The BC Citizens' Assembly has placed a few quotes from organizations supporting STV on the Assembly's website. There are some interesting points about these organizations and what they wrote that the Assembly didn't put on their website. Remember to follow the link, don't stop at the quote given on the BC Citizens' Assembly website. Okay, you're a busy person, here's what's also on those pages.

DCBC - No wonder the Electoral Reform Society supports STV - they are in the business of STV with their 'specialist knowledge' to conduct such a 'complex operation'.

Gradually I became alarmed that there was a growing bias towards STV from the instructors that was rubbing off on Assembly members. Assertions were made that STV systems gave voters 'maximum voter choice' and that these systems 'weakened political parties'. I could see that these points resonated with many Assembly members who were disgusted with the major political parties in BC and that Assembly members accepted these assertions without question.

On one occasion an instructor said that MMP elected 'Zombie politicians' (politicians who voters rejected at the constituency level yet got re-elected via a party list so that voters couldn't get rid of them). I had never heard of this term, despite studying various European and New Zealand systems. This piece of information made headline news in the Vancouver Sun, prejudicing people against MMP.

As part of the preparation for this submission I made a Google search on the web for the term 'Zombie Politicians' and found that the only reference to this term as used by your instructor for the election of a list MP or MLA was on the Citizens' Assembly website!

STV was held up as a type of proportional representation system, which I found out is not the case by questioning David M. Farrell, the author of the main text used by Assembly Members - Electoral Systems: a comparative introduction. Dr. Farrell supports STV and came to explain STV to the Assembly members. During a break he was asked if, indeed, STV was a proportional representation voting system. He said that it was not a proportional system by design but by chance it can give some proportional results depending on the district magnitude.

Factual information about exactly how STV works in Ireland and Malta, the two countries where it is used, was not given in much detail to Assembly members. Interestingly, when Dr. Farrell was asked directly by an Assembly member, 'Why do you prefer STV?' during question period at the end of his lecture he replied bluntly that his preference was 'irrational'. It was simply that it was the system he grew up with.

Armed with the education from Farrell's book and the information gathered at the six weekend sessions, Assembly members went out to gather public input at 50 public hearing around the province. I personally attended the first two public hearings as well as three others. From observing these meetings I got the impression that many of the questions asked by Assembly members of MMP supporters were obtuse and designed to elicit answers from the presenters that demonstrated that either the person hadn't fully considered STV or that the person might be comfortable with another unspecified proportional system (STV was not mentioned but perhaps implied). These were 'fishing questions' looking for an answer that could later be interpreted that the person really didn't understand the MMP system or the virtues of a STV system.

Subsequently, I read every summary of the presenters at the public hearing posted on the Citizens' Assembly website and this pattern persisted.

Also undue weight was put on the submissions of the few supporters of STV who did present. In Nelson, when one person from outside the community was flown in to give a presentation in support of STV, the Assembly's press release failed to indicate that the vast majority of the other presentations supported MMP.

The finally tally of presentations at the public hearings shows that there were 188 presenters backing MMP to 20 for STV or a variant of STV.

However members and staff began to discount this show of support by saying that MMP submissions were not as detailed as STV submissions and by implication saying that the STV submission carried more weight. On my viewing of all the submission both the summaries of the public hearing and the written ones I did not find that this was true. There were only two very detailed STV variant systems presented.

There was also a false rumour spread around among CA members that 40% of the submissions came from Green Party members and that the Green Party had packed the public hearing implying that the MMP submissions could therefore also be discounted for that reason and therefore did not need to be given much weight. This false information was published both in the Cranbrook Townsman and in the Vancouver Sun without a letter from the CA staff setting the record straight published in these papers.

Nowhere is the bias towards STV most evident that in the selection of those who get a chance to present to the plenary on September 11, 2004. Three of the nine presenters are STV supporters-one third of the presenters, despite support for STV in the public hearing and public on-line input phase being less than 5%.

As of the end of the public input phase with 1060 written submissions posted on the Citizens' Assembly website there were 515 different persons providing written support for MMP and only 40 for STV. Of the 40 submission, ten came from outside Canada and one had to be a satire for it extolled STV because it seemed to keep women out of politics and keep them in their place. Approximately 167 of the 1060 submissions are either outside the mandate of the Citizens' Assembly or do not recommend a voting system. Of all the submissions that do recommend a particular type of voting system, 80% support a proportional representation system in which a party's share of seats is determined by its share of vote (515 submissions specifically supporting MMP plus 188 asking generally for proportional representation). Several significant BC unions (BCGEU and the Nurses Union) also sent in submissions in support of an MMP voting system for BC.

In my opinion, the breadth of public support for MMP, should make it easy for Citizens' Assembly members to choose change, choose MMP, and get on with the work of developing the details of the best possible 'made in BC' MMP system to be put to voters in a referendum next May.

If for some reason an STV system is put forward by the Citizens' Assembly, I believe it will surely fail in a referendum vote, just as that choice fails to faithfully reflect the vast majority of public input to the Assembly. Sadly, if this happens, something just as important as BC getting a fair voting system will fail, too, and that is the grand democratic experiment of the Citizens' Assembly itself: that randomly chosen citizens can make wise democratic decisions regarding matters of critical public policy.

For your information: I was one of the 17 founders of the Green Party of BC in 1983 and at that time became a keen advocate of proportional representation. In early 2002, I traveled to New Zealand, spending three weeks there investigating how MMP works. I worked full time as a volunteer on the 2002 Initiative to Establish a Proportional Representation Electoral System in BC, conducting research, writing educational materials, coordinating volunteers, printing and mailing out information and petitions and answering questions from the public on how the proposed MMP voting system, the subject of the Initiative would work in BC.

I am one of the founding directors of the Free Your Vote Pro Rep Society established after the 2002 Initiative was over, with the aim of continuing to promote an MMP system in BC. In late April 2004, prior to the beginning of the public hearing phase, I brought in a submission in separate envelopes addressed to every Assembly member which contained our educational paper that promoted participation in the CA's public hearings. This submission however was not sent out until this month. I hope every Assembly member reads the 8-page newspaper titled Help make BC's voting system fair 'Participate now in the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform Hope for Democracy in BC.

This educational newspaper, which I helped write, can be accessed through the Free Your Vote Website: http://www.freeyourvote.bc.ca/ http://www.freeyourvote.bc.ca/pdfFreeYourVote/ProRepNewspaper.pdf .

Although our Free Your Vote Pro Rep Society is not yet two years old, compared to the six years that Fair Voting BC has been advocating electoral change, we have been able to generate much greater public support from across the political, social and geographic spectrums in BC for a fair MMP system than Fair Voting BC has been able to garner for STV.

Good luck with your deliberations this fall. The future of BC depends on you putting aside political prejudices and exercising practical collective wisdom.

Re: your coverage of the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform:

Let me clear up a key point. You contend that the Assembly must be leaning in favour of STV, on the grounds that, of the nine final speakers, three favoured STV. But the selection of speakers, by a sub-committee of Assembly members, was made because of the perceived quality of the speakers' prior presentations to small groups, not because they represented or opposed any particular electoral model(s).

You also question why the nine included only two women. Again, the invitations to address the full Assembly were made because of the quality of the speakers' earlier presentations, not to reflect gender balance, age or other demographics.

As of this date (04 October 2004) the Assembly members have not reached their decision on a recommendation to the people of B.C. STV is still on the table. MMP is still on the table. So is the current First Past the Post system. In the words of Assembly chair Jack Blaney, "Nothing is decided until everything is decided", and that we expect on the weekend of October 23-24. Watch http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca for details and timely updates.
One more thing: You recommend the submission by Paul George. A good man, that! But he, too, claims a bias towards STV that I must reject. He places some significance on the fact that of 1,060 written submissions from the public, 515 people supported MMP and only 40 backed STV. Seems to me that he is looking on the submissions as a reflective public opinion poll. Whether assembly members so look on it is entirely up to them.

Incidentally, there now are 1,063 submissions posted on the Assembly's website.

Regards,
Don Maclachlan
Associate director of communication
Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform
#2288 - 555 West Hastings St
PO Box 12118
Vancouver BC V6B 4N6
Phone: 604-660-1207 (1-866-667-1232)
Fax: 604-660-1236
E-mail: dmaclachlan@citizensassembly.bc.ca
Web: www.citizensassembly.bc.ca
Cell: 604-329-2090