In the fall, a special referendum will be held to ask residents whether or not people want to change the way we elect our politicians.

In advance of this, we encourage you to familiarize yourself with the pros and cons of both the current First Past the Post model, and the proposed Proportional Representation approach.

Right now, however, you also have a chance to provide input on how the referendum should be designed. The Province has put out a survey that asks for your input into this matter. It may seem a bit wonkish, but how the referendum questions will be asked will potentially have a big impact on the outcomes… so being able to shape these questions is important.

Today, February 28, 2018, is the last day to take the survey. We’d like to encourage everyone – if you haven’t already done so – to take a few moments to your input.

The voting booth is a public space. The way our voting takes place – the method we collectively use to enact our democracy – will have the potential to shape the Province for generations.

:: TAKE THE SURVEY – https://engage.gov.bc.ca/howwevote/

Related to this, the VPSN Board is also currently developing a position on the referendum, which we will publish over the next few months. While we are not currently endorsing a particular position, we do want to share a link to a Consultation Survey Guide produced by Fairvote BC. Fairvote, to be clear, advocates for Proportional Representation, but we think they raise interesting points about how the government survey is structured. We’d encourage you to take a look at their work.

:: Further Reading - Fairvote BC – Consultation Survey Guide

The ‘short and sweet’ on the two approachs 

There are 87 seats in British Columbia’s legislature.

First Past the Post – The current electoral system assigns electoral seats on the basis of voting outcomes in each electoral riding – such that the candidate with the most votes in each riding wins the seat.

Under this system, if, hypothetically, there were only two political parties in the province, and Party A got 60% of the vote in each of the 87 ridings, and Party B got 40%… then Party A would end up with 100% of the seats, and Party B would have none. (Of course, it’s never that polarized in real life, but this example is intended to show how the math works). Proponents of this system suggest that a key strength is its simplicity.

Proportional Representation – The proposed alternative refers to a method that assigns electoral seats based on the overall proportion of popular vote held by each party.

In the hypothetical scenario outlined above, If Party A received 60% of the popular vote, and Party B received 40% of the vote… then the total number of electoral seats would be assigned proportionately – 60% and 40% to the two parties, respectively. (In other words, were there 87 seats being contested, Party A would get 52 seats and Party B would get 35 seats).

Importantly, Proportional Representation refers to a family of different voting systems in use around the world – but they all, through various means, follow the sort of general principle of allocating votes described here. Proponents of this type of system suggest that a key strength of the approach is its fairness.

There’s an interesting motion on notice that will be discussed at tomorrow’s City Council meeting. Aimed at “Improving Transparency and Public Access to Council Voting Records,” it’s being put forward by Councillor Adriane Carr.

If passed, the motion would direct City staff to provide a better recording of the various votes that take place in Regular Council meetings, Standing Committee meetings and Public Hearings – in particular “specifying which members voted in favour, voted in opposition, or were recused, on leave, or absent/out of chamber.” Carr’s motion further asks that this information be made available, not only in the minutes of each of the meetings, but also through the City’s Open Data portal.

This would mark a small improvement for the minutes of the various Council meetings. Currently, the City’s Procedure Bylaw only require the City Clerk to record the names of Council members who vote in opposition to a motion. Given that there are only 11 people sitting around the table (1 Mayor and 10 Councillors), the math isn’t particularly onerous. Absences are also recorded elsewhere in each set of meeting notes. But that being said, the additional clarity around the ‘yeas and nays’ can’t hurt things. And for that reason, we can definitely support the first part of the motion.

Perhaps the bigger question that arises from this proposal surrounds the potential format of summary records that may be made available on the Open Data Portal. We note a small concern around the idea that aggregate data – what we assume will be tables of vote numbers – could be available for download without the sort of broader context you get in the full meeting notes.

We like the ability to crunch numbers, so we get the appeal of data sets like this. We are also big supporters of anything that makes the democratic process more transparent.

At the same time, we feel that it’s important to flag a potential downside to this – that simplified tables of voting data could, inadvertently, provide fodder for overly simple analyses of voting decisions. Voting records alone, only tell part of the story in any Council debate.

Should the motion pass, we hope, at the very least, that there will be enough contextual information in the data tables (including links back to the individual sets of minutes and meeting notes, the wording of the various items being voted on), to enable the data to be used in the richest fashion possible.

None of the concerns we raise are intended to detract from an otherwise useful motion. We do, however, feel they’re important to raise. They’re offered in the spirit of constructive feedback.

POSTSCRIPT. Another data-related consideration: if you’ve ever read Council minutes, or attended a Council meeting, you’ll know that lots motions contain amendments, slight modifications, larger amendments to amendments, and so on. Each of these gets voted on… which can create a challenging voting ‘narrative’ to follow – even with the complete minutes in front of you! An Open Data initiative that potentially modifies the voting record for the Open Data portal will needs to account for this. Will all votes be disseminated, or only the final ‘core’ vote on a given issue?

Vancouver, BC (November 2, 2011)

Unlike other debates, Last Candidate Standing doesn’t just focus on the frontrunners – all 61 registered candidates running for mayor or council have been invited to make their case before an expert panel and a sold-out audience of more than 200 voters.

Candidates will be on the clock as they respond to the panel’s questions covering a broad range of campaign issues. The candidates with the best answers, as judged by the panel and audience, will move on to the next round – those that don’t measure up will be eliminated. At the end of the night, only one candidate will be left standing.

“This event is a great opportunity for voters to learn about the diversity of candidates who are seeking office in our city,” says Anthony Hamilton, coordinator of the VPSN’s Democratic Spaces working group. “We’re pushing the boundaries of the debate format to have some fun while creating a more inclusive public forum that represents the full spectrum of viewpoints in this election.”

Last Candidate Standing will be hosted by Vancouver-based writer and broadcaster Steve Burgess. Panelists include:

• Theresa Lalonde, reporter, CBC Vancouver
• Matthew Soules, assistant professor, UBC School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture
• David Beers, editor-in-chief, The Tyee
• Alissa Sadler, vice-chair, Vancouver Public Space Network

The sold-out event takes place from 7 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. at UBC Robson Square. In between rounds of the candidate showdown, local band Wee Boy Pretty will provide musical entertainment. Limited wait-list spots available: lastcandidatestanding.eventbrite.com

Last Candidate Standing is part of the VPSN’s Vancouver Votes initiative. Throughout the civic election campaign, the VPSN has been maintaining www.vancouvervotes.ca as an up-to-date, non-partisan resource collecting candidate survey responses, election news, and essential voter information. Vancouver Votes is also active on Twitter at @VanVotes.

-30-

More information:
www.vancouvervotes.ca
www.twitter.com/vanvotes (event hashtag: #LCSVan and #VanElxn)

Media contact:
Anthony Hamilton
Vancouver Public Space Network
604.565.1213
anthony@vancouverpublicspace.ca

While this sort of strategy does raise questions about the idea of broader civic engagement in Vancouver, we do, nevertheless, feel that it’s important to test initiatives like this.

Assuming that the expected caveats around the safety and security of online voting platforms can be met, we offered a few additional items for consideration — a note about starting the project with online voter registration (something we argued for in our 2008 Public Space Manifesto), and a further comment about not reducing the number of physical polling stations.

The Vancouver Public Space Network supports in principle the idea of a pilot project to explore the feasibility of on-line voting in upcoming local elections. We believe that increasing opportunities for residents to participate in municipal elections is a useful mechanism with which to support citizen engagement.

In offering this support, we wish to note two items for your consideration:

(1) On-line voter registration – We understand that there are questions about the time and resources that would be required to launch this pilot for the 2011 municipal contest. In the absence of actual on-line balloting in the 2011 election, we feel that making on-line voter registration available could be a logical first step that could improve engagement with the election process. It is likely that this would not require the same resource considerations and could play a useful role in phasing the implementation of this pilot.

(2) Physical polling stations – We wish to clarify that a pilot project of this sort would not result in the reduction of physical polling stations.

“I voted” sticker – Photo by Cave Canem

Next week promises to be a busy one at Council – between the regular session of Council on Tuesday and the various Council Committee meetings taking place on Thursday there is a full suite of public space related activities. These include:

• A motion (see below) on the possibility of on-line voting (Tues)
• A motion on calculating available density in the city (Tues)
• A report on expanding street food options (Thurs)
• A report on noise in the city and the efficacy of the noise bylaw (Thurs)
• Discussion on the VAG move (which we mentioned in our previous post) (Thurs)
• Two presentations – likely quite contentious – on building heights and view-related issues (Thurs)
• The draft Greenest City Implementation Plan (Thurs)

The first is particularly timely. Earlier this week a suite of contenders for the leadership of the BC liberals endorsed (some cautiously) the idea of on-line voting. And here’s a chance to consider it at the local level.

For those that have difficulty scheduling a trip to the neighbourhood voting box once every three or four years, this might make life easier. There’s a larger discussion to be had about civic engagement here – and, as much as we like technology, we can’t help wonder if this will do much to get at the core issues behind current voting levels. Then again, if it does a better job of getting residents engaged with the civic contest, that’s a positive outcome.

Either way, it’s an interesting motion and we’re be watching to see the sort of exchange that ensues.

Here’s the text of the motion, which was introduced by Councillor Andrea Reimer:

WHEREAS

1. Less than 35% of eligible voters in Vancouver cast ballots in the last two
civic elections;

2. Voter turnout is considered an important indicator of social cohesion
and vital to a healthy democracy;

3. Research conducted by Elections Canada on voter turn out in the last
federal election found that 57% of non-voters cited time pressures that
prevented them from getting to a voting place in person;

4. Elections Canada will be conducting an online voting pilot in the 2013
federal election;

5. Online voting can greatly improve accessibility by increasing the time
and place options available to voters to cast a ballot;

6. Online voting is used in more than three dozen Canadian municipalities ranging from 44 municipalities in Ontario, such as Markham, ON which piloted online voting in 2003, to Halifax, Nova Scotia which conducted successful pilots in a 2008 general election and 2009 by-election;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Clerk report to Council on the feasibility of conducting an online voting pilot in the 2011 municipal elections or, if 2011 is not feasible, what the earliest date for a pilot would be.

In October of last year, the Taskforce was charged with the reviewing issues relating to local government elections and has been gathering input with a view to recommending legislative changes “to improve the electoral process for local government elections across B.C.”

Although there are likely a number of issues that such a review could have focussed on (voter apathy and declining participation in elections being chief among these), the Taskforce was given the task of focusing on a more restricted set of issues first and foremost. These are:

• Campaign finance, including contribution/spending disclosure and limits, and tax credits
• Enforcement processes and outcomes
• Role of the chief electoral officer (B.C.) in local government elections
• Election cycle (term of office)
• Corporate vote
• Other agreed upon matters, (e.g. matters raised in UBCM resolutions such as eligibility of local government volunteers to be candidates)

It was the fifth of these items that promted our letter to the Taskforce. In particular, because there has been a concerted effort on the part of certain business associations to push for an extension of voting rights to for-profit corporations. Under such a change, someone who owned a business in the City of Vancouver would get to vote twice… something that we feel us fundamentally counter to the spirit of democracy and the notion of “one person, one vote.”

Beyond the broader principles of the issue, there are also substantial practical limitations to any rationale in support of the corporate vote.

The text of our letter is excerpted here:

…Our commitment to such community engagement, and our recognition that the per capita rate of municipal voter turnout in Vancouver has declined since 1990 (source: City of Vancouver letter to Task Force, January 27, 2010) prompts us to respond negatively to the proposed reinstatement of the corporate vote in municipal elections in B.C.

Our response is based on several factors:

1. 1. In their argument in favour of the corporate vote, organizations such as the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the BC Chamber of Commerce suggest that the corporations’ property tax load warrants the right to vote, what they describe as “fairness in representation”. It is our experience, however, that the right to vote has an impact on who is elected but has no obvious influence on how those elected will govern. In other words, reinstating the corporate vote does not appear to be a solution to the problem that business and advocacy organizations have identified.
2. Further, the conclusions stated in the Corporate Vote Discussion Paper on the impact of the corporate vote prior to 1996 indicate that “the effectiveness of the vote on addressing business concerns were arguably minimal.” and “The corporate vote as it formerly existed did not appear to directly impact tax rates on business.” (source: Government Voting Task Force Corporate Vote Discussion Paper, p. 7)
3. There are many municipal services that are of benefit to both residents and businesses (e.g., roads and sidewalks, sewage systems, waterworks, recycling, fire and rescue services, etc.). There are other municipal services that are of compelling need to residents and of little or no interest to corporations (e.g., libraries and parks, animal control, etc.). It is easy to foresee the possibility of residents’ perceiving their needs being set aside because of a perceived greater impact of corporate voters.
4. The right to vote is no longer based on paying taxes but rather, on ones status as an individual citizen. This principle needs to remain intact and unaltered.
5. We believe that it is undemocratic for a voter to have more than one vote. The right to vote should remain an individual right. The (re-)creation of a corporate voting mechanism would negatively compromise this.
6. It is widely recognized that the per capita rate of municipal voter turnout has declined since 1990, and that voter apathy is overcome only when citizens believe their vote matters. Reintroduction of the corporate vote could have the opposite effect, with voters feeling further disenfranchised. This may, in turn, create a greater reduction of public confidence in the electoral system. Rather than focus on the corporate vote, we respectfully suggest that the taskforce recommend to the Province that the important issue at hand is the need to reverse the trend of voter apathy.
7. Finally, it is apparent in Vancouver that the size of Council hasn’t changed even though the population continues to grow. This suggests two areas that we hope you will recommend that the Province explore: a) the size of Councils, and b) expanding the number of voters by instituting non-citizen resident voting rights.

In light of these seven points, we strongly urge you to recommend against the re-introduction of the corporate vote.

:: For more information on the VPSN’s position on this issue, please contact Lyndsay Poaps, Coordinator of our Democratic Spaces Working Group – lyndsay [at] vancouverpublicspace.ca.