The federal Liberal government’s decision not to hold a referendum on electoral reform has raised the ire of many pundits, some of whom argue it has no mandate to abandon the first-past-the-post (FPTP) system.

However, electoral reform — specifically, a promise that the Oct. 19 election would be the last under FPTP, by which a candidate who garners the most votes wins the riding — was a plank in the campaign platform that earned the Liberals a majority government. Of course, there is irony in that they formed that majority with less than 40 per cent of the vote, the aberration electoral reform is meant to resolve.

There is no requirement for the government to hold a referendum. On the other hand, it might want to reconsider. If the Liberals’ enthusiasm for reforming the system has waned somewhat given the results that FPTP delivered, a referendum would be a way to back out gracefully.

Here in British Columbia, we know a thing or two about referendums and the odds of success.

Twice we have held referendums on electoral reform, in 2005 and 2009, and both times the proposal to adopt the single transferable vote (STV) system, a complicated form of proportional representation that allows for multiple members in a riding based on voters’ rankings of candidates, was defeated.

More recently, the province held a referendum on a 10-year, $7.5-billion transportation plan that envisioned a tax increase for Metro Vancouver residents. Opponents were able to recast the referendum as a judgment on TransLink, the agency responsible for public transportation, and the plan was resoundingly rejected.

And who can forget the 2011 referendum on the harmonized sales tax, a sensible economic policy that fell victim to populist propaganda peddled by former premier Bill Vander Zalm.

It’s fair to say that most voters are preoccupied with practical matters — jobs, taxation, housing, education — and an arcane discussion of electoral systems is unlikely to elicit more than a yawn outside of B.C. In this province, however, with its legendary polarization and divisiveness, we can anticipate street demonstrations and protests.

The Liberals have not told us what might replace FPTP, so the question to be asked is unknown.

Voters might have to choose among the variants of proportional representation, such as ranked ballots, run-off voting, STV, mixed member proportional, etc., which suggests a lengthy and costly information program. Conducting the referendum would cost millions more.

FPTP has served Canada well for more than a century, but it works best in a two-party system. With population growth, demographic changes and an increasing diversity of views, it may well be time for a change. We can use the existing system to make that change.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is taking the right step in establishing an all-party Parliamentary committee to examine alternatives to FPTP. We would add only that the committee must consult broadly and should report to the public periodically on its deliberations. The committee is expected to present its findings to Parliament in 18 months after which legislation would be drafted. Members — our representatives — should hold a free vote in the House of Commons with a high threshold for success, say two-thirds, to prevent any one party from imposing its will.

A vote in Parliament to reform our electoral system offers the best chance that it will be done. Or we could hold a referendum and, if history is any guide, live with the status quo.