 |
| The British Columbia Legislature |
NO BC PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION SOCIETY
No to Proportional Representation in
BC
Wednesday February 28, 2018
Attorney General David Eby
Ministry of Attorney General
PO Box 9044 Stn Prov Govt
Victoria, BC V8W 9E2
Dear Attorney General Eby:
The No BC Proportional Representation Society was formed to oppose any proportional
representation electoral system in British Columbia. Our organization will campaign vigorously in
every part of our great province to keep the First Past The Post electoral
system that has helped build a strong democracy, an inclusive society and a
powerful economy. British Columbia is a jurisdiction admired around the world
and we believe that proposed changes will have a serious negative impact.
We
are therefore pleased to make this public submission to you and the BC
government on the proposed electoral system referendum and in response to the
online government consultation website.
Unfortunately,
we are making this submission under duress and with significant and grave worries
about the process the BC government has undertaken. We believe this consultation process is
unfairly biased in favour of Proportional Representation electoral systems and
against our current First Past The Post electoral system.
These
are fundamental concerns that we fear will undermine the referendum.
We
also respectfully disagree with your own statement: “The Attorney General will
serve as a neutral arbiter throughout the process to ensure the referendum is
conducted fairly and in accordance with B.C. law”.
As
a New Democratic Party candidate, you campaigned in favour of Proportional
Representation in the May 2017 provincial election and you are on the record as
being in support of changing to Proportional Representation.
While
we fully expect that the Attorney General will indeed, as your statement said: “recuse himself
from all cabinet and caucus debate and decisions regarding the referendum,” there
is at best a clear public perception that you have already decided and favour
one side in this debate.
In the election, your party promised
to campaign for proportional representation:
“A New Democrat government
would not only consult British Columbians on the specific proportional reform
to be put to a vote, but would campaign strongly in favour of that reform.”
And the NDP-Green Party Confidence
and Supply Agreement states that:
“The parties agree that they
will work together in good faith to consult British Columbians to determine the
form of proportional representation that will be put to a referendum. “The
parties agree to both campaign actively in support of the agreed-upon form of
proportional representation.”
We hope that you take additional steps to ensure any perception of bias
is removed and we have some recommendations on how that can be achieved.
That said, we did appreciate your statement regarding giving information
to British Columbians: “We will be providing them with neutral information
about the different voting systems. There are all kinds of benefits of first
past the post. There are all kinds of benefits of proportional systems.”
You also said that the
public input and opinion gathering would be: “fair,
neutral and as independent as possible.”
We indeed hope
that will be the case going forward; We do believe, however, that you need to
remove yourself from the process given your pre-determined and frequently
expressed bias as to the result.
Bill
Tieleman
Suzanne
Anton
Bob
Plecas
Directors,
No BC Proportional Representation Society
Recommendations
- No BC
Proportional Representation Society
The
No BC Proportional Representation Society presents the following
recommendations for the conduct of the 2018 referendum on electoral systems.
1.
British Columbia voters should have two clear choices in the
2018 electoral system referendum: our current First Past The Post system and
whatever Proportional Representation system the government recommends. There should not be any “two-part” ballots or
“ranked ballots” with multiple choices.
We agree with BC Premier John Horgan on the need to
two clear choices for voters in this referendum. Premier Horgan told The Vancouver Sun editorial board prior to the May
2017 election in discussing the referendum question that:
“A consensus on yes or no
is pretty easy. You are going to have 50
per cent say yes or no.”
“So you give them one
system to vote on?” he was asked for clarity’s sake.
“Yeah, yeah exactly,” the
NDP leader replied.
Having two clear choices is the only way voters can
compare electoral systems as apples to apples, not apples to oranges – to
ensure they have the full information before deciding. Full information includes any constituency
boundary changes as well detailed information about how votes are counted and
allocated.
2. For further
clarification, the proposed Proportional Representation electoral system must
have all details made public well prior to the referendum, including proposed
geographic riding boundaries; Proportional Representation Candidates List
rules; whether that List will be open or closed; and comparisons with similar
systems around the world.
A fair and democratic referendum means giving BC
voters all the details they need to make an informed choice. And that requires providing substantial
information about the proposed Proportional Representation electoral system
that could be adopted.
All details include knowing the answers to these
questions:
· What the electoral geographic ridings are with each system – our current
First Past The Post and a proposed Proportional Representation system or
systems;
· What type of local representation there would be under each system or
systems;
· What the role of political parties would be in deciding if there is local
representation – which is not guaranteed under certain Proportional
Representation system – and what kind of local representation would be
determined by the electoral system;
· Whether there would be Proportional Representation List candidates chosen
by political parties to “top up” each parties’ MLAs to match the province-wide
popular vote;
· What laws and regulations would determine the Proportional Representation
List of candidates and how it would be administered;
· Whether the Proportional Representation electoral system would force parties
to create the Proportional Representation List of candidates with required regional,
gender, sexual orientation, ethnic heritage or any other qualifications;
·
Whether political parties under a
new Proportional Representation electoral system could expel Proportional
Representation List candidates MLAs from the BC Legislature if they quit their
party to join another, as currently is being proposed in New Zealand’s Electoral Integrity Amendment
Bill. That legislation, popularly called the “waka
jumping bill,” would give party leaders enormous new power over their Members
of Parliament.
As National Party MP Nick Smith has
argued: "It will enable party
leaders to dismiss MPs from Parliament. It risks turning our parliamentarians
into party poodles. An MP who questions a policy, criticizes a leader, or votes
differently to their party faces dismissal from Parliament by their party
leader. This is a fundamental change to the centuries-old principle that the
public alone gets to hire and fire MPs. The greatest harm would be to stifle
debate and further concentrate power with political parties and leaders.”;
3. The
referendum should require that to change our current electoral system, a 60%
vote in favour of a Proportional Representation system across the province of
those voters participating and a 50% plus one vote in favour in at least 60% of
British Columbia’s 87 geographic ridings vote in favour.
Changing our electoral system is a very significant
decision that not only determines how we will be governed indefinitely but also
impacts our economy, our society and our communities.
For that reason, we strongly disagree with the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act and
the decision in Section 9 (1) that allows a 50% plus one vote to change our
electoral system.
We respectfully urge the BC Legislature to amend the
Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act
before the referendum this fall.
The precedents are extremely clear: in British
Columbia’s two previous electoral system referenda in 2005 and 2009 a 60% vote
in favour of the Single Transferable Vote electoral system across the province
of those voters participating was required along with a 50% plus one majority in
at least 60% of British Columbia geographic ridings voting in favour.
Why require a majority stronger than 50% + 1? We believe it is necessary for a stronger
consensus among BC voters to be reached before making a fundamental and
significant change in our electoral system.
The legitimacy of changing BC’s electoral system
with such a narrow margin will lead to ongoing questions and objections to its
validity. Surely requiring a strong
majority of voters in favour is not too much to ask?
Ironically perhaps, but other provincial legislation
requires even higher democratic thresholds of 75% in order to make much less
significant changes.
The BC Strata
Property Act – Section 97 – demands that strata property owners must
approve by a ¾ vote in favour any additional expenditures not previously
approved in the strata’s budget.
In other words, a Strata Council must hold a special
general meeting to spend $20,000 to replace a furnace and obtain 75% approval –
but BC’s Electoral Reform Referendum 2018
Act would change our entire electoral system with just 50% + 1 in favour! How absolutely absurd.
4. The ballot
question must be drawn up by Elections BC and meet the test of being neutral
and fair. Adequate time should be given
for possible judicial challenge of the ballot.
This should go without saying but given the biased
nature of the government consultation process on electoral systems, it must be
clearly stated – Elections BC must draw up the ballot question and it must be
neutral and fair.
And Elections BC should make public the question
with adequate time left before the referendum for a possible judicial challenge
of the ballot.
5. That the
term “electoral reform” be dropped from all further government and Elections BC
reference, as it indicates a strong bias in support of a proportional
representation electoral system.
“Reform” has a particular
meaning that indicates “improvement” or “positive change”. While that may well be the view of
proportional representation advocates, it should not be the term used by either
the government in official communications about the referendum or by Elections
BC.
British Columbians voted
strongly in the 2009 referendum against one of the alleged “electoral reforms”
– the Single Transferable Vote. To use a
biased term in the 2018 referendum is not only unfair but fails to recognize
that a majority of voters in a binding referendum decided democratically that
proportional representation is not a “reform”.
6. Proponent
groups on each side of the referendum should have equal funding at a minimum of
$500,000 each as in the 2009 STV referendum.
There should be a minimum of $500,000 provided to
each of the two sides in the referendum – that amount was given to each side in
the 2009 referendum to undertake a public awareness campaign.
That amount is a minimum in our view based on the
previous electoral system referendum and the need to inform voters prior to
such a fundamental decision that could last for decades to come. Ideally the amount would also at least
reflect inflation since 2009.
Whatever the total amount is, it should be equally
split between only two parties, one representing the First Past The Post side
and the other, the Proportional Representation side.
And there should be no restrictions on how proponent
groups use the funding so long as they are accountable, transparent and
following all applicable laws and regulations.
The funding decision should be made independently of
the government by a neutral third party individual [or panel] as has been done
previously and should be based on the proponents’ groups experience, knowledge
of the issue and recognized public leadership and support.
7. No referendum
funding should be provided to proponent groups from outside British Columbia,
including non-profit organizations, unions or businesses.
We believe that this referendum is exclusively an
issue for British Columbians to decide, not organizations or individuals from
other provinces, let alone other countries.
It is essential that during the referendum campaign period prior to the
balloting, outside organizations and individuals not be allowed to fund either side,
or place advertisements of any kind. Of
course, speakers representing views one way or another should be allowed, as
freedom of speech and full discussion are important. For this type of free debate notices of
speaking forums should be exempt. Elections
BC should be asked to provide approvals and be the watch guard.
8. Unions and businesses
based in British Columbia should be allowed to make donations to proponent
groups, with full disclosure.
We do not believe it is fair or reasonable to
restrict unions or corporations from making contributions to proponent
groups. A referendum on electoral
systems is quite different from an election, since:
· The BC government has said it will be “campaigning” in favour of
proportional representation – to restrict unions and businesses from supporting
either side would further increase the bias of the government being on one
side, potentially with all its resources;
· No MLAs are being elected so political party financing changes need not
apply; the results are indefinite and could last for decades;
· This is a public policy issue, not a partisan issue;
· The choice of electoral systems will have a significant impact on our
economy and jobs – blocking unions or businesses from having their right to
free speech would be highly undemocratic; and
· The potential negative impact of proportional representation on rural representation
in the BC Legislature is such that unions and businesses based in rural areas
should have every right to oppose an electoral system that could hurt their
interests.
9. Third-party
advertising by British Columbia-based organizations should not be restricted during
the referendum period.
For many of the same reasons listed above, we
believe that there should be no restrictions on third-party advertising by
British Columbia-based organizations or individuals during the referendum
period.
We believe that so long as there is disclosure of
who the third-parties are and that their expenditures are also disclosed after
the referendum, British Columbians are more than able to think for themselves
and decide this issue on its merits after hearing all arguments from both
sides.
Conclusion
There are flaws in every electoral system. Transplanting a foreign concept into our
British-based parliamentary system will not solve any that critics of First Past
The Post raise.
We could propose workable solutions to these
problems, and will during the referendum campaign, but that is not within the
request for submissions.
We are fortunate to live in the best province in the
best country in the world. At the center
of our success is our democracy, and at its core lies the current electoral
system.
Stability, simplicity, success.
Your government has chosen to bring forward the
third referendum on the same topic in 13 years.
Attempts to change our electoral system have failed twice.
Some people will not take no for an answer. Instead you have changed the rules, lowered
the threshold and slanted the early stages of the discussion.
We nonetheless remain hopeful that you will consider
the above and bring forward a referendum that is unbiased and fair.
