Joseph Planta's Commentary - thecommentary.ca

Monday, 16 May 2005

Why I'm voting 'Yes' for STV

By Joseph Planta

VANCOUVER - We have come unbelievably far on the path to electoral reform. After the 1996 election, before the abnormality of 2001, an ad hoc committee was formed by some old pols, Gordon Gibson, Rafe Mair, Gary Lauk, and Nick Loenen, as well as the late constitutional expert, Mel Smith. It called for a citizen's assembly to be formed to look at electoral reform. Thanks to Mair's public and private advocacy of then opposition leader Gordon Campbell, he nearly bullied the Liberal leader to pay lip service to making electoral reform a priority should he be elected.

One of Campbell's great achievements has been the formation of the Citizen's Assembly. A fine exercise in non-partisan citizen deliberation, the Assembly's recommendation that we revert to a single transferable vote is up for a referendum tomorrow. Whereupon we currently vote for MLA's in single ridings, with BC-STV we would vote for more than one member in ridings larger than currently constituted. For example, the entire city of Vancouver would be one riding, and instead of marking one vote, you would vote for about seven MLA's that would represent the larger riding. Not only can you make seven choices, you can make as little or as many as you wish. Marking one 'x' is not prohibited, and ranking your list of candidates according to preference is recommended.

It may sound convoluted, but it's not. I would suggest listening to the interviews I did with proponents of the system, people like Nick Loenen, Rafe Mair, and Julian West, who explain how BC-STV works much better than I could. BC-STV allows for greater choice at the ballot box. A couple of weeks ago, I talked with a voter, who wanted to choose more than one candidate in their riding. I said, if you vote 'yes' for the referendum you'll be able to in 2009.

Voter choice is increased under BC-STV. You still have one vote, but if your candidate of first choice doesn't have enough votes throughout the riding, your second or subsequent choices will be assigned your support. There's a mathematical formula that's used to determine the quota necessary for a candidate to be duly elected, as well as for determining how subsequent choices are made. It's a bit technical, so again, I suggest listening to the chat I had with Julian West, who explains it so that even I could understand it.

The impetus for electoral reform is borne in the results had in the 1996 and 2001 elections, among others. You'll recall in 1996 that it was the Liberals who received the majority of votes, yet, because they hadn't won enough seats, the NDP formed the government. In 2001, the Liberals won 56% of the vote, yet received damn near 100% of the seats in the legislature, while the NDP was underrepresented with two seats, and all other parties received no seats.

BC-STV may not do away with the rife polarisation in the province (and thank goodness for that, as it makes observers like me busy), but it would be a marked improvement. I am voting 'yes' if for no other reason, than it's time for a change in our system of electing MLA's. Over the last number of weeks, I've done a number of interview segments with pundits, politicians and others about the election campaign. One guest I talked with, Olive Dempsey from Get Your Vote On, talked about the lack of engagement young people have with our political system. Low voter turnout amongst 18-34 year olds is a symptom of the inability of our system to represent that very demographic. BC-STV can't promise that young people will show up in droves come the 2009 election, but it'll be a good step in encouraging them, as for once the stakes are clear, and votes will not be as wasted as they are now.

In my interviews with all of the candidates in my riding of Vancouver Kensington, I found talking with the candidates from smaller parties particularly interesting. It's clear that under STV, they'll gain greater support, but more importantly, their voices will be heard more often and more loudly. Our current system, rewards establishment parties and allows them the breadth of coverage. Smaller parties invariably are shut out and our system does not accurately represent the wide range of opinions in our society. The body politic is nuanced and vibrant. Various voices are often relegated to the fringe, because the main parties adopt more sanitised rhetoric. Each society has a wide range of ideas, yet because of the polarisation in British Columbia, those opposed to STV seem to think it's polarised between only the left and the right-free enterprisers and everybody else. It's not that simple, and for far too long, there have been other ideas, other worthy candidates deserving of election, and a population that has grown apathetic because they're not represented or not counted. Voting 'yes' tomorrow is a step towards change that's good for everyone whose voice has been unheard heretofore.

The picture I paint may let someone believe that with STV all hell will break loose, that all sorts of extremes will find places in the Legislature and precious little will be done. That could very well happen. I doubt that it will, but true, under the current system, all hell could break loose as well. The fact of the matter is this: with STV, we're opening ourselves to the probability that we at this point in history could change how parliament works in the future, and throughout the world. With STV, we are quite possibly reengineering how decisions are taken, how government is conducted, and how we participate in our democracy. Voting 'no' would only shut the door to electoral reform, not just for a generation but forever. We have come so far with the Citizen's Assembly, that it's regrettable to think that if it fails, we're stuck with what we have, where even those on the 'no' side admit that the current 'first past the post' system isn't ideal.

Not only is voting 'yes' of essence, but a strong 'yes' vote is necessary. The stakes are high, surely whatever the outcome, but the threshold for passage is high that a decisive vote is necessary. I have the feeling that the populace is keen on change, but the result may not be favourable to those who are proponents of STV. 60% is a high threshold, as it should be for monumental change. What's disquieting is the thought that a 55 or 58% vote, may effectively shut down change altogether. Really, beyond Tuesday, it's up to the Liberals and the NDP to commit to reflecting whatever the vote is, whether that's some minor adjustment or something major. What's clear is that the status quo is unacceptable.

-30-

Questions and comments may be sent to: editor@thecommentary.ca

An archive of Joseph Planta's previous columns can be found by clicking HERE.