The Hook

Time To End Politics As Usual

I agree with NorthernSpirits about the bias in this article.

I find it telling that the opponents of STV refuse to make a positive case for our current voting system. Despite the fact that the ballot question asks BC voters to choose which of two systems we should use to elect our MLAs, Tieleman and Schreck do not even attempt to argue that First Past the Post deserves our loyalty. How could they? They know as well as anyone that FPTP creates a polarized, adversarial two-party system which denies a political voice to half the voters, forces voters to lie on their ballots to avoid vote-splitting, and produces governments which make unilateral and hasty decisions virtually unchecked by a relatively powerless opposition (Fast Ferries, BC Rail, etc). And God forbid that an MLA have the temerity to actually speak their mind (remember Michael Sather?)

In contrast, STV is a straightforward way to ensure that the vast majority of voters get an MLA they support - a candidate simply needs to pull together about 15,000 votes. It uses a preferential ballot in which voters rank their choices - this allows voters to be honest about who they really prefer, and if their favourite doesn't get elected, their ballot isn't tossed in the garbage the way it is with FPTP, but actually helps elect their next choice. Bill may find it complicated, but my then-10-year-old son learned to do an STV count in about 10 minutes; maybe he'll be willing to teach Bill.

Contrary to Tieleman's repeated assertions, STV improves accountability. Since voters can choose between candidates of their preferred party, if an MLA is not treating their constituents well, they can give the MLA the boot. On the other hand, STV rewards good MLAs by ensuring that they can't be kicked out because of how supporters of another party vote.

His assertions about unequal weight and 'true proportionality' are likewise either false or completely disingenuous - to get elected, a candidate needs about 15,000 votes. Each vote is worth the same and seats are awarded based on how many piles of 15,000 votes each party receives.

It's quite laughable to hear Tieleman and Schreck expressing concern about proportionality and the fate of small parties - they're both on record as opposing both. Frankly, the Green Party is grown up enough to make its own decisions - they've endorsed STV and they wouldn't do that if it would make their lives harder.

Tieleman and Schreck both know that STV delivers strong proportionality (Gallagher index of 2.5-3.5 for both Ireland and Malta, both of which are in the top 15 most proportional countries in the world; Canada is at about 12-15 - see Prof Arend Lijphart's article at http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/pubs/pops/pop34/c04.htm).

Finally, Tieleman's claim that it would be harder for independents to be elected is ludicrous. BC has elected precisely one independent since 1937, while Ireland has elected 36 in the last three elections alone.

The facts

The fact that the current system is hopeless shouldn't make the BC voter blind to the flaws and the inappropriateness of STV in this province. The fact that nations like Malta and Ireland - both very small and homogeneous countries - use the system is hardly enough evidence to claim that there may not be serious problems with STV in this jurisdiction.

That said, since the idiocy of the CA process deemed that there would be only a single option presented to the voter, we have only STV to consider. That’s not Tieleman’s fault – although I disagree with him on the issue.

And that's too bad. The whole process and the interests of democracy would have been better served by a political commitment to a constitutional assembly. This little ginger group of self-serving 'volunteers' has done little more than sow dissention and mistrust among the people of the province since the whole stupid exercise began. Sadly.

I'll reluctantly vote yes, not that that matters much - as I did last time, but I don't expect the measure to pass.

And I am under no illusions about the way it will work if it is ever adopted for BC elections.

Message to NorthernSpirits

Do you live in the North Peace?

I write for the Alaska Highway News and was looking to crack open the local debate on BC-STV sometime in the next couple months, and was wondering if you were up to commenting in that story? If so, just send me an e-mail at

As for the story, I would have to agree it could use some fleshing out from the supporters.

Going from flawed to seriously flawed.

I have always wondered why it is necessary to change from a flawed system to another that is equally or possibly more seriously flawed. We get one chance to do this right and STV isn't the best option. The problem lies in the "single". along with multi- member constituencies. There is no need to have multi-member constituencies and doing so singles out the rural parts of the province for most of what is wrong with STV. We rejected this option once and instead of going back to find a better option, here we are again.

Anything that removes the accountability of the current FPTP system doesn't have much appeal for me. At least the constituency gets to pick candidates, select one of them and hold them accountable next time around. Having run-off ballots until one has 50% plus one would take more time but be an improvement.

Sure have the debate but make sure that in the course of the discussion we know exactly how all the scenarios will play out from candidate selection to election and then how democracy will function for rural BC after the candidates are elected.

The FPTP Side Confusing - On Purpose

Most of what the FPTP supporters say is simply meant to confuse and mislead people about BC-STV. It should be noted that they are NDP party insiders likely interested in keeping other competing parties shut out so they can maintain their influence.
Anyways, in Ireland, Scotland, Tasmania, etc. voters have no troubles using STV because it is simple for the voter!
Competition between each party's candidates delivers far more accountable MLAs than FPTP where most MLAs are in safe ridings and totally unaccountable (This is one reason why the Citizens' Assembly chose STV).
The rest of the FPTP supporters claims are equally wrong or misleading, but there is some good information here: http://stv.ca/whychange, and if you still have questions I recommend contacting the Citizens Assembly Alumni for trustworthy answers from fellow voters who do not have a vested interest in our current system:

Forget Ireland.

The notion that just because it works in Ireland,at least that is what we are to believe, it has to be better than any other system doesn't make much sense. Forget Ireland. We are not Irish. We are not a small Island. Tell us how it will work here without harping on the flaws of FPTP. Maybe start with how multi-member, very large, regionally disparate constituencies are better served.

Furthermore wbrucek.

It is comments like: "Most of what the FPTP supporters say is simply meant to confuse and mislead people about BC-STV. It should be noted that they are NDP party insiders likely interested in keeping other competing parties shut out so they can maintain their influence." that will kill any meaningful debate. Address the issues and questions if you seriously think STV is the best option for BC. Other wise my vote will reluctantly stay the same as last time. I'm with Gwest except I will vote "no".

Skywalker

Skywalker said ...
"Maybe start with how multi-member, very large, regionally disparate constituencies are better served."

I am responding from my point of view as a rural resident in the proposed riding with the second largest area. As I said before, the fact that it is multi-member is one of the reasons that STV appeals to me the most. It means that you have more MLAs to turn to, that theoretically have to give you the time of day because you are their constituent. They may or may not have been the candidate or party that you voted for, but they don't know that... to them you are still a potential vote and it is in their best interest to listen. The MLA that has the closest proximity to you does not always represent your views and, in political strong-holds, does not always have the time-of-day for you. STV will reduce the chances of having political strong-holds so that MLAs will have to listen to their constituents more if they want to be re-elected.

With regard to the large areas of the ridings, the Northeast and Northwest ridings clearly involve the largest potential distances people have to travel to reach their MLAs. For a person living just on the BC side of the Yukon border, travel time to reach an MLA under FPTP is about nine and a half hours for both the Peace River North and Skeena-Stikine ridings. This distance does not change under STV so the time it takes to reach the closest MLA remains unchanged. The difference with STV is that there would be an additional MLA which would likely be in the next most populated town. To see the other MLA would mean an extra hour drive between major centers for the Northeast and an extra hour and a half drive in the Northwest. This extra travel time is not that substantial when you consider how much we have to travel up here already and also when you weigh in the benefits of getting an additional MLA to turn to.

The Peace River North is not a regionally disparate constituency or I should say it is definitely not any more regionally disparate than the current ridings of Peace River North and Peace River South under FPTP. For ridings that are regionally disparate, I would think the diversity of elected MLAs that is more likely to occur under BC-STV would help provide better representation.

Tieleman

Had the Citizens' Assembly proposed MMP, pure list, or some other type of proportional system instead of STV, Tieleman and company would probably be opposing these proportional systems as well. Tieleman is not just against STV. He is against any proportional system.

Forget Ireland. Why?

I come from Ireland. For european elections Ireland also uses STV. The ridings are pretty large for european elections. Turnout PER RIDING is over 400,000 and Ireland has just 4 ridings.
So does STV scale up? Pretty clear yes on that one.
Ireland IS very homogenously catholic but before I had emigrated, STV had elected Protestants, Jews, and a brown Muslem to parliament. I am not Catholic myslelf but very proud that a country that was supposedly so backward can manage this.
Vancouver cannot even elect its fair share of chineese people under first past the post even though they are pretty concentrated in certain ridings!
Please explain that to me.
I gave answers. I want answers about first past the post in return. Why so few chineese?
Perhaps the partys do not like chineese candidates?
Thanks