Below the Radar Transcript
Episode 1: Why Vote ‘Yes’ to Proportional Representation? — with Maria Dobrinskaya
Speakers: Am Johal, Maria Dobrinskaya
[theme music]
Am Johal 0:06
You're listening to the first episode of Below the Radar, a new podcast produced by SFU’s Vancity Office of Community Engagement. We interview guests on topics ranging from environmental and social justice and urban issues, arts, culture and community-building. My name is Am Johal and our office is launching this podcast as part of our Knowledge Mobilization Project at 312 Main.
This week we're speaking with Maria Dobrinskaya about Proportional Representation. Maria is the BC director of the Broadbent Institute, which has been campaigning on the ‘yes’ side of this topic.
[theme music]
[theme music fades]
Am Johal 0:48
Hello, Welcome to our podcast, thank you for joining us, my name is Am Johal. And we’re here today with Maria Dobrinskaya with the Broadbent Institute. Welcome Maria.
Maria Dobrinskaya 0:59
Thanks Am, thanks for having me.
Am Johal 1:00
I was going to ask just some, sort of, for our listeners who are quite new to the referendum on proportional representation, just some of the basic things around what they will need to do in order to vote. Because I think it’s been out there but if you’re not a political junkie it’s quite new for people, so if you could share a little bit of that.
Maria Dobrinskaya 1:19
Certainly and yeah, it’s just starting to heat up now as well so.. Elections BC is going to be mailing ballots to all registered voters in BC starting the week of October 22nd. Hopefully none of that will be delayed by the postal strike. But it is a mail-in ballot and so registered voters will receive a ballot in the mail and it has two questions on the ballot. The first question is very simple, it’s “do you support our current first-past-the-post system, or would you like to move to a proportional representation system?” and the second question offers three different types of proportional representation - dual member, mixed member, and rural-urban - and voters have the option of ranking them in order, 1, 2, and 3, and voters can either choose to only vote for the first question, they can choose to only vote for the second question, although I don’t recommend that. And if they vote for first-past-the-post they still are able to rank their choices for the second part of the question as well. All of the ballots need to be back to Elections BC by November 30th, so received by November 30th, so people need to get them in the mail basically by the 22nd or 23rd. There will be referendum offices being set up, I believe those start November 5th or right around there. So for people who may not have a permanent address or may be a registered voter at a different address or did not receive a referendum ballot, they are able to go to the referendum office to pick one up as well.
Am Johal 2:53
Now previously in BC we’ve had referendums during the election cycles in 2005 and 2009, and with the Broadbent Institute your organization has been actively supporting the ‘yes’ side so I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about how you came to the determination to support the ‘yes’ side of the referendum.
Maria Dobrinskaya 3:15
So that definitely predates me. Ed Broadbent, who the organization is named after and the chair of the board, has been a long-time supporter of proportional representation for decades and has a strong commitment to democratic renewal. So the Institute overall is engaged in a number of issues but democratic renewal and the way in which we engage with our democracy and our government underpins all the issues that we are involved in. So the organization on a national level was quite active after the 2015 Federal election, when Justin Trudeau promised it was the last election under first-past-the-post, and we were very excited a broad coalition was formed to support that change. That coalition ended up sort of moving towards ensuring that Justin Trudeau was going to wear the broken promise, frankly, and there was a lot of cynicism that came out of that process. A lot of young people, in particular, were engaged in that election, both to get Harper out but also around a lot of the change promises that Trudeau was making and so that was disappointing but the institute overall really sees an opportunity here in BC to basically to lead the way in North America, frankly, around electoral reform. There’s a growing appetite across the country: we’re seeing the Doug Ford election in Ontario, the outcome of the New Brunswick provincial election recently where it was sort of unclear for a certain amount of time who would emerge as the government. The Quebec election recently as well, majority government with around 37% of the support. So in a multi-party political environment like we have, first-past-the-post really can’t accommodate that, and as we see more and more of these examples and people are increasingly frustrated with either their vote not counting or there being some sort of distorted outcome, I think that this issue is definitely not going away and certainly on the rise. And it pairs with also what we’re seeing down south for sure, but a number of jurisdictions around the world around the erosion of our democratic institutions and the lack of faith or belief that young people in particular have around the ability of those institutions to do what the promise of democracy is: that we all should be represented and we all should have a voice in government.
Am Johal 5:47
It’s a fairly major thing to undertake in terms of changing an electoral system overall. In previous attempts to bring forward a plebiscite in 2005 and 2009 there were various thresholds that were set at 60% support, various levels of regional support, and in this referendum is very much 50% plus one scenario. In a context where twice the public didn’t support it at the threshold that was set, is there going to be a question of the legitimacy of this referendum if it passes at a fairly low rate?
Maria Dobrinskaya 6:29
Yes I definitely think there is. I mean I certainly hope, I would love to see really high voter turnout and a really clear mandate from voters to pursue a change in our voting system. But again I think we’re kind of in a bit of a vicious cycle around voter disengagement and general sort of cynicism and people being pretty turned off by politics in general, so it’s hard to engage those same people in changing the voting system. I do think that, if we are able to be successful, the government has work to do on the other end to build legitimacy and confidence in the voting system, to create some consensus, and there’s going to have to be public processes for sure that help the public to both understand the systems and give some input into some of the pieces that are unanswered that are facing the voters right now.
Am Johal 7:15
Some of the arguments that are raised against proportional representation - Bill Tieleman and others have raised this around extreme voices entering into the legislature. But we have people like Donald Trump, Doug Ford as well. But, in this iteration of the referendum, the threshold for PR is set at 5%, it tends to be a kind of normative level that sit in many countries, if you take a political science class…
Maria Dobrinskaya 7:47
Kind of the natural threshold...
Am Johal 7:48
And so to me, one of the questions I would ask is, you know, is that set at a high enough level to keep extreme voices out? Because there wasn’t actually a lot of public consultation on the level of the threshold that was set. In the context of BC, I can totally see a scenario where a neo-fascist, far right political party that forms could actually gain a foothold in the legislature with 5% of the vote, whereas under the current system, they wouldn’t find that place in the legislature, they wouldn’t get the media attention in the same way. Because in a way, as much as there are many many faults with the first-past-the-post system, there is a kind of social cohesion that can happen by keeping the parameters of what’s acceptable in terms of public discourse in a particular way. When you set something at 5% in a place, you can have parties that do come up. And I could totally see in BC, as someone who grew up here, been to all parts of rural BC. Now, that is democracy…
Maria Dobrinskaya 9:00
Well, I think that that is part of what it is, it’s a trade off: do we want to see the neo-Nazis in our midst or not is part of the question. I think that we can’t deny that they’re there, I think that BC is definitely a much more racist province than many people of my skin colour would like to admit. But I think that that kind of hate based politics is already lurking in within the broader party system. And certainly we see that at the federal level, with the Conservatives in the last federal election. The barbaric, cultural barbaric hot tips hotline and certainly a lot of the associations between the Conservatives and organizations such as Rebel Media. So I think that the rise of extremism in general is a big concern for all of us, I think that there’s questions about whether we give them 100% of the power with 37% of the vote, I mean in Quebec right now we have a government who has said that they will use the notwithstanding clause to override the Charter of Rights and Freedoms around a lot of cultural symbolism and anti-immigration policy. So one of the things I think that really does work to combat that kind of radical, extremist politics is strengthening our democracy. I mean I think where there’s space for that kind of politics to grow is in the alienation that so many people feel from our political system in the ways in which their material needs and the struggles they feel on a daily basis are not reflected in government. I also think that there’s questions about whether that kind of politics enter into legislature is one thing, but what do they do when they get there? I find it highly unlikely that either of the major parties would work with them, any major party that forms a coalition with an extremist groups has to go back to the voters and stand by that affiliation as well. So I mean, I don’t think that denying the existence of that kind of politics is necessarily going to solve the problem for us and if anything, sunlight is the best disinfectant. So having some clarity around how much support there actually is for that kind of politics and how do we actually ensure that we are marginalizing those voices and not allowing them into situations where they could be part of a government caucus that has 100% power for four years.
Am Johal 11:31
I think one of the challenges for me is just that I think that the threshold was set without a lot of public consultation. Like for something like this I would have preferred a higher threshold like 10% or whatever is the right one, but 5% for me seems too low to keep out extremist views that I think are intended to undermine social cohesion.
Maria Dobrinskaya 11:53
I’m not going to get into the math around it because I’m not a political scientist in that way but as you said, there is a sort of, and looking particularly at MMP(Mixed-Member Proportional Representation) there’s a natural threshold at 5% based on the sizes of the ridings. But that is one of the tradeoffs, the higher you get that threshold, the less you are actually getting a representative system, right? So are those tradeoffs worth it? The threshold is actually quite lower in a number of pro-rep countries. But I also will say, 5% sounds low but is quite hard to get that level of support. The Green Party in Ontario didn’t reach it in the last election as the fourth party on the ballot, they were at 4.5%. So I mean, different environment for sure and I also think that that’s another one of the reasons why what’s on offer right now is the opportunity to experience pro-rep under two elections and then have another referendum to see whether or not it is working in BC.
Am Johal 12:54
One of the things that other people have brought up is sort of, having larger ridings, and that might undermine certain rural areas et cetera, but I would like to bring up a slightly different point, which is that in some particular constituencies, because of the social issues within them or various historical reasons, I bring up like say Vancouver-Mount Pleasant. I remember when Jenny Kwan brought up the notion for the need for supervised injection sites. That was deeply unpopular in the public. That was deeply unpopular in her own party. But given the complexity of her constituency, she could actually go out, say that publicly, take a hit from her own political party and the general public, but she could actually float that out as a legitimate public policy idea according to the emergency that was happening there. And when we widen and make larger the geographic aspects of a constituency, sometimes that ends up taking us to a more normative, sort of centrist-type politics where some of those policy ideas can’t be floated out in quite the same way without the sort of ‘party discipline’ that emerges. Party discipline exists under first-past-the-post, but I think that there are some specific things that the system allows people to do in geographic areas. I grew up in Williams Lake where if you saw the elected person in the produce aisle and you didn’t like something they did, you gave them an earful, that’s the culture of politics, right? And so, I do think that, how do you answer when we start making those ridings larger, how do we still bring up those policy ideas that don’t just become normative and centrist and that type of thing?
Maria Dobrinskaya 14:40
I think that’s a good question and I think that there’s sort of two pieces to that. So, again, depending on the system that’s chosen, I think it’s a bit of a different answer. In terms of mixed-member, the ridings would not be that much bigger and you would have still your local representative in addition to your regional representatives. So I think there’s two things, one is that you are likely to have multiple representatives. So either in a geographic area that gives sort of ‘strength in numbers’ to multiple MLAs from the same party who are wanting to raise an issue that is relevant to their constituents, and particularly in an area where there is a lot of support for one party, you know, the geographic area would be larger but there would more MLAs bringing that issue on behalf of their constituents. But the other one I think is in relation to the comment around ‘party discipline’, and while it will certainly still exist under any of the pro-rep systems, one of the things is ... I actually believe it’s weakened under pro-rep. I think that, when every vote, when it’s a percentage based election, when we’re not talking about safe seats and swing ridings, I mean one of the things about Vancouver-Mount Pleasant is it’s considered a safe seat for the BC NDP. And so, not that I don’t think of the MLAs who have represented that riding have done that, but in a safe seat there’s inclinations for MLAs and certainly parties to stick their neck out if they don’t have to. They don’t have to do anything to earn the support of the electorate in that riding, and they can take it for granted and sometimes we see that happen. But in ridings that are not safe, in ridings that are swing ridings and go back and forth, what you’re likely to see elected is a range of MLAs from different parties and/or independents. And so then if the issue, the pressing issue in the area that constituents are addressing or wanting to address is not aligned with a particular party, you will have other MLAs that represent you that can bring that issue to the legislature. And so I think that that’s really important.
There is a distinction right now between the sort of ‘constituency service’ that I recognize all MLAs provide through their constituency offices that is non-partisan that helps citizens access government services and the like, but it’s a distinction, it’s different than the work that they do in the legislature. MLAs cannot vote on two sides of an issue, and so if you have an MLA that shares your values, that is committed to the issues that you are advocating for, you’re lucky. But if you don’t, you need to basically wait four years and try again, because they can advocate on the opposition side, but there’s not really any room for collaboration or sort of focused or policy outcomes that benefit the entire area. So, I think that what may be lost minorly in some local representation is offset by basically having more representation that’s values-aligned that may not be geographically-aligned, but that’s values-aligned, and that ensures also that every region in the province will have representation in government, even if it’s not of the party of your choice. So recognizing again the distinction between MLAs being able to offer what they’re able to do in government versus in opposition.
Am Johal 18:09
So my next question, sort of around notions of volatility and social cohesion. I lived under PR for one year of my life. I lived in Haifa, Israel, so it was a form of PR, and that’s a particular place with a permanent conflict zone…
Maria Dobrinskaya 18:26
Well Israel and Italy get brought up a lot as examples of it not working, but I suggest that both places have their own history.
Am Johal 18:35
My point is that I think there are a lot of bifurcations that happen within political parties. At the time that I lived there, ‘03/’04, the head of Likud was Ariel Sharon and Netanyahu was driving a kind of right wing wedge, and then Sharon moved and started his own party Kadima, so there was always these kinds of constant splits over policy issues where someone was trying to rise up within the party. And if you had a certain type of presence in the media sphere, it brought out certain types of leaders out to the front. In a way the politics have shifted to the right there for particular reasons. I’m not arguing that PR shifts things to the right in a general sense. But I’m just wondering, I can totally see a scenario in BC where we’ve gone from a kind of two party system into a three party system where I can totally see a scenario where the Liberals would split in half, the social conservative side to the more moderate, centre right Federal Liberal side. The NDP would split, with a left-wing faction. The Greens have a kind of pro-business side and a more left-faction, I could see that splitting up. So I think one of the kind of outcomes of voting ‘yes’ for PR might mean a more fragmented sphere. There’s more choice for electors, but not that different than say the civic election even though that wasn’t done under PR, it was a change in the funding system. But that could make things a little more complicated in terms of the fragmented possibilities. More choice, more people are presenting a different set of ideas, people might feel closer to certain parties and you could argue that that’s a more complex democratic system that is closer to people's’ values and that kind of thing, but doesn’t that fragmentation not undermine a kind of social cohesion that’s develop into a system that we’ve had?
Maria Dobrinskaya 20:26
I think that we’re seeing that kind of fragmentation happen anyway. I mean this was again with the New Brunswick election or the Quebec election, you know, very arguably first-past-the-post may have worked well at some point with a two-party system. But as we increasingly have more parties it’s unable to accommodate it in a way that still enables the voter’s will or intention to be reflected in the legislature. And we see that federally as well, with the Conservative party. It’s happening in Alberta where they split and then get back together, so I don’t think it’s particular to pro-rep. But you’re correct that what happens under the proportional system is that it will be more reflective of voter intention, and those parties will still basically have to work together and will likely form similar coalitions as exists now. The difference is that the voters will be clear in what part of those coalitions have the most power, basically. The various parties that are in a negotiation to form a coalition government only will have the power that is attributed to them by the voters. So if a party runs and is able to command a certain amount of the electorate, they are able to go in and negotiate on their issues. Again, I think that we get a much more transparent process to a lot of the politicking that is already happening but largely happens within parties themselves around negotiations that happen at party conventions and where the particular directions or party leadership races where leaders set a certain directions around the way which their party will operate. But we’ll see it play out more in both elections as well as in the legislature. As a result, a lot more policy discussions will happen in the legislature. Right now, our current system allows for a lot of those decisions to be made in the Premier’s office and to have that power centralized. So there are tradeoffs. If you want a very sort of stable, clear system where one government, one party is able to implement their agenda in a very clear way without any opposition, there’s a lot that is appealing about first-past-the-post. But again, it doesn’t reflect the… it’s very ill-equipped to reflect the voter’s intention. So if you want more collaboration, if you recognize that sometimes things might take longer but that the outcomes will likely be better and longer lasting and meet a larger range of the needs of British Columbians, I think that pro-rep will offer that.
Am Johal 23:09
I’m just wondering around...I think in the previous referendums in 2005 and 2009, I actually think it would have passed in my view had they gone with MMP in a way. I feel like STV was kind of, really steered by the academic experts in front of the citizens’ panel, that’s just my own view.
Maria Dobrinskaya 23:30
I don’t disagree.
Am Johal 23:33
Of the three options, as someone who supports PR I’ll likely be voting for the MMP option because of its simplicity. I get, you know, you vote for your local person, you vote for a party and that’s going to make things more fair. I can’t say that I necessarily understand the other ones or looked closely enough to want to try and understand them. It’s the simplicity of the other one I like. But I was wondering if you could outline the three options for the audience.
Maria Dobrinskaya 24:02
I will say that I think that all three options were selected based on the experience BC had with STV. So first and foremost, all three systems are what I would describe as ‘mixed-systems’, so we are electing an MLA, and local MLA first and then regional MLAs or additional MLAs to ensure proportionality.
Dual member probably offers the most simple ballot. It’s essentially a combining of two ridings that we have now, and parties will list up to two candidates, but you only get one vote. So you would vote for...basically the NDP and the BC Liberals is who would run two candidates. You don’t have to run two candidates. But you would vote, as you do now, in your riding, you would mark your ballot. Whichever party received the most votes or whichever candidate received the most votes would be elected as the local MLA. And then the second person would be allocated based on the overall party vote. So dual member is the only one of the three that applies province-wide proportionality for that second member, although they would be maintained within the region. So someone who was on the ballot in Kamloops wouldn't end up representing a Vancouver riding.
MMP, mixed member as you said, is probably the most familiar. It is the system that is used in Germany and New Zealand. And in the system, as it’s described on the ballot, we would still continue to elect 60% of our MLAs the same way we do now, the riding sizes would be slightly bigger, and then we would elect a maximum 40% - it could be lower than that, there’s some math frankly around, again, ensuring proportionality - but 40% would be elected on the regional basis. So I just want to emphasize the regional aspect of it because I think that’s really important. There’s some concern certainly from rural BC around the Lower Mainland deciding everything for the province, and so ensuring that proportionality is regional means that that’s not going to happen. So what you would, as you say, you would vote for your local MLA as well as a handful of regional MLAs depending on the size of the region and how many candidates are attributed that.
Rural-urban is a hybrid system, and so for urban it’s the STV system. It’s a single transferable vote and so that’s a ranked ballot where ridings in Vancouver would probably be two ridings, and you would elect six or seven MLAs in your riding and you would do that by listing them in order. And then in rural BC would have a mixed member. So they would elect a local MLA and some regional MLAs and I think that one was a way of both recognizing the work that the citizens assembly did and the fact that many British Columbians did support STV, so it was on offer on the ballot. But also addressing the criticism that a lot of rural BC had that the ridings were geographically way too large for them to feel that they had local representation.
Am Johal 27:26
I’m going to stick with MMP because I find it the least wonkish, so…
Maria Dobrinskaya 27:31
I will just say, I mean I think a lot of people are going in that direction and some of the public polling that we’ve seen over the last month or so has shown MMP to be the favourite for sure.
Am Johal 27:45
One of the questions I have which is, I think, an issue with politics at large be it first-past-the-post or proportional representation is this, sort of, reliance on political parties in terms of choosing their representatives and their kind of assumption of internal democracy within parties. You could say the labour movement has a certain type of influence inside the NDP, the business community has one over labour, various things over the Green Party, different factions and those kinds of things. And so, under a kind of PR system where there are party lists, there is, perhaps, a little bit of concern over how those lists are created, how they’re put forward, and who has influence over them. I kind of worry about, you know, are our political parties stepping up to have the kind of internal democracy that fits within transparency and other types of things. Because if to some degree we’re handing over an aspect of the candidates to the party, in the way that first-past-the-post does as well, quite frankly but at least they are running for nominations and those kinds of things. For some of those party lists, they may not be running for nominations, they may be appointed but that happens in the other party system as well. So I just, how do you answer that concern?
Maria Dobrinskaya 29:02
I think that that’s a valid concern. I appreciate you acknowledging that, it’s not a concern particular to proportional representation. I mean, think right now we see candidates appointed all the time, we see, sort of, leader’s office override local constituency’s desire to have a local candidate. I don’t make assumptions that the party list will not go through a nomination process. Certainly the parties that I’ve belonged to I don’t feel the membership would tolerate that. So we’ll see how that plays out. But for me, this referendum is not just that we end up with a proportional system but that we’re involved in the process of it. So I think that part of it is that it, frankly, is going to disrupt the way parties operate. And some of the people who hold the reins, regardless of what party we’re talking about, who understand how to campaign, who know how to work our current system, are no longer...they’re going to have to learn new tools alongside a whole bunch of other people also learning how the system works. So that disruption, the ability to sort of remake some of the processes within party systems, I’m quite excited about to be honest. It gives us a big opportunity to actually challenge some of these process and the ways in which parties behave. I do want add, though, I think that… I share your concerns. I will just mention, people who are interested in electing more independents want to seriously look at rural-urban. I think that the urban part, one of the things about STV that people do like is that it’s the system that is most likely to elect independents...The disdain that we have in general for politics and the criticisms of political parties are again part of why I think we need to change our system. Political parties are necessary vehicles in our democracy, but I think what you said is correct. The assumptions they have internally around some of their own internal democratic processes should be challenged, and will be necessarily by having a new system in place that forces everyone to re-learn how these things are done.
Am Johal 31:25
In the previous referenda, 2005 and 2009, the political parties tended to stay in what I would call “neutral-ish”, and in this campaign some people are more out there than others but it seems like parties and their leaders are taking kind of positions in the background on the ‘yes’ or ‘no’ side with the NDP and the Greens on the ‘yes’ side, Liberals against, and the Conservatives also supportive, I think, is what I heard lately. But I’m just wondering, I have heard this also within members of political parties, you know, the Liberals or Social Credit have won majorities, vast majority of the 20th century, the CCF, the NDPs won like three times, and with the NDP and the Greens being in power now they did run on it, it was part of their mandate. But a feeling that a kind of Green-NDP coalition could work in this system much better than first-past-the-post. Is there a concern around a kind of partisanship behind the campaigns related to perceived outcomes that will benefit their own side, which is I think always apparent in politics, as well, but…
Maria Dobrinskaya 32:26
Politics are in politics. I do, I mean, historically issues around electoral reform have been legitimately cross-partisan or non-partisan. A lot of the appetite for electoral reform in British Columbia came out of the 1996 election, which was the so-called “wrong-winner election”, Gordon Campbell’s Liberals won the popular vote and Glen Clark’s New Democrats won a majority government. And we’ve seen, certainly at the federal level historically the Reform Party and again parties that are outside of the main two parties are the ones advocating for electoral reform. I think it’s both, it’s problematic in a number of ways because I think that most votes, you know, there’s a large group of voters who don’t ‘belong’ to either party. And I don’t make assumptions about what the outcomes will be in terms of an ideological perspective. What I do know is it will be an accurate reflection of where the electorate is at. And so we don’t know, you know, are the majority of British Columbians supportive of more green initiatives of more, you know, investment in social programs and the kinds of things we’re more likely to see from so-called progressive governments, or do they favour a more free enterprise approach? You know, that’s essentially...we’ll have a more accurate understanding of that. And parties will have to compete for ideas in all parts of the province in a way that they don’t actually have to do now with swing votes and safe seats. Parties can cater to a very narrow group of the electorate, and you know, 200 people in Courtenay-Comox in the last election essentially determined the outcome. And we see party platforms and campaigns, you know where the leader’s tour busses go, what’s in their platform tend to cater to a group of voters that they need, you know, that has way more power than other parts of the province to determine the next government. We could very well see a BC Conservative, BC Liberal, right-wing BC Green coalition in BC and you know… but for me, the most important thing is that the government that we have is actually the kind of government that British Columbians voted for, and that’s not what is happening under the current system.
Am Johal 34:55
Yeah, interesting that the federal Conservative leadership race or the provincial Liberals have used forms of proportionality and the NDP hasn’t…
Maria Dobrinskaya 35:02
It’s a ranked ballot so it’s not quite the same thing, but I think that that’s a good point. There are a number of ways to elect people and we inherited this system as a result of being a British colony. We never voted on having first-past-the-post. Canada, the US, and the UK are the only outliers amongst OECD countries having first-past-the-post system. So I think that examining whether our voting system continues to serve us in an increasingly complex political environment is necessary. Are we able to really have that discussion in the partisan framework that we have right now? I mean, I think that this part of this polarization - the Greens and the NDP on one side, the Liberals on the other - is how we see the behavior in the legislature, and it’s part of this black and white polarization required of first-past-the-post where you get political points for opposing the people across the aisle from you rather than looking at what policies we all have in common and, you know, where’s the consensus to sort of serve British Columbia as a whole.
Am Johal 36:13
Maria, is there anything you’d like to add?
Maria Dobrinskaya 36:15
No, I just, I appreciate you taking the time. I think that as unfamiliar as this system is to British Columbians, I know people are daunted by the question, you know, most of the world, 90 countries in the world use some sort of proportional representation. So I think, you know, us really looking at how well we are served by our current system and making sure we mark our ballots is a worthy exercise indeed. So I appreciate you contributing to the dialogue around that.