NDP mishandled electoral reform referendum

Given the historic importance of B.C.’s recent electoral referendum, the post-mortems should include responses to recent statements by Attorney General David Eby, the referendum’s architect and overseer.

Eby says he is surprised by the 61-per-cent rejection of changing the B.C. voting system. He should remember that during the pre-election campaign, NDP Leader John Horgan stated emphatically that there would be a simple yes/no question. That promise was broken. Voters resent being deceived. There were, of course, also other reasons.

Eby asserts that: “The ballot was very clear.” In my numerous lectures during the voting process, I found barely a half dozen people who understood and could explain the three proportional representation options. Those options could not be fully explained because crucial details were missing. It is surprising that Horgan and Eby assumed voters were willing to have basic details filled in by the same politicians who broke their promise to have one simple question and who would, it was widely feared, skew the details to their own advantage.

Perhaps Eby’s most surprising comment is that it would have made no difference if the ballot had presented some other PR option.

He is wrong. Many of us who worked hard to defeat Eby’s complex and incomplete package of PR options would have campaigned strongly in support of a reasonable and clear PR system.

For years, I have promoted a simple dual-voting system that incorporates the best of our first-past-thepost single-member districts system and also the best of PR. I believe that such an option would have been approved by a wide margin.

Here is my reasonable and simple mixed-member proportional system: 42 MLAs are elected in single member districts and 42 are elected at large. B.C. presently has 42 federal ridings. They have been designed carefully, giving appropriate weight to population and geography. In each of these 42 electoral ridings, one B.C. MLA would be elected, giving everyone an identifiable and accountable representative in the provincial legislature.

Another 42 MLAs would be elected at large. Each registered party would provide a list of up to 42 candidates. The lists would be publicized in advance. On this second ballot, each voter would vote for one party list. After the voting, lists that received less that five-per-cent support would be discarded. Then the second cohort of 42 seats would be distributed according to the percentage support given each party after the non-qualifying lists have been discarded. Thus, if the NDP got 38 per cent of the remaining votes, that party would get 16 at-large seats. If the Greens got, say, 10 per cent of the vote, that party would get four at-large seats. In this manner, all smaller parties that garnered at least five-per-cent support would gain seats even if they did not win any single member electoral district.

In calculating the percentages for the at-large MLAs, it would be important not to combine a party’s total electoral district votes with its provincial at-large vote. This combining, done in some places, makes no sense. Many voters are not hardline party voters. Doubtless many would vote for one party’s candidate locally but for a different party provincially as they also vote for different parties provincially and federally.

The questions of dealing with fractions is easily addressed by assigning extra seats or splitting terms, as is done in other PR systems.

It is unfortunate that the bungling of our recent referendum by the NDP/Greens has terminated the drive for much-needed electoral reform. If the simple mixed-member proportional system I have outlined had been offered, I am confident it would have received majority support. Maybe that can still be accomplished.