If asked before the recent Sicamous all-candidates forum which party I’ll be voting for, my answer would have been what it is now: not sure.
Yes, I am the undecided voter. But having seen and heard from our Shuswap candidates, I now have a sense of how I’d prefer to vote: All of the above.
A protest vote? Kind of, but more on that in a bit.
In Tom Birch, Chris George, Steve Gunner and Greg Kyllo, Shuswap voters have been given a very impressive mix of perspectives, backgrounds, passions and beliefs from which to choose.
While driving home from the forum, I reflected on what I heard and weighed the pros and cons in an attempt to pick one, but could not. Then I decided to drop the baggage attached to each of the political parties represented, and focus on the individuals. And that’s when it hit me, that the best person for the job is all four.
The notion of having Birch, George, Gunner and Kyllo representing the Shuswap in Victoria struck a chord with me. What a coup for the electorate of our region, to have these political paradigms given equal representation. What a coup it would be for British Columbia.
And here’s where ‘all of the above’ becomes a protest vote.
Polls indicate British Columbians want change – that whatever good the Liberals have done for the province, many are keen to send them packing. And of course, opposition candidates have jumped on the “vote-for-change” bandwagon. But so long as we cling to the bitter, competitive nastiness that surrounds our current electoral system, the first-past-the-post method of king makers, it is unlikely we will ever see any real change in government.
History shows power is too persuasive, and those in power too easily whipped by party arrogance and complacency.
But history also shows British Columbians are prepared to try a different electoral system, one that results in more fair and equal representation.
The Single Transferrable Vote, a system proposed by the B.C. Citizen’s Assembly as the alternative of choice to the existing ‘first-past-the-post’ system, went to referendum in 2005, and received 57 per cent of the popular vote. Ironically, the Liberal government, which initiated the process behind the STV, also required a 60 per cent majority for the result to be binding.
Perhaps the STV was too convoluted. But the point is people wanted change.
I’m uncertain recent federal minority governments are a good argument against more politically balanced leadership, as they seemed to suffer more from ego and the pursuit of power taking precedence over the provision of fair and equal representation.
Balanced representation cannot be achieved when government is dominated by an insular majority that favours personal attacks over consensus building.
But, with the way things are now, voting ‘all of the above’ would likely be a wasted vote. And so I remain undecided.