Second vote on STV gives public needed choice

VICTORIA - Give Gordon Campbell top marks for his handling of the prickly problem posed by the referendum on electoral reform.
Most politicians would never have gone near the idea of asking a Citizens' Assembly to find a better way of electing governments. Campbell championed the process.
And once the referendum on the single-transferable system failed - barely - the big experiment would have been over.
But Campbell is giving voters another chance to consider electoral reform, this time with a clearer proposal and adequately funded yes and no campaigns. Another referendum will be held in the fall of 2008, at the same time as the municipal elections.
It's a fair solution to to a tricky political problem.
The Liberals decided that electoral reform could only go ahead if it received 60-per-cent support in last May's referendum. It missed by a whisker, with almost 58 per cent of those voting backing a change to the new system.
That's huge support - the Liberals were elected with only 46 per cent of the vote - and Campbell was right to look for a way to produce a definitive decision on whether B.C. should change.
Some supporters wanted Campbell to bend the rules and implement STV, on the basis that it came close enough. But the referendum requirements were clear, and justified.
His solution, unveiled in the Throne Speech, makes sense.
British Columbians will vote again on 2008, in a referendum to be held at the same time as the municipal elections. (That could be a huge factor in municipal races if it brings to the polls people who don't ordinarily vote.)
If it passes, the new rules will be in effect for the May 2009 provincial election.
This time, voters will have more information. The Electoral Boundaries Commission was already slated to review the ridings to adjust them for population changes. Now they will prepare report on what the ridings would look like under STV.
Under the STV system, there would be fewer, larger ridings, with two to seven MLAs each. Most of the Okanagan could be one riding, for example, with four MLAs.
On election day, you would no longer just mark an X beside one candidate, rejecting the rest. You would rank as many candidates as you liked.
When the votes were counted, the results would reflect the rankings. A voter might rank an NDP candidate first, and Liberals second and third, and a Green fourth. All the votes would matter.
The result should be a more representative and diverse legislature, with MLAs who are more responsive to their communities.
The size of the new ridings concerned some people during the referendum campaign. Having that information set out will allow for more informed voting.
The yes side is heartened by the opportunity. Most believe they simply didn't have the time, or money, to inform people about the benefits of STV before the referendum. "Anytime we get a chance to explain the system to someone, they become a supporter," one campaigner noted.
Now they will be put to the test, with three years to inform people, and the promise of government funding for yes and no sides.
One interesting factor will be how the referendum is affected by the efforts to make the B.C. legislature more civil and effective. The need for change was reinforced for many people by the unrepresentative election result in 2001, and the Liberals' unwillingness to recognize the existence of an Official Opposition.
The situation is now much changed. But it should be easy for pro-STV campaigners to remind voters of the many other benefits.
Skeptics can advance a brace of theories about why Campbell is so keen on electoral reform. But many Liberals are also nervous about the idea.
The simple explanation is that Campbell is committed to the idea of letting the people decide whether there is a better way to elect governments, and is doing his best to give them that chance.
Footnote: Ontario has just followed B.C.'s example, launching its own Citizens' Assembly on electoral reform. It has gone one wise step further, charging another assembly with developing new controls on political donations and spending. That was a missed opportunity in B.C.