Citizen's
Assembly on Electoral Reform:
Should British Columbia Change its Electoral System?
In December 2004, a group of non-elected citizens will complete a year-long examination into the process of how Members of the Legislature (MLAs) are elected in British Columbia. The Citizen's Assembly on Electoral Reform has been given a mandate to “assess models for electing members of the Legislative Assembly and issue a report recommending whether the current model for these elections should be retained or another model should be adopted.” When announcing the creation of the Citizens' Assembly, Premier Campbell stated that it would help restore voter's confidence in the electoral system, which has been sorely shaken in recent years by scandals , skewed election results, and a poorly performing economy.
The following examines The Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform. The feature is broken down into the following sections:
During the 2001 BC election, the provincial Liberal Party's campaign platform included a pledge to reform BC's electoral system. In “A New Era for British Columbia,” the Liberals promised to appoint an assembly of citizens to examine different electoral options “including preferential ballots, proportional representation, and our current electoral system.” If the Citizens' Assembly recommended changing the current electoral system, voters would have a chance to vote on the proposed changes in a province-wide referendum.
Following their election victory, the Liberals kept their campaign promise. In April 2003, the BC legislature voted unanimously in favour of creating a Citizens' Assembly. In January 2004, the Citizens' Assembly held its first series of meetings.
The Citizens' Assembly has a narrow and specific mandate: to examine how votes turn into seats in the British Columbia legislature. To do so, members will look at other electoral models, such as proportional representation. However, they will not be examining other issues surrounding elections, such as campaign financing and seat distribution.
Furthermore, if the Citizens' Assembly decides a new electoral model is needed, their recommendation must meet specific guidelines:
The Citizens' Assembly is composed of 160 non-elected citizens, two from each of the seventy-nine constituencies and two aboriginal members. Designed by Elections BC, the selection process attempted to be as random and fair as possible, while ensuring that Assembly members reflected BC's diversity:
The BC Citizens' Assembly is the first time power to reform an electoral system has been handed to randomly selected, non-elected citizens. Not only are “average” British Columbians passing judgement on a specific electoral system; they are deciding which electoral system will be put to a referendum vote. Instead of politicians and/or academics, the selection process ensured that the Citizens' Assembly represents a cross-section of BC society. Members include senior citizens and university students; a professional dog walker in North Vancouver and a Prince George high school math teacher. To keep the process free from political interference claims, current and past politicians and political party officers were excluded from the pool of eligible voters. Individuals who ran unsuccessfully for office in the past two years were also excluded.
Funded by the Attorney General's Office, the Citizen's Assembly has a budget of $5.5 million. Assembly members are reimbursed for their food, travel, and hotel expenses at the same rate given to BC government employees. In addition, they receive a $150 honorarium on each day official meetings are held.
In January 2004 , Assembly members attended a series of weekend academic presentations on different electoral systems. In late March, members prepared a preliminary statement, outlining which systems they believe should be examined further. In May and June of 2004, Citizens' Assembly members will attend a series of province-wide hearings where the public can make presentations and respond to the preliminary statement.
In the fall of 2004, Assembly members will prepare a final report outlining their conclusions. The report must be submitted to the Attorney General by December 15, 2004. If the Citizens' Assembly recommends changing the current electoral system, the province will hold a referendum on their recommendations on the date of the next provincial election, May 17, 2005.
Demands for electoral reform are not confined to BC. However, certain features of BC's political climate have heightened demands for electoral reform in that province:
While critics have long complained that the First Past the Post (FPTP) system produces skewed electoral results, this trend has become more pronounced in recent BC provincial elections. The most controversial was the 1996 election. With 39.45 percent of the votes, the NDP won thirty-nine of the provincial legislature's seventy-five seats ; By contrast, the Liberals received 41.82 percent of the votes, but won only thirty-three seats. Despite receiving fewer votes than the Liberals, the NDP won a majority government, while the Liberals formed the Official Opposition.
The move to create a Citizens' Assembly on electoral reform is a direct result of the 1996 election. The Liberal Party made electoral reform a key part of their 2001 election platform, and followed through on their election promises after becoming the government. However, it is interesting to note that the 2001 election results were also skewed - this time in favour of the Liberals. The Liberals received fifty-seven percent of the popular vote, but won ninety-seven percent of the seats (the final results were seven-seven Liberal seats and two seats for the NDP). Furthermore, minority parties such as the Green Party – which received over twelve percent of the popular vote - were virtually shut out.
This result isn't as distorted as the 1996 election, since the Liberals received a clear majority of the popular vote. Nonetheless, it is interesting to note that they are supporting a process that would have drastically reduced their seat percentage if it had been in place in 2001.
In British Columbia, the political climate is much more polarized between the left-wing and right-wing than in other regions of Canada. This increases voter dissatisfaction with the current system, which skews the results in favour of the winning party. Voters on the losing side feel more alienated than they would in a less polarized political climate.
Supporters of electoral reform point out that an electoral system that more accurately reflects the popular vote would force the government to reach a consensus among other political parties before implementing policies. They believe this would significantly reduce feelings of voter alienation.
In the 1990s, several scandals exacerbated voter's frustrations with the provincial government of the day. By the decade's end, criminal charges, conflict of interest allegations, and a sexual affair had forced the resignations of three premiers and a political party leader:
In addition, there were numerous incidents involving lower level government members or party officials. Furthermore, the current premier made headlines in early 2003 when he was arrested for drunk driving in Maui.
Throughout the 1990s, the combination of failed economic policies and a generally sluggish economy increased BC voters' dissatisfaction with their government. The most publicized example was the “Fast Ferries” fiasco. Commissioned by the Glen Clark government, the ferries were supposed to drastically cut commute times between the mainland and Vancouver Island, stimulating BC's ailing shipbuilding industry in the process. But the ferries never performed as promised, and the government eventually auctioned them off. The failed experiment cost BC taxpayers over $300 million.
The current Liberal government has also been hit with controversy. In December 2003, police raided the offices of two Liberal party staffers who worked in the premier' s office. In addition, two Liberal MLAs have recently resigned over concerns about Campbell's leadership.
Organized efforts to reform BC's electoral system began after the 1996 provincial election:
In 1998, Fair Voting BC, a non-partisan advocacy group that included members of the Conservative Party, Social Credit, the Green Party, and the NDP, was incorporated. The organization exists to help change BC's electoral system “to one that is more proportional, giving equal weight to all votes.” Furthermore, they believe BC citizens, and not the government, should select a new electoral system.
Initially, the group's activities – which included launching a website, writing letters to the media, and holding public talks on electoral reform models – didn't receive a great deal of media attention. That changed after the 2001 provincial election, when electoral reform became a real possibility. The group recently announced it is suspending activities until the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform makes its final recommendations in December 2004.
In 2002, the BC Green Party launched a petition calling on the provincial government to implement an electoral system based on proportional representation. Launched under Elections BC's Recall and Initiative Act, the “Free Your Vote,” campaign came after the Green Party failed to win any seats in the 2001 election, despite receiving 12.4 percent of the popular vote. The party proposed a mixed system of proportional representation, with one-half of the MLAs being elected by the current system, and the other half allocated so that each political party's representation in the BC legislature matched its share of the popular vote.
In a statement on their website, Fair Voting BC said they would not join the campaign because of its partisan nature. Ultimately, the petition failed to gain the 250,000 signatures required to force its introduction in the legislature.
To learn more about the Recall and Initiative Act, visit the Elections BC website
While most electoral reform proposals involve some form of proportional representation, the BC Citizens' Assembly have several options to choose from, including remaining with the current system. Here are a few examples:
This is the system we currently have in Canada. The main features of SMP (commonly called “First Past the Post”) are as follows:
It is interesting to note that, while Canada has had fifteen majority governments since 1921, only two of these received a majority of the popular vote.
The main goal of proportional representation (PR) is to ensure that the legislature make-up more accurately reflects the percentage of votes received by each political party. There are many variations among proportional representation (PR) systems, particularly with respect to how voters fill out the ballots and how seats are allocated. However, the main features of this type of electoral system are as follows:
The system most commonly used to achieve proportional representation is the party list system. Under the party list system, the type of list used can affect the result. An open list gives the voter more say in selecting individual candidates. A closed list allows the political party to manipulate the list to ensure more women and/or minorities are selected. In either case, in each riding district votes are counted for individual parties, not individual candidates.
Another method used in proportional representation is the single transferable vote (STV). Under this system, voters receive one ballot, and rank the candidates according to their preference. If no candidate receives enough first preference votes to win, then the second preference votes are counted, and so forth. The quota, or number of votes needed to win, is set ahead of time and can vary.
The main purpose of the Single Transferable Vote is to give voters a method of proportional representation that allows them to vote for individual candidates, instead of political parties.
To learn more about the different systems of proportional representation, see Douglas J. Amy's website
To learn more about open and closed party lists, see “Open, Closed and Free Lists” on the ACE (Administration and Cost of Elections) Project website
Sometimes called “the best of both worlds,” Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) is normally used to introduce a measure of proportionality to the Single Member Plurality (SMP) system. By combining first past the post with the party list system, it's meant to correct the major discrepancies between percentage of votes received, and percentage of seats won, that can occur under Single Member Plurality.
Under Mixed Member Proportional, voters complete two ballots. The first ballot contains a list of candidates and their party affiliations. The second ballot contains a list of the parties. Voters vote for a candidate on the first ballot, and for a political party on the second. Members of the legislature consist of candidates elected on the first ballot, and members selected from a party list, based on the second ballot.
The winning candidate on the first ballot is chosen based on the plurality system – whoever obtains the most votes wins. The second ballot is designed to take care of any discrepancies in House representation as a result of the first vote. For example, if a smaller party receives eight percent of the vote, but doesn't elect any candidates on the first ballot, they will still have eight percent representation in the legislature.
Learn more about the Mixed Member Proportional system on the Government of New Zealand website
Under the Alternative Vote system, voters are required to rank the candidates in their order of preference. If no candidate receives a majority of votes on the first ballot, the candidate with the least votes is dropped from the list, and his/her second preferences are distributed among the remaining candidates. This continues until one of the candidates receives a vote majority.
While the Alternative Vote is very similar to the Single Transferable Vote, there are significant differences between the two:
The pros and cons of the Alternative Vote are as follows:
It is interesting to see what electoral systems are used in other countries based on the Westminster system of parliamentary government:
*Although it is not based on the Westminster system, Germany is another parliamentary government that uses Mixed Member Proportional.
The legislation creating the Citizen's Assembly is an Order-in-Council, passed by the Legislature and signed by the Lieutenant Governor General. The legislative process was as follows:
To learn more about the Legislative debates on the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform, please see the Hansard for April 30, 2003, on the Government of BC Website
To learn more about the powers and responsibilities of the Special Committee of the House on the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform
The Liberal Party's 2001 electoral reform campaign platform had two components. In addition to establishing a Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform, they promised to introduce legislation setting fixed dates for provincial elections within sixty days of taking office. Prior to 2001, the only restriction on election timing was the Constitution Act, 1982, which requires federal and provincial elections to be held within five years of the date of the previous election.
On August 20, 2001, the government introduced Bill 7, the Constitution (Fixed Dates) Election Act, 2001. The legislation makes the following amendments to BC's Constitution Act:
It is not possible to state the exact date of elections past 2005, since an election can also be called in cases where the government loses a non-confidence vote. (A non-confidence vote is virtually impossible before 2005, since the Liberals hold a significant majority of seats). Under the Fixed Dates Election Act, if an election is held due to a non-confidence vote, the next election would be held on the second Tuesday in May four years later.
If the Citizens' Assembly recommends a new electoral system, the government commits to holding a referendum on the new system at the next provincial election in May, 2005. Premier Gordon Campbell has pledged to make the new electoral system law in time for the 2009 election, if the following conditions are met:
Opponents have criticized the government for insisting on a sixty percent majority, instead of a simple majority. It will be interesting to see what position opposition parties take on this issue as the 2005 election date draws closer.
At this point, it would be political suicide for the Liberals to back out of their commitment to hold a referendum, or to change the fixed elections legislation. However, for constitutional reasons, referendum results cannot be binding on a government (source: Gordon Gibson, “Provinces Take Charge of Electoral Reform [PDF],” Fraser Institute Website). It's important to note that the 2005 election will be held under the current First Past the Post system, which tends to give large majorities to the winning party. If the Liberals win a majority of seats, they cannot be forced to honour the referendum result.
After 2005, a Premier with a comfortable majority could introduce legislation revising the BC Constitution Act to remove the requirement to hold fixed elections. The impact of this would depend on the political climate at the time.
It is interesting to compare the Citizen's Assembly process with a previous change to BC's electoral system:
In 1953, due to the difficulties of governing with a minority, Socred Premier WAC Bennett deliberately forced an election over an education issue. In 1953, the Socreds were re-elected with a majority government. Bennett immediately reinstated the First Past the Post system, which remains in use today.
There are several key differences between the shift to preferential voting in 1952 and the current Citizen's Assembly on Electoral Reform:
In March 2004, the Citizens' Assembly wound up the first phase of their deliberations. On March 21 st, they released a preliminary statement containing the following conclusions:
The full text of the Preliminary Statement can be found on Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform official website
Their conclusions indicate Assembly members are leaning towards a proportional electoral system - possibly either Mixed Member Proportional or the Single Transferable Vote. Nonetheless, the Preliminary Statement emphasizes that the Citizens' Assembly has not reached a final decision on whether the current electoral system should be reformed. Instead, the ideas expressed in the statement are meant to be a starting point for further discussion. Members will not reach a final decision until after hearing from the public in a series of meetings to be held throughout British Columbia in May and June. In the fall, the Citizens' Assembly will write up their final report, which must be submitted to BC's Attorney General by December 15, 2004.
The formation of the BC Citizens' Assembly is part of a larger nationwide movement to change Canada's electoral system, both federally and at the provincial level. Recently, the federal government announced plans to undertake a sweeping review of the Elections Act, including the electoral system. Unfortunately, the announcement didn't receive a great deal of media attention due to the “Sponsorship Scandal.”
At the provincial level, the following provinces are formally considering changes to their electoral system:
(Several of these provinces are also considering switching to fixed election dates).
All the electoral reform proposals stress the importance of public involvement through mechanisms such as public hearings. However, to date BC remains the only province where the process of deciding whether a different electoral system is needed, and which system best meets the province's needs, has been handed to non-elected citizens. In addition, it's unclear how many provinces will allow the public to vote on any proposed changes in a referendum.
Electoral reform is still in its infancy. However, it may have interesting implications over the long term: