BC held a referendum in 2018 on whether to replace FPTP with a more proportional system of elections, and what should replace it. But I put to you that the referendum was poorly worded. And if a more straightforward choice had been offered the voters, electoral reform to some degree may have been secured.
The 2018 referendum presented three options, each a pairing of two different electoral systems to be used to elect MLAs.
An alternative method of choosing the particular form of elections to replace FPTP is suggested to me by how referendums of that type are conducted in Switzerland.
If there are two options to replace existing system, they are each presented, then a supplementary question proves which of the two is more popular. Neither may have the support to pass, but the supplementary question answers the next question that may come up- if one was adopted which should it be?
This Swiss model does not exactly allow BC's three (of four if you include maintenance of FPTP) choices. But it did suggest to me a simpler way to write an electoral reform referendum question.
The 2018 question could have been broken down thusly:
-Do you want BC to adopt STV in your district (by forming multi-member districts having 2 to 9 seats each, each voter casting only one vote, which may be transferred) yes or no?
Implementation depends on the presence of two or more districts where majorities favour STV lying adjacent to each other or being located in the same city.
If a majority of the voters in a city district vote in favour, the district will be merged with other district or districts in the same city where a majority also favour STV, if any.
If a majority of the voters in a non-city district vote in favour, the district will be merged with an adjacent district or districts where a majority also favour STV, if any.
Majorities across the province required for implementation of either or both of these next two steps:
-Do you want BC to add supplemental seats (about 15 percent of the total) to be filled to address the worst cases of under-representation of parties based on regional party percentages yes or no?
-Do you want BC to add supplemental seats (about 40 percent of the total) to be filled to address the worst cases of under-representation of parties based on overall party percentages yes or no?
These questions vary considerably from the wording of he BC electoral reform referendum. As it was worded then, the supplemental seats would have reflected the full range of percentages, mostly mimicking the composition of representation already established through district elections. While really what is needed are ameliorative seats that address the worst cases of under-representation.
A party with 4 or more percent of the votes that has no representation at all is a case of 100 percent under-representation. A party that has 20 percent of the vote but only 10 percent of the seats is 50 percent under-representation. The worst cases should be addressed first it seems to me.
Getting back to the referendum questions,
A no vote on all three of the questions would leave BC with FPTP.
Majority support for STV in a couple or more nearby districts would see STV brought in as sort of an experiment.
Majority support for STV in any city would see STV brought in for all of that city's voters.
Majority support for any of the other two options would see the passage of that option.
None of the three contradict each other. so there is no problem that way.
The supplemental seats may not be that popular an idea as STV would ensure that all substantial parties were represented. The Supplemental seats would mostly be used to see that extreme parties with little popularity had representation in the legislature, which may not be that great a thing.
==============================================
The government could say that a majority of support in any city for STV in the cities would produce adoption of STV in that city.
The provincial government can change the electoral system as it chooses. with or without referendum. Three of Alberta government have done so. And the BC government has done so at least three times -
the change to Alternative Voting in 1950s,
the change back to mixed Block Voting and FPTP in the 1950s,
the change to FPTP in 1980s, each without the holding of a referendum.
So it is certainly within its rights to bring in provincial STV in any city where a majority of voters want it.
If provincial STV was adopted in any city, it would have opened the door to more in the future.
I have seen different systems brought in for different parts of a province, but I have never seen an overall referendum parsed that way. In fact, failure to allow for different situations across an area covered by a referendum has created strange situations -- see my blog on Alberta's 1948 electrification referendum).
(The formula is also applicable for electoral reform in Edmonton. see my blog on that.)
==========================================
A further question should have/could have been asked:
-Do you want BC to add supplemental seats to be filled to ensure that the party with majority support forms government yes or no?
If approved, voters would have option to cast a vote in a separate election held concurrently with regular elections. This vote would be transferable in the STV style, if required, the purpose of this separate election being to establish which party is preferred by a majority of voters to form government. If required, supplemental seats would be added that would filled by that most popular party, to ensure that that party has a majority of at least 2 seats in the legislature.
Such questions would have loosened the options for voters. They would have been more comfortable. They would not have been forced to vote for complicated pairs of systems. And it is possible that, with being able to endorse as much or as little electoral reform as they wanted, voters may have voted for change.
Or that voters in one or more cities would have endorsed STV and it could have been brought in at least in those places as sort of a foot in the door.
===================================
The theory behind the Swiss system of referendum was described by another as:
"If the majority had voted yes to both A and B, the vote on the supplementary question would have determined which option would prevail and the OCP bylaw would have been amended accordingly.
The supplementary question would have been of little importance to voters with a clear preference for either amendment option.
Voters who liked amendment A and disliked amendment B (or vice-versa) would have indicated their preference in both the primary and the supplementary questions.
The supplementary question would have been of minor importance to those who voted yes to both primary questions. One way or the other, they would get a park.
The supplementary question would have allowed these voters to indicate their preference.The supplementary question would have been of greatest importance and democratic value to the minority who did not want to create a park and voted no to A and B. It would have allowed that minority to moderate the will of the majority by indicating their preference for Plan A or B — the lesser of two undesirable options.
But even as these voters rejected the idea of a park, any park, their preference on the supplementary question can not be taken for granted. The view of some park opponents may have been: “If the majority wants a park, then at least let’s keep it down to a reasonable size.” Others, equally opposed to a park of any kind, may have voted for option A, expressing the view that “I don’t want a park, but if the majority decides that there shall be a park, then we might as well have a decent one.”
The minority would thus not have been simply overruled by the majority; the majority’s decision would have been tempered by considerations for the view of the minority.
This two-stage process may not be suited to every referendum topic. But when the topic concerns a matter in which council and proponents are of opposing views, it engages both parties – and citizens in the community – in discussions on the respective advantages or benefits of the two options on offer...."
Thanks for reading.
======================================================================
(keywords: British Columbia BC 2018 referendum Switzerland Direct Legislation)
Comentários