Citizens’ assemblies chose PR

As time runs out for returning our ballots on the electoral-reform referendum, many people still haven’t voted because they remain unsure what to vote for.

Why not rely on the advice of fellow citizens drawn at random? These people were just like you: Most knew little or nothing about voting systems, but they happened to be picked to sit on the B.C. Citizens Assembly. They agreed to spend a lot of time (10 months, as it turned out) studying voting systems with lessons from political scientists and others.

They concluded that proportional representation was a better voting system than our current first-past-thepost system. After contemplating mixed-member proportional as a replacement, they recommended single-transferable vote. (Both STV and MMP make up the rural-urban system being offered in our current referendum.)

Because people on the assembly were picked at random, they represent what the entire population of B.C. would have chosen had we all taken 10 months to study voting systems. It is no surprise, therefore, that every citizens’ assembly or commission (there are about 10 of them) that has subsequently studied voting systems across Canada has come to the same conclusion: PR is better than FPTP.

The random sample that made up the assembly means that if you had taken the same amount of time to study voting systems, there’s a 96 per cent chance you, too, would have chosen PR (96 per cent was the proportion of assembly members who voted for PR).

Are you still confused? Philip Symons Victoria