I attended Saturday's debate over proportional representation at UNBC, along with about 200 others. While I enjoyed the debate, I am going to vote in favour of keeping the current system.
I have three major concerns. One is accountability. We've had a long battle in Canada to establish the concept of a responsible government, one elected by the people for the people. In the early 19th century we had a government appointed by London. As Canada grew, so did the desire for a government that was responsible.
Proportional representation is an enormous step backwards. Right now we have a system which elects 87 MLAs that each represent a specific riding. If the people in Prince George-Valemount are unhappy with their local MLA, they can boot her or him out and elect a new MLA.
Under a proportional representation system, we would lose half of our local MLAs to party list MLAs. Party MLAs are not responsible to the people of British Columbia. In New Zealand, widely heralded as the best PR system, they have passed a law where a party MLA can be stripped of their seat if they vote against their party. This isn't democracy.
This is a return to the old Family Compact days of the early 19th century.
The other problem is that the seats are not equally valuable. We see this in monetary theory. Good money pushes out bad. If you have a system with convertibility from paper to gold, as the U.S. had in 1972, we see that the paper money becomes less valuable as people exchanged it for gold.
The same thing happens between the PR seats. The seats which are party seats become more valuable because they are not responsible to the people of the province. Ergo, the representatives themselves would prefer to choose seats that they know they are less likely to lose.
What does this mean for our local representatives? It means we are less likely to get the good people because they would rather be on the party lists rather than run for election.
Secondly, there is the issue of adequate northern representation. Every system would redistrict the north in order to have our vote diluted across the province.
There are no maps, no proposals, no numbers, except for the fact that our representation is going to decline. How is this helping the people of the north?
Right now, we have seven seats. If that drops to four, then we've effectively lost 40 per cent of our representation.
This isn't about breaking up a regional monopoly, this is about eliminating our representation altogether. PEI would never accept the loss of a seat; in fact their seat count of four is protected by the Constitution. Why should Northern B.C. accept any less?
Our seats should be protected so that we have the same boundaries and the same number of MLAs as in the past.
Finally, there is the issue of adequate democratic consultation. I remember the Quebec referendum. The argument then was that 50 per cent plus one should be sufficient to remove Quebec from Canada. Does that seem right to you? No. Large changes require substantial support above 50 per cent. This is why the STV proposal required 60 per cent; dramatic changes to our voting systems should require a supermajority. There has never been broad support for PR, anytime in B.C.
The other problem is one raised by Todd Whitcombe. If we get, say, 15 per cent turnout of which maybe 50 per cent support PR, that would mean that PR has the support of less than 10 per cent of the electorate. That is the definition of fringe support. Why should 10 per cent of BC decide to change the system?
Right now there is some dissatisfaction with our current system, but that's not the choice we are being asked to make here.
Is PR a better system? No, and for that reason I would encourage everyone to vote Yes to keep our current system. A deal has to be the right deal and this isn't it. The numbers just don't add up.
Sean Ollech
Prince George
