For now, the British Columbia New Democratic Party is set to govern the province with a minority in the legislature. Saturday’s election was as close as predicted, with the incumbent NDP finishing the night with 46 seats, one ahead of the BC Conservatives at 45. The BC Greens won two seats, which might, in context, be quite a win for them, indeed.
It takes 47 seats to govern BC with a majority. With mail-in ballots to be counted and two ridings to be recounted, it’s still possible the Conservatives could edge ahead. But in the meantime, the NDP remains the government and is set to continue as such — though in a weaker position.
If the legislature remains a minority, the BC Greens will determine who governs and be well placed to extract policy concessions.
As a condition of supporting the NDP, the Greens ought to insist on another kick at the electoral reform can, which they campaigned on once more in 2024. In their platform, the Greens promised to introduce and pass the reform in the legislature and then to hold a referendum on keeping it after two elections have passed under the new system.
Adopting a new electoral system could have, or could reasonably be seen to have, partisan implications, so parties ought to accept that the process of changing the system should be fair and robust, but not unreasonably onerous. More public engagement will also have the benefit of giving any new system more legitimacy.
The Greens should stipulate a referendum on reform before choosing the system, especially since they stand to benefit electorally from the change. In 2024, the Greens won two seats with eight per cent of the vote — roughly four per cent of the total seats in the legislature. Under PR, their count would stand to double under a similar return and the public might come to see the party as a more viable option since they wouldn’t be worried about “wasting” their vote by casting a ballot for a party with a low probability of winning a seat.
Moreover, since the NDP didn’t campaign on electoral reform this time around, voters might rightfully feel that PR, a big change, came out of the blue. The Greens should choose to also keep a second referendum to confirm the system, as New Zealand did when it adopted proportional representation.
The Greens should also ask for another citizens’ assembly to evaluate systems and recommend one to voters. It’s been nearly 20 years since the last one, and it’s more than time for a refresh — one that would galvanise reformers and raise the salience of reform for the public.
They should also demand that the assembly and referendum are carefully designed and well-resourced with money for both non-partisan public education and for partisan campaigners who wish to make the case for or against a change. It should go without saying, but to be clear, they should also insist on a 50 per cent plus one threshold for adopting a new system.
Perhaps that seems like a lot to ask. But it’s not, really — not when the Greens control the future of the legislature. Now’s the time to twist arms.
The process of government formation in these circumstances is tricky, often frenetic and marked by plenty of horse trading. A government that navigates this moment poorly isn’t likely to last, and surely the NDP is thinking about ways to not only keep governing, but to do so with some stability.
The Greens are very unlikely to support the Conservatives, whose leader has voiced doubts that fossil fuel emissions contribute to climate change. In 2017, when the province returned a similar legislature, the Greens considered partnering with the now defunct BC Liberals, who were then in government. They didn’t. Instead, they supported the NDP in a supply and confidence agreement that included measures for consultation between the two parties and a suite of policy initiatives.
In the agreement, the Greens got, among other things, a referendum on proportional representation, electoral finance reform and more aggressive climate policies than the NDP might have otherwise been willing to put forward.
Both the NDP and Greens campaigned on electoral reform in 2017 and in 2018 the referendum came to pass — and it was a mess. Poorly organised, underfunded and haphazard, the vote put proportional representation up against the current first-past-the-post system, and voters chose the status quo at 61.3 per cent to 38.7 per cent. That referendum was headed by David Eby, the man who’s now premier — at least for the moment.
It was a disappointing moment for electoral reform advocates, who might have expected better. In 2005, the province had held a vote on changing the electoral system to adopt a proportional single transferable vote system after a Citizens’ Assembly recommended it. The Liberal government under Gordon Campbell set an arbitrary 60 per cent threshold to adopt the system and reformers came up shy at 57.7 per cent — a remarkable feat that ought to have been enough to change the voting system in the province.
On election night, Green leader Sonia Furstenau lost her race, though she is staying on as leader. Combined with the distance between them and the Conservatives, these realities weaken the Green bargaining power, but not fatally — and neither should mean the third party in the legislature should let itself be pushed around. The Greens should recognize the leverage they have and use it to the full extent possible by pushing for structural change to ensure that the legislature’s composition reflects the will of the voters proportionately.
Comments
Right on.
BC (as is Canada as a whole) appears to becoming more permanently polarized. Look at the US for how this makes governing effectively almost impossible. The obvious cause is first past the post electoral (FPTP) systems, and the obvious answer is proportional representation (PR) since it is proven to promote greater cooperation and compromise. While PR can take many forms, some better than others, a citizens forum can help define the preferred form. Failure to implement PR will result in right wing government by a minority. PR has it's issues, but the evidence is clear: it's better than FPTP.
The NDP should recognize that for the good of the province (and the NDP itself) PR is the future. The same is true federally. Unfortunately Trudeau had the chance to move toward adopting PR earlier this year, but he stubbornly continues to only be willing to accept the only PR system that is worse than FPTP because it would benefit the Liberal party the most. As a result Canada is facing several years of Far Right Pee Pee government at a critical time when climate and the environment need urgent attention. BC has the opportunity to do better.
"...but [Trudeau] stubbornly continues to only be willing to accept the only PR system that is worse than FPTP..."
Correction: to date there is no PR system that Trudeau is openly willing to accept. His stated preference is for the Alternative Vote, another winner-take-all system which arguably would, as you say, be even worse for us than the system we use now.
8 percent of 97 seats is - I can’t believe I have to tell you this - close to 8 seats, not 4 as stated in the article. No wonder people have trouble understanding electoral systems if an advocate of change can’t even do this simple calculation.
The first Citizen's assembly on this subject recommended an excellent solution. It was only defeated because the "Liberal" government of the time set a ridiculously high threshold.
Wikipedia: "On October 25, 2004, the citizens' assembly proposed replacing the province's existing first past the post (FPTP) system with BC-STV, a single transferable vote (STV) system. This recommendation was put to the electorate in a referendum in 2005 held during that year's provincial election. The provincial government required the referendum to achieve a super-majority of 60 percent of voters and simple majorities in 60 percent of the 79 districts in order to pass. The second of these thresholds was easily met, with a majority supporting the reform in 77 out of 79 electoral districts, but the overall vote fell short of the 60 percent requirement, with 57.69 percent of the votes in favour.[1]"
Subsequent referenda were on different PR systems and failed much more dramatically.
No point in re-inventing the Wheel, Greens should insist on a re-run of the 2004 version, but with a 50% threshold.
Another referendum? Another citizen's assembly for a refresh?
Lord save us. (And I'm minimally agnostic)
Electoral systems aren't like pop music, where a new billionaire diva is born every couple of years.
There is support for pro rep although, I'd suggest, people are likely getting bored with it because it is talked about incessantly without anything being done.
Pick a system that, based on the work done by the assembly 20-ish years ago, works well in both urban and rural settings (possibly a hybrid comprising different systems for each based upon the size and population of the region).
Simply do it. For the next election.
I wonder if the suggestion that it be re-considered after two elections is setting it up to fail, as intuition suggests it gives the incumbent NDP and Extraction parties an opportunity to simply play silly bugger for 6 years that spans 2 elections before the electorate gives up in disgust and votes to return to FPTP. The trial period must be long enough that all parties are essentially forced to adapt to pro rep or die.
What empirical examples exist on pro rep implementations that either succeeded or failed?
One opinion.
New Zealand stands as one empirical example of a successful implementation. And to your point, you'll note that fully six electoral cycles transpired between the first referendum (whether to adopt PR) and the second (whether to keep it).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_New_Zealand_voting_system_referendum
In fairness, a new generation of voters weren't even a twinkle in their parent's eyes 20ish years ago. Another citizen's assembly would be the most egalitarian methodology mainly because it puts the consultation and recommendation squarely into citizen's hands. Or, more importantly, takes control over the type of system out of politician's hands.
Former "Liberal" (conservative) premier Gordon Campbell ran a corporate shop that did not garner support from progressives. However, he did a couple or three good things for the people and that earned the ire of his donors. One was to enact the continent's first carbon tax. Another was to establish the Citizen's Assembly on Electoral Reform, and he actually firced himself to stay out of the Assembly's business.
His big mistake was to force the 60% referendum approval portal, which to many of us was interference in the end. I remember well the pale look of relief on his face when the results came very close to passing his artificially high pole vault level.
If a "majority" government can get elected with less than 40% of the vote under our current FPTP system then go on to do great damage and unneeded wrenching change to society, then the traditional 50% plus one vote passing mark on any vote on electoral reform is completely justified.
The Citizen Assembly is a great model for electoral reform consultation at the federal level as long as the pass mark for a referendum is identicle to our current decades-old system -- 50% plus one vote.
I may be missing something, but what current decades-old system of ours has a pass mark of 50% plus one?
You mean in the HoC?
FPTP is archaic enough that a party can win more than half the seats in legislatures from split ridings where a candidate wins with less than 40% of the vote.
Proportionality addresses this math by roughly balancing seats with the proportional vote.
The recount is almost done. It appears the NDP can keep one seat (won by just 23 votes) and gain another.