Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

PR vote lets us choose our democracy

Now that the civic elections are out of the way, the electoral system race is on full blast and the crazies are coming out from under their rocks.
let-warner.01_10312018.jpg

Now that the civic elections are out of the way, the electoral system race is on full blast and the crazies are coming out from under their rocks. To watch what is being said in the media, in news, letters and ads, one would get the impression that B.C. will be slipping into anarchy or jack-booted storm troopers are on our door waiting to march in. The truth is no matter which system we have after the referendum, life will go on much as it is now and the sky won't fall.

The polls tell us many voters are undecided and would like to make some sense out of the near hysterical rhetoric we are hearing.

Most democracies in the world use a form of the two basic concepts. First past the post (FPTP) or proportional representation. (PR). B.C. and Canada presently use the older FPTP and have for may years. So why change?

There are two fundamental reasons to give change your consideration: our current FPTP concept has a fundamental flaw that skews the results and FPTP encourages a confrontational, you are either with us or against us, two-party approach.

A look at the results of past elections in Canada and B.C. quickly shows that, more often than not, the winning party received considerably less than 50 per cent of the votes but received considerably more than 50 per cent of the seats up for grabs.

Even in the one provincial election since 1952 where there was a true majority elected, the numbers are badly out of line. In 2001, the B.C. Liberals got 58 per cent of the votes which gave them 97 per cent of the seats in the legislature. Looking at the other side of the coin the 42 per cent who voted for another party had only three per cent of the seats.

The basic principle of proportional representation is that the government that governs us has the support of at least 50 per cent of those who elected it and the percentage of seats a party gets would be close to the percentage of votes that party gets. A change to PR would give us governments that are representative of the will of the majority of voters.

The naysayers do not dispute the fact that the numbers are badly skewed in favor of the winning party with our existing system. Instead they say there is nothing wrong with that and if it isn't broke, don't fix it. Well, there is something wrong with that.

In our system of government, most of the decisions on what direction our government will take on any of the important issues they tackle are determined in caucus. That means they are made behind closed doors by the governing party. By the time they see the light of day in the legislature, with a false majority, the opposition is powerless to do anything about challenging the decision. This means that a group that represents only a minority of voters is able to push forward their policies despite the majority. That is the issue.

There are far more successful democracies in the world with a PR form of government than FPTP. Thirty-three of the 36 countries in the OECD, the most successful democracies in the world, have PR governments. The exceptions are Canada, United States and Britain. Many strong, stable, prosperous, peaceful countries like Norway, Denmark, Germany, Sweden, Australia and New Zealand use PR.

There have been at least 14 commissions, assemblies and reports in Canada that have looked into the question of changing to PR. Every one has recommended the change yet we have stuck with FPTP.

The FPTP concept prefers a two party system. Smaller parties will always get a smaller percentage of seats than the percentage of votes they get. The downside of a two party system is the polarization, you are either with us or against us attitude, that prevails. B.C., much like the U.S. with its FPTP system, is badly divided politically and regionally. A multi-party system, which PR encourages, would see smaller parties emerge on the left and the right. Stronger parties without a majority would find themselves needing to work with these smaller parties.

Multiple parties would promote a more conciliatory, cooperative environment in our legislature. Serious consideration would need to be given to other people's point of view as opposed to dismissing it outright because they are on the other side. This is not because they would suddenly learn to love each other, but they would find that they would probably need that smaller parties vote.

The question in the upcoming referendum then is should we retain a system in which the will of 40 per cent of the electorate should override the will of 60 per cent of our voters or should we change to a system where the decisions the legislature makes are made by a government that has the support of at least 50 per cent of the electorate?

Why are we in Canada and B.C. still clinging to a system which goes against the grain of how a democracy should work?

Simple. FPTP gives a "bonus" of extra seats to the winner. Get 40 per cent of the votes equals 60 per cent of the seats equals 100 per cent of the power. Any party that is at the top of the heap has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. They enjoy having these "false" majorities.

Lobbyists and corporations would far rather have only one or two parties to try to sway so they don't want change.

Politicians who have enjoyed the comfort of false majorities are fighting hard to retain that undeserved advantage. The political power brokers in our province want things to stay as they are. Lobbyists and big corporations, including foreign big business, don't want change.

Getting change is going to require a big effort from grassroots folks who see the need for a fairer, more democratic system. We are seeing the beginnings of a well funded, Trump like fear campaign from the powerful who like it when that "bonus" comes their way.

Some no voters' concerns are true. Probably there will be more parties represented in our legislature. There will be fewer single party majority governments in BC. PR governments encourage multiple parties while FPTP discourages multiple parties. Any party that doesn't get a true majority will need to seek the support of lesser like minded parties to get the 50 per cent voter support they need to form a government. This will mean the major parties will need to be less confrontational, more conciliatory towards these smaller parties in order to get that support. Major parties will need to listen to and give consideration to the opinions and ideas of these smaller parties.

Among the 45 per cent of eligible B.C. voters who do not vote are many who are not happy with the options they now have. The emergence of some new parties will give that large block of voters options that are not there today. The big parties say to vote strategically but many want to vote for something they believe in rather than against something. Voter turnout will improve.

Anyone of the three ProRep concepts put forth by the Attorney General would work in BC and the A-G has left enough wiggle room in each of them so that the committee can customize the one chosen for B.C. needs. All three are proportional, and contrary to claims, they will all maintain local representation, ensure that no region will have fewer MLAs, and they all mean you are voting for people not appointed MLAs.

As a Northerner, I am leaning towards the Rural/Urban concept. It recognizes the unique feature of B.C. where most of the votes are jammed down in the southwest corner of the province with fewer and fewer people the further north one goes. It understands that those ridings in urban areas of a few square blocks are far different than ridings in the north that are much larger.

Remember, through all the rhetoric, the simple question is which of the two voting systems gives the majority of voters a government that they voted for. A simple question with a definite answer in favour of proportional representation.

Please exercise your vote with the mail in ballot. Seriously consider what type of democracy we should have.

John Warner

Prince George