By Shoni Field and David Wills

Imagine getting a letter in the mail offering you an opportunity to spend almost a year of your life considering how B.C. elects its MLAs? That was the start of a process that in 2004 saw 160 ordinary people chosen at random become the British Columbia Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform.

Recognizing the conflict of interest that politicians have in selecting an electoral system, the legislature voted unanimously to turn the question over to an independent citizens’ assembly.

The citizens’ assembly, with a man and a woman from every constituency, spent 11 months studying electoral systems, listening to British Columbians and forming a recommendation for how B.C. should elects its MLAs.

Voters told the assembly they wanted a fair system, improved local representation, and greater voter choice.

After considering electoral systems from around the world, the assembly short-listed two systems—single transferable vote and mixed member proportional representation—and looked carefully at which best addressed these three values. Both are equally proportional, but they provide different choices to the voters. The assembly decided that STV, a system where voters expresses their preference among candidates rather than parties, was a better fit with B.C.’s values. Both systems offer local representation, but STV makes constituency elections more competitive and provides greater incentive for responsive local representation.

The citizens’ assembly voted 95 percent to recommend BC-STV as the best system for our province.

Single transferable vote is an established voting system designed to ensure that more voters have a voice. It has been tailored by the citizens’ assembly to fit British Columbia. STV uses multi-member districts and a preferential ballot.

How will STV be different than first-past-the-post?

Under STV, voters get the representation they vote for. The results of the 2001 election, where 57 percent of the electorate was represented by 77 MLAs and the remaining 43 percent were represented by 2 MLAs, will not happen. With STV, the number of MLAs elected for each party closely reflects the proportion of the votes cast for that party.

Vote distortion has serious consequences. We do not get the governments or opposition that we vote for. And, so long as it only takes 40 percent of the vote to form a government we will be limited to polarized policy-making, seesaw governments and partisan posturing.

Under STV, most electoral districts will elect MLAs from both major parties. Further, candidates will be elected from smaller parties, but not fringe parties, providing a voice in Victoria for fresh ideas. Most voters (80 to 90 percent) will have an MLA they voted for.

Finally, voters, not the parties, will have the final say on which candidates from a party will represent them. If an MLA does not represent a constituency’s interests, voters in the next election can choose another candidate from the same party. Under first-past-the-post, where most of the districts are safe seats, the election that really counts takes place at the party nomination meeting.

Also, because larger parties can put forward a more diverse set of candidates, and smaller parties or independents may win some seats, the work of the legislature will better reflect new and important ideas shared by many British Columbians.

Defenders of the status quo like the current system, because attracting 40 percent of the voters requires fewer compromises than those required to attract 50 percent.

They also try to imply, against the evidence, that fairness to voters and stable government are mutually exclusive and that giving voters a voice is too risky in these troubled times.

The interests of voters can never be a “luxury” item—democracy hinges on the notion of power coming up from the people. If we start to question whether voters aren’t perhaps just a little inconvenient then we’re heading down a really slippery slope.

With governments that generally represent 50 percent plus of voters, consensus-based, enduring legislation creates a better investment, business, and labour climate, not to mention greater stability for social programs.

There are no extenuating circumstances or unique strengths that excuse our current system’s failure to represent the interests of the voters.

On May 12, when we vote for BC-STV, as recommended by the B.C. Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform, we are raising our voices for the politics of fairness, positive change, and accountability.

Shoni Field and David Wills both served on the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform, representing Vancouver-Hastings and Vancouver-Point Grey, respectively. They now sit on the board of Fair Voting B.C. (aka British Columbians for BC-STV).

See also:
Bruce Strachan: The single transferable vote—or how to get elected without really winning
David Schreck: BC-STV is simply no better than our current electoral system
Damian Kettlewell: Single transferable vote would break down political barriers in B.C.