ELECTORAL REFORM FLAWED AND CO-OPTED
Sober process has become a re-fight of the last election, Bob Plecas writes.
Premier John Horgan’s comments about this fall’s referendum on electoral reform at the recent Union of B.C. Municipalities annual convention are disturbing for three reasons.
He said: “I’m going to campaign as hard as I can in the next month to convince other British Columbians to join with me and take a leap of faith on a change that works in jurisdictions around the world. Do not be put in a place of fear.”
Obviously, the premier’s briefing notes were wrong.
The assertion the options presented in B.C.’s referendum are used around the world is incorrect. Unless “around the world” means “four countries, specifically Germany, Lesotho, New Zealand and Bolivia.” Those are the only national elections that use any of the forms of proportional representation British Columbians will be asked to vote on.
To be fair, variations are also used in a few sub-national elections like Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Australian Senate. A couple of countries like Venezuela use a hybrid.
Ninety per cent of the nearly 100 countries that use proportional representation rely exclusively on party lists. You elect parties, not people.
And there are at least four ways of selecting names from a party list, but the point is they are party lists, not locally elected MLAs like we have now.
The party list form is used around the world, but not on our ballot. Therefore, nicesounding generalizations about worldwide proportional representation are not applicable to our referendum. When something sounds too good to be true, it is.
What is on the ballot, you might ask? Two systems never tried or used anywhere in the world, and one used in the four named countries above. Even that third option is mired in uncertainty for British Columbians.
Attorney General David Eby listed 11 key aspects that will have to be dealt with after the referendum. Those include the number of MLAs, what the electoral map will look like, how party lists are generated, and even whether voters will have one, two or more votes in general elections. This creates confusion. That is a pretty big, risky leap of faith. I’m reminded of the most terrifying words in the English language: “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”
Blind trust on something as important and complicated as electoral reform is enough. Couple that with what you hear all over the province that this is about ensuring retention of power by the current government and it’s an Olympic long jump.
The second reason the statement is flawed is because the process is flawed. The only consultation with British Columbians was an online questionnaire. Compare to the Citizen’s Assembly of 2005. Randomly selected British Columbians worked for nearly a year, examining electoral reform.
The provincial government established a conventional approach to constitutional change with a two-step hurdle. More than a majority of the votes and a regional requirement to ensure that all areas of the province were included.
The 2005 referendum failed to meet that bar. The second referendum in 2009 also failed. Note that both of those presented a clear choice between two options, not the two-question obfuscation we face this fall.
And the Citizens Assembly rejected Mixed Member Proportional, now on our ballot, as they felt it took away too much power from the voters.
We can argue about whether the appropriate threshold for provincewide support is a bare majority or 60 per cent. However, there should be no argument about the second hurdle, which allows us to reflect our urban and rural fact of life. If 50 per cent plus one of B.C.’s constituencies also had to vote in favour, it would ensure that no one region, such as the Lower Mainland, would overwhelm another, like the Interior.
The fear in our rural areas over the potential loss of their MLAs is real. The third reason is the direct involvement of all the political parties in the debate. This did not happen in 2005 and 2009. It is impossible and inappropriate to gag elected officials. However, in the past this was done gingerly and with respect.
The motto seemed to be “Let the people decide!” and that sentiment is one we should be following today.
The direct, vocal involvement of the leaders of all three political parties represented in the legislature and the registration of political parties as third-party advertising sponsors detracts from the necessary public debate.
The partisan tone makes this not a sober discussion of electoral reform but a raucous re-fight of the last election. That is a mistake when we are looking at constitutional reform at the core of the relationship between elected leaders and voters.
The debate needs to be thoughtful, fact-based, passionate, opinionated, but non-political.
This is not a party issue, it is a people issue.
The premier asks British Columbians to take a leap of faith. To not act out of fear. However, the very nature of political discourse in this province will lead in exactly the opposite direction.
True leadership on political reform requires something elected politicians of every stripe are not very good at. They are take-charge kind of folks, who believe their way is the right way.
However, on electoral reform, it is one of those times when we should “Let the people decide!”
I’m reminded of the most terrifying words in the English language: ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’