan.
During the election, he insisted that the referendum question would be simplicity itself.
“A consensus on yes or no is pretty easy,” Horgan told The Vancouver Sun editorial board. “You are going to have 50 per cent say yes or no.”
“So you give them one system to vote on?” he was asked for clarity’s sake. “Yeah, yeah exactly,” the NDP leader replied.
Asked about the flip-flop, Eby said the switch emerged from his discussions with staff and others.
“The concern that I had was that limiting options out of the gate before the engagement process would send a message to British Columbians that decisions had already been made — that the government was in some way attempting to direct this to receive a certain outcome.”
The New Democrats and the Greens attempting to direct this exercise to ensure a certain outcome? I would be shocked — shocked — if anyone drew that conclusion.
A consensus on yes or no is pretty easy. You are going to have 50 per cent say yes or no.
JOHN HORGAN, speaking during campaign on proportional representation referendum