On Saturday, the Chamber of Commerce and UNBC hosted a debate between both sides of the question for the proportional representation referendum.
There was a very strong turnout - I counted about 190 individuals which for a political forum on a sunny fall day is very good. The opening remarks surprised me a bit. I was fully expecting Peter Ewart to rail against wasted votes. Instead, the major thrust of his argument seemed to be our present system doesn't work for anyone because it is controlled by party politics.
He went so far as to contend our local MLAs only do what the party says. I know or have known all of our local MLAs for the past 25 years and have interacted with each of them along with the candidates for all of the political parties. To say any one of these individuals was simply touting party lines is grossly unfair.
For example, while I might not always agree with Shirley Bond on issues - indeed, I have written many columns critiquing the B.C. Liberal government - I would never question the dedication she has shown representing all of the people in her riding. She has always been willing to listen to alternative views and engage in discussion.
I have also had the privilege of seeing our governments at work in committee below the level of the legislature. There is far less acrimony and far more agreement than most people realized.
We don't really lurch from hither to yon with respect to major policy as Ewart contended. Yes, you can "cherry pick" some examples where the government has gone ahead and done things which reverse previous policy. But the vast majority of initiatives carry forward from one government to the next. Just consider Site C and LNG which have transitioned across party lines.
Speaking of "cherry picking," I do wish those in favour of proportional representation would come up with something more intelligent than accusing their opponents of "cherry picking" when they are doing it themselves.
When someone stands up and says - to paraphrase - "proportional representation is great. Ninety countries around the world use it. Why wouldn't we?" that is a form of cherry picking. But more to the point, when their opponents now try to unpack that statement, you can't simply accuse them of cherry picking.
Under the general rubric of proportional representation, we have a number of countries such as Russia which few people would consider a democracy. But bring it up and that is cherry picking.
We also dysfunctional governments such as Italy, Northern Ireland and Sweden but mention these and you are cherry picking. Or bring up countries where the ruling party has been blackmailed into particular legislation by a minority partner in their coalition, such as Germany, and you are cherry picking.
Then there is the problem of unpopular governments being able to retain power by assembling a coalition of the willing despite the sentiment of the majority of voters. It is actually much more difficult to remove an unpopular government under proportional representation than the proponents will tell you. Mention what has happened in Norway, though, and you are accused of cherry picking.
In any case, the major thrust of Ewart's support for proportional representation seemed to focus on the idea of getting rid of political parties. Several times he indicated under PR, parties would not have as much control over their candidates.
I find this a very perplexing argument since any of the forms of PR being proposed in the referendum would leave some members of the legislature entirely beholden to the party for their position. This is the very nature of any form of "list proportional representation" - MLAs are drawn from a list constructed by the party.
Under a PR system, there would be many more parties in the legislature not fewer and they would have far more control over the members not less. Unless, of course, the PR system is going to be set up in such a way as to limit the members of the legislature to the three major parties we have in the province which is what the five per cent minimum seems to be about.
In any case, how we elect our MLAs does not appear to be the issue voters have. The real question is - what happens once they are in the legislature? And nothing presented by either debater spoke to this issue.
