Introduction
Barring a postal strike, BC voters will start receiving
their voting packages for the electoral reform referendum next week.
In case you're wondering, I’m voting no.
What
ails our electoral politics is cultural, not structural; changing how we elect
our MLAs won’t fix that problem. First-past-the-post has served British
Columbians well for a century and a half.
It is perfectly apt for the challenges of the 21st century. What’s
needed to improve how we are governed is a renewed commitment to responsible
citizenship, not a new system for electing MLAs.
I’ve broken my analysis into three sections. The first describes my experience with another
exercise in democratic reform – the adoption of fixed election dates in
2001. That discussion is relevant to my
view that the culture of politics can
overwhelm even the best intended attempts at structural reform. I will then talk about the serious problems
with the current referendum process.
Lastly, I’ll explain my views on the substantive question, that is,
whether proportional representation is right for BC.
Three
preliminary points
The question before voters is not whether some version of
proportional representation (PR) would be better than first-past-the-post (FPTP)
in other places. The question is whether
PR would be better for BC. So we need to bear the following facts in
mind:
In 14 of
the 19 general provincial elections in BC since 1952, voters elected more than
two parties to the legislature. There
have been as many as five parties in the house at one time, and in 2009 and 2013 the voters of Delta
South elected an independent MLA to represent them. It simply cannot be said that FPTP prevents
minority parties from being elected in BC.
There
are currently 87 seats in the Legislative Assembly. Using 2011 census data, the average
population per constituency is 50,575.
But there’s a wide range of distribution. Most importantly, the electoral districts in
northern and rural BC are both larger and more sparsely populated than in the
lower mainland. The population of the Stikine constituency, for example, is barely 20,000, while the riding is almost 200,000 km2, or nearly three times the size of New Brunswick.
Drawing electoral district boundaries in
British Columbia is an exercise in tight-rope walking, balancing the need for a
fair distribution by population with the need to maintain effective
representation for those who live in northern and rural areas. In defending its PR referendum proposals, the
government has guaranteed that any PR system will: (1) retain MLA
accountability to specific geographic areas; (2) that no region will have fewer
MLAs than now; and (3) that there will be no significant increase in the number
of MLAs. Sorry, but I'm having a hard time getting the math to work. Without a very significant
increase in the size of the legislature, the inevitable result of PR will be to
disenfranchise northern and rural British Columbians. (Let's see. Add ten seats, and allocate them on an equal per capita basis. That's 440,000 people per constituency. Allocate one of those new constituencies to the north. How big would that constituency be? The entire province north of Kamloops and the Kootenays would get one new MLA. Metro Vancouver would get six.)
We are
so accustomed to thinking about our politics in terms of the overall percentage
of the popular vote obtained by each party that we forget this is not how our
system works. The way we elect governments is not top down, from a calculation
of results across the whole of the province; it’s bottom up, one constituency
at a time. Governments are formed when one party or group of like-minded MLAs
unite behind a leader who can command a majority in the House. This is not some antique relic; it’s foundational. We saw it play out in living colour in the
summer of 2017, when the Greens allied with the NDP to form a majority in the
House. The Legislature is a place where local and regional perspectives are gathered, where each
community in the province is given a voice, and where provincial policies are
hammered out on the anvil of local needs.
This is the essence of the Westminster system of parliamentary
democracy. The PR referendum asks us if
we want to change that.
Part 1
– a little history
In the summer of 2001 the BC Liberals enacted legislation
to reform our electoral system by introducing fixed election dates. Since then there has been a general election in
BC on the second Tuesday of every fourth May. BC was the first jurisdiction in
Canada to undertake this reform.
As Attorney General, I was the minister responsible for the bill. I described the goal behind
this reform in the legislative debate on the bill. I pointed out that under the current system, the Premier held the power to decide when a general election would
be called and that Premiers had often timed the calling of elections
as part of their re-election strategy. I suggested that the
public interest in certainty and predictability in the conduct of public
affairs had sometimes been subordinated to the private political interests of
the Premier.
The object was
to take this power from the Premier. And here was my bold claim: I
said the result of implementing the new rules “will encourage, in the long run,
not just greater fairness in our political lives, but it will also encourage a
restoration in the basic relationship of trust that should exist between the
members in this House and the government that they constitute, on the one hand,
with the electorate on the other hand.”
Well, I was certainly optimistic. It’s hard to measure these things, of course,
but while I would still say that this was a useful reform, and it has at least
ensured that our provincial general elections have taken place on four year
cycles, as opposed to the five year gaps between elections in the 1990s, it has not brought about any significant – or even measurable - change
in the basic relationship of trust between citizen and government. This is because that question of trust has
less to do with the formal rules by which MLAs and governments are elected and
more to do with how politics is practiced.
Electoral reform is often actuated by admirable, but naive,
wishful thinking. It’s admirable,
because of course we should always be willing to reform that which needs to be
changed. It’s naive, though, because it
fails to appreciate that politics is fundamentally about the
acquisition and exercise of power, and power drives behaviour in ways that are
not easily deterred by structures and rules.
It’s true that under the old rules, premiers could and did control
the timing of elections to suit their political purposes. But under the new
rules, a different form of “timing management” now takes place. Because the new government knows when they
will face the polls, they manage their agenda on a year by year basis to
maximize the chance that they will be able to present voters with an attractive
platform of promises in time for the next election. The hard work of serious structural reform is
done in the first year, as promises are kept and political capital is used up
in the making of tough decisions. In
years two and three there’s an emphasis on fine tuning the details of the big
projects, and finishing the to-do list from the last election. By year three it
becomes almost impossible to persuade the House Leader to introduce
controversial legislation, and by the end of year three, Santa’s elves begin
assembling the list of goodies that will start to roll out in year four, with
the promise of even more rewards tabled in the budget and Throne Speech that
immediately precede the election. The result? The public still feels they are being manipulated.
Now I’m actually not all that critical of this cycle. It introduces some useful structure into the
way politics is translated into legislation and policy. But my point is this: the introduction of
fixed election dates did not prevent premiers from managing the agenda to suit
their electoral purposes, it just changed how that work is done. Structural reform was not a bad thing,
but it had no significant impact on the culture of the practice of politics and
power.
Some say that the adoption of a PR
electoral system will transform the way politics is practiced. They believe the prospect of more
parties in the House and fewer lopsided electoral results will cause MLAs to work together more collaboratively, to join together harmoniously in search of consensus. Somehow
what is toxic and manipulative about our politics will change. It won’t. The problem with our politics has nothing to do with
the fact that we have FPTP rather than PR.
It has to do with human nature.
Even the best-intentioned politicians – and there are lots of them – are
prone to seek advantage, to advance their personal ambitions by promoting
policy changes, to influence public opinion in their favour by criticizing their opponents, to
divide as much as to coalesce. This is
how politics is done in all political systems. No change in our electoral
system will change this.
Part 2
– a flawed process
As Attorney General in 2001, I was also assigned responsibility
for implementing another electoral reform campaign promise, which became the
Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform. That was an independent, representative
body of randomly-selected British Columbians who met and deliberated over many
months, undertook research into electoral systems, and eventually produced a
report recommending a new electoral system called STV-BC, a form of single
transferable vote. In the 2005 general
election, provincial voters were asked in a referendum whether they supported
the STV-BC proposal. At government’s
direction, the referendum required a
super-majority, including approval by 60% of voters overall and simple
majorities in 60% of the 79 districts in order to pass.
In the result, a majority
supported reform in reform in 77 out of 79 electoral districts, but the overall
vote was 57.7% in favour, short of the 60% requirement. (A second referendum was conducted in the 2009
general election but it also failed.)
The Citizens’ Assembly was
independent of government and political parties. Its work was public and transparent. The
process this time is different. It’s been designed and controlled by
government. In 2005, the BC Liberals even decided not to campaign on either
side of the referendum (other than to encourage people to vote). This time the
government is very publicly committed to an outcome. They want you to vote yes. The problem, of course, is
that the government cannot avoid criticism that they have designed this process
to obtain the result they want.
Electoral reform should not be about advancing the partisan interests of
particular political parties, it should be about the larger public interest. So there’s a stain on the process this time
around.
The more fundamental
process problem is the absence of the double majority requirement. Lots of people have been critical of the 60%
requirement in the 2005 referendum – we made it too hard for the referendum to succeed,
they say. The reason a higher threshold
is defensible in my view is because of the importance of the question. As I tried to point out earlier, the question
whether to change our electoral system is fundamental; it’s constitutional in
nature. Almost all organizations are subject to super-majority requirements when they are
considering constitutional issues or other fundamentally important questions: companies, incorporated not-for-profits, volunteer organizations, and of course Canada’s constitution all impose
super-majority requirements in certain circumstances.
But the other requirement from 2005 – that the referendum
pass in at least a majority of constituencies – is even more important, because
it minimizes the risk that a concentration of voters in southwestern British
Columbia could impose a new electoral system on the rest of the
province without their support.
The current referendum lacks any thresholds. It invites the possibility that a bare
majority of British Columbians, concentrated in Vancouver, could determine the
outcome. This is all the more concerning
because of the absence of any minimum turnout threshold. In 2005, the number of referendum voters was
bound to be close to the number of election voters (voter turnout was over 58%). This time, because it’s a mail-in ballot
unconnected to any other election, there’s no guarantee of any turnout.
All of this undermines the legitimacy of both the process
and its outcome. But I’m not going to
vote no just because the process is flawed.
Part 3
– PR or no PR
There are three principal arguments made in favour of
PR.
The first is that in PR systems, unlike FPTP, “every vote
counts.” The premise of this argument is
that a vote cast in a constituency for a candidate who loses is somehow
valueless, that the voter has been disenfranchised. PR systems seek to fix this problem by making it easier for minority parties to get seats in the House.
The first problem with this argument is that it privileges
party affiliation over individual merit.
It assumes that the only, or at least the main, reason people vote is to
support a political party. That is not my experience. People often cast their
ballot at the constituency level for the individual they think will best
represent their community, irrespective of their party affiliation. At the end of a long campaign you
hear people say, “I don’t like what any of the parties (or their leaders) are
saying, and I can’t support them, so I’m just going to vote for the person, not
the party.”
PR systems are all about enhancing the
primacy of parties in our political system.
PR systems (especially those containing party list elements) all tend to
marginalize the views of independents, of free thinkers, of mavericks. Free-thinking is an asset to our
democracy. We ought to encourage it, not
design electoral systems that throttle it.
But I also don’t agree with the proposition that the voter
whose candidate did not get elected is somehow disenfranchised. It’s true that their candidate didn’t
win. But their voice was heard, and
their vote mattered. It’s just that
someone else got more votes. And that
same process takes place one district at a time across the province as a whole,
until the aggregate of the preferences of the communities of the province is
heard and represented in the legislature.
There are lots of elections and lots of votes in this world. There’s a result. One side wins and the other doesn’t. We don’t say that the minority votes didn’t
count.
Let’s say government tables a bill in the legislature to
raise taxes. There’s a vote. The measure passes. Were those MLAs who voted against the bill
disenfranchised? No. Ah, but people say that it’s different when
we’re talking about the vote to decide who should be an MLA. They say, if I cast my vote for the candidate
who loses the election, then I don’t have a voice in the legislature. I disagree. You had your voice. Your voice
helped decide who would represent your constituency in the legislature. We
build governments from the bottom up, not top down.
The second argument in favour of PR is that FPTP tends to
exclude smaller parties from representation in the legislature. The evidence shows that this is not the case
in BC historically. And most recently,
of course, we have the example of the Green party, which for tactical reasons has decided to concentrate its electoral efforts in only a few districts. Those efforts paid off with the election of 3
Green MLAs in 2017. And far from
suffering a marginal role in the current legislature, they actually hold the
balance of power.
It is true that FPTP will sometimes produce governments
whose seat count is disproportionate to their share of the popular vote. But as I have already said, our system of
government is based on the idea that governments are intended to be composed of a collection of individually-elected MLAs, not the mirror image of
province-wide popular votes for parties.
(Again, the pro-PR position assumes that the only representation
that matters is political party representation.) A government which holds a
majority of seats with only a small plurality of popular vote governs at its
peril if it routinely and inflexibly imposes its will against a majority of
opposition. The ability to effect policy change is not simply a function of the
seat count in the legislature; it’s also about taking the measure of the popular
will on an on-going basis. The point of
PR is to give an electoral leg-up to those parties which cannot even muster
sufficient popular support for their policies to obtain the necessary vote
count in one single constituency.
Perhaps that speaks more to the failure of those parties to devise
policies that truly resonate with people than to any failure of our electoral
system.
A third argument in favour of PR is that PR systems tend to
produce coalition governments that reduce the tendency to polarization that is said to exist in two party systems. This
argument fails to acknowledge an important reality of our political system,
which is the extent to which dissent is a day-to-day fact of life inside the
caucuses of the major political parties.
I’m not going to argue the point at length, but I only need to ask you
to reflect on how UK Prime Minister May has had to govern over the past few
years with the prospect and sometimes the reality of open dissent among members
of her government and caucus – these are all supposed to be the members of her
team, and yet there are Conservative MPs who are more effective opponents of
her government than the Opposition Labour Party. All of this in the world’s oldest FPTP
system.
But I also don’t welcome the prospect of more coalition
governments. Coalitions are made by
power brokers wheeling and dealing behind closed doors, not in the bracing sunlight of public
scrutiny. And here’s what coalition-making
is about: which of the promises that I
made to secure my election will I have to give up to get a share of power? The result is a dilution of
accountability. In the perpetual
coalition world, election platforms lose their importance because they are tossed aside as soon as the real bargaining begins. Instead, there’s horse-trading for power and position. Voters will have no certainty that the party they voted for will actually deliver on any of the promises that were made to secure their vote.
Some opponents of PR argue that it will encourage the
proliferation of fringe parties. They
point to the increasing prominence of far-right political parties in some
countries with PR systems. Well, I’m not at all sure that the rise of alt-right
politics is the result of electoral systems.
Regrettably, populism, including its more extreme manifestations, is a
growing phenomenon in almost all countries.
It’s not an “electoral system” problem, it’s another kind of
problem. It represents our collective
failure – both institutionally and individually - to educate and persuade
citizens of the fundamental importance of the values of liberal democracy. A topic for another day, but not, it seems to
me, particularly helpful on the question of how to vote in the PR referendum. It’s what I meant when I said at the outset
that the cure for what ails us is not electoral reform, it’s a wholesale change
in how we educate, how we prepare people for active citizenship, how we
encourage individuals to recognize the relevance of politics in their lives,
and then empower them to do something about it.
There’s lots more that can be said – and course there’s
lots more that is being said about this topic, which is surely a good
thing. For example, I’ve decided not to
say anything here about the second question on the referendum ballot. I will say this: I think it is perfectly legitimate to decide not to vote on the second question, given the paucity of information that has been provided with respect to the three options.
So. Enough already! Here it is in summary. I'm voting no. Why? The chances that PR will effect any meaningful change in the practice of our
politics are remote. The process followed by the government in putting this
referendum question before the public is problematic. In particular, the failure to impose any
super-majority requirement creates a real risk of a regionally-skewed result
that will exacerbate an already present rural-urban divide in BC, not to mention the dismal prospect of a bare majority in a low turnout vote count. All that to one side, and when all is
said and done, the current system, with its ancient roots in Westminster
traditions which are the well-spring of our democracy, is best suited to ensure
that the legislature is broadly representative of the views and aspirations of
the citizens of BC and the communities in which they live.