Nobody speaks for current system

How come not a single soul has come out to speak in favour of the at-large system that has resisted change for decades?

by Matthew Burrows <mburrows@republic-news.org>

Give us wards and give them to us ASAP!

This is the resounding message so far in four public meetings organized throughout the city by the Vancouver Electoral Reform Commission, which is seeking to ascertain whether or not Vancouverites want to see a different method of electing municipal officials.

Headed up by former BC Supreme Court justice Tom Berger and with the assistance of Jeannie Bates, the commission was brought into being by Vancouver City Council in July 2003 and given until May 31 to suggest the kind of voting system and staff numbers that resonates with the public.

On the menu for Vancouverites is either the present "at large" system, with former mayor Philip Owen as its chief advocate, a full Mike Harcourt-backed ward system, with councillors assigned to and representing different "wards" in the city, or a mixture of the two.

Proportional representation, a solid option in countries like Germany, where it has the impressive title, "Verhaeltnisswahlrecht," is currently off limits due to financial constraints, according to COPE councillors asked about it.

In literature distributed to residents receiving the Vancouver Courier on January 25, all options were succinctly outlined and concise local municipal case histories dating back to 1886 laid bare.

The city has also posted a link on its website to give those with Internet access further opportunity to study the issue.

What emerges at the meetings, where various councillors like COPE's Fred Bass, Ellen Woodsworth and Anne Roberts, along with NPA's Peter Ladner sit quietly and watch events unfold, is a phalanx of case history and a plethora of scenarios and comparisons to cities of similar size and make-up in the US and Canada. Charts are there at meetings for all to see, comparing voter turnouts, voting patterns and neighbourhood turnouts at municipal elections.

Meanwhile Berger, calm, articulate and well-versed, sizes up all comments made by the public, adding personal anecdotes and observations based on his considerable political precedents from around the world.

Despite the complexity of all of these variables, an approximate turnout of 200 (by press time) at the four meetings studied (and the three attended) by The Republic, show an almost overwhelming support for the adoption of the Harcourt ward option, with one or two showing a lean towards a mixed voting system, which would see some councillors elected to the city at-large (as they are now) and others to assigned wards.

What I did not see, and the ever-diligent Allen Garr of the Vancouver Courier was also shaking his head at this at last Monday's (February 9) meeting in Kitsilano, was any support whatsoever for the status quo "at-large" system. Not a single soul, eastside, westside or at UBC, has unequivocally backed up Philip Owen.

"I am guessing by tonight's speeches that people are in favour of wards," said Berger, addressing the 54 people who made it out on a Monday night (February 2) to the Kiwassa Neighbourhood House.

Also present that night was Pandora Street resident John Calvert, who said he was "frustrated" with the current at-large system, and "especially here on the eastside."

"There is an accountability gap," he said. "The problem with at-large is that there is nobody here you can speak to-it's everybody on council. This ultimately could lead to the belief that nobody is responsible [for the neighbourhood.] I'm in support of more council members if we get better representation. It is a cost issue, but if it makes this more democratic, it's a cost worth paying."

Grandview resident Guy Pocklington agreed. "I was born in Toronto," he said. "There are few areas where Toronto compares favourably to Vancouver, but the electoral system is one of them. It's easier to elect one ward, as opposed to looking at a list of 50 candidates. I'm strongly in favour of a ward system."

At Kiwassa and at other meetings, Berger reminded those present of some oft-cited potential drawbacks of wards-namely, parochialism.

"The argument in favour of the at-large system is that it is less parochial, as councillors would be city-wide," and not beholden to a fixed group of constituents, he said.

Hastings-Sunrise resident Bill Bargeman did not dismiss a mixed system but backed wards, dismissing the "parochialism" argument, adding that it is imperative to have wards to keep citizens interested.

"We need wards to keep democracy alive," he said. "Low voter turnout is a dangerous phenomenon, and if we don't get wards, we'll lose all the people who came out to vote in 2002 in what I think we all agree was an anomaly. The light is flickering and it could go out easily."

Mel Lehan, of the Kitsilano Residents Association and chair at St James Community Square, said "wards foster and enhance a sense of community." He added there may also be more block parties.

If this costs us more money to set up than the current system, Dunbar resident Donald Burton is not overly concerned.

"People talk about the cost of this," he said. "Democracy doesn't come cheaply, but we're not getting a good deal now for the money we're spending."

Recent UBC graduate (and fully-disclosed COPE member) Matt Smith echoed these sentiments at the February 11 UBC meeting, in front of a surprisingly-low turnout of 16.

He pointed out the south-east corner of Vancouver, which he said has low voter turnout and "deplorable transit," and the Main Street corridor, with a shortage of #3 buses that are not brimming full during rush hour.

Though few students showed at the meeting, he said events galvanize citizens, but only when there is a voting system to support it.

"Turnout was unusually high in 2002, (at 50.5 per cent, as opposed to the usual 40)," he said. "Right now many young people are not interested in civic politics. For them city hall is a detached entity."

On top of recommending a voting system, Berger said he will also consider recommending through the commission that limits be put on campaign spending and full disclosure of campaign contributions be implemented, both before and after the election.

"I am considering putting forward that only flesh-and-blood humans can contribute," he said. "No unions and no corporations."

Berger added that, as long as COPE and the NPA spend over $1 million between them, the current system makes it tough for independents.

"I'm thinking aloud a bit here, but the party machine doesn't seem to have quite the same grip in a ward system."

It is the Berger commission that will redraw the ward boundaries that are eventually picked following the findings at subsequent meetings, and not the council.

The next public meeting will be at St Mary's in Kerrisdale, on Saturday, February 21, at 1 pm. As usual, a short, 10-minute video will be shown, followed by introductory remarks by Berger. After that the floor opens up to anyone wishing to speak. All they must do is sign up upon arrival at the meeting.

****