Go for it, B.C.!

Something's happening in BC. The province's voters may just be screwing up their courage to take the plunge on electoral reform in Tuesday's referendum. As is typically the way in these things, people have put off informing themselves on the topic till the last possible second. I remember during the free trade election in 1988, people phoning me up at the Financial Post two weeks before asking "what's this about free trade? You haven't told us anything about free trade..." This, after we'd been writing about nothing but for a solid year. But they did inform themselves, in the end: a great national cram session. And that's just what's been happening in BC. In the last couple of weeks, interest has surged. And has people have informed themselves, support for electoral reform -- the particular model before the voters is called the single transferable vote, or STV -- has grown. The latest Ipsos-Reid poll puts the Yes ahead 55-45. That's still short of the 60% needed -- plus a majority of the vote in 60% of the province's ridings -- but it's getting closer. Prices of "referendum-passes" contracts on the UBC Election Stock Market have risen sharply in recent days, to 45 cents on a dollar payout: near even odds. (UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE: The Yes side may be doing better than that. Two recent polls, one by Nordic Research, the other by Strategic Counsel, both put the Yes comfortably above the 60% threshold -- among decided voters. The key, of course, will be the large numbers of undecided: 41% and 35%, respectively, in the two polls. And, of course, turnout will be crucial. But aren't Yes voters likely to be the more motivated?) Both the Vancouver Sun and the Vancouver Province have endorsed the plan, as have more than two-dozen other BC papers. So have local columnists like Michael Smyth and Paul Willcocks. So, crucially, has Rafe Mair. But the critical players may be the members of the BC Citizens Assembly that first recommended the STV, after studying every conceivable alternative over a period of several months. It isn't just that they know more about it than anyone else alive: it's that they're not constitutional experts who do this for a living, but regular folks who did it for their fellow citizens. The assembly was the brainchild of Gordon Gibson, a former provincial Liberal leader, passionate democrat, and one of the wisest men I know (one or two unfortunate blind spots notwithstanding). The members were chosen by lot, and given the task of coming up with a workable model of electoral reform. Had the STV proposal issued from any other source -- from the bowels of government, or a think-tank, or one of those phoney exercises in "consultation" so beloved of the political class, with all the usual interest groups lined up at the mike -- it wouldn't have had a prayer: too new, too strange, too hard to get your mind around. But listening to their neighbours explain it, more and more British Columbians seem prepared to give it a shot. A large number of former members of the assembly, the so-called alumni, have fanned out across the province, holding information sessions to familiarize people with the concept. Meanwhile, a grassroots Yes campaign has made the case for reform through the media. And I mean grassroots: both business and labour have largely stayed out, in terms of any largescale mobilization of money and manpower. Indeed, the whole debate has crossed party and interest-group lines. There are New Democrats who love STV, and union leaders who hate it; conservatives in favour and business leaders opposed; and every other combination. And, at last, people are tuning in. We'll see what happens on Tuesday. But B.C. may just be on the verge of something big: a democratic revolution that will profoundly change not just the province's politics, but the country's. Not a moment too soon, if you ask me.