Reinforcing Trust in Elections BC

British Columbia's elections body remains an essential and trusted institution, but clearly has some post-action reflection ahead of it.

Whenever we talk about democracy in my classes, the question of trust comes up. It’s a hugely important topic, for trust is in many ways the glue that holds our social world together. In an era in which trust seems in ever shorter supply, the question of who we can trust is more important than ever.

One of the best short-hand checks for people and institutions alike is to ask, when they make a mistake, do they admit it openly, and move quickly to address it? Do they do so even when no one else knows they erred? No one is perfect; we trust people and institutions that take their imperfections seriously.

It’s a surprisingly versatile and reliable check. Certainly, it’s true in our own lives. We quickly learn whether we can trust the people around us through their willingness to own up when they’ve made a mistake. We know that we need to do the same. Friends who are forthright when something goes wrong, who resist the urge to sweep mistakes under the carpet, are friends worth holding on to.

The same is true of institutions. For instance, media outlets that value their reputation for accuracy take the task of editorial oversight seriously. When an article includes an error, an editorial correction rights the record. The Globe and Mail, for instance, made about 500 such corrections in a recent year.

It also works for politicians. As condolences and reminiscences pour in for BC’s former premier, John Horgan, one of the recurring themes has been his ability to admit mistakes, apologize, and learn from them. It was a crucial part of his success as a politician, and his worth as a person. Rarely has someone left office with such goodwill as Horgan did.

In contrast, politicians who never apologize, or who only apologize when it’s someone else’s fault, inevitably see trust decline. They may still be successful, but they will not be trusted—in extreme cases, even their own supporters may be inclined to disbelieve them.

By this test, Elections BC has performed admirably in this last election. Like all Canada’s electoral agencies, Elections BC has a strong reputation for integrity thanks to its institutional independence and consistent professionalism. This fall’s election put that reputation under the microscope, as nerves frayed during the nine agonizing days between election night and the final count that resulted in a narrow NDP majority. It was a long process, but all seemed well. Politicians on all sides accepted the result, reiterating their support for province’s democratic process.

Then, we found out a ballot box had gone uncounted, along with a small number of ballots in a large number of ridings. The details of how this happened are somewhat technical, but seem to involve human error related to the incorporation of two innovations in this election: electronic ballot tabulators, and an embrace of out-of-district voting. Both are sound ideas, but both also involve new ways of doing things, with an additional learning curve for the small army of elections officials hired and trained for the election. Small mistakes related to the innovations appear to have combined to produce a wave of small errors that rippled through results in a majority of districts.

Once those mistakes were caught during its preparations for legislative required judicial recounts, Elections BC did exactly the right thing in disclosing them and their causes. There’s no denying the timing wasn’t great for such human error given the closeness of the race and the willingness of some to believe any number of unfounded stories about electoral malfeasance, but it was the right thing to do all the same. Once the errors were detected and corrected, and the necessary judicial recounts completed, the province was able to confirm the result and close the book on the 2024 BC Election.

So, where to go from here? While Elections BC can hold its head high having passed through a challenging election with its reputation intact, clearly more work is needed to ensure that reputation remains strong going forward. Continued trust depends not only on acknowledging mistakes, but learning from them—and being seen to learn from them. Such learning is as important in our relationships with our democratic institutions as in our personal lives. Simply put, Elections BC needs to learn from its mistakes in order to avoid them next time around—and voters need to see that learning process play out.

Elections BC’s Chief Electoral Officer has already indicated that the agency will conduct its own investigation to ensure that officials have the right frontline training to prevent similar mistakes in future, and that the office has the right checks and redundancies in place to catch the new errors that will inevitably happen. This is a crucial first step, but by itself is incomplete given the stakes involved. Having someone outside the office look into the matter provides an additional layer of transparency and accountability. Trust, after all, requires not only being accountable, but being seen to be accountable. By operating outside Elections BC, such a process will also allow British Columbians who are interested to see the process of inquiry and its results.

BC Conservative leader John Rustad suggests an independent review of some kind, while Premier David Eby of the NDP has proposed that an all-party committee look into what happened. Which is the best path?

The ideal answer, in my view, combines elements of both proposals. Contemporary democracy depends on multiple forms of insight, and multiple forms of legitimation. An initial independent review, with its need for specialized knowledge, is a job for experts. An impartial expert-led review, such as a public inquiry, can ensure that the right technical questions are asked. Moreover, unlike a legislative committee-led inquiry, it avoids risks that the inquiry process itself will be politicized. Given the high degree of polarization in BC politics today, the temptation to use such a committee as an opportunity to score points—or to avoid responsibility—will be high. An impartial inquiry avoids those risks.

Impartial, technical review is only part of the legitimation process necessary to maintain trust in something as central to our democracy as elections, however. Once a report is complete, and any changes recommended, we need society more broadly to see the result and understand for themselves why they can trust the institution going forward. That is a job for our elected representatives, who are not elected for their specific technical expertise, but rather to exercise good judgement on behalf of their constituents.

Thus, once complete, such a report should be submitted to an all-party committee for review. Given that the Chief Electoral Officer is a statutory officer of the legislature, appointed on the unanimous recommendation of an all-party committee for a fixed term, it makes procedural sense for a similar all-party committee to receive a report on that office for review. The same need for insulation from narrow partisan control exists in both cases.

As Vaughn Palmer makes clear here, any such committee would require meaningful multi-party participation to be effective. This is an important point, for a legislative committee dominated by one party would not provide any necessary legitimation; on the contrary, it could easily do more harm than good, creating the impression of a staged-managed exercise in communications, undermining trust rather than strengthening it.

Fortunately, given that the purpose of the committee would be to evaluate an impartial review of Elections BC, rather than hold government to account, it should be politically feasible for the government to sign off on a suitably independent multiparty committee structure.

After those representatives are satisfied with the results of the inquiry, and received sufficient answers to questions of their own, they will be able to vouch for the process and legitimate it to their constituents. MLAs have a dual communication role, after all. They carry their constituents’ views to the legislature and government, and they also help those same constituents understand the politics of the day. Even if some on the fringes of political debate remain unsatisfied, for the vast majority such a two-step process will go a long way towards reaffirming their trust in the electoral system.

Indeed, such a committee could go further in future. Once the post-mortem is complete, the committee could consider other ways to improve our democratic institutions going forward, exploring innovative ways to ensure our government remains accountable and responsive to the people. Given the shared interests of all parties and British Columbians more broadly in a trustworthy and trusted electoral process, its work would offer an opportunity to bridge the polarized divide that defines so much of contemporary politics.

Trust is the ultimate coin of the realm in democracies. We are fortunate in B.C., and Canada more broadly, to have such trustworthy electoral institutions. That good fortune is not accidental, however. It is only by taking seriously any challenges to that trust that we can ensure it will continue.