Not long after municipal elections wrap up, British Columbians will be taking part in another vote – to choose the electoral system that will determine future B.C. governments.
But British Columbians won’t be going to the polls. Rather they’ll be receiving a voting package in the mail between Oct. 22 and Nov. 2 and they’ll be expected to mail in their ballots before the end of November.
The ballot allows voters to choose between the present system, often referred to as “first past the post” or a form of proportional representation (PR).
A second question asks voters to choose between three versions of PR, all convoluted. These are referred to as “dual member,” “mixed member,” and “rural-urban.”
The fact that it’s a mail-in ballot rather than a vote in conjunction with the municipal elections means that many voters won’t bother. And this will skew the result in favour of the more committed advocates of PR, who tend to be Green Party partisans.
PR is based on the overly simplistic idea that a party’s seats in the legislature should reflect their proportion of the vote. There’s a faulty presumption that the proportion of seats is equal to the proportion of power.
In reality though, the many PR systems around the world lead in varying degrees to a fragmentation of parties and minority governments. And this amplifies the power of extreme parties on the fringes.
Even today, with our one-MLA-per constituency model, the Green Party’s power is far greater than its three seats in the 87-seat legislature would suggest. It holds the balance of power, can defeat the government, and thereby can hold the NDP government to ransom if it chooses.
The present system leads to big-tent parties where MLAs of diverse viewpoints compromise in their caucuses. PR leads to multiple narrowly focused fringe parties holding a balance of power.
The Green Party will be the biggest beneficiary from PR in today’s party configuration. But the bigger threat is that PR will boost the rising tide of international populist Fascism.

PR the misnomer for party lists give more power to parties in general. Combined with the existing little single member monarchies, electoral reform is doing nothing for an elections that give unity in liberty by a transferable vote, transcending party divisions and anonymity.
(Editor:)
John Stuart Mill: Proportional Representation is Personal Representation.
The Angels Weep: H. G. Wells on Electoral Reform.
(Richard Lung:)
Peace-making Power-sharing;
Scientific Method of Elections.
Science is Ethics as Electics.
FAB STV: Four Averages Binomial Single Transferable Vote.
(in French) Modele Scientifique du Proces Electoral.
Interesting that opponents of proportional representation use the extremist argument so freely, while completely ignoring our own homegrown extremists. To the south of us, we have Trump rampaging like a wild beast, while in the east, we watch in suspended disbelief as Doug Ford undoes years of programs and cozies up with white supremacist groups. Giving any single politician 100% of the power flies in the face of democratic values, giving it to men who are eager to tear down everything around them is a terrible plan. Pro Rep will only give politicians the power we, the voters, give them.
How the heck can you justify or explain your last sentence? The far more likelihood is that the moderating influence of several parties will expunge the naked influence that truly extremist views, hidden in the big tent parties, may have. They will be ignored, once seen.