In 2001, the B.C. Liberals made an election promise to hold a Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform to examine how B.C. elections are run.
The leaders of all major political parties in BC (elected and unelected) agreed to support a non-partisan process by which voters would be randomly chosen from the voters list, given extensive training on political processes and a budget to travel around the province listening to B.C voters' election experiences. The process was overseen by Gordon Gibson, a former MLA. The Assembly would be chaired by Jack Blaney, a former president of Simon Fraser University.
160 members were chosen from across the province, a man and a woman from each electoral district plus two members chosen from aboriginal communities.
Throughout 2004, the BC Citizens' Assembly toured around the province listening to British Columbians. Very few people supported the current first past the post system, and concerns were constantly addresses regarding fairness, local accountability and whether there was enough competition and choice.
The Citizens' Assembly has a difficult task in finding a system that would balance the desire for a fair system with concerns regarding keeping local representation in the larger rural ridings.
The Citizens' Assembly narrowed in on two alternatives to replace the current first past the post system.
One was the Single Transferable Vote, a system used in Ireland and in the Australian Senate.
The second system was known as MMP (mixed member proportional) in which voters would vote for a local candidate and a system which was used in Germany.
After months of deliberation, the assembly chose to recommend the STV system. They felt it gave more control to the voter than to a political party and was the most flexible system to preserve local representation while achieving fair results.
In 2005, British Columbians voted on the recommendations of the Citizens' Assembly. 58% of voters favored electoral reform, but the government had previously announced that it would only honour the results if 60% of British Columbians agreed.
However, because of the strong majority support the referendum received (greater than any party has received in the past 60 years), the government felt compelled to re-run the referendum after asking the Electoral Boundaries Commission to determine what boundaries would be for an STV election. The EBC has completed its work, so this second referendum will be held on May 12, 2009.
The Citizens’ Assembly was created by the Government of British Columbia with the unanimous support of the B.C. Legislature. It was an independent, non-partisan assembly of citizens who examined the province’s electoral system — that is, how our votes determine who gets elected to sit in the provincial Legislature.
The Citizens’ Assembly had 160 members, one man and one woman from each of B.C's 79 provincial electoral districts (constituencies) plus two Aboriginal members. They were representative of the province as a whole, and worked for all British Columbians. Members were picked by random draw from a pool that reflected the gender, age and geographical make-up of British Columbia. Assembly chair Jack Blaney was also an additional member, the 161st.
The initiative was unique. Nowhere else in the world had such power been handed to randomly selected citizens.
What did the Assembly do?
The members spent 11 months in 2004 studying electoral systems in use around the world, holding public hearings, accepting public submissions, and finally reaching a decision. That was to recommend a new electoral system: BC-STV.
For the Assembly members, 2004 was divided into three phases: From January-March, they learned about electoral systems. In May and June, they held public hearings throughout B.C., for members to hear diverse public views. From September-November, members met to decide if they believed B.C. should have a new electoral system, or retain the current one.
Their final report was submitted to the people of B.C. and the government on 10 December 2004. Then the Assembly and its staff disbanded.
Their recommendation was originally put to the voters in British Columbia as a referendum question at the provincial election on May 17, 2005, where it received the support of 57.7% of the voters.
The government had specified that for it to accept the results of the referendum, it would have had to have to be approved by 60% of all voters, and by a simple majority of voters in 60% of the 79 electoral districts. If the voters had endorsed the new system, the government had promised it would have been in place for the 2009 election.
Since BC-STV obtained strong majority support that was just shy of the 60% threshold, the government opted to re-run the referendum after asking the BC Electoral Boundaries Commission to determine what boundaries would be used under STV. We will be voting again on this question on May 12, 2009.
By listening to British Columbians, the Citizens' Assembly identified three basic values which they believed should form the basis of our electoral system.
These are:
Fair election results through proportionality
Democracy is “rule by the people,” therefore, the results of an election—the number of seats won by each party— should reflect the number of votes each party has earned from the voters. The results—votes to seats—should be “proportional.” No electoral system does this perfectly, but that does not reduce the importance of proportionality. Proportional election results are the fairest election results. The preference of voters should determine who sits in our legislature. That is fair.
Effective local representation
Each community has a distinct personality; each makes its own unique contribution to our provincial life. To be effectively represented, each community needs the opportunity to choose the people who speak for it in the legislature, and to hold them accountable in democratic elections. Effective local representation has long been a principle of our democratic tradition. It is central to our electoral politics. Strengthening local representation should be a test of any electoral reform.
Greater voter choice
As citizens, we all are responsible for the health of our democracy, and therefore we must have the fullest possible opportunity to choose the candidates that best represent our interests. Our choice in elections should include choosing among party candidates, as well as across all parties. To give voters a stronger voice, greater voter choice should be part of our voting system. In addition to these values, two issues were consistently highlighted in our discussions on choosing an electoral system.
The voter and political parties
There is a groundswell of opposition in this province to the current imbalance of power between voters and parties. Indeed, some of the submissions received called for banning parties on the grounds that they so dominate electoral politics that local representation is undermined by party discipline and practices, and voter choice is stifled.
While concerned about this imbalance, the Citizens' Assembly recognized that parliamentary government depends on parties to conduct elections, organize the work of the legislature and carry out the business of government. We believe that the solution lies in adopting an electoral system that encourages voters and politicians to work together in a balanced partnership.
The voter and majority, coalition and minority governments
Most often in Canada—both provincially and federally— parties that form majority governments earn much less than half of the vote, but take well over half of the seats. These are called “artificial majorities.” Nonetheless, Canadians are so familiar with single-party majority governments that we easily assume they are the natural outcome of elections.
A majority government, real or artificial, will claim a mandate and act on it. And it can easily be held accountable at the next election. However, the Assembly was convinced that the simple nature of majority governments should not override the basic values of fair election results, effective local representation, and greater voter choice. Most other successful western democracies do not depend on majorities, yet have stable and effective governments, governments that often are both inclusive of different interests and consensual in making decisions.
We have all seen ineffective or divisive majority governments, and we have seen progressive and successful minority governments that work through legislative coalitions, particularly the federal governments of the 1960s. Our electoral system should not override fairness and choice in favour of producing artificial single- party majority governments