August
17, 2008
Looking
9 Months Ahead to May 12th
Most
British Columbians won't think very much about the May
12, 2009 provincial election until late April or early
May when they can't help but notice election advertising.
There will be municipal elections throughout BC in November,
a US presidential election and possibly a federal election,
if Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion can overcome his
nervousness and his party's financial distress. Nevertheless,
provincial political pundits will have the May 12th date
in mind for the next nine months as we speculate on what
will influence that vote.
What
is unlikely to influence the May 12th provincial election
is any sitting of the BC Legislature between now and then.
If Gordon Campbell kept his word and called a fall sitting
of the Legislature, the government might face 24
question periods between October 6th and November 27th
to be followed by at least another 20 question periods between
February 10, 2009 and early April. In all likelihood, there
will be no fall sitting, and as soon as a Supply Act can
pass in March, the Legislature will be adjourned and not
recalled until the fall of 2009, when the new
85 seat Legislature (6 seats more than now) will finally
deal with the budget for the year that starts April 1, 2009.
Just
as there will be no budget debate before the 2005 election,
there will also be no audited financial statements for the
previous year, fiscal 2008-2009, until two months after
the election. After the 2009 election, those abnormalities
speak strongly for resetting BC's fixed election date to
the fall when the finances aren't up in the air. Breaking
the four year term with one three and a half year term so
as to reset the date would be consistent with the terms
that WAC Bennett usually enjoyed. If the new government
is going to reset the calendar, it should do so in the fall
2009 session so everyone knows well in advance when the
2013 election will be held. Of course that election could
be one of the most bizarre in BC's history if voters approve
BC-STV.
A
referendum will be held on the BC-STV voting system concurrent
with the May 12th election. If it passes, the 2013 election
will be held on the basis of a system with 20
large constituencies, each with between 2 and 7 MLAs.
No more than a dozen people can probably explain
how votes are counted and winners determined in that system.
During
debates on the referendum in 2005, proponents spent a lot
of time explaining how a valid vote is cast and skipped
over the outrageously difficult counting system that is
constructed so as to guarantee that minor parties win seats
with just 13% of the vote in the capital region, which would
be represented by 7 MLAs, and with just 17% in the 4 regions
which would have 5 MLAs. In the North, with just 2 MLAs,
one of the two seats would be won with just 33.3% of the
vote. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why proponents
don't talk much about how votes are counted and winners
determined. A lot more will be said about the BC-STV system
during the upcoming referendum.
There
are two important differences between 2005 and 2009 as far
as the vote on the referendum is concerned. First, thanks
to the work of the BC Electoral Boundaries Commission, and
the Legislature, voters will know the precise boundaries
of the multiple-MLA constituencies that would take effect
for 2013 if the vote passes. That may be enough to encourage
some voters to vote no. Second, BC has a traditional Legislature
today, with 33 New Democrats and 46 Liberals, unlike the
lopsided balance in 2005 where the Campbell government refused
to recognize the three New Democrats as the Official Opposition.
With a return to normality, voters may not want to rush
to adopt a different system.
All
of the points in the debate for and against BC-STV could
be listed today, unlike the points in the provincial election
campaign where the so-called "ballot box question",
the question parties want voters to have in their minds
when they mark their ballot, may be in flux up to the last
possible minute. Will it be the intricacies of the carbon
tax, cap-and-trade systems or greenhouse gases that determine
votes, or will the future of the forest industry and BC's
economy be more important? Will homelessness, health, education
and welfare play a role in determining which party wins?
Will the arrogance of the Campbell government disgust voters,
or will they hold their noses and be "30 second Liberals"?
There are probably as many answers as there are voters.
If only provincial elections were as simple as a yes or
no referendum!
_____________________________________
By
the way, here is the proof on what
percentage of the vote is sufficient to guarantee a seat
to a minor party in a multiple member consistency with BC-STV.
The
counting rule provides that a candidate wins if that candidate
gets more votes than the "quota" where:
Quota
= [(number of ballots in the riding)/(number of MLAs in
the riding plus 1)] plus 1
Let
X be the number of ballots in the riding, and let N be the
number of MLAs in the riding, then the quota as a percentage
of the vote is:
Quota/X
= {[X/(N+1)] + 1 }/X = (X + (N+1))/(N+1))/X = (1 + (N+1)/X)/(N
+1),
but as X becomes large (N+1)/X approaches zero,
so
Quota/X = 1/(N+1).
Hence,
with 2 MLAs a candidate can get elected with just 33.3%
of the vote and the percentage decreases as the number of
MLAs in a constituency increases: with 3 MLAs, one wins
with 25%; with 4 it takes 20%; with 5 it takes 16.7%; with
6 it takes 14.3%; and with 7 an MLA would be elected with
only 12.5% of the total vote. Many might think that to be
undemocratic.
August
9, 2008
Consequences
from Campbell's Obscene Pay Hikes
The
announcement of obscene pay increases for selected executive
level employees came in the form of an Information
Bulletin from the Ministry of Advanced Education and
Labour Market Development. The BC Public Service Agency
was also noted under the Ministry's name, but according
to the
website for the BC Public Service Agency, it is accountable
"to an executive board and, through them, the Province's
Deputy Ministers' Council." In other words, the Public
Service Agency is another body that really is part of the
Office of the Premier. The Manager
of Information and Privacy for the Office of the Premier
also happens to be the Manager for the Public Service Agency.
That makes it similar to other government bodies, like the
Public
Affairs Bureau and the Climate
Action Secretariat, that nominally report respectively
to the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of the Environment,
but are really run directly by the Premier's Office. Part
of the reason for the silly games with the organization
chart is to make the budget for the Premier's Office look
much lower than it really is.
A
truly open government would make public the "careful
examination of the senior public service labour market"
that it says was undertaken as justification for the obscene
pay increases. According to the news release, the pay hikes
are needed to maintain "competitiveness in recruiting
and retaining the talent necessary to lead the public service".
One might therefore expect an open government to have reports
at hand that discuss recruitment and retention challenges,
as well as evidence from recent postings for executive staff
of any difficulties in obtaining qualified applications.
Freedom of information requests have been submitted for
such reports, but the Campbell government's track record
on responding to such requests makes a joke of the law which
requires documents to be produced within 30 business days.
Whether
the Campbell government can adequately defend the pay increases,
or not, it is certain that they will not be isolated. The
Public Service Agency website lists salary
schedules for all government staff, unionized and excluded.
In addition to assistant deputy ministers, associate deputy
ministers and deputy ministers, excluded staff include judges,
officers of the legislature, ministerial staff, legal counsel
and various levels of managers. Does anyone think that the
folks at the top of the salary pyramid can rush like hogs
to the trough without everyone else saying that they want
historical relationships to be restored? When Minister of
Advanced Education Murray
Coell defended the increases of up to 43%, which are
estimated to cost $4 million per year, he estimated that
there are 20 deputy ministers and 80 assistant deputy ministers.
He failed to mention the thousands of other excluded staff
who will now demand equal treatment.
The
Campbell government should come clean with the public and
demonstrate whether recruitment and retention is any more
of a problem for ADMs and deputies than it is for nurses
and other skilled workers, many of whom are covered by collective
agreements where government wouldn't dream of a 43% salary
lift.