Article content continued

During the weekend, the bulk of the work takes place in small groups that then feed back into plenary sessions where group members have the opportunity to put questions to a panel of experts. Then participants are once again surveyed at the end of the process, indicating how successful deliberation has been in changing voter preferences. These procedures have been used in several countries to help government deal with many issues, for example the discrimination against Roma in Bulgaria, the future of electric utilities in Texas, and the future of the monarchy in Australia.

Such mini-publics of course have the downside that many participants will still have considerable gaps in their knowledge after just a two-day event. On the more positive side, the record of deliberative polls shows an increase in agreement about which issues are the most salient, and also the development of a more “other-regarding” dimension in voter preferences that narrows the range of disagreement about particular reform options. These two features could go a long way toward ensuring “good faith” consultations in a context where both the committee and legislature are likely to remain balanced on a hyper-partisan knife-edge. If media coverage of results is sufficiently extensive, then there is an improved chance that B.C.’s voters will be more disposed to follow the example and advice of their fellow citizen-deliberators than they have been in the past.

Without an extraordinary procedure of this kind, the cause of PR is likely to be portrayed, and perceived, in partisan terms, with the vote in 2018 more of a referendum on the ruling NDP-Green alliance than a reasoned deliberation about how to improve our democracy. And that could mean another wasted opportunity.

Mark Crawford is a professor of political science who teaches Canadian Government and Democratic Theory at Athabasca University.