Following the 2005 electoral reform referendum, British Columbia held a second referendum on electoral reform in conjunction with the provincial election on May 12, 2009. As in 2005, voters in 2009 were asked were asked which electoral system should be used to elect legislators: the existing first-past-the-post electoral system or the BC single transferable vote electoral system (BC-STV) proposed by the British Columbia Citizen's Assembly on Electoral Reform to ensure more proportional representation in the provincial Legislative Assembly.
The referendum was defeated, with 60.9 percent voting against the reform and 39.09 percent of voters supporting the change.
BC later held another referendum on electoral reform in 2018.
Scheduling
The government of British Columbia initially scheduled the second referendum to be conducted alongside the 2008 municipal elections. On April 26, 2007, Premier Gordon Campbell announced that the referendum date would be shifted to May 12, 2009. Conducting a referendum alongside the May provincial election was estimated to cost between $1 million and $2 million. The chief electoral officer had warned that a referendum in tandem with the municipal election would have cost up to $30 million. The chief electoral officer had also raised concerns regarding to adequacy of facilities, a shortage of trained voting officials, and differing voter eligibility requirements for local and provincial voters' lists.
Proposed electoral boundaries
In the 2005 referendum, voters cast ballots for or against BC-STV without knowing how the new system would affect their electoral ridings. This uncertainty led to voter concerns that, to create ridings large enough to support the multiple representatives preferred under BC-STV, ridings would be merged into unmanageably-large districts, particularly in the less densely populated north and interior of the province.
The post-election Speech from the Throne identified this as a critical piece to be addressed for the second referendum: "One task that was never assigned to the Citizens' Assembly was to show precisely how its proposed STV model might apply on an electoral map. This was arguably a design flaw in its terms of reference that in retrospect may have impacted how people voted in the referendum. Your government believes that establishing STV constituency boundaries may provide the public with a critical piece of information that was missing at the time of the referendum."
The ensuing electoral boundaries redistribution prompted significant controversy for reasons largely unrelated to the BC-STV system, and on several occasions it seemed possible that the commission's work, including its STV recommendations, might be rejected altogether. Ultimately, a bipartisan agreement between the governing Liberals and opposition New Democrats saw the passage of the Electoral Districts Act, 2008 on April 10, 2008, which implemented, with modification, the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission. 20 STV electoral districts returning a total of 85 MLAs were accordingly established.
Question
In 2005 voters had been asked: "Should British Columbia change to the BC-STV electoral system as recommended by the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform?"
But in 2009 they were asked: Which electoral system should British Columbia use to elect members to the provincial Legislative Assembly? The existing electoral system (First-Past-the-Post) The single transferable vote electoral system (BC-STV) proposed by the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform
Campaigns
Legislation to allow a second referendum on an alternative electoral system, the Electoral Reform Referendum 2009 Act, was introduced in the provincial legislature on March 8, 2008, by Attorney-General Wally Oppal.
Public funding was available to groups who are supporters or detractors of both the single transferable vote (STV) and the first-past-the-post election systems. Through the chief electoral officer, registered groups were to be given funds to provide information and educational material about their positions. Each side had access to a total of $500,000 in public funding and an equivalent amount funded a neutral public information campaign.