Not To Be Trusted With Knives

The Internet’s leading authority on radicalized geese


BC Premier #24: Wacky Bennett

“The finest sound in the land is the ringing of cash registers.”
-W.A.C. Bennett

File:I 61926.gif

W.A.C. Bennett and his wife, Mary, beside HRH Princess Margaret.

Name William Andrew Cecil Bennett (a.k.a., Wacky Bennett)
Born: September 6, 1900 in Hastings, NB
Died: February 23, 1979 in Kelowna, BC1
Party: BC Conservative from 1937-1951 and Social Credit from 1951-1978.
Held Office: August 1, 1952 – September 15, 1972
  • serving for 20 years and 1.5 months, Wacky stands as the longest serving premier in BC history
  • related to:
    • Canadian Prime Minister Richard Bedford Bennett (Wacky’s dad and P.M. R.B.B. were third cousins)
    • BC Premier Bill Bennett (Wacky was Bill’s dad)
  • quit school in grade 9 to take a job in a hardware store during WWI (though he would later pursue correspondence courses as an adult)
  • moved with his family from New Brunswick to Alberta
  • 1927: opened his own hardware store with a partner, but sold his interest in it just before the stock market crash of 1929, moved to Kelowna and opened another hardware store
  • 1937: unsuccessful run for the nomination for BC Conservatives in the South Okanagan
  • 1941: successful run for not just the nomination, but the seat in the South Okanagan, as a member of the Conservative party
  • 1945: re-elected as the MLA for South Okanagan as part of the Liberal-Conservative coaltion
  • 1948: vacated MLA seat to run federally for Progressive Conservatives in the Yale riding by-election, but he lost
  • 1949: regained his MLA seat in the South Okanagan
  • 1951: ran for, by failed to win, the leadership of the BC Conservative party, so he quit the party and sat as an independent.  Then he became a member of the Social Credit (or So-Cred) party
  • 1952: the provincial election used an “alternative vote” system (i.e., instead of the traditional “first past the post” system, voter ranked their 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. choices2 which, apparently, the ruling Lib-Cons coalition thought would keep down the up-and-coming Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF – which would later become the New Democratic Party [NDP]).  Instead and unexpectedly, it resulted in the So-Creds winning the most seats in the election!  And the So-Creds didn’t even have a leader!  The So-Creds, who had won 19 or 48 seats convinced an independent MLA to join them, giving them 20 or 48, which was apparently enough to run a minority government.
  • July 15, 1952: Bennett won the party leadership 10-9, becoming premier-elect
  • 1953: Bennett engineered the defeat of his own minority government to force an election, in which he won a majority.  Then he axed the alternative vote system (you know, the one that got him the job in the first place) and went back to first-past-the-post
  • now, I’ve heard of the So-Cred party3, but I must admit that I didn’t actually know what “social credit” was.  According to the almighty Wikipedia:

“Assuming the only safe place for power is in many hands, Social Credit is a distributive philosophy, and its policy is to disperse power to individuals. Social Credit philosophy is best summed by Douglas when he said, “Systems were made for men, and not men for systems, and the interest of man which is self-development, is above all systems, whether theological, political or economic.”

According to Douglas, the true purpose of production is consumption, and production must serve the genuine, freely expressed interests of consumers. Each citizen is to have a beneficial, not direct, inheritance in the communal capital conferred by complete and dynamic access to the fruits of industry assured by the National Dividend and Compensated Price. Consumers, fully provided with adequate purchasing power, will establish the policy of production through exercise of their monetary vote. In this view, the term economic democracy does not mean worker control of industry. Removing the policy of production from banking institutions, government, and industry, Social Credit envisages an “aristocracy of producers, serving and accredited by a democracy of consumers.”

  • although the So-Cred party was intended to promote social credit theory, it can’t be implemented at the provincial level, so Bennett made the party “a mix of populism and conservatism” and focused the party on keeping out the CCF
  • Bennett also actively campaigned for the federal So-Cred Party (which I never even knew existed), presumably because social credit theory is more in the jurisdiction of the feds
  • 1972: his government was defeated by the NDPs, and he served as the Leaders of the Opposition until he resigned his seat in June 1973
  • 1979: made an Officer of the Order of Canada
  • things named after him:
    • the W.A.C. Bennett Dam near Hudson’s Hope,
    • the library at the Burnaby campus of Simon Fraser University

In summary, given that he was Premier for more than 20 years and was known as “Wacky”, I thought there would be more information on this guy.

Image credits: Accessed from Wikipedia. Copyright held by the BC Provincial Archives. But they said anyone can use for anything, as long as they get their props.



  1. I think.  Wikipedia doesn’t actually say where he died, but does say he was interred in Kelowna []
  2. this is interesting, as our last two BC provincial elections have included referenda on changing to a single transferable vote system instead of first-past-the-post. I had no idea that we’d used anything like it in the past! []
  3. it was pretty much dead by the time I moved to BC in 2000 []


Single Transferable Vote – In The Words of Christy Clark

Kalev brought this video to my attention:

I find this video remarkable candid. Clark admits that when she was a politician, she voted against — and campaigned against — the Single Transferrable Vote (BC-STV) in the last referendum because the old system — First-Past-The-Post — served her interests as a politician, not because it served the voters’ interests. She’s gotten out of politics and she’s now coming out for BC-STV as better for the interests of the average voter — watch the video and listen to her reasons why.

You can also see a transcript of Ms. Clark’s words here.


BC-STV, and why it’s annoying that [Darren P is] ineligible to vote for it – A Guest Posting

This was written by my friend, Darren P, as a Facebook note and I thought it was so well written and informative that I asked him if he would let me post it here as a guest posting.  He graciously agreed and will now be dubbed my Kyoto Correspondent and Chief Fire Hydrant Advisor.

By Darren P.

On May 12, 2009, BC residents have the extremely rare opportunity to change their voting system. Not having lived in BC the last 6 months, I’m not eligible to vote, which is rather annoying given the importance of this referendum. But I can encourage others to vote. I wholeheartedly support BC-STV, and would be voting Yes.

Under the current system, each constituency in BC elects one MLA, whomever gets the most votes in that riding. Under the proposed system (overwhelmingly recommended by a randomly-selected group of ordinary citizens), constituencies would be pooled in groups of 2-7, and voters would have a preferential ballot, where they rank the candidates, and their vote or fractions of it are shifted to lower choices as their first choices are elected or eliminated.

The STV (single transferable vote) part, where you rank the candidates, means that you can vote for whomever you want, and strategic voting becomes secondary. If you support the Marxist-Leninist Party and the Christian Heritage Party, you can put them at the top of your list. If they aren’t elected, your vote isn’t wasted, it passes to your third choice. Is one party scary? Put them last. Hate that party but like one of their candidates? Rank that candidate higher, and increase the odds that they’ll get elected at the expense of some of their compatriots. You can vote for your true first choice, knowing that your vote will pass to other candidates if your first choice doesn’t get in, and you don’t have to worry about trying to block evil parties or candidates from getting elected by guessing who their best competitor is. It’s unlikely one party will sweep a multi-member constituency, so you can have some say over who represents each party in your riding. Note, though, that you only have one vote, so who’s 12th and 13th on your list is not particularly important if your second-place candidate wins (if they win in a landslide, a good fraction of your vote may be transferred). While ranking candidates is marginally more mentally challenging than marking a single X, the system’s really not so complicated. The vote counting is similarly a bit more involved, but not difficult to explain. I’ll get to that a bit later.

The best part, for me, is the multi-member constituencies. The larger a riding, the closer the results will be to proportional (this isn’t proportional, but it’s more proportional than the current system. At the size proposed, a good third party will pick up some seats, and most ridings will have both a government and an opposition MLA, so almost everyone will feel represented. Even better, multi-member constituencies are good for candidates and bad for parties. It doesn’t suffice to be a candidate for the most popular party, you need to be the most popular candidate for that party. This should weaken the parties, and improve the chances of well-known, well-respected, popular, and responsive MLAs. I grew up in a riding where one party could have run a tree stump and it would still have been elected. The actual candidate appeared to me to have skills and language ability closely resembling those of a tree stump, had done nothing in the community, and was content to be a trained seal, heckling from the last row, and voting blindly with the party rather than the constituents. I see no downside to having stronger, more independent MLAs.

It has been pointed out that large ridings will be hard for politicians to cover and hard to campaign in, and that it may not be clear who represents you. To the first concerns, well, I see no reason to make it easy on politicians, and I’d point out that federal ridings are already several times larger than provincial. As for who represents you, several people do. Go to the one who’s most responsive or in the best position to help. If one ignores you, return the favour when marking your next ballot. A particularly helpful MLA will get ranked higher, and the MLAs will usually realize this.

The large ridings will also lead to large ballots. You get that in city council elections, and you deal with it. Here, the candidates will be grouped by party for your convenience.

If the government decides to shovel money off the back of a truck only in ridings that supported them, they’ll find that they elected MLAs in all or almost all ridings. The large ridings also make it much more difficult to adjust a riding’s boundaries to benefit one party or another.

It has been pointed out that the proposed system is more likely to create coalition and minority governments. This is likely true, but not a large effect (as I mentioned, it’s not truly proportional). In other countries, this sort of government is the norm, and the parties have to co-operate. They know that people don’t want elections, and they know they’ll be punished if they’re seen to have triggered a needless election. Our vicious, polarizing politics would need to change, and it’s likely that the most partisan, unco-operative politicians would get booted out. In coalition or minority governments, parties have to prioritize, compromise, and try to bring each other on board if they want something passed. For something to become law, at least two parties have to be willing to go along with it. The compromises may well be hammered out behind closed doors, but that’s where legislation is made now, and this at least gets some different voices behind those closed doors.

Before getting into the gory details, because a good number of my friends will want to read that, but most won’t, a couple of final-ish thoughts:

First, this is a choice between BC-STV and the current system. Other systems are not on the ballot. If you believe BC-STV is an improvement, vote for it. There is no perfect voting system, and what you like is not what other people will like. If everyone holds out for perfection, nothing can ever improve. There are parts I would have done differently, mainly in the vote-counting, but I see BC-STV as a
significant improvement over the current system, and would be whole-heartedly voting for it if it were still legal for me to vote. Better is not the enemy of best, and you shouldn’t vote as if it is.

Second, it’s actually been proven that there is no perfect voting system. If you write down everything you want in a voting system, you’ll find parts of your list conflict. You can’t have true proportionality and still have constituencies — some constituency would have to elect unpopular candidates. Proportionality in the current system, for instance, would require about 10 constituencies to have Green MLAs, despite those candidates only getting a small fraction of the vote and finishing second, third or fourth. You might like the stability of a majority government, but that’s at odds with local representation (your representative should vote with you, not with the party) and a truly proportional system would almost never produce a majority. BC-STV strikes a balance, and I think it’s a pretty good
balance, all things considered.

Third, the voting is not complicated. Anyone can count to three or ten and express a preference. The vote-counting is a bit more complicated, but it’s not that bad. I’d like everyone to understand it, but I recognize that many won’t care. Once the voting system is in place, people will generally just trust other people to ensure that it’s done correctly. The candidates and parties will watch the counting, because they have a vested interest in ensuring that it’s done right. Recounts would still be done by hand by judges, and I expect there’d be recounts in almost every riding. So faith in the system will not be misplaced. People like me who are interested will know how it’s done in detail, but we’re a minority. Much as I’d like them to, the average person doesn’t need to know the full details behind the vote-counting any more than they need to know how their car’s airbag decides to inflate, how the 911 operator knows where their (landline) phone is, or how TCP/IP works in their internet connection. Knowing that the ranking is important and your vote or parts of it will pass to lower-ranked candidates as needed would suffice.

Now for the gory details:

Every voter gets one ballot and one vote, but they can express a preference for how that vote is transferred when each surviving candidate at the top of their list is elected or dumped.

There’s a quota of votes that a candidate needs in order to be elected. If V valid ballots were cast and there are N seats to fill, the quota is V/(N+1) plus one. If you check this with N=1 (the current system), you’ll see they’d need half of the votes (50%) plus one. If there are 5 seats to fill, a candidate would need 1/5 plus one.

First, every first choice is counted. This is identical to the current system so far, but now the quota is applied. If the first-place candidate has met the quota, they’re elected. If not, the last-place candidate is eliminated. If a candidate is eliminated, all of their votes pass to their voters’ second choices. If a candidate is elected, their excess votes (over and above the quota) are distributed to second-place choices. So, if a candidate got 10% more votes than the quota, everyone who voted for that candidate has 91% (100/110) of their vote count for the elected candidate, while 9% (10/110) passes to their
second choice.

At this point, the process repeats: If anyone’s met the quota, they’re elected and their excess votes are distributed. If not, the bottom candidates are dropped and their votes distributed until someone has met the quota. Unsurprisingly, the process ends when the correct number of MLAs have been elected, and ballots are dropped once they run out of ranked candidates.

You can make up your own mind, but please vote!

The Yes side‘s site
The No side‘s site
Some limited neutral information
BC Citizens’ Assembly