CKNW Editorial
for May 2, 2001

While I don't want to muddy the waters by actually throwing an issue to the politicians during an election perhaps this is the time to think about reforming our election process. And I must confess that I have been and remain all over the lot on this one.

I look at Adriane Carr's Green party at 10% in the polls and ask myself why, if this is reflected in the final vote, shouldn't this be reflected in the result, namely 10 seats? That would happen, of course, under proportional representation. Indeed this is the fairness of that system - all points of view have the opportunity to be represented in the legislature in proportion to those who hold them. The way the system works is this - each political party is represented in the legislature in proportion to the votes it receives with there usually being a floor of 5% that must be achieved for representation. The winning MLAs are off a list presented by the parties.

There are a number of drawbacks to this system. In the first place, it makes the system entirely one of party not individual. Not that independents are ever elected under our system but I'm not sure I would like to see the party become everything.

To get on the list, especially high up that list, would be much sought after and lack of independence of thought and a surplus of loyalty to the party bosses would be paramount.

This leads to a second weakness. If New Zealand is any example - and it is the system I know the most about - the selections, especially by major parties, stresses party loyalty, such as by the cheque book, as the major criterion for selection. Which segues into the third objection, namely that there would be no need for regions to be represented and indeed because there would be no constituencies, they would not be specifically represented.

It is said that PR produces minority governments and that this is a good thing if only because MLAs in a minority situation would have more clout. I agree that would be a good thing but the fact is it doesn't happen. MLAs would be even more bound to the party than they are now. Those who were elected from the bottom of the list would always be fighting to have themselves moved up to a safe slot by the next election. Those on the top would be currying favour to stay there. Moreover, what usually happens is a coalition, either formal or nearly so. The coalition fights as hard and perhaps harder to stay in government than does a majority party under our system.

There are ways to overcome some of these objections. It could be stated that all regions of the province be represented on the top part of the list. But where, do you suppose, people from the Peace River District ... or Northern BC ... would be on that list? You could have the list selected by parties at their convention. But you show me a convention that isn't carefully managed from the top and I'll show you a party that couldn't elect a dog catcher.

Proportional Representation works best in small places. You can, as is done in New Zealand and Germany, have a hybrid of PR and "first past the post". You could elect half from constituencies and the other half off the party list. This seems to work OK in Germany but you must remember that Germany is a bicameral state with an upper house representing the regions. In New Zealand, on my annual visits where I talk to people from all walks of life I haven't heard a good word about the system. It must be re-examined next year and there will be a referendum held on whether or not to continue it. If such a referendum were held today, five years after the hybrid scheme became law, it would be voted out by a huge majority.

The system we use has advantages, of course. The principal one is that regions of the province have a say and they must be taken into account when a government is formed. Its major weakness is that in the vast majority of cases a candidate with less than 50% of the popular vote wins. This could easily be rectified by having either a runoff election, or more cheaply and practically, a transferable ballot where a voter would mark his preferences. But does this system really elect a majority candidate? If the winner gets in with second or third choice votes how does that make him the choice of the majority? The principle argument against the transferable ballot or the run-off is never mentioned but I will declare it - the media would hate it. No more could there by highly profitable election nights with advertisers falling all over themselves to buy prime time. No more would there be the suspense necessary to sustain a good old election night.

You will note that I have not opted for a method. That's because the debate has not yet been held. What I do say is that we should have that debate. And we should have a commitment to that end from both Mr Dosanjh and Mr Campbell.