“Government of The People, by The People and for The People…” is a succinct description of the ideals of democracy and self-governance.  But ask yourself, how significant do you feel your vote was in the last election?  Does our election system give you confidence that the ideals of democracy are being upheld?  These days, most people seem to be answering “no” to these questions.  We in CfER believe that reforming our electoral system can instill better civic participation, allow better representation of our diverse society, and provide a better feeling that our electoral system works for us.

Remember the 2000 Presidential election?  The candidate who came in second in the popular vote won the election.  Are the people’s wishes represented by such an electoral process?

In line with democratic principles, shouldn’t “we the people” be actively involved in defining the electoral system?  Indeed, don’t we have a responsibility to make our electoral system adhere to the values of democracy?  Is there a model that would give the people that kind of responsibility and authority?

The government of British Columbia, Canada implemented just such a process. It was called the British Columbia Citizens’ Assembly On Electoral Reform.  Its task was “to assess different models for electing members of the Legislative Assembly and to recommend whether our current system for provincial elections should be retained or whether a new model should be adopted.”

This Citizen’s Assembly was the government’s response to growing public dissatisfaction with the grossly distorted outcome of their current winner-take-all voting system (the same system we use here in the U.S.).  In their 1997 election, the party that won the popular majority got a minority of seats in the legislature.  In 2001, the party with a 57 percent majority won 97 percent of the seats.

The formation of the Citizen’s Assembly began in 2003.  Voters were selected at random from across British Columbia’s 79 electoral districts.  Age and gender were factored in so that the assembly would reflect the diversity of the population.  Those voters were sent a letter describing the intent of the assembly and were invited to join.  The resulting Citizen’s Assembly consisted of 160 citizens.  They met on various weekends over an 18-month period, during which time they studied the voting systems of democracies all over the world and held public hearings all over the province.

Their final recommendation was for British Columbia to adopt a Single Transferable Vote (STV) system, which is a popular form of proportional representation.  [STV is called choice voting in the U.S.--editor.]  Under this system, the 79 single-member districts (where only one representative is elected) would be replaced with fewer, but larger, multi-member districts.  The size of the legislature stays the same, but the larger multi-member districts give the voters more choice.  They would be voting to elect anywhere from two to seven representatives, depending on the size of their new district, and using a ranked ballot to indicate their order of preference among the candidates.

Those familiar with proportional representation know the advantages.  Election results more closely reflect the popular vote; minority groups get better representation; the “spoiler effect” of minor parties is eliminated; district boundaries (gerrymandering) become less significant.

The Assembly’s recommendations were put to the voters at the May 17 provincial election.  The ballot proposition to implement STV received 58% of the vote province-wide and majorities in 77 of 79 districts.  But, alas, 60% approval was needed to pass.  The post-election polling indicated that some voters simply weren’t educated enough on the new system to feel like they understood it.

Those who work in the arcane field of electoral reform know that voter education is key to passing any reform.  This was demonstrated in San Francisco in the 2002 election when the voters approved the adoption of ranked choice voting (also known as instant runoff voting) for single-seat elections.  It was implemented for local races in last November’s election.  The massive public education efforts were credited with the initiative’s passing, and with the high voter satisfaction indicated in the post-election polls.

While California’s political leaders are preoccupied with their proposals for redrawing the boundaries of our single-member legislative districts, the people of British Columbia have given us a live demonstration of a new model for citizen participation in the design of more fundamental reforms.  Many activists in CfER think this model could work in California, too.

Redistricting advocates say they want districts that are competitive (don’t favor one party) and representative (win­ner represents large majority).  But single-member districts can’t deliver this.  To quote CfER President Steve Chessin, in his response to a redistricting advocacy coalition, “single-member districts are either competitive (elections are close) or representative (vast majority votes for the winner); they can't be both.  These are diametrically opposed goals” [emphasis added].  Proportional representation in large, multi-member districts is the only design that can satisfy both of these goals.

Perhaps it’s time for a California Citizens’ Assembly to take our democracy out of the hands of politicians and put it where it belongs… with we The People.

To join CfER, or renew your membership, please visit