As toxic political polarization continues to rise and dysfunction infects even municipal councils, the topic of electoral reform has once again risen to the forefront.
The Special Committee on Democratic and Electoral Reform, which includes four BC NDP MLAs, two BC Conservative MLAs (including our own Ward Stamer) and one BC Green MLA, has a mandate to examine models for electing Members of the Legislative Assembly and make recommendations to the government on how to improve voter engagement by November 26, 2025.
Why does this committee matter? It’s a genuine and very rare opportunity to fix the problems that plague our elections, and by extension, the way that we govern ourselves. Voters in BC, as elsewhere in Canada, continue to be frustrated by an archaic system that leaves most of us without effective representation (defined as having at least one elected representative who aligns with our values and priorities). Whereas most democracies upgraded to proportional representation about a century ago, we continue to muddle along using the antiquated first-past-the-post (FPTP) system.
FPTP distorts voter intent by enabling a party with only minority support to govern as though they had the support of a true majority of voters. Most of the ballots cast in each election don’t serve to elect anyone. Apathy, cynicism about politics, and low voter turnout are logical consequences.
To examine possible fixes, the Special Committee held hearings around the province this summer, and British Columbians came out in droves to share their thoughts.
Of the 161 presentations from individuals and groups that included an opinion on the voting system, a whopping 94% advocated for proportional representation. Proportional representation was supported by 29 of 31 organizations and 122 of 130 individuals who spoke to the committee.
The BC NDP can work with the Green Party and other independent-minded MLAs in the Legislature to implement reform—and we sincerely hope they don’t drop the ball. Upgrading our voting system would end the expensive policy lurch that cancels half-completed projects every time we change governments. It would encourage parties to work collaboratively and reduce the highly adversarial nature of our politics. Most importantly, it would ensure that the legislation that is passed reflects the priorities of a true majority of British Columbians.
An interesting idea floated recently by a member of the Special Committee, Kamloops-North Thompson MLA Ward Stamer, was to permit municipalities to use alternative voting systems to choose their Mayor and Councillors. Specifically, Stamer suggested that voters might appreciate the opportunity to rank their preferred candidates 1, 2, 3 (as many as they like), rather than just mark their ballots with Xs. This simple, and hopefully uncontroversial, change could be the first step to improving political culture at the municipal level, particularly in places like Kamloops where there is so much acrimony among members of City Council.
Here’s what a new municipal ballot could look like after being filled out:
Reid Hamer-Jackson, a complete newcomer to politics, was elected to the Mayor’s chair thanks to vote-splitting among the three experienced councillors that allowed him to come up the middle. Had voters been able to offer second and third choices via a ranked ballot, the result may have been different (depending on how much voters value familiarity with Council procedures).
We say: Bring on electoral reform! Sure, give voters the ability to rank candidates on their municipal ballots, but don’t let potential reform at the municipal level become the shiny bauble that distracts our attention from what would be a truly transformative improvement: proportional representation at the provincial level.
We wish the Special Committee the political courage to do the right thing. Making evidence-based decisions and sticking to principles is a tough gig in politics, but making hard decisions in the best interests of the people of BC is what they were elected to do.
Image credit (pie chart): Fair Vote Canada
UPDATE: After this piece was published, Mel Rothenburger published an opposing viewpoint on his Armchair Mayor blog. Gisela provided a response, copied below:
Ranked ballot would resolve the issue of vote splitting
It seems something has changed for Mel Rothenburger recently. On October 2nd, he referenced vote-splitting when musing about the possibility of additional incumbent Councillors joining Mike O’Reilly in the mayoral race: “It could very well result in a vote-splitting situation similar to the 2022 election.” Four days later, though, he described vote-splitting in municipal elections as a “myth.” Odd.
Vote-splitting is most definitely a problem, even in municipal elections. In any election, multiple candidates who are viewed as somewhat similar can split the votes between them, opening a path for a dissimilar candidate who may be less popular overall to win.
Anyone who interviews voters, including pollsters, can confirm the mental gymnastics that voters perform in advance of every election: instead of marking their ballot for the person they truly support, they end up voting for the person they believe has the best chance of defeating the candidate they despise—precisely in order to avoid splitting the vote.
The pattern is easier to identify when there are parties involved. As Mel Rothenburger notes, the number of people who support the dominant party (or perspective) in any given area is usually less than half of voters. The majority of voters are left trying to gauge other parties’ levels of support in order to vote strategically. Word of mouth, media comments on the “horse race,” and of course strategic voting sites are all used to try and make our one precious vote as effective as possible.
We often hear people say “I can’t vote my conscience (Party X) in this election, because they don’t have a hope of winning, so I’m voting Party Y to avoid handing victory to Party Z.” Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. What is clear is that people hesitate to vote for their preferred candidate for fear of helping elect the party they most strongly dislike—through splitting the vote.
The same dynamics apply whether there is a party label or not. A party affiliation simplifies voters’ tasks by acting as a mental shorthand for the type of assessments all of us make independently about each candidate’s views, much in the same way that a slate would indicate shared priorities. (And while we haven’t yet had parties in municipal politics here, they are on their way: there is already a Conservative Party registered for the 2026 election in Kamloops and many other communities around the province).
Using a ranked ballot for mayoral contests would ensure that more of us would be satisfied with the winner. We can rest assured that we’ll elect someone who the majority of us can live with—rather than the #1 choice of only 30% of voters (who may be deeply unpopular with the majority of voters).
Using a ranked ballot would eliminate the negative effects of vote-splitting, meaning that voters could simply vote for the person they prefer. If your first choice candidate doesn’t have enough votes to win, your second choice ranking would come into play. It’s definitely a better way to vote for Mayor and Council.
Of course, anyone who wants to stick with a simple X is free to do so. But allowing voters the option to provide more nuanced input on their ballots for Mayor and Council should be a no-brainer.
GISELA RUCKERT
Kamloops
ROTHENBURGER’S COMMENT: Votes are certainly always split among candidates and it becomes especially obvious when several candidates are in the running, as was the case in the 2022 civic election. It’s the theory that “vote splitting” somehow provides an advantage to one candidate or another that I question.
From Gisela: It’s clear that vote-splitting influences outcomes when there are multiple candidates who are seen to be similar. In these cases, it benefits the candidate who is seen to different from the others. In 2022, we would argue that the three veteran councillors who had served on Council the previous term were perceived as a continuation of the status quo. They split the vote for “a steady hand on the tiller” between them, which allow “the new kid on the block” to come up the middle.
