November 8, 2004
Kamloops Daily News



Their decision was called "historic."  But I didn't find it
surprising that the B.C. Citizen's Assembly on Electoral
Reform overwhelmingly approved proportional representation. 
Nor was I surprised that they rejected the current voting
system.

Proportional representation is common in modern governments
around the world.  And if the assembly's choice for
electoral reform is supported by voters in the next
provincial election, B.C. will become a trendsetter in North
America.

To their credit, the B.C. Liberals set up the Assembly to be
as representative, unbiased, and non-political as possible.

Members of the Assembly  were chosen randomly from all over
the province -- one-half men, one-half women. They represent
British Columbians as closely as 160 citizens could.

Some political observers might call the Liberal decision
crazy.  Why change the process that got you into power?  And
why let strangers decide the ballot question?

One cynical explanation is that the Liberals didn't think
that 160 strangers could agree on anything.   And if they
did, what would be the chances that any model they come
up would accepted by voters?   Especially considering the
hurdle - - 60 per cent of the popular vote and a majority in
60 per cent of the ridings.

Early in the process, it appeared that some Liberals were
getting impatient with the hands-off approach.  Kevin
Kruger, whip of the Liberal caucus, expressed alarm at how
quickly the assembly was coming together, even before public
hearings took place.

Krueger told the chair of the assembly "I was surprised, Dr.
Blaney, that the preliminary statement so clearly
demonstrated that the Assembly had made up its mind to lean
in a particular direction -- being proportional
representation."

Kruger was one of few British Columbians who were surprised. 
Most citizens are fed-up with a system in which their votes
don't count.  Kruger has been wisely silent since, not
wanting to appear to meddling politically.

Public hearings confirmed the direction that the assembly
was heading.  Most of the 1,600 public submissions made to
the Assembly rejected the current system and supported
proportional representation.

Members of the assembly patiently listened to months of
presentations.  Approximately 40 per cent of the submissions
supported the Green Party's model called Mixed Member
Proportional Representation.  Some observers worried that
the opinions would be swayed by the volume of submissions of
one model.

Members were lectured to by tutors familiar with the
different models of voting.  Political scientists suggested
that members were being unduly influenced by tutors who
preferred a specific model.

The assembly members demonstrated how sensible informed
citizens can be.  They were able to filter through the
counsel of politicians, lobby groups, or tutors.  And
rightfully so -- the common sense of common people is the
foundation of democracy. 

In the end, the Assembly overwhelming supported a type of
proportional representation called the Single Transferable
Vote.

The system is easy to understand.  It's a multiple choice
system.  Voters select their first, second, and third choice
of candidates on the ballot.  You can mix and match your
votes for various parties or for candidates from the same
party.  Chances are that your vote will count in electing
someone.

The counting is laborious but not incomprehensible.  Ballot
counting occurs in rounds.   First, the ballots are placed
in piles according to the first choice.  If any candidate
exceeds a predetermined threshold, they are declared
elected.  The beauty of the STV system is that the ballots
in excess of the threshold are not wasted, they are
transferred to the remaining candidates.

Now the second choice on each ballot in the winner's pile
are counted.  The excess ballots from the winner's pile are
transferred to the others according to the number of second
choice votes they received.

Next, the ballots in each pile are counted again with the
added votes from the winner.  If this results in another
candidate exceeding the threshold, that person is elected
and their votes transferred to the remaining. 

The process continues until all the positions are filled.
Finally, the losing candidate's votes are transferred and a
final count done.

If necessary, third choices may be counted.  Ballots are
recycled until most result in electing one of the voter's
choices.

The assembly picked the STV system because it addresses
major concerns -- it's fair, proportional, and elects local
representatives.  Political parties don't like it because
voters choose party candidates.  But it's time that voters
had a greater voice.

go back to my Columns in the