Ruling B.C. with Referendums

HST referendum | BCBusiness
Who was the real winner in B.C.’s recent HST referendum? Canada Post, obviously.

Let’s take our cue from talk radio and govern by referendum.

The HST referendum is over, the results are in, and the clear winner was Canada Post. People so rarely write real letters to each other anymore. It’s been years since so many British Columbians put their thoughts down on paper, stuck them in an envelope and walked them to the mailbox. I’ll bet this is the start of something.


The young may not know it, but something was lost when snail mail went out of fashion. Letters could say so much beyond mere words. How many HST referendum ballots were marked with tears? “Dear Government,” the blotchy stains implied, “I am so very deeply hurt. You drove me to this.” Other ballots might have contained old Vander Zalm campaign buttons, mailed back like engagement rings returned to a jilted fiancé. You don’t get that extra kick of poignancy with email.


With a 51 per cent ballot return rate, the HST referendum was certainly a success from a participatory standpoint. And that was just with a simple yes-or-no proposition. The response would have been even higher if B.C. voters had been given more policy alternatives on which to vote, more boxes to tick and more chances to make a difference. Imagine if budget and revenue options had included, say, abolishing the HST, retaining the tax, trading the steam clock for a handful of magic beans, or seceding from Canada to join a loose confederation with Saudi Arabia. That way citizens could feel fully empowered and government could finally benefit from the dazzling array of policy solutions now restricted to radio phone-in shows and Internet chat forums.


Over the summer we saw our American neighbours engaged in a budgetary debate that brought the world’s largest economy to the brink of default. But as U.S. politicians discussed the possibility of eliminating debt without increasing revenue, or argued that refusing to pay creditors was the best way to stand up for fiscal responsibility, an important point was made: logic no longer rules. The tyranny of reason has ended. These days it’s not necessary to link a government’s financial strategy to petty numerical considerations. In a world where giant metal aircraft sail through the air carrying hundreds of people, many of them fat, the laws of math and physics are passé. That opens the door to more creative solutions. And more referendums.


It’s not only government that would benefit from a referendum-based approach. Old-fashioned decision-making hierarchies have stifled creative input in other areas, notably pro sports. Why have the Canucks failed to sign Steve Stamkos? Simple: the absence of people power. Anyone on the street could tell you that’s a deal the team should make. Now is the time to employ the wisdom of crowds.


Previous referendums have tended to be about substantive policy issues – the HST vote, the sovereignty referendums in Quebec, the Charlottetown Accord, all yes-or-no questions with binding results. Perhaps future votes could give the public a chance to weigh in on more emotional matters. I think folks would appreciate the chance to tee off on someone or something that really frosts their gonads. 


I would like to see a referendum about person-in-the-street interviews. Every TV news story about high gas prices is followed by clips of at least three motorists answering the question, “How do you feel about high gas prices?” My referendum proposal: a $100 reward paid to each and every viewer who correctly predicts the answer. Plus, any time a crime story interview produces the quote, “You hear about this kind of stuff on the news but you never think it’s going to happen here,” the reporter will be forced to ask the next question with a sock puppet. 


The referendum, sadly, would be non-binding. But at least I would have the satisfaction of knowing my voice had been heard. It’s just like democracy, only better.