May 31, 2005 , 2005
Kamloops Daily News



The rest of B.C. got it wrong according to many
Kamloopsians.  Every other provincial riding voted in favour
of the Single Transferable Vote.  But not Kamloops and
Kamloops/North Thompson.

One explanation is that everyone is out of step but us. 
That's the view of ex-politician Bud Smith who campaigned
for the No side of STV.  "We've always been leaders," says
Smith.  According to this reasoning, Kamloops must be right
regardless of how everyone else votes.

A more likely reason is given by Arjun Singh who campaigned
for the Yes side.  He explains that no established leaders
came out in support of STV.  The mayor of Kamloops and both
Liberal MLAs were against it. 

The No side was vigorous and the Yes side had no strong
leaders.  Smith is "a guy who commands a lot of respect in
this town," said Singh.  The Yes side was set adrift in a
tide of election advertising.  And unlike other ridings, no
media in Kamloops supported it.

One criticism of STV was that is was confusing, but no more
confusing than the threshold for passing the referendum
itself. 

Many voters couldn't understand why the referendum didn't
pass when 77 out of 79 ridings approved it.  When the same
number of ridings voted Liberal in 2001 it was called a
landslide victory.

There were some notable aspects of the dual vote.  In
referendum on proportionality, it was fitting that the NDP
got a share of seats exactly equal to their share of votes. 

The Liberals got more than their share.  The losers were the
Green party.  They had the greatest to gain from
proportional representation.

Lack of knowledge didn't stop other British Columbians. 
They were prepared to give STV a chance even though the
facts were vague.  According to an poll taken before the
vote, only 32 per cent could even name what the letters STV
stood for.

Only 11 per cent felt "very informed" about STV. 
Apparently, the majority of voters felt confident in the
recommendation of the Citizens Assembly.

Or maybe voters were just feeling contrary - - if
politicians were against it, then it must be good.

Now that a strong majority of voters want electoral reform,
political leaders are finally speaking out in support.  NDP
leader Carol James likes the system of electoral reform
which was formerly proposed by Green Party leader Carr.  Is
Premier Campbell prepared to bring the child of his own
creation, the Single Transferable Vote, in from the cold?

I like them both - - the Citizen Assembly's STV and the
Green's Mixed Member Proportional Representation. 

Both are easy to understand, especially when the simple
Proportional Representation system is explained first. 
Under simple PR, there are no ridings and therefore no local
representation.  Members of legislature are picked from
lists prepared by each party based on voter share.  Simple
PR is not being considered because B.C. voters want a local
MP.

MMPR has some of both the old and new.  Under this system,
one-half of the members are elected in the traditional way
and one-half according to simple PR.  If we had MMPR, the
Green Party would have elected about 4 members.

Both MMPR and STV require larger ridings.  MMPR requires
larger ridings because there are only one-half the number of 
MLAs.  STV requires larger ridings because that's the only
way that results will be nearly proportional.

One advantage of MMPR is that it is a compromise between the
existing system and simple proportional representation. 
Thus the shock of a new system is reduced.

Each system has its own idiosyncrasies and neither is truly
proportional.  Both are better than what we now have.

The polarized politics of B.C. are a result of the
adversarial nature of political parties.   The understated
civility of Carol James is refreshing but that's the
exception rather than the rule.  In contrast, the two local
Liberals couldn't even be gracious in victory.

Either STV or MMPR would reduce the polarization by
introducing more voices, more concerns than just the left
and right.  Both systems would require cooperative politics.

Given the landside victory for electoral reform, we will be
visiting the issue again.  Maybe then our new mayor and
community leaders will be more progressive.  Next time,
Kamloopsians will be more informed and we will assume our
natural role as provincial leaders.

go back to my Columns in the