by Nick Loenen

In November of 2008, British Columbians will once again cast a vote for or against greater democracy. The promised, second referendum on voting system reform offers a rare opportunity to revitalize BC’s governing institutions.
In September’s speech from the throne, Premier Gordon Campbell’s Liberal government committed to do it right next time. In particular, an intensive public education program and funding for advocacy groups will be available on both the yes and no sides. Additionally, a STV map will indicate the precise location of the riding boundaries and the number of seats for each locality.
Can the yes side win this second round? Yes, but education is the key. Last spring, polls consistently showed that the more people knew about BC-STV, the more they approved. Members of The Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform invested heavily in education and only then gave STV overwhelming support. Similarly, people in BC will support STV when they are aware of its advantages. We have three years to talk to each other. Let’s use that time productively.
BC-STV is uniquely suited to meet the needs of our province at this time in its development for two reasons. First, BC is becoming increasingly diverse in terms of economics, ethnicity, culture, and politics. Second, there is a global imperative to be less adversarial and more cooperative. Our political institutions can either help or hinder the province in realizing its potential. STV promotes the politics of inclusion and consensus. Just what is needed for these times. In contrast, first-past-the-post (FPTP) is past its best-before date.
But that is the big picture. The next referendum will be decided by people’s perceptions about how STV affects them personally in their own immediate, local context. The contest won’t be easy. Last spring, defenders of the status quo thought the yes side didn’t have a hope. This time, the opposition will be alert, well funded, and more cohesive.
Hence, we must listen to people’s fears and concerns and address them directly. I want to mention just one. People fear a loss of local representation with STV, a fear particularly strong outside the Lower Mainland. If most of Vancouver Island or the entire Okanagan comprises one riding, how can citizens relate to their MLA, and how can MLAs serve such vast areas effectively? In addition, where a number of MLAs are responsible for the whole, is anyone responsible for any part?
In answering that question, it helps to note that nearly half of the Citizens Assembly represented ridings outside the Lower Mainland. They discussed and researched the question in depth. Effective local representation was one of the three basic values they looked for in a voting system.
It is a profound misunderstanding of STV to think that all MLAs within a riding represent all the residents in that riding. Yet, it is a common mistake. Even Justice Berger, in his study for the City of Vancouver, did not see that STV only creates a very close, direct link between each MLA and his/her voters. Under STV, voters have just one vote; while they can rank many times, they end up voting primarily for just one MLA. Since nearly everyone’s vote helps to elect someone, most voters can look at the legislature and see one person they helped to elect. That is their MLA.
In turn, MLAs are well advised to have a very accurate profile of their voters. It starts as early as the nomination meetings. Since candidates of the same party are in competition, each will want to identify their own unique supporters. During the election, candidates do not market themselves to all voters, but only to one quota of voters. Why appeal to all voters when surplus votes are taken away from winning candidates?
The logic of STV dictates that in large, rural ridings, winning candidates will represent their own geographic areas. Unlike FPTP, which wastes the majority of votes, STV ensures that a majority of votes are required to elect someone. The few votes from Atlin, Dease Lake, Lumby, or Logan Lake are needed and will put some candidate into the legislature. Is that candidate likely to forget those who got him/her there?
In the last referendum, opponents charged endlessly that in ridings such as Kamloops, the urban sector would capture all the seats and rural folks would be forgotten. STV makes that impossible. The Assembly understood that, and STV had its strongest support among members from rural BC. That message needs to penetrate beyond the Assembly members to the popular mind.
The great 19th century British, political theorist John Stuart Mill was an early and ardent STV proponent. He called it “personal representation,” since nearly all voters could look to the House of Commons and know that at least one MP spoke for them. Under STV, no persons or areas of the province will be left out. All will participate in the governing process. That is the essence of democracy.

Nick Loenen is sessional lecturer at UBC in BC politics, and has written extensively on voting system reform.