ENSURE YOU’RE INFORMED ON ELECTORAL REFORM
Proportional representation poses many problems, write Bill Tieleman, Suzanne Anton and Bob Plecas.
Proportional representation electoral systems allow small parties with a fraction of total votes to gain the balance of power — and fundamentally change how governments are formed.
Therefore, possibly moving British Columbia to a proportional representation system requires robust, serious and considered debate.
That is why it is unfortunate Vancouver Sun columnist Douglas Todd failed to make effective arguments against our first-past-thepost system — or for an asyet-undefined or explained alternative proportional representation system.
More unfortunately still, his “Five reasons opponents of proportional representation are wrong ” were not reasons at all.
So, let’s set the record straight and separate fact from fiction.
To start, Todd claims off the top that “well-funded opponents of proportional representation” will offer “overheated opinions.”
In 2009, No BC STV, which opposed the Single Transferable Vote proposal, had $513,007 to spend, while British Columbians for STV had $867,593, with both sides receiving $500,000 from the government. That means the proportional representation side had $354,586 more to spend. And while our extra funding came from B.C., the STV side took thousands from the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Fair Vote Canada and even the Australian Pro Rep Society.
The column states “electoral reform fell less than three percentage points short of the 60 per cent threshold needed,” but fails to tell readers that was in the first referendum in 2005, after the Citizens’ Assembly recommended it. And B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell supported and promoted the Citizens’ Assembly, distributing its report to voters.
But in 2009, with a full and fair debate on proportional representation, the numbers were more than reversed, with 61 per cent supporting first-past-the-post and just 39 per cent backing STV.
Our electoral system is based on citizens in each of B.C.’s 87 geographic ridings deciding who is the best representative for their community. We do not vote for which leader or party should form a government — the results of the 87 separate elections determine who leads the province. The party (or parties) winning the most seats and gaining the confidence of the legislature forms government.
Todd’s column could have outlined the considerable merits of our system — which has provided the province with stability, simplicity and success — or an alternative that may have its own benefits. It might have discussed how proportional representation will inevitably marginalize rural communities as governments are elected not by ridings but by cross province popular vote — with the vast majority of MLAs elected by Metro Vancouver. Again, look at the facts and decide. Germany just went 172 days without a government after its election under proportional representation. Austria under proportional representation now has a right-wing government with a far-right coalition partner — the anti-immigration Freedom Party — that was formed by an ex-Nazi officer and whose leader, Heinz Christian Strache, who in his youth participated in neo-Nazi activities, is now vice-chancellor.
And New Zealand has a new Labour government whose coalition partner, New Zealand First, has also been described as far-right and anti-immigrant. The appointed, not elected, New Zealand First leader, Winston Peters, became the deputy prime minister.
The common element in all three elections is an overwhelming number of representatives in all three countries’ far-right parties were appointed by their political parties from proportional representation lists — they were not elected by geographic ridings where they are accountable to local voters.
While proportional representation is not wholly responsible for the rise of extremist parties, it does open the door to them to enter parliaments where they can easily gain seats, legitimacy and a platform to espouse their hateful views.
Fortunately, under first-past-the-post, extremist parties cannot get a toehold in parliaments.
In England, the far-right United Kingdom Independence Party obtained 12.6 per cent of the vote in 2015, but just one of 650 geographic ridings. Under proportional representation, it would have held 82 seats and a significant role. In the following 2017 election, it dropped to just 1.8 per cent and no seats.
Harvard University professor Pippa Norris accurately described the problems of proportional representation:
“Radical right parties benefit from (proportional representation) in terms of their share of seats, which is what matters, after all, for the power, legitimacy, status, and resources that flow from elected office.”
And there are still more problems with proportional representation: In all the examples above, citizens did not choose their governments. They were formed by back-room negotiations between political parties after the elections. And proportional representation ensures perpetual minority governments where small parties — including fringe extremists — have disproportionately large power because they decide who will govern and with what policies as the price of their support.
To get “proportionality” in B.C., many MLAs would not be elected, but rather appointed from the party list. They would have no geographic riding, no constituents and no voter accountability.
These are serious policy issues that deserve a full and fair debate before voters are asked this fall to make a fundamental decision about how we are governed.
Let’s have a full debate, lay out the facts and opinions, and then decide — that’s what makes our democracy great.
Radical right parties benefit from (proportional representation) in terms of their share of seats.
PIPPA NORRIS, Harvard University professor
Bill Tieleman is a communications consultant and former NDP strategist; Suzanne Anton is a former B.C. attorney general; Bob Plecas is a former B.C. deputy minister; all three are the directors of the No B.C. Proportional Representation Society.