By Kamloops-South Thompson MLA Todd Stone

There is no credibility in referendum process

Jun 20, 2018 | 2:29 PM

HOW WE ELECT OUR MLAs is one of the most important pillars of our democracy. So changing our electoral system shouldn’t be easy, and it should only come on the heels of a lengthy, thoughtful and transparent process of engagement, education and debate. That was most certainly the case in 2005 and 2009, years during which the former BC Liberal government held referenda on potentially changing our electoral system.

While I’m not opposed to British Columbians having their say in what will be our province’s third referendum on electoral reform in 13 years, I do have a big problem with the inherent unfairness of the process utilized by the NDP-Green minority government.

Gone is the 60 per cent-plus-one, province-wide approval requirement, as well as the regional threshold requiring 50 per cent of all of BC’s electoral districts to approve of any change to our electoral system. In place of this stringent dual threshold approval requirement is only a 50 per cent-plus-one province-wide approval, which means the decision will effectively be made in BC’s largest urban centres.

A long-standing compromise ensuring all British Columbians are fairly represented in BC’s Legislature has withstood the test of time since BC joined Confederation 147 years ago. Simply put, this compromise — which has centered on balancing the interests and ensuring the adequate representation of the densely populated urban cities with the sparsely populated regions of our province — will be no more. The NDP-Greens have decided that 50 per cent-plus-one is good enough to implement a new electoral system for BC. Well, that’s not good enough.

It also breaks the NDP’s promise to ensure strong regional representation. Mind you, the NDP also promised a simple yes/no question (we’re actually getting a complex, multi question ballot), and promised that an all-party committee of the legislature would work out the details for this referendum. More promises made and broken.

Boogie The Bridge

Boogie The Bridge Event Information

Apr 19, 2024

Two and Out

PETERS: Try as he might, Allan Schoenborn will never be forgotten

6h ago

One Man's Opinion

COLLINS: Sorry - did you say, 'Take your old guns to the post office?'

13h ago

To get the results they want, the NDP-Greens have opted to hold this referendum via mail-in ballot (which will drive a lower voter turn-out), despite the fact that they could have held the referendum on October 20th, the same day that local elections are being held across BC. Astoundingly, there is also no minimum voter turnout requirement for approval, and the NDP-Greens have gone so far as to suggest that a 10 per cent voter turnout would constitute a mandate for electoral reform, so long as 50 per cent-plus-one vote for that change. This would mean as few as 5 per cent of eligible voters could change how British Columbians elect their MLAs. If voter turnout comes in similar to previous referenda in our province, that would still mean that our electoral system could be changed by less than a quarter of BC’s population.

This is in contrast to BC’s two previous referenda on proportional representation during which time our former government took steps to ensure a clear mandate. To accomplish that, the question was simple and clear, and it was developed by an independent non-partisan Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform made up of randomly selected BC citizens, not politicians.

Furthermore, the NDP-Greens haven’t shared much detail on the proposed systems of proportional representation that will be on the ballot. But here’s what we do know so far. One option is Mixed-Member Proportional Representation (PR). It means two kinds of MLAs in the Legislature – roughly half elected locally, and half appointed from party lists. It creates a system where the total share of seats equals the popular vote, regardless of regions or ridings. It means roughly half the current number of ridings – and much larger ridings geographically – and half the MLAs in the Legislature would be accountable not to voters, but to political parties that appoint them.

A second option is Dual Member PR. Very similar to the previous system, it also means fewer, though much larger ridings, and two MLAs per riding – one elected by the people locally, and one appointed from party lists based on provincial popular vote of each political party. It’s entirely possible for a candidate to finish third, fourth, or even fifth in your riding and still be handed one of the two seats. It’s also very likely that one of your MLAs would end up being an individual not from your riding, let alone your community.

The third option, something called Rural-Urban PR, has never been used anywhere in the world. It would involve two electoral systems, one for rural BC, and one for urban BC. It means British Columbians in different parts of the province using two different kinds of ballots, utilizing two different forms of Proportional Representation. It was invented by FairVote Canada – the same group running the official ‘Vote Yes’ campaign.

What we do know is that all three options mean much larger ridings, MLAs appointed to the Legislature by political parties, a complicated ballot, a shift in power from local representation to political parties, a proliferation of small, fringe parties, and minority governments and more frequent elections – all characteristics inherent in existing PR systems around the world.

We also don’t know lots, as the crucial details of each system won’t be forthcoming until after the referendum is over. No maps. No boundary definition. No details as to how the ballots will work or rules related to how political parties will develop their candidate lists. Dozens of details are unknown and won’t be known when British Columbians are asked to vote. Yet the NDP-Greens want British Columbians to pick one of the three PR systems, with details to be provided later. Trust us. Don’t worry. Wait and see. Premier Horgan even had the audacity to say people should use “the Google” to inform themselves about the three PR systems.

To me, that’s just not good enough, it’s not fair, and it’s not right. I suspect during the upcoming referendum, British Columbians will send exactly that message to the NDP-Greens: thanks, but no thanks.