They’ve earned a rematch

Now what?

The people of British Columbia have spoken. All that remains is to figure out what they’ve said. Last week’s referendum on electoral reform ended in perhaps the worst possible result: a clear rejection of the status quo, yet not quite an endorsement of the proposed alternative, the single transferable vote (STV).

Mind you, it came about as close as it is possible to come. The referendum rules set the bar at 60% of the vote provincewide, plus a majority of the vote in 60% of the province’s ridings, for the measure to pass. In the event, the Yes side obtained 57.4% of the vote, just short of the mark -- but nearly ran the table at the riding level, winning the requisite majority in 77 of 79 ridings.

This is an extraordinary, indeed historic result. That so many British Columbians should be willing to take the plunge on a radical and unfamiliar system of counting the votes, not to say the accompanying innovation of multi-member ridings, speaks to the depths of dissatisfaction in the province with the traditional first-past-the-post system. The newly re-elected provincial government cannot claim anything like the same mandate, having won just 46% of the vote overall, and with only 27 of its members elected by a majority. Yet that government, with its 46% “majority,” now sits in judgment of the 57.4% referendum verdict, with the power to decide what, if anything, will be done about it.

It will not be an easy decision. On the one hand, rules are rules. Both sides in the referendum knew what the rules were going in, and agreed to participate on that basis: there was no significant section of opinion condemning the whole thing as a sham, or boycotting the process. Had the Yes side obtained slightly more than 60% of the vote, I doubt there would be any suggestion that the measure should not go forward, on the grounds that the No vote was “close enough.” It seems hard to sustain that position in the reverse.

Indeed that was why the 60% hurdle was set, rather than the more immediately intuitive 50%: so that the result would not be close, as between the Yes and the No, but rather that a clear majority, to borrow a phrase, should have pronounced themselves in favour. The particular figure of 60% holds no special significance, but the idea that something larger than the usual majority should be required for a change of such momentous import is hallowed by common usage, not to say common sense.

On the other hand, you can’t just pretend nothing has happened when 57.4% of the voters have expressed their will, especially on a matter of such gravity. A president who was endorsed by 57.4% of the voters would be viewed as having won a landslide. The 60% mark was defined as the result that would be binding upon the provincial government, that is that would require it to introduce legislation changing the province’s voting system. But nothing prevents it from choosing to do so, if it feels so inclined. When 57.4% of the voters are telling them to do something, politicians are usually disposed to listen.

Usually, but not always. In the present case, the change would have the effect of significantly altering the distribution of power in the province, elevating the status of ordinary MPs at the expense of party bosses, challengers at the expense of incumbents, the voting public at the expense of the political class. It is remarkable enough that the referendum even took place, given that the most immediate result of such a reform would be to put a great many current members of the legislature out of their jobs, not to say making it impossible for a government ever again to enjoy the kind of near-monopoly on power the B.C. Liberals have over the last four years.

That’s a testament to Gordon Campbell and his government. It’s also a testament to the process they devised, or rather accepted, by which a randomly selected group of ordinary citizens were deputized to come up with a reform proposal. The seriousness with which the members of this Citizens Assembly took their task must be profoundly moving to anyone with a democratic heart; that the proposal did as well as it did must be credited in large part to the trust they engendered.

What to do? I take seriously the “rules are rules” argument. At the same time, to do nothing with this result would be to ignore the will of the majority.

Could the legislature settle upon another, less radical reform, as a compromise? No: the Citizens’ Assembly did a thorough job of sifting through the alternatives, over many months. Any other proposal would be tainted by the self-interest of its promoters.

The only way out I can see is a do-over. I have no problem with the 60% threshold. But I see no reason why this particular vote must be the last word on the subject. The Yes side may not have won quite enough votes overall to pass this time (though they exceeded the other requirement by a wide margin). But they have surely earned the right to a rematch -- perhaps during the next municipal elections -- especially since every poll showed that the more people knew about the proposal, the more likely they were to support it.

It took a long time for people to clue in to the fact that a referendum was on, and that they would have to decide it: people are not used to such responsibilities in this country. But now they have been put on notice. The next time they will have no excuse.