Panel data provided by Madison's Canadian Lumber Reporter.

The Genie Is Out of the Bottle on Electoral Reform

By Peter Ewart

The results of the vote on adopting the Single Transferable Vote electoral system are in. By any measure, it was a clear, even astounding, vote for change with 57% of British Columbians and 77 out of 79 ridings opting for “Yes”.

This was accomplished despite the fact that virtually no funds were provided by government to educate people about the proposed system. It was accomplished despite the fact that it was not championed by the “major” parties but rather by Citizens’ Assembly members and an informal, loosely knit, collection of “Yes” organizations, volunteers, activists, and small parties. And it was accomplished in the face of party insiders and pundits who, under the cover of party “neutrality”, actively opposed STV. Yet, despite a clear expression for change by British Columbians, this strong Yes vote was defeated because it did not reach the threshold of 60% voter support that was required for approval. In fact, this 60% threshold is very unusual. For example, in the last provincial referendum (which was on aboriginal rights), the threshold for approval was only 50%. Indeed, the BC Referendum Act stipulates a 50% margin for all referenda. Why should the referendum on STV be any different?

Nationally, the referendum on the Charlottetown Accord in 1992 needed just 50%, as did the two referenda on the issue of Quebec seceding from the Canadian federation. Internationally, 50% is an established norm with both New Zealand and Ireland, for example, using it for their electoral reform initiatives. In the May 17th election, the Liberal Party itself only got 46% of the vote, yet won the election and formed a majority government. In addition, votes by MLAs in the Legislature regularly only require a 50% margin for approval. Witness the current brouhaha at the Federal level where the defeat of the government rests on a simple majority of just one vote.

Some might argue that the combination of high threshold for approval and lack of funding for voter education was calculated to ensure that the referendum would fail. Others might argue that, when it comes to voting, there appears to be one set of rules for politicians and political parties, and another set for voters.Whatever the case, the strong “Yes” vote has irreversibly put the province onto the road of some kind of electoral system reform which both the governing party and the opposition parties can deny only at their peril. Clearly, it will be an untenable situation if, at the next election, British Columbians are using an electoral system that has been rejected by voters in 97% of the ridings.

So what will be done? Already the jockeying of the political parties has started. Both Carole James, leader of the NDP, and Adrienne Carr, leader of the Greens, have made statements suggesting that another referendum is needed possibly using “another model” than STV. Implicit in these statements is the idea that the Citizens Assembly and its comprehensive analysis and review of voter needs and preferences should be sidelined and the electoral reform process should go back into the hands of the politicians rather than non-partisan voters, something that various party insiders believe is the natural place for it.

For his part, Premier Campbell has left the door open for further change. One option he has is to simply push for the Legislature to approve adoption of the STV system on the grounds that voters overwhelmingly supported it in the referendum. This, of course, might not meet with support from the leadership of the NDP and Greens who prefer the Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) system model and whose parties could split between those who support STV and those who prefer pushing for a later referendum on MMP. In that regard, it should be noted that Adrienne Carr initially opposed STV and Carole James herself voted “No”.

Another option for the Premier is to call for a referendum some time next year where the voters would get to choose between STV and MMP, which would result in an interesting face-off between those who advocate for a system that is more voter centred (STV) and those who advocate for a system that is more party centred (MMP). Still another option is for the Citizens’ Assembly to reconvene and deliberate on a course of action. In many ways, this could be seen as the logical way forward, because implicit in it is the idea that all power of government and the Legislature flows from the people, and, therefore, that the people have the right to determine the rules governing the electoral process. For decisions about the electoral process to be handed back to the political parties or the Legislature would thus constitute a conflict of interest and a step backward in the democratic process. Yes supporters could also mount a campaign under the Recall and Initiative Act for another referendum on STV. Interestingly, under this Legislation, such a referendum would only require a 50% threshold for approval.

One thing is clear - with the formation of the Citizens’ Assembly and the strong Yes vote in the referendum - the genie is out of the bottle on electoral reform. Whether it gets put back into a bottle and which bottle that might be, remains to be seen.

Key in all this is the participation of voters and the ongoing role of the Citizens’ Assembly.
Previous Story - Next Story



Return to Home