I must respond to Max Winkelman’s comment on my editorial in favour of Dual-Member Proportional Representation (DMP). Politics aside, I wholeheartedly disagree with Winkelman! In particular, I disagree with how he calculated such a small improvement in proportionality under DMP. He states that DMP would still leave 38 per cent of the voters “unrepresented.” In fact, Liberal voters received 55 per cent of the votes in the two Cariboo ridings combined in 2017, and the NDP, as the second-largest party, received 31 per cent. Since the NDP would likely be allotted the second seat under DMP, the Liberals and the NDP together would represent 86 per cent of the voters. The actual number of “unrepresented voters” under DMP would therefore not be 38 per cent, but just 14 per cent. That is a large improvement over the 45 per cent of Cariboo voters who did not see their votes reflected in the Legislature in the last election.
Indeed, DMP would provide even more British Columbians with an effective vote than either of the PR alternatives (MMP or RUP), because everyone’s vote would be counted at the provincial level to determine each party’s fair share of seats.
And, as I said in my original article, I also feel that DMP is easier for citizens to concretely visualize. Hypothetical anomalies, such as both MLAs coming from 100 Mile, would get worked out over time. With approximately 86 per cent of the voters represented locally and nearly everyone’s vote affecting the number of seats each party gets in the Legislature, parties would respond competitively. The ‘second’ MLA —who would not be safely ensconced on some party list—could be counted upon to work hard to please as many constituents as possible.
Mark Crawford is from Williams Lake, B.C. He currently teaches political science at Athabasca University.