Pity the ordinary British Columbian trying to understand sa国际传媒鈥檚 debate on聽proportional representation as ballots arrive in the mail.
Either our province is at risk of devolving into a dystopian future of goose-stepping neo-Nazi soldiers on every street corner, or we鈥檙e just one vote away from a utopian paradise in which all your social and economic problems are solved by elected officials who co-operate transparently as they hold hands and plot world peace at the legislature.
Those are the extremes being portrayed by groups for and against changing sa国际传媒鈥檚 voting system from the current first-past-the-post model to one of three systems of proportional representation.
Surely, somewhere in between is a realistic debate on the pros and cons of this referendum. But you didn鈥檛 find much evidence of that during the first weeks of serious campaigning by the official proponent and opponent groups.
They鈥檝e each been given $500,000 of taxpayer money to argue their points. And the province is, so far, dumber for it.
The official anti-PR group found itself on the defensive for a TV ad that depicts marching soldiers and violent protests, while warning of neo-Nazis and extremism under European governments that have adopted PR. It鈥檚 a shameful bit of fearmongering that does more to undermine the credibility of the No side than backstop any potential benefits of FPTP.
Political scientist Max Cameron (a proponent of PR) has said negative advertising undermines the measured debate for voters. But he鈥檚 missing the point. The goal by both sides is not a measured debate: It鈥檚 simply to win. Using public money.
And negative advertising works. If you doubt that, ask Adrian Dix how his positive 2013 NDP election campaign went, and take a look at how successful the NDP was in 2017 when it executed one of the most negative personal-attack campaigns against a political leader in recent memory, assassinating Christy Clark鈥檚 credibility by depicting her sitting on a throne of money and scheming to help her rich corporate friends.
The Yes side is just as misleading, in its own way. It has been promoting several videos its ally groups have created in which energetic young hipsters and animated characters pretend to break down the referendum using 鈥渇acts鈥� and 鈥渢ruth鈥� 鈥� while glossing over important unanswered questions about the three PR models, focusing only on the negatives of FPTP and over-exaggerating or distorting things just enough to put the very concept of 鈥渢ruth鈥� into question.
To listen to the Yes side advocates, a sa国际传媒 that uses PR will bring its citizens: Happiness, a higher quality of life, fewer deaths from our opioid overdose crisis, an end to partisanship in provincial politics and a truly transparent government that conducts all of its business on the floor of the legislature. There鈥檚 about as good a chance of all that happening as there is of extremists seizing control of sa国际传媒鈥檚 political machinery.
Neither the Yes nor the No side have been able to muster very strong arguments so far, because neither is willing to acknowledge that each system has strengths.
First-past-the-post鈥檚 main strengths are that it鈥檚 simple, easy to understand and we鈥檝e been using it for decades in relative peace. You have one vote, you cast it for one candidate, and one person wins each riding. Then 87 winners from around the province convene in Victoria to legislate. You don鈥檛 need a PhD in mathematics to understand the formula, as under PR.
But many years of using first past the post have shown its weaknesses, too.
The leader of the party that gets just a few more seats than its nearest opponent can consolidate power inside the premier鈥檚 office and run the province like a dictatorship for four-year terms.
This diminishes the role of locally elected MLAs.
Proportional representation鈥檚 main strength is its promise of a system that decentralizes the power structure and redistributes it back to MLAs. It accomplishes this not only by electing local MLAs, but also by topping them up with other MLAs until a party鈥檚 seat count matches its provincewide popular vote.
It can lead to more minority governments, and, theoretically, more co-operation.
But there are also problems with the three PR options. Two of the three choices (dual member and rural-urban) have never been used before. The third, mixed member proportional, is widely used in other countries, but comes in several forms, and sa国际传媒 voters won鈥檛 know which one they鈥檒l get until after the referendum.
For example, one version of the mixed member system could see MLAs elected from candidate lists privately set by the political parties and not voted upon by voters. You can only imagine the kind of political patronage that would then occur among party insiders to get certain people on those lists. Is that the kind of system we鈥檒l see in sa国际传媒? Nobody knows.
And don鈥檛 look to our existing crop of MLAs to help you understand the referendum. sa国际传媒 Liberal Leader Andrew Wilkinson spent his time in the legislature hurling childish insults at Premier John Horgan, calling him a 鈥渃oward鈥� over delays setting up a PR debate. Horgan had already agreed; it was the TV networks holding things up.
The Liberals hope the PR debate will increase Wilkinson鈥檚 profile if he can defeat Horgan in a live televised forum. But that鈥檚 a big if. Everything we鈥檝e seen in the past year has indicated Horgan鈥檚 up to the challenge of keeping his cool and deflecting Wilkinson鈥檚 best barbs.
The NDP and Greens, meanwhile, clearly think a shift to PR will help them stay in power.
Horgan has said FPTP is 鈥渞igged on behalf of the other side鈥� because the NDP wins fewer elections than centre-right parties such as the Liberals. The only way to keep the NDP in power is to change the voting system, according to NDP MLA Rick Glumac, who told the legislature recently: 鈥淎ll the good work that we鈥檙e doing right now could be undone if we stick with the first-past-the-post system.鈥�
Beware the MLAs. They鈥檙e too invested in obtaining and holding power to be trusted to give you the straight facts on PR. Selecting an electoral system just to help one party have a better chance of winning is a horrible way to vote, no matter your political affiliations.
Thankfully, we still have one or two sources of useful information out there. Elections sa国际传媒 has simple videos and straight facts on its website, elections.bc.ca. Start there.
