Antony Hodgson: Task force should help Vancouver gain power to choose voting system
By Antony Hodgson
While Fair Voting B.C. commends Premier Gordon Campbell for convening a task force to improve the fairness and transparency of local government elections across the province, we are astonished that it is not currently planning to address the glaring flaws in our current voting system. This is a serious oversight that needs to be rectified.
These flaws have been recognized for decades. The people of B.C. have collectively generated enough political will to take us to the polls on voting reform issues eight times since 1973, yet nothing has changed.
Now, to be fair, voters haven’t sent an entirely consistent message. At the civic level we’ve voted three times to switch from our current at-large voting system to wards and three times to keep what we’ve got, while at the provincial level we voted once in favour of changing from our first-past-the-post system to the single transferable vote recommended by the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform and once against.
But do these mixed results indicate that we’re actually ambivalent about civic reform? I don’t think so. Both Thomas Berger’s Vancouver Electoral Reform Commission and the B.C. citizens’ assembly heard from hundreds (even thousands) of concerned and frustrated voters.
Berger, in particular, documented a long litany of complaints about at-large voting which had been presented to his commission. In addition to poor representation of Vancouver’s East Side and sweeps of council by a single party, Berger found that it produced markedly lower diversity on council than in the population, encouraged high campaigning costs, presented near-insurmountable obstacles for independent candidates, and made it difficult for voters to cast an informed ballot. It has also become increasingly apparent that at-large voting stands in the way of electing candidates from the South Asian community.
When Vancouver voters declined to switch to wards in the 2004 referendum, these problems did not go away, so politicians have a responsibility to continue to seek ways to address them. Perhaps the main reason we voters haven’t been more enthusiastic about seizing opportunities to change has been that we have so often been presented with only a single alternative—wards—which, though it has strong supporters, has enough flaws of its own to have prevented it from being widely seen as an obviously compelling choice.
So, is there any hope that in 2010 we can rouse more enthusiasm for a change? I believe so. Three main things have changed since Berger’s 2004 inquiry.
First, because of the Berger inquiry and the provincial citizens’ assembly, voters are now far more aware of the problems with how we vote and that other options are being successfully used elsewhere.
Second, a number of cities around the world, most notably in New Zealand, Scotland, and the U.S., have recently adopted a form of proportional representation. This has ended long-standing single-party dominance and made their councils more accurately reflect how voters vote. So, we can learn from their experiences.
Finally, the citizens’ assembly has given us a model for how to hold an intelligent, nonpartisan debate in which ordinary, interested citizens can introduce and explore a wide range of options and reach near-unanimity on directions for change.
It therefore seems clear to us that a similar citizen-centred process in Vancouver would build on these lessons and produce new, well-considered ideas which would excite us far more than the limiting dichotomy of wards versus the status quo. A solid majority of city councillors are on record as supporting reform, so we believe that such a process is a real possibility at this time.
Nonetheless, even if an assembly took place and Vancouver voters strongly supported a particular change, the city likely could not implement it because the Vancouver Charter, which is controlled by the province, only allows us to choose wards or the at-large system (or a combination of the two).
Justice Berger felt this limitation flew in the face of what he referred to as the emerging trend of “increasing empowerment of municipalities” around the world, so he recommended that Vancouver ask the province to change the charter to give us the power to adopt a voting system “that best meets the needs and expectations of its citizens, as these change over time”. Council agreed, and in 2005 asked for this right (which New Zealand cities currently enjoy). To date, council has received no reply.
Vancouver deserves an answer to its five-year-old request, and the Local Government Elections Task Force offers the perfect vehicle for the government to respond. We therefore urge the task force to take this golden opportunity to give Vancouver, and any other towns and cities that also wish it, this key tool needed to resolve our century-long voting debate. Vancouver is a grown-up city now—we can handle the responsibility. Securing us our right to choose our voting system should be the task force’s top priority.
Antony Hodgson is the president of Fair Voting B.C.
Comments
6 Comments
jansumi
Mar 16, 2010 at 2:08pm
Wards were so long overdue it was ridiculous. I always expected changing the charter would be Harcourt's immediate first action when he became premier - couldn't believe it never even happened at all.
So here we are again - another task force - commissions, committees, studies - is there no way we can give these things some Teeth.
Roy Harris
Mar 16, 2010 at 2:19pm
Voting is a right of all Canadians many are denied the right to vote because of old methods of collecting votes and the Elections commission is full of old people in their seventies and eighties who wont let go of the reigns and allow young Canadians to vote via their cell phones or the internet because they dont know how to set up a fullu secure system
Pedro Mora
Mar 16, 2010 at 7:38pm
According to Nowpolling.ca, on the topic of electoral issues, and more specifically about “Term of Office”, the most popular wish of the voters is to abolish “Term of Office”, and replace it with a computerized electoral system allowing voters to recall MLAs at any time.
Enlarging the geographical boundaries of ridings, as recently proposed by STV-BC, reducing local jurisdictions into wards, or extending the term of local politicians from three to four years, is only a red-herring discussion which effectively distracts voters from the most important need of direct democracy through “initiative, referendum and recall”.
81% of voters, in the BC referendum of 1991, voted in favour of having the right to recall MLAs. Although the NDP in 1996 legislated “initiative and recall”, it was written with such burdensome and onerous requirements which made the legislation unworkable. Since 1996, neither the NDP nor the Liberals have developed the mechanisms to effectively practice recall or initiative.
In the absence of an official system to practice “Initiative and Recall”, some of us concerned citizens have developed a non-binding polling system where citizens can post an initiative and vote for it.
The people have already spoken, all we need now is the political will to invigorate the existing “BC Recall and Initiative legislation“, and to allow and extend it to local levels of government.
James Gilmour
Mar 17, 2010 at 5:54am
Looking in from afar, the solution would appear quite simple: elect Vancouver's ten councillors at large by STV-PR. Then each sector of the city would be represented according to its voting support as would be each ethnic group. STV-PR is a candidate-based voting system so it does not discriminate against independent candidates and also treats party-nominated candidates fairly.
If electing ten councillors together seems too much, AND the charter would allow it, consider dividing the city into two multi-member wards, each electing five councillors by STV-PR. Some may prefer the smaller wards, but it would lower the limit on the diversity of representation that could be achieved in a city-wide election by STV-PR. (Our cities in Scotland are divided into multi-member wards because they have many more councillors than you have in Vancouver: Edinburgh 58, Glasgow 79.)
Here in Scotland we have at different times elected our local government councillors by X-vote at large and by X-vote in single-member wards. Now we elect them all by STV-PR and there is no doubt at all about which voting system delivers the most representative councils. And that, after all, is the prime purpose of choosing our local government representatives by election.
Mark Crowley
Mar 18, 2010 at 8:05am
Great article Anthony. Pedro, ballot initiatives and recalls are a totally seperate issue from voting reform and while some people are passionate about it I don't think its at all clear more direct democracy is a good thing, California is a good example of what can go wrong. We are a representative democracy, we choose MPs, MLAs or councillors to represent us and find consensus in the legislature. The problem is our vote right now doesn't go equally towards choosing those representatives. BC municipalities are absolute pariahs in terms of representation in North America. The current system only benefits the white, rich neighbourhoods of the west end and downtown. Anyone who is interested in equality between the city's diverse population should be behind switching at least to wards and perhaps to something even more proportional. Its a no brainer.
Pedro Mora
Mar 21, 2010 at 10:50am
Mark, firstly, when “voting reform” includes “term of office”, recall legislation is all about “term of office”.
Secondly, if by looking at California’s example of recall, you “don't think its at all clear more direct democracy is a good thing”, I invite you to think about all the wrong choices that our politicians have made and are still making in our name.
Finally, on the one hand STV-BC Claims that “expanding”, amalgamating a few ridings, will give you a better representation. On the other hand, the Wards System claims that “reducing” the “at large” electoral area into wards will give you a better representation. It looks to me like an oxymoron and a red hearing to keep people mystified.
I suggest, the most urgent question of democracy is: Are we ready to make our own political decisions, through initiative, recall , and referendum, or we continue to give these rights up to politicians because we don’t trust ourselves?