A A

Don Mazer

Guest Opinion

For the forthcoming referendum on electoral reform to be a successful and democratic process, all possible steps need to be taken to help voters to be as fully informed as possible in choosing between the mixed member proportional option (MMP) and first-past-the-post (FPTP).

We can recall that a key reason given by the government for rejecting the success of the MMP in the plebiscite of 2016 was that voters didn’t really understand the options. There were too many, they were unclear, and people might have chosen not to vote given this confusion. And not enough people voted, government said. What did the “silent majority” think?

With the referendum, there is a clear question. Voters can say ‘no’ or ‘yes’ to MMP as our electoral system. Unlike the plebiscite, where there were no criteria of a “successful” vote, there are clearly stated thresholds of whether MMP will be selected: a majority of voters across P.E.I., and a majority vote in 60 per cent of the electoral districts. And holding the referendum at the time of the provincial election should assure far greater voter participation.

Certainly, the referendum commissioner will do all he can to educate and clarify referendum issues, and the proponent groups will do their work, but the political parties have an essential role and responsibility in this educational process, regardless of whether they support the electoral change to MMP or not.

For voters to make a clear and informed choice, they must “k(no)w what they’re voting for,” to borrow from the clever slogan of a group opposing MMP.

We know that if MMP becomes our electoral format, each party can present a list of nine candidates and that all Islanders can vote for any of these candidates. But we don’t know how each party will choose these list candidates. And there seems to be a great deal of apprehension and concern about this question. People are worried about decisions made in the backrooms by the power brokers, parties having too much say about the candidates listed, less say for rural voters, etc. As far as the list candidates selection process, voters don’t know what they would be voting for when they make their decision to support or reject MMP. This lack of clear information could be a central issue – a real barrier – in whether citizens would consider supporting MMP in the referendum.

We would hope that all parties agree that it would be a failure of our democratic process if citizens’ apprehension or lack of knowledge influenced the referendum outcome, when clear steps could be taken by the political parties and their leaders to address these concerns. We believe that each party and their leader have a special responsibility to develop a clear statement about how they would determine and select their list candidates.

Voters need to know very clearly what the process would be that the party would use in selecting their candidates. How are these candidates nominated? Who votes to select them? Will attempts be made to “balance” party lists to assure that different interests/perspectives are represented on the list (e.g. rural/urban, women/men/other identities, youth, other diversities, etc.)?

Citizens need to know what we’re voting for if we are to have a decisive outcome that reflects the public will. We call on each of the parties and their leaders to make as clear and transparent a statement of their principles or policy as possible on how they will select their MMP list candidates.

Don Mazer is on the board of Citizens’ Alliance, a non-partisan organization promoting electoral reform and environmental rights. He lives in Suffolk.