GREENS THE KEENEST ON NEW ELECTORAL SYSTEM
Party that has most to gain says it would not put issue to referendum
While the results are still being finalized from the 2017 provincial election, there’s speculation about Greens and New Democrats combining forces to impose a new electoral system on British Columbians.
Both parties have expressed support for a system of proportional representation where the seat count in the legislature would more closely match each party’s share of the popular vote.
Based on last week’s preliminary count, the B.C. Liberals would have ended up with 37 seats (or thereabouts — as opposed to 43), the New Democrats 35 seats (41) and the Greens 15 (3).
As the most obvious beneficiary of such a shift in voting systems, the Greens were unequivocal in their support for it.
“Introduce proportional representation,” was one of more than 160 promises in the election platform Green Leader Andrew Weaver tabled at mid-campaign.
Weaver did not specify which system of proportional representation would be implemented by a Green government, nor how the selection would be determined.
The New Democrats offered only qualified support for proportional representation, making it conditional on public approval in a followup referendum.
“We’ll hold a referendum on changing our voting system to a proportional system so that every vote counts,” said the party in its election platform. “We’ll ensure that all regions are represented fairly. And we’ll campaign for the Yes side.”
Far from endorsing a particular form of proportional representation, B.C. NDP Leader John Horgan said he would research the options following the election.
Elsewhere the New Democrats promised to “consult British Columbians on the specific proportional reform to be put to a vote” in a referendum, which would be scheduled within the first two years of an NDP government.
In justifying the decision to actively campaign for a “yes” vote, Horgan cited the decision to remain neutral on the single transferable vote (STV), the variation of electoral reform that twice failed to secure the necessary threshold of approval in referendums in 2005 and 2009.
“I’m going to put forward a solution whether it be another variation of STV or some other form of proportional representation. I’m going to campaign on it. And if it doesn’t succeed it won’t proceed.
“The New Democrats have in the past supported mixedmember proportional (MMP) — mixed because some MLAs would be elected from constituencies and others from a pool of names supplied by the party. The option is controversial because to create the pool either necessitates an increase in the number of seats in the house — hence more politicians — or a reduction in the number of stand-alone constituencies — hence less local representation — or both.
The prospective loss of local representation led to MMP being rejected in favour of STV by the citizens assembly on electoral reform, set up by the Liberals before the 2005 referendum.
Nor did MMP fare all that well when submitted to Ontario voters in a referendum 10 years ago. More than 60 per cent voted to stick with the current system, known as first past the post.
The Greens have long expressed support for MMP as well. The party bombarded the citizens assembly with calls for MMP and then-leader Adriane Carr denounced the assembly for going with STV instead.
After last week’s election, the Greens indicated they would set up a panel of experts to determine the preferred form of proportional representation. Once the selection was made, the party would support imposing it by majority vote in the legislature, without further recourse to the electorate in a referendum.
“We would implement a form of proportional representation without a referendum, that’s the difference between us and the NDP,” said Jillian Oliver, press secretary for the B.C. Greens.
But that distinction may be evaporating as the New Democrats angle for Green support in forming a government.
New Democrats have lately dropped hints that as part of a deal with the Greens, they might expedite approval of proportional representation by a simple majority vote in the house as well.
Meaning a bare majority vote of 41 New Democrats and three Greens, if the current seat tally in the house survives the final count and any recounts.
Weaver, who this week began exploratory talks with the B.C. Liberals and New Democrats, has hedged on whether an immediate shift to proportional representation would be a condition for supporting one party or the other.
On Friday he told Rob Shaw of The Vancouver Sun that “the two things that are totally non-negotiable is banning big money and party status.”
The first is warranted because of the obvious backlash in the recent election, the latter because in a closely divided legislature, the Greens need the resources and access that come with party status to keep the majors on their toes.
At other times, Weaver has indicated proportional representation would be a must as well.
By way of justification, some Greens claim 57 per cent of British Columbians endorsed the shift in the recent election.
Not so. Some 40 per cent voted for the NDP view that the change should be put to referendum. Another 41 per cent voted for the Liberals, who said nothing whatsoever about changing the status quo.
Only 17 per cent voted for the Greens and their promise to fundamentally change the system for electing governments without giving British Columbians any further say in the matter.
We would implement a form of proportional representation without a referendum, that’s the difference between us and the NDP.
JILLIAN OLIVER, Green party press secretary