final report - Vitalizing Democracy through Participation

making every vote countTHE CASE FOR ELECTORAL REFORM IN BRITISH COLUMBIABRITISH COLUMBIA CITIZENS’ ASSEMBLY ON ELECTORAL REFORMFINAL REPORTDECEMBER 2004

CONTENTS1 Making Every Vote Count2 Basic Values3 The Current System of Voting in BC4 BC-STV: A New Way of Voting in BC5 Ballots and By-Elections6 What Happens if we Adopt BC-STV in BC?8 Other Issues Raised by British Columbians10 Process In Brief14 Mandate15 Note from the Chair16 Further Reading / Technical Report ContentsCITIZENS’ ASSEMBLY MEMBERS C. Chris Andersen, Victoria • Margaret Anderson, Prince Rupert • ClaudeArmstrong, Blind Bay • Sharon Arola, Sparwood • Lianne Ashley, Vancouver • Mo Assim, Burnaby • Brooke Bannister,Richmond • Art Beaumont, Metchosin • Nancy Bednard, Vancouver • Wendy Bergerud, Victoria • Debbie Beuk,Anmore • Fred Beyer, Maple Ridge • Jack Blaney, Vancouver • Cheryl Blaschuk, Cloverdale • Julie Boehmer, WestVancouver • Georges Boucher, Lumby • Nicholas Boudin, Vancouver • Gladys Brown, Midway • Lill Brulhart, Surrey •Diana Byford, North Saanich • David Callaghan, Abbotsford • Ingrid Carmichael, Chilliwack • Barbara Carter, WhiteRock • Katie Cavaletto, Kamloops • John Chapman, Nanaimo • Wilf Chelle, Buick • Diana Cochran, New Westminster• Dorothy Coombes, Victoria • Linda Crawford, Vancouver • Tanis Dagert, Lantzville • Edith Davidson, Delta • AnnDavis, Vernon • Sally de Luna, Vancouver • Donna Dew, Coquitlam • Manjit Dhaliwal, Abbotsford • Rick Dignard,Roberts Creek • Darleen Dixon, Fort Nelson • Lana Donnelly, Colwood • Linda Dorey, Coquitlam • Mary Drew, Burnaby• Jean Ensminger, Ladysmith • Caroline Fader, Richmond • Linda Fantillo, Campbell River • Shoni Field, Vancouver • IanFleming, Langley • Allan Flemons, New Westminster • Darin Follestad, Kelowna • Paul Galbraith, Spillimacheen • CliffGarbutt, Vancouver • Jyoti Gill, Vancouver • Wendy Gonsalves, Westbank • Ken Gosling, Creston • Vickie Gowing, Ymir• Dan Green, Prince Rupert • Richard Hall, Courtenay • Derrick Harder, Surrey • Lee Harris, Kamloops • Sandra Hart,Terrace • Darryl Hawkins, Cobble Hill • Ian Hay, Aldergrove • Craig Henschel, Burnaby • R.B. (Bob) Herath, Surrey • JanetHewsick, Victoria • Lynn Hill, North Vancouver • Angela Hsu, Maple Ridge • Firmin Hung, Vancouver • Geraldine Hurst,Burnaby • Beverly Huseby, Abbotsford • Peter Indyk, Delta • Neall Ireland, Vancouver • Adina Irimescu, Burnaby • BillJackson, Dawson Creek • Mary Jarbek, Prince George • Susan Johnson, Surrey • Ray Jones, Kamloops • Robert Jones,Campbell River • Sheri Keller, Kelowna • Will Kilsby, Chilliwack • Frankie Kirby, Vancouver • Barbara Kohne, East Sooke •CHAIR OF THE ASSEMBLY Jack Blaney • CHIEF OPERATIONS OFFICER Leo Perra • CHIEF RESEARCH OFFICER Ken Carty •ASSOCIATE RESEARCH OFFICER Campbell Sharman • DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS Marilyn Jacobson •ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS Don MacLachlan • OFFICE MANAGER Cathy Stooshnov •

making every vote countTHE FINAL REPORT OF THE BRITISH COLUMBIA CITIZENS’ ASSEMBLY ON ELECTORAL REFORM“We are here to invent a new way to engage citizens in the practice of democracy….”To the Honourable Geoff Plant, Attorney General, andTo the people of British ColumbiaThe members of the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reformfeel exceptionally honoured to have been given this historicopportunity to serve British Columbians on a matter so centralto our democracy.Our mandate was to assess different models for electingmembers of the Legislative Assembly and to recommendwhether our current system for provincial elections shouldbe retained or whether a new model should be adopted.Elsewhere, such a task has been given to politicians or toelectoral experts. Instead, British Columbia chose to makehistory and to give this task to the voters.For eleven months we have studied voting systems, we havelistened to thousands of British Columbians in 50 publichearings and received and read 1,603 written submissions.What we most wanted to learn was what values, hopes anddesires should underlie our electoral system and whichprinciples should direct our decisions and recommendation.This work has led us to the following recommendation:The Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reformrecommends our province adopt a new voting system,which we call “BC-STV.” This single transferable votesystem is customized for this province. It is fair andeasy to use, and it gives more power to voters.BC-STV is easy to use. Voters rank candidates accordingto their preferences.BC-STV gives fair results. The object is to make every votecount so that each party’s share of seats in the legislaturereflects its share of voter support.BC-STV gives more power to voters. Voters decide whichcandidates within a party, or across all parties are elected.All candidates must work hard to earn every vote, therebystrengthening effective local representation.BC-STV gives greater voter choice. Choosing more than onemember from a riding means that voters will select membersof the Legislative Assembly from a greater range of possiblecandidates.On May 17, 2005 the referendum question placed before allvoters will be this:Should British Columbia change to the BC-STVelectoral system as recommended by the Citizens’Assembly on Electoral Reform? Yes/NoWe know that a new voting system will take time to becomea smooth working part of our political life and we believethat it should be reviewed after it has been used for threeprovincial elections and that citizens should be involved inthe review.____________________________________________________In the rest of this report we compare our current votingsystem with BC-STV. We outline how BC-STV will workand why we believe this system will best serve this diverseprovince. A second volume, the Technical Report, addressesall aspects of our work and deliberations in detail. Informationon how to get a copy of the Technical Report can be foundon the last page of this report.Together these two reports complete our work. The nextdecision belongs to all British Columbians.CITIZENS’ ASSEMBLY: FINAL REPORT1

making every vote countBasic valuesThrough our work and by listening to British Columbians, wehave identified three basic values which we believe shouldform the basis of our electoral system. These are:Fair election results through proportionalityDemocracy is “rule by the people,” therefore, the resultsof an election—the number of seats won by each party—should reflect the number of votes each party has earnedfrom the voters. The results—votes to seats—should be“proportional.”No electoral system does this perfectly, but that does notreduce the importance of proportionality. Proportionalelection results are the fairest election results. Thepreference of voters should determine who sits in ourlegislature. That is fair.Effective local representationEach community has a distinct personality; each makesits own unique contribution to our provincial life. To beeffectively represented, each community needs theopportunity to choose the people who speak for it in thelegislature, and to hold them accountable in democraticelections.Effective local representation has long been a principle ofour democratic tradition. It is central to our electoral politics.Strengthening local representation should be a test of anyelectoral reform.Greater voter choiceAs citizens, we all are responsible for the health of ourdemocracy, and therefore we must have the fullest possibleopportunity to choose the candidates that best represent ourinterests. Our choice in elections should include choosingamong party candidates, as well as across all parties. To givevoters a stronger voice, greater voter choice should be part ofour voting system.In addition to these values, two issues were consistentlyhighlighted in our discussions on choosing an electoral system.The voter and political partiesThere is a groundswell of opposition in this province to thecurrent imbalance of power between voters and parties.Indeed, some of the submissions we received called forbanning parties on the grounds that they so dominateelectoral politics that local representation is undermined byparty discipline and practices, and voter choice is stifled.While concerned about this imbalance, we recognize thatparliamentary government depends on parties to conductelections, organize the work of the legislature and carry outthe business of government. We believe that the solutionlies in adopting an electoral system that encourages votersand politicians to work together in a balanced partnership.The voter and majority, coalition and minority governmentsMost often in Canada—both provincially and federally—parties that form majority governments earn much less thanhalf of the vote, but take well over half of the seats. Theseare called “artificial majorities.” Nonetheless, Canadians areso familiar with single-party majority governments that weeasily assume they are the natural outcome of elections.A majority government, real or artificial, will claim a mandateand act on it. And it can easily be held accountable at thenext election. However, we are convinced that the simplenature of majority governments should not override the basicvalues of fair election results, effective local representation,and greater voter choice. Most other successful westerndemocracies do not depend on majorities, yet have stableand effective governments, governments that often are bothinclusive of different interests and consensual in makingdecisions.We have all seen ineffective or divisive majority governments,and we have seen progressive and successful minoritygovernments that work through legislative coalitions,particularly the federal governments of the 1960s.We believe that our electoral system should not overridefairness and choice in favour of producing artificial singlepartymajority governments2 CITIZENS’ ASSEMBLY: FINAL REPORT

The current system of voting in BCThe case for majority governmentFor most of our history this province has used a “singlememberplurality” electoral system, popularly referred to as“First-Past-the-Post” (FPTP). The first candidate to cross thefinish line—the one with the most votes—wins the seat andrepresents the local district in the legislature. Governmentsare formed by the party with the most seats. It is a simplesystem.Supporters of FPTP typically argue for its ability to producemajority governments, often cautioning against the unequalpower small parties might exercise in coalition or minoritygovernments. Governments with a legislative majority mayclaim a mandate for action. They do not have to bargainwith other parties to act on their policies, but can plan andtake the administrative and financial decisions necessary toimplement their program. Similarly, at election time, votersknow who is responsible for the government’s successes orfailures and can clearly indicate which party they wish togovern the province.This tendency toward majority government is FPTP’s mostimportant feature: without it, British Columbia would nothave had majority governments throughout much of itsrecent history. In fact, British Columbians have only rarelygiven one party a majority of their votes.Does FPTP meet the needs of British Columbia?A basic principle of FPTP is local representation—everycorner of the province is represented in the legislature.Voters directly choose who they wish to represent them andtheir community, with every area of the province choosingone representative.We believe local representation must be a fundamentalobjective of any British Columbian electoral system.However, although local representation based on theFPTP system has worked in the past, it is now seen astoo easily compromised in at least two ways.u Citizens wishing to support a particularparty must vote for the single candidatethe party offers and not necessarily for the localcandidate they may prefer. This often means that thereal competition is for a party’s nomination and not for thevoters’ support on election day.u Party discipline quickly turns members of the LegislativeAssembly into party advocates rather than local advocates.Many British Columbians now see MLAs as providing“Victoria’s” voice to the people, rather than the people’svoice to Victoria.FPTP is a simple system—voters need only place an “X”beside the name of an individual. However, FPTP does notpromise or provide fair election results. There is no logical orsystematic relationship between a party’s total share of thevotes cast and its seats in the legislature. Local candidatesdo not have to win a majority in their district to win a seat.In exceptional cases—for example, in British Columbia in1996—this meant that the party with the most votes lost theelection. Governments elected with fewer votes than theiropponents are not legitimate in a modern democracy.The FPTP system can produce other undesirable outcomes.In the 2001 election, the opposition was reduced to twoof 79 seats in the legislature, despite winning 42% of thepopular vote. Not only is this obviously unfair, it weakensthe opposition so greatly that the legislature cannot holdGovernment to account. The very principle of responsiblegovernment, the heart of our constitution, is thrown intoquestion. Many citizens understand that the current systemis responsible for these results and believe that they areneither fair nor acceptable.A great many British Columbians told us that political partiestoo easily dominate this system, that it produces a style oflocal representation that is easily stifled by party discipline,that it fails to connect voters’ decisions with election results,and that it offers minimal choices to voters. We agree.CITIZENS’ ASSEMBLY: FINAL REPORT3

BC-STV: a new way of voting in BCBC-STV is a “single transferable vote” (STV) system. Themain feature of these systems is that, rather than marking an“X” beside one name, voters number candidates from mostfavourite to least favourite (i.e., 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.). If a voter’sfavourite candidate (#1) is not elected, or has more votesthan are needed to be elected, then the voter’s vote is“moved” to his or her next most favourite candidate (#2).The vote is transferred rather than wasted. The aim of thissystem is to make all votes count.BC-STV BALLOT• Three members to be elected• Number the boxes in the order of your choice• Write the number “1” in one of the boxes andthen show as many other preferences as you wish.Smith, FredaGill, StevenAPPLE PARTYAPPLE PARTY412We are recommending that British Columbians adopt BC-STVas their voting system. We are convinced that this system bestincorporates the values of fair election results, effective localrepresentation, and greater voter choice.Fair election resultsProportionality—ensuring that each party’s share of seatsin the legislature reflects its actual share of votes—is thebasis of fair election results. A proportional system needsmulti-member districts so that the share of seats in thelegislature can reflect the votes cast by British Columbiansand that voters can elect candidates that represent theirtrue preferences.Howard, BrendaRoberts, SaulJansen, DougWong, LisaLewis, PeterAPPLE PARTYINDEPENDENTPEAR PARTYPEAR PARTYPEAR PARTYSavoie, Christine MANGO PARTY365Proportionality is not possible in our current single-memberdistricts, so electoral districts will be amalgamated to providebetween two and seven members for each new district. Toprovide for the fairest results, districts will be designed tohave as many members as possible. The number of MLAs inthe legislature will not necessarily change; nor will the numberof MLAs for any particular region change.BC-STV will produce fair results but not the kind of extremefragmentation that different proportional systems havepromoted in countries such as Israel.Effective local representationThere are two road blocks to effective local representation inBritish Columbia. The first is geographic, the second political.BC-STV removes both of these.Geographic: MLAs are expected to represent their localcommunities. In British Columbia this can mean providingeffective representation for citizens that live in relativelysmall, densely populated urban areas, or in large, thinlypopulated rural areas of the province. Those of us from theFirst preferences—a 1 in the box next to a candidate’sname—are counted first. Second and subsequentpreferences are counted only as needed.rural and more remote corners of the province understandthe problems that long distances create for participating inpublic meetings or contacting an MLA.BC-STV will adapt to different regional needs. Electoraldistricts in our new system will be organized to reducethese difficulties while ensuring proportionality. In thenorth and south-east this means adopting districts of twoto three members. In the south-central and south-west ofthe province this means new districts of between four andseven members. The number of members for each regionwill remain the same; no region will lose representation,but each will contribute to better proportionality.4 CITIZENS’ ASSEMBLY: FINAL REPORT

HOW BC-STV WORKS*u Electoral districts have more than just one MLA.u Voters rank the candidates in the order of theirpreference—1, 2, 3, 4 etc.u The number of votes needed for election(called the quota) is calculated.u Everyone’s first preference vote is counted.u Any candidates that reach the quota areelected.u If a candidate has more votes than necessarythose votes are not wasted but transferred tothe voter’s second choice.u If no one is elected the person with the fewestvotes is dropped and their votes transferred tothe voter’s next preference.u The process continues until a district haselected all its MLAs.u Few votes are wasted so most voters make adifference to getting someone elected.u Because this is a proportional system thenumber of seats a party wins matches theirshare of the popular vote.*A full description of the technical aspects of theproposed system can be found in the section entitled“The Recommended BC-STV Electoral System” in theTechnical Report.Political: In our current electoral systems, politicalparties, not voters, control the way MLAs represent theircommunities. BC-STV corrects this imbalance by beingvoter-centred and candidate-focused: to be elected,candidates will need to put communities first.Greater voter choiceBC-STV increases choices, allowing voters a much greatersay in determining who will be their local representatives.It allows voters to choose between candidates and parties,it lets voters show which candidates they prefer and in whatorder, and it ensures that their preferences count. This willprovide increased opportunities for candidates from underrepresentedgroups.BC-STV is also the only proportional system that allowsindependent candidates a real chance to be elected. Althoughincreasingly rare, we believe that independents must haveopportunities to participate in our provincial elections equalto candidates who work through political parties.BC-STV responds to British Columbia’s basic values. Itprovides for fair election results, effective local representation,and greater voter choice, and it best balances these threevalues of electoral politics. Similar systems have been usedsuccessfully—in some cases for decades—to elect membersto various positions in Australia, the United Kingdom, andthe Republic of Ireland, countries that share our Westminsterparliamentary tradition. The Irish government has twice triedto use referendums to abolish STV, but the voters said “No.”This is a system designed by voters for voters.Ballots and by-electionsBallots in multi-member districts can be organized in anumber of ways. Because we know that parties play animportant role in our parliamentary system, and becausesome British Columbians will want to vote for a party, weare recommending that candidates be grouped by party onthe ballot. However, in order to ensure that no candidateor party benefits from the order that names appear on theballot, we recommend that both be randomly ordered onindividual ballots.We further recommend that when a legislative seatbecomes vacant, the by-election to fill the seat should usethe same ballots. Where there is only one seat to be filled,the winning candidate will need to get 50% + one of thevotes cast to be elected.CITIZENS’ ASSEMBLY: FINAL REPORT5

What happens if we adopt BC-STV in BC?If British Columbians vote to accept the BC-STV electoralsystem on May 17, 2005, the politics and governance of ourprovince will change.For some British Columbians it is clear that the greatestchange—and the greatest regret—will be the loss of easilyachieved majority governments. BC-STV can produce amajority government if a majority of voters vote for one party.While this is possible, the province’s history suggests thatgovernments under the new system will likely be a minorityor a coalition of two or more parties. This will mean a changein party organization and practices; parties will need to bemore responsive to the voters and less adversarial with theiropponents and partners.Our electoral districts will grow geographically under BC-STV,but the number of voters per MLA will not change. Voters willhave more than one MLA representing them in Victoria, morethan one person to turn to for help. Because each district islikely to elect members from different parties in proportionto the votes cast, voters may well be able to go to an MLAwho shares their political views. This will help provide moreeffective local representation.Perhaps the most significant change for voters andcandidates will strike closer to home. There will be no more“safe seats” that a party can win no matter who it runs asits candidate.Changes for votersVoters will have more power. This means voters will makemore and different kinds of choices.For example, voters will be able to consider candidatesand parties, rather than simply putting an “X” beside oneperson’s name. Staunch party supporters will be able to ranktheir party’s candidates. Both of these changes will meanthat candidates will have to work hard to earn voters’ firstpreference support.Changes for candidates and MLAsWith the loss of safe seats, no candidate, including sittingMLAs, will be able to count on winning election. UnderBC-STV, voters will decide which of a party’s severalcandidates are elected in each district. A party’s candidateswill compete not only against those in other parties forfirst preference support, they will also compete againstcandidates from their own party. Recognizing that theymay not be “first preference” on enough ballots to win aseat, candidates will need to encourage supporters of othercandidates to mark them as their second or third preference.This need to appeal to a greater number of voters shouldlower the adversarial tone of election contests: voters areunlikely to respond positively to someone who aggressivelyinsults their first choice.In order to stand out from other candidates, MLAs will needto clearly represent their districts. This will reinforce effectivelocal representation and encourage MLAs to resist partydiscipline when it is not in the community’s interests. MLAswill have to work harder to ensure that their party’s positionsreflect their constituents’ views.Changes for partiesParties will run several candidates in the new multi-memberelectoral districts. This should encourage parties to nominatea diversity of candidates within a district so that they canappeal to the groups and interests that have been underrepresentedor ignored in our current “winner-take-all”FPTP system.Because the voter will have real power in determiningwho is elected, parties will have a reason to involvemore citizens in their organizations and to make theirnominating processes more open and accessible. Becauselegislative caucuses will include MLAs whose continuingelectoral success will depend on representing their localcommunities, regardless of party policies, the pressures ofparty discipline will decrease. Our politicians will be betterable to represent faithfully the interests of our communities,as well as the province as a whole.And finally, a party’s strength in the legislature will reflect itsactual support among voters—not more, not less. Havinglost the ability to win artificial majorities, parties will have tolearn to work together. This will not reduce the competitivecharacter of British Columbia’s politics, but it may engendera more consensual style of decision-making in which broadagreement is sought for major policy changes.6 CITIZENS’ ASSEMBLY: FINAL REPORT

Changes for the Legislative AssemblyThe most immediate and dramatic change to the LegislativeAssembly will be that its power to choose and effectivelysupervise governments will be restored. The basic theory ofour parliamentary system is that governments are chosen by,and are responsible to, the legislature. However, the presenceof strictly disciplined parties, enlarged by artificial majorities,has reversed this principle, making the legislature a creatureof the government.BC-STV will end false majorities. Governments will need todepend on winning the support of a majority of the legislatureand will be able to pass only those laws that a majority ofMLAs support.The Legislative Assembly will adapt to these new realities.MLAs will be more sensitive to local interests, and theconcerns and hopes of voters will be more commonly heardin the legislature. At the same time, legislative committeeswill take on a more important role in debating and decidingimportant public policy issues.Changes for provincial governmentsThe BC-STV system will end majority governments built on aminority of votes. No single party will be able to implement aplatform without meaningful public debate in the legislature.Unless a majority of voters support candidates from oneparty, future governments will likely be minorities or coalitionsof more than one party. Some coalitions will form beforeelections in the hope of attracting enough votes to gain amajority; others will form when the elected members find outhow much support the voters have given them.Coalition governments, and the more consensualdecision-making they require, are normal in most westerndemocracies. The experience of coalition governments inother successful parliamentary systems has been positiveand we expect no less from our elected representatives andparties. Governments will depend on members from differentparties deciding to work together and making agreementsthat command broad public support. With BC-STV, thepeople will get the government they vote for.THE CHANGE IF BC-STV HAD BEEN IN PLACE IN THE LAST ELECTION% of popular voteprovince-wideLIBERAL 58%NDP 22%GREEN 12%MARIJUANA 3%UNITY 3%OTHER 2%seats under the current systemvotesseats under BC-STVCITIZENS’ ASSEMBLY: FINAL REPORT7

In conclusionWe are convinced that British Columbia will improve its practice ofdemocracy by adopting BC-STV. Election results will be fairer, reflectinga balance between votes and seats, voters will have more choice andcandidates will work harder to earn their support. Political parties willremain at the centre of the electoral process, but they will give up someof the excesses of party discipline and the adversarial style that alienatesmany voters. The Legislative Assembly will be strengthened in its ability tohold governments accountable.No one in the Assembly is so naive as to think that BC-STV will answerevery call for change or correct every inequality or inefficiency in ourprovince’s political system. We have come to believe, however, that bychanging the electoral system we can build a political climate that is morefaithful to the values that most British Columbians want as the foundationsof our political life.British Columbians have an unprecedented opportunity to take control ofsome of the most important rules of democracy. After considering all of theoptions—including doing nothing—we are convinced that by adopting theBC-STV electoral system the voters will create a system where they, thevoters themselves, are closer to the centre of the system. In a democracy,that is what “fair” is about.ON BEHALF OF THE 160 MEMBERS OF THE CITIZENS’ ASSEMBLY ON ELECTORAL REFORMOther issues raised by British ColumbiansOur mandate as a Citizens’ Assembly was focused and clear. This helped us complete the task we weregiven on time and on budget, and led us to our decision to recommend the BC-STV electoral system.A number of other issues were also raised by the thousandsof British Columbians who spoke to us at public hearings,community meetings and through their formal presentationsand submissions. As these issues are beyond our mandate, wedeliberately did not engage in sustained debate on them, nordo we presume to make any recommendations or discuss themin detail here. However, the fact that they speak to the deepconcern many citizens have for the health of our democracygives them a place in our second volume, the Technical Report.In brief, the non-mandate issues raised in this process were:u Enthusiasm for citizen involvement in electoral reform.This discussion reflects both the wide public approval of thegovernment’s decision to create a Citizens’ Assembly and theimportance of encouraging public debate and involvement onissues important to our democracy.u Facilities for access to local MLAs. British Columbiansattach a great deal of importance to strong local representationand the need for MLAs to stay in touch with their districts.This is of particular concern in Northern and rural ridings.u The role and operation of political parties. British Columbiansrecognize the central role of political parties in the democraticprocess, but believe that more openness and responsiveness—particularly in the nomination process and issues relatedto parliamentary reform—would help reduce what are oftenreferred to as gaps in the democratic process.u Public participation in BC's democracy. British Columbiansare concerned with declining voter turnout and increasedpublic cynicism, believing that we need to build a moreparticipatory political process. A system that fully involveswomen, First Nations peoples and minorities would make amajor contribution to strengthening our province’s democracy.8 CITIZENS’ ASSEMBLY: FINAL REPORT

From selection to decision-making:How the Assembly completed its workPrior to the last election the Liberal party made a commitment to:u Appoint a Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform to assess allpossible models for electing MLAs, including preferential ballots,proportional representation, and our current electoral system;u Give the Citizens' Assembly a mandate to hold public hearingsthroughout BC, and if it recommends changes to the currentelectoral system, that option will be put to a province-widereferendum.The membership of the assembly “is to be appointed by a randomselection process.”In September 2002, the government appointed Gordon Gibson toadvise on the mandate and make up of a citizens’ assembly. Mr.Gibson’s Report on the Constitution of the Citizen’s Assembly onElectoral Reform, tabled on December 23, 2002, led on April 30,2003 to the creation of a Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform.On May 16, 2003, the legislature unanimously appointed JackBlaney, former president of Simon Fraser University, to the chairof the Citizens’ Assembly. Dr. Blaney brought together the corestaff for the AssemblyThe following sections briefly describe the Assembly, how it wasformed, how members were selected, the training membersparticipated in and the deliberations that took place fromSeptember 2003 to December 2004. A detailed description ofthe work of the Assembly can be found in the Technical Report.CITIZENS’ ASSEMBLY:FINALFINALREPORTREPORT9

process in briefLEARNING PHASE2The members of the Citizens’Assembly presented a wide varietyof backgrounds and experience: theyreflected the diversity of this province.They also had varying degrees ofknowledge and understanding ofelectoral systems, so a three-monthLearning Phase was provided toprepare members for the tasksand challenges represented by themandate.The Learning Phase consisted ofsix weekend sessions held betweenJanuary 11 th and March 26 th , 2004.The sessions were conducted inSimon Fraser University’s Morris J.Wosk Centre for Dialogue locatedin Vancouver. Kenneth Carty andCampbell Sharman, political scientistsfrom the University of BritishColumbia, designed and deliveredthe learning sessions. An advisorycommittee of experts from variousuniversities and other groups assistedwith the design of the program.Leading international expertsElizabeth McLeay from New Zealandand David Farrell from the UnitedKingdom conducted one weekendsession. David Farrell was also theauthor of the primary text providedto all Assembly members.Each weekend session typicallyconsisted of three majorpresentations, each delivered in aninteractive lecture style, supportedby presentation and pre-sessionreading materials. Following eachpresentation, the Assembly brokeinto 12 discussion groups facilitatedby political science graduatestudents from the University ofBritish Columbia and Simon FraserUniversity. The discussion groupsprovided the members an opportunityto increase their understanding of thelearning materials and the lectures,and to discuss the principles andpractices of electoral systems. TheLearning Phase was supported witha well-maintained website.Assembly members also learnedhow to work together, developing aset of “Shared Values” and approvedpolicies to guide their work and thedeliberative decision processes ofthe Assembly.The Learning Phase culminated inthe publication of the PreliminaryStatement to the People of BritishColumbia. The Statement outlined theAssembly’s progress and expressedthe values the Assembly thoughtshould be part of the province’selectoral system. The Statement alsoprovided a basis for discussion duringthe public hearings.A detailed examination of theLearning Phase is included inAssembly’s Technical Report.shared valuesDEVELOPED BY THE ASSEMBLYu respect people and their opinionsu challenge ideas not peopleu listen to understandu commitment to the processu focus on mandate; preparednessu simple, clear, concisecommunicationu respect inclusivity: all membersare equalu positive attitudeu integrityCITIZENS’ ASSEMBLY: FINAL REPORT11

process in briefPUBLIC HEARINGS PHASEFifty public hearings were organizedthroughout the province during themonths of May and June 2004.Hearing locations were chosento allow the greatest number ofcitizens to attend. The hearings werescheduled from 6:30 to 9:30 pm onweekdays (Monday to Thursday) andfrom 1:30 to 4:30 pm on Saturdays.From four to sixteen Assemblymembers attended each hearing.Each of these Assembly panelsincluded members from the localelectoral districts, the neighbouringdistricts and at least one memberfrom another region of the province.This mix helped Assembly membersto gain an understanding of the localissues and concerns of citizens in allparts of the province.In the course of the public hearings,approximately 3,000 BritishColumbians attended presentationsgiven by 383 people. Following theformal presentations, the hearingswere opened to all attendees forcomments and suggestions, and fordiscussions with Assembly members.A summary of each formalpresentation was posted to theAssembly website where it wasavailable to other members of theAssembly and the public. Thedominant themes of the presentationsincluded the need for change, moreproportionality, local representationand increased voter choice. Contactwith the public continued throughoutthe province as Assembly membersmet with community groups, serviceclubs and schools. Many presentersand attendees commended thegovernment for initiating the Citizens’Assembly.The other significant opportunityfor public participation was throughwritten submissions. Over 1,430individuals made 1,603 submissionsto the Assembly, the majority viathe Assembly’s website where theywere posted for public scrutiny. Overtime, submissions began to referto previously posted submissions,creating a running dialogue.A research staff member read eachsubmission as it was received andprepared an abstract. A full setof abstracts was then provided toeach Assembly member along witha summary of submissions and asearchable data file organized bycategory. As with the presentations,the submissions overwhelminglysupported the adoption of a newelectoral system. Many provideddetailed examples and argumentssupporting their position.At the conclusion of the publichearings, the Assembly met in PrinceGeorge to review what they hadheard and read. The Assembly alsoapproved a plan on how it wouldapproach deliberations and decisionmakingin the fall.A detailed examination of the PublicHearings Phase is included in theAssembly’s Technical Report.12 CITIZENS’ ASSEMBLY: FINAL REPORT

process in briefDELIBERATION PHASE4The Deliberation Phase brought theAssembly’s work to a conclusion.During sessions held at the MorrisJ. Wosk Centre for Dialogue fromSeptember to November 2004,Assembly members considered whatthey had learned through study andresearch, and what the people ofBritish Columbia had told them.Members framed their discussionswithin a well-defined set ofdemocratic values: fair (proportional)electoral results, effective localrepresentation, and greater voterchoice. The first sessions focused onthe features of electoral systems thatbest reflected these values.This included a series of formalpresentations on various electoralsystems from people that theAssembly had identified in publichearings as excellent representativesof their respective positions.Members then moved from adiscussion of fundamental principlesto an examination of what a newelectoral system for British Columbiamight look like, and how it wouldoperate. The Assembly did this bybuilding two detailed models, onea “single transferable vote” (STV)system, the other a “mixed-memberproportional” (MMP) system. Eachsystem addressed the basic values,but they did so in quite different ways.The final discussions involved acareful and systematic comparisonof the two alternatives. Membersexplored not only how each systemworked and the consequences ofadopting one or the other, they alsoconsidered the effect each systemwould have on how our politicalparties work, on the legislature, andon the pattern of government in theprovince. At the end of a thoughtfuland comprehensive debate, themembers made their choice.ASSEMBLY VOTE – OCT 23, 2004Which of the two alternatives wouldbest serve British Columbia?MMP – 31 STV – 123Having clearly identified an electoralsystem that could provide effectivelocal representation, fair electionresults, and greater voter choice,the Assembly then went througha thorough review of the currentelectoral system. Members haddecided to recommend a changeonly if they were convinced thatthe proposed alternative wasdemonstrably superior to the currentsystem. This led to a comparisonbetween the STV system and thecurrent FPTP process. Members thentook two important decisions.ASSEMBLY VOTE – OCT 24, 2004Do we recommend retaining thecurrent First-Past-the-Post electoralsystem in British Columbia?YES – 11 NO – 142Do we recommend the STV(BC-STV) system to the people ofBritish Columbia in a referendumon May 17, 2005YES – 146 NO – 7The final sessions of the DeliberativePhase were devoted to shaping theSTV system to meet the particularneeds of British Columbia, andproducing the Assembly’s final reportand recommendation.A detailed examination of theDeliberation Phase is included in theAssembly’s Technical Report.CITIZENS’ ASSEMBLY: FINAL REPORT13

mandateThe mandate of the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reformis outlined in the Order-in-Council: Citizens’ Assembly onElectoral Reform Terms of Reference—issued May 16, 2003.The complete Terms of Reference and Duties of the Chaircan be found in the Assembly’s Technical Report.The Terms of Reference which speak most directly to theAssembly’s mandate are:1. The Citizens’ Assembly must assess models for electingMembers of the Legislative Assembly and issue a reportrecommending whether the current model for theseelections should be retained or another model should beadopted.2. In carrying out the assessment described in section 1,the Citizens’ Assembly must consult with BritishColumbians and provide British Columbians with theopportunity to make submissions to the Citizens’ Assemblyin writing, and orally at public meetings.3. If the Citizens’ Assembly recommends under section 1the adoption of a model for electing Members of theLegislative Assembly that is different from the currentmodel:a. the model must be consistent with both theConstitution of Canada and the Westminsterparliamentary system; andb. the model must be described clearly and in detailin its report.4. The assessment described in section 1 musta. be limited to the manner by which voters’ ballotsare translated into elected members; andb. take into account the potential effect of itsrecommended model on the government, theLegislative Assembly and the political parties.In addition, the Terms of Reference speak to theAssembly’s responsibility to produce a report on its finalrecommendation.10. The Citizens’ Assembly must present its final version ofthe report described in section 1 to the Attorney-Generalno later than December 15, 2004, for tabling in theLegislative Assembly.11. On presentation of the final version of the report to theAttorney General, the chair may arrange for thepublication of the report.14 CITIZENS’ ASSEMBLY: FINAL REPORT

The idea of a citizens’ assembly—its uniqueauthority and its importance as ademocratic process—clearly exerteda powerful force, attracting highlynotefrom the chairNever before in modern history has a democratic governmentgiven to unelected, “ordinary” citizens the power to review animportant public policy, then seek from all citizens approvalof any proposed changes to that policy. The British ColumbiaCitizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform has had this powerand responsibility and, throughout its life, completeindependence from government.I want to acknowledge this unique gift by first thankingPremier Gordon Campbell for creating the Assembly. Whileseveral community leaders promoted the idea, it was thepremier, in collaboration with Attorney General Geoff Plant,who took the steps necessary to create and secure theAssembly.I also want to recognize the role of the provincial legislature.The Terms of Reference, as well as the conditions governingany referendum, were approved by the Legislative Assemblyin unanimous votes. Members of our Legislative Assemblyunited in making history.The members of the Citizens’ Assembly—British Columbianswho unstintingly gave their time and energy—demonstratedhow extraordinary ordinary citizens are when given animportant task and the resources and independence to do itright. Over the eleven-month course of the Assembly, onlyone of 161 members withdrew and attendance was close toperfect. Their great and lasting achievement is the birth of anew tool for democratic governance.With an impressive commitment to learning so many newconcepts and skills, and with a grace and respect for oneanother in their discussions that was truly remarkable, theAssembly members demonstrated a quality of citizenshipthat inspired us all. My deepest thanks and regard goto each and every one of them.talented staff, researchers and administrators to its cause.Their work enriched the Assembly’s work, and all staffmembers performed their tasks with exceptionalprofessionalism and integrity. Twelve-hour days, seven-daysa-week were common: they willingly provided anything thatthe Assembly needed to get the job done and done right. Ineach session’s evaluation Assembly members consistentlygave to staff their highest marks.The facilitators—graduate students in political sciencefrom Simon Fraser University and the University of BritishColumbia—were also exceptional. These outstanding,exemplary colleagues deserve enormous credit for theAssembly’s achievements.All Assembly members and staff are indebted to GordonGibson. At the government’s request, he prepared theConstitution of the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform.With few variations, we followed Mr. Gibson’s clear andsensible plan. And, during the Assembly’s tenure, I oftenconsulted Mr. Gibson for his wise, helpful and objective advice.I also want to thank and recognize the contributions ofHarry Neufeld, Chief Electoral Officer, and Linda Johnson,Deputy Chief Electoral Officer, of Elections BC who wereessential and very helpful partners throughout the Assembly’swork; Neil Reimer, David Winkler and Carol Anne Rolf of theAttorney General’s ministry who helped us use governmentservices in ways that supported our independence; membersof the Research Advisory Committee from the University ofBC, Simon Fraser University and the University of Victoria;community leaders who helped to promote the idea of acitizens’ assembly; and the staff of the Delta VancouverSuites and Morris J. Wosk Centre for Dialogue, who adoptedus as a special family.And the heartiest of thanks to those citizens who attendedhearings and made presentations and submissions, and toall British Columbians—your support made possible thiswonderful invention in the practice of democracy.JACK BLANEY, CHAIRCITIZENS’ ASSEMBLY: FINAL REPORT15

FURTHER READINGThe source book used by the Citizens’ Assembly for a general discussion of STV is:Farrell, David M, Electoral Systems: A Comparative IntroductionBasingstoke, UK: Palgrave, 2001, especially chapter 6.References to a range of information on the STV electoral system from a variety of countries can be found on theCitizens’ Assembly website. Go to www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/public and enter ‘STV resources’ in the search box.A lively animation of how the BC-STV system works can be found on the Assembly website.TECHNICAL REPORT: CONTENTSu Final Reportu The Recommended BC-STV Electoral Systemu Other Issuesu Designing and Implementing the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral ReformSelection PhaseLearning PhasePublic Hearings PhaseDeliberation Phaseu Communicationsu Supporting MaterialsCopies of the Final Report and the Technical Report are available at public libraries, universities and collegesthroughout the province. They are also available at www.citizensassembly.bc.ca.The provincial government intends to open a Referendum Information Office. Phone Enquiry British Columbia(604-660-2421 or 1-800-663-7867) or email EnquiryBC@gems3.gov.bc.ca for contact information.16CITIZENS’ ASSEMBLY: FINAL REPORT

Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication DataBritish Columbia. Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform.Making every vote count : the case for electoral reform in British ColumbiaISBN 0-7726-5253-81. British Columbia. Legislative Assembly — Elections — Planning — Citizenparticipation. 2. Single transferable voting — British Columbia. 3. Election law —British Columbia. I. Title.JL438.B74 2004 324.6’3’09711 C2004-960160-1DESIGNPHOTOSPRINTERAnthea LeeKent KallbergMitchell PressJay Konkin, Surrey • Evelyn Krenz, Richmond • Cary Laing, Brentwood Bay • Janet Loewen, Langley • Sheila MacDermott,Penticton • Jack MacDonald, Victoria • Kimberlee MacGregor, Surrey • Glen Mackinnon, Nanaimo • John Mak, Burnaby •Nancy McAskill, Burnaby • James McConaghy, Prince George • Tanya McDonnell, Kelowna • Allan McKinnon, Cranbrook• Amanda Medley, Dawson Creek • Thea Melvin, Ladysmith • Marijke Merrick, Delta • Michele Miller, Kimberley •Russ Miller, Grand Forks • Bob Monk, Quesnel • Evelin Morrison, Prince George • Cherie Mostrovich, North Vancouver• Clara Munro, Sicamous • Tony Naccarato, Williams Lake • Linda Nicolaisen, Nanaimo • Ken Nielsen, Vancouver •Harley Nyen, Kelowna • Tina Ouellette, Fort St. James • Stephen Paetkau, Vancouver • Susan Patry, Merritt •Craig Peterson, Richmond • Don Phillips, Maple Ridge • Stan Pietras, Princeton • Andrei Popa, Vancouver •Michael Pritchard, Hazelton • Gene Quan, West Vancouver • Shawn Rai, South Surrey • Anna Rankin, Quesnel • Colin Redekop,Surrey • Jill Reilly, Vancouver • Lynelle Ridewood, Maple Ridge • Heidemarie Riemann, Courtenay • Ann Rushlow, Vancouver• Steve Sage, Fraser Lake • Aaron Schallie, Cloverdale • Wolf Scholz, Kitimat • Frederick Shum, Vancouver • Dalbir Sidhu,Surrey • Priya Singh, Surrey • Jakob Skovgaard, Ladner • Ralph Smith, North Vancouver • Ray Spaxman, West Vancouver •Jerry Stanger, Port Coquitlam • John Stinson, Penticton • Jacki Tait, Gitwinksihlkw • Sharon Taylor, Abbotsford •C.J. Thiessen, Chilliwack • Sam Todd, Burnaby • Tom Townrow, Vancouver • Arlene Tully, Vancouver • Rosemary Vanderbilt,Victoria • Joanne Vander Meulen, Smithers • Darren van Reyen, Victoria • Ron Walberg, Abbotsford • Charles Walker,Surrey • Douglas Waller, Prince George • Betty Walters, Port Coquitlam • Robert Westfall, Coquitlam • Anne WhitelawDykes, Roberts Creek • Sylvia Williams, Langley • David Wills, Vancouver • Norm Womacks, Kelowna • Wayne Wong,Vancouver • Susan Wood, Qualicum Beach • Brad Yee, Coquitlam-Westwood • Deborah Young, Lone Butte • JeremyYoung, Victoria • John Zall, Abbotsford • F. W. Zens, Port Alberni • Jack Zhang, Richmond • Ilene Zurowski, KamloopsEXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CHAIR Christina Wong • PROJECT COORDINATOR AND MEMBER LIAISON Susanna Haas •DATABASE MANAGER Carol Fleming • ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT Christine Cheung •ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT Catherine Hirbour • EDITOR Patrick Lewis

printed on 30% recycled paper