I take issue with several points in the recent guest column by Nick Loenen on electoral reform. The mention of the current U.S. president’s name will not advance the cause of electoral reform.
The U.S. system is dominated by two well-funded political parties and no others at both federal and state level. Independents and third parties have been largely unsuccessful in elections. Proportional representation (PR) would not help in the short term in the U.S.; serious campaign finance reform would, but that is most unlikely. Secondly, Donald Trump won the presidency because of the Electoral College vote. We do not want this arcane mechanism introduced any time soon in this or any other civilized, Western democracy.
Loenen seems to think that a 5 per cent minimum threshold to elect PR representatives will keep extremists at bay. Well, the State of Israel continues to tinker with this issue and they still have ultra right/religious groups seeking seats and influence in the Knesset. Research on voting systems in countries like New Zealand, Israel, Germany, Sweden and others shows that introducing a PR system is complex in itself. It leads to something called ‘personalized’ PR (Germany), no constituencies at all with voting from party lists only (Israel), or a system whereby 10 to 12 representatives are elected from each of 29 large constituencies, and a further 39 are broadly allocated to give the PR effect (Sweden).
Research has also shown that where PR is used most effectively, say Germany, the First Past the Post (FPTP) is still used to directly elect 299 constituency representatives with pluralities, then the second batch of 299 are selected from party lists for a 598 Bundestag (parliament). But wait… There are now 631 members, not 598 because yet another mechanism was introduced to give more regional and proportional representation to under-represented interests — and it then becomes too difficult to understand. Several of the countries mentioned here also have introduced transferable voting (ranking in order of preference) to ensure that a winning candidate receives 50 per cent plus one vote, or an overall majority. This is the case in Ireland. An interesting note in a report I read stated that the transferable ballot finds the ‘most preferred/least disliked’ candidate. Thin-skinned politicians beware.
The difficult decision now facing B.C. voters is firstly to decide whether to retain FPTP with its strength, and simplicity, as winning candidates simply achieve a plurality of votes in each riding. If voters choose to abandon the current system, then we must choose one of three options, ALL of which require serious work by either a political legislative committee and/or an independent electoral boundaries commission before implementation can occur. And this is to be done by a minority government (soon to be slightly smaller now that a government MLA was just elected mayor of Nanaimo), held together with minor party support, and an opposition party member sitting uncomfortably in the speaker’s chair. Appointing this legislative committee could be challenging.
I would like to support a form of PR — the original German model appeals to me — but there is too much work to be done on the three BC options we must choose from and all is to be done after the vote this November. Speaking of Germany, recent developments there make it appear that those extremists Nick Loenen talks about could make real gains with the imminent departure of the chancellor.
I read in the Elections BC Voter’s Guide (page 8) that another referendum is promised after two general elections to see if B.C. wants to keep the new voting system, if we choose one of the options, or return to FPTP.
I really believe we will be dealing with this again in the not too distant future. Alternatively, the Ministry of Health could come up with a vaccine like the flu shot to be administered to all B.C. residents of voting age to protect us against any further talk of electoral reform.
Rod Drennan
