September 20, 2005

November 2008 STV Vote

The following letter was faxed to the Attorney General on September 15th.

Mr. Wally Oppal, QC
Attorney General                                     by fax to 250 387-6411
PO Box 9044 STN PROV GOVT              (original to follow)
VICTORIA BC
V8W 9E2

Dear Mr. Oppal:

While I did what I could to oppose BC-STV, I applaud your government for scheduling a second vote which we can all hope will be more decisive than the close call which occurred in May. The announcement that "yes" and "no" committees will be funded for a campaign, and that constituency boundaries will be defined before the vote will be helpful.

I am writing because Elections BC reports to the legislature through you, and you will likely be the Minister responsible for the legislation that sets the terms for the 2008 referendum.

Constituencies which vary in size between two and seven members might be considered, under the rules of STV, to fail to provide equal "effective representation" and hence be in violation of Charter Rights. If the government has not yet obtained a constitutional opinion on whether BC-STV is consistent with Charter Rights, I encourage you to commission an opinion and make it public as soon as possible. It would be unfortunate to spend many more millions and raise expectations on a voting system that might not withstand a Charter challenge.

Should the November 2008 vote produce the necessary double majority required for the adoption of STV, Elections BC will have just six months before it will have to implement an extremely complex vote counting system. Elections BC will probably have to invest in systems necessary to successfully implement STV long before the referendum. Substantial amendments to the Election Act will be necessary if a yes vote succeeds. It would help inform the vote if that legislation could be prepared well in advance, as anyone promoting an initiative must do under BC's Recall and Initiative Act, and made available before the referendum campaign. If that is done, it would also be possible to make a reference to the Supreme Court so that the constitutionality of a system where some people have two MLAs and others have seven could be determined prior to a challenge from private interests.

I trust you will not allow the next referendum to proceed with the same type of defects that existed in the May vote.

Sincerely,

David D. Schreck