The May 12 provincial election ballot will include a referendum on future elections that, if passed, would completely change the way voters elect their MLAs and their government.
Voters might be wise to start paying attention to the debate on STV -- single transferable vote.
There are many different electoral systems around the world; British Columbia, the federal government and all provinces use the first-past-the post system, also known as single member plurality.
British Columbia's independent Referendum Information Office describes STV as a system designed to produce "a fairly proportional result -- that is, the number of seats a political party wins will be close to its share of the overall popular vote.''
Under the STV system, instead of the 85 separate ridings now in place, B.C. would be divided into 20 constituencies with between two and seven MLAs per constituency, depending on size and population.
It means there could be dozens of names on the ballot in populated ridings with multiple parties vying for seats.
Electors vote by ranking preferences for as many candidates as they wish to support, placing a 1 or a 2 or 3 beside the names, and so on.
Winners secure a seat after they amass a quota of the popular vote. If the winner gets more votes than he or she needs to meet that quota, then his or her surplus ballots are distributed to the voters' second choice until a second candidate meets the threshold, and so on.
That counting continues until all seats in the riding are filled.
The tabulation process is so baffling that STV proponents have put an animated video on YouTube explaining it.
The STV proposal won the overwhelming endorsement before the 2005 election of the Citizens' Assembly for Electoral Reform, which was comprised of 160 citizens who examined many different voting systems.
The Liberals and NDP are staying neutral on the issue, but the Green party, which stands to gain the most from the change, has declared its support.
If so, British Columbians would be in rarefied company, joining Ireland, Malta, Tasmania and only a few other jurisdictions who have adopted the STV system.
"There is not a big groundswell for this type of system but I think it will pass this time,'' says Doug McArthur, a professor of public policy at Simon Fraser University.
By "this time'' he means that the referendum ballot is coming around in B.C. for the second time.
Although 57.6 per cent of voters endorsed STV in the May 2005 provincial election, it needs 60 per cent of the popular vote and more than 50 per cent of the votes in at least 51 of the province's 85 electoral districts to pass.
Greg Joyce reports for The Canadian Press.
Starting next week, The Tyee will be running a five-part debate between the STV pro and no sides. Stay tuned for a thorough education in electoral reform issues.
Some "rarified" company.
The animated video uses an example of 5 candidates running for four seats. A whole other complex mix comes into play when you have 21 candidates plus a whole bunch of other fringe candidates on the same ballot. It also makes no attempt to explain the complications in running in such an election in a Riding covering half a province, how candidates get known by the voter, how they will service an area of half the province, not to mention the increased cost. Maybe this time a few more voters will look at the details like why do some votes count more than once and others only count once, and reject this. Maybe then we can come up with something that makes more sense
Go to www.trystv.ca to see
Go to www.trystv.ca to see how the election would work in your actual riding with the actual candidates that are running this time.
I live in a large riding that will be even larger. It is the approximate size of our federal riding that is served by one person. The provincial riding will be served by three. Candidates will not have to be known by everyone. They just need to be known by enough people to reach the quota. Different candidates will target different groups and areas. I am not sure what you mean by some votes count more than once. All votes count once. It might be the second preference that gets counted after the first preference gets eliminated, but that ensures that around 80% of the voters have supported someone to represent them rather than the current 40-50% who do. Fewer votes are wasted.
I am more convinced than last time that voting yes is the best way to go.
stv
It
seems that anything is better than the present system.There are many candidates in bc who would make good mla,s ,but will never serve unless they join a party and accept the their rigid dogma .Save BC! yes to STV fisher
To STV or not to STV
Without STV we're doomed to endless right-wing MAJORITY governments.
With STV we're at most only doomed to endless right-wing MINORITY governments and at best STV will break the major parties up into smaller parties giving us endless coalition governments.
All things considered STV is better than the status quo.
STV How would it work in real representation?
Suppose we have STV. There are two to six candidates in each of these regional ridings.
Now then:
What happens in the actual representation? Does one begin to think he or she is 'above the others' in terms of dominance? Do all of these MLA's work together for the entire regional riding?
Take a region like Burnaby where there's never been any real instance of all of the MLA's working equitably together (the NDP MLA doesn't work with the three BC Liberal MLA's). for the betterment of the city as part of a group. Same goes for Vancouver and Surrey.
Consider if there is a mix of representatives in this regional riding.
Do BC Liberals and NDPers share the same resources when it comes to constituency office and staff? I doubt that would happen. You'd never get a government MLA and an opposition MLA to share the same office and staff.
Offices for BC Liberal MLA's and another one for NDPers in the same riding?
How does the voter choose which of these MLA's to go to? Consider that over time, one or two MLA's will become better at providing constituent services than the others, and most likely one or two MLA's will seriously work at providing better services than the others, just to become dominant.
Then even before the election begins, there's the nomination process for each of the parties. How does that work? Instead of two or three people going after one nomination, you may end up with 10 or more going after 6 nominations. There's "tag teams" and groupies, and there's "alliances" and camps and yes even 'favourites'.
The closest regional example was Vancouver Point Grey which was a two seat riding, but ended up as a split riding, because Darlene Mazari (NDP) won as did Kim Campbell (Social Credit).
Another example was Vancouver Fraserview which had Stephen Rogers and Russ Fraser, but those two were from the same party. Rogers ended up as Speaker which absolved him from much of the politiking which was left to Russ Fraser.
It will be one big mess for the major parties and even so for the secondary ones, since the membership is going to have to sift through all of the choices.
Save the mess. Stick with what we have. It's isn't perfect, but there's never been any perfect electoral system out there.
Both the BC Liberals and NDP by nature are very territorial. Infringe or interfere in that territory, and you might get bitten.
STV How would it work in real representation?
Suppose we have STV. There are two to six candidates in each of these regional ridings.
Now then:
What happens in the actual representation? Does one begin to think he or she is 'above the others' in terms of dominance? Do all of these MLA's work together for the entire regional riding?
Take a region like Burnaby where there's never been any real instance of all of the MLA's working equitably together (the NDP MLA doesn't work with the three BC Liberal MLA's). for the betterment of the city as part of a group. Same goes for Vancouver and Surrey.
Consider if there is a mix of representatives in this regional riding.
Do BC Liberals and NDPers share the same resources when it comes to constituency office and staff? I doubt that would happen. You'd never get a government MLA and an opposition MLA to share the same office and staff.
Offices for BC Liberal MLA's and another one for NDPers in the same riding?
How does the voter choose which of these MLA's to go to? Consider that over time, one or two MLA's will become better at providing constituent services than the others, and most likely one or two MLA's will seriously work at providing better services than the others, just to become dominant.
Then even before the election begins, there's the nomination process for each of the parties. How does that work? Instead of two or three people going after one nomination, you may end up with 10 or more going after 6 nominations. There's "tag teams" and groupies, and there's "alliances" and camps and yes even 'favourites'.
The closest regional example was Vancouver Point Grey which was a two seat riding, but ended up as a split riding, because Darlene Mazari (NDP) won as did Kim Campbell (Social Credit).
Another example was Vancouver Fraserview which had Stephen Rogers and Russ Fraser, but those two were from the same party. Rogers ended up as Speaker which absolved him from much of the politiking which was left to Russ Fraser.
It will be one big mess for the major parties and even so for the secondary ones, since the membership is going to have to sift through all of the choices.
Save the mess. Stick with what we have. It's isn't perfect, but there's never been any perfect electoral system out there.
Both the BC Liberals and NDP by nature are very territorial. Infringe or interfere in that territory, and you might get bitten.
No to BCSTV
Well I tried the Trystv process and if that is the way it works, then there is no way I would vote for the system.
The only thing that BCSTV does is create confusion. Further, the riding becomes way to large and as such some parts of the old riding system would be represented by someone who has no knowledge of the issues. Finally it is clear that the system leads to a greater chance of minority government or one that becomes a coalition, and that is not what I want. I want a strong government one without fringe parties like the Greens.
Down with Proportional Representation stay with First Past the Post system!
BC boy
"Offices for BC Liberal MLA's and another one for NDPers in the same riding?"
Each individual would have his own office.
"How does the voter choose which of these MLA's to go to?"
However they want. I imagine most would go to the one they themselves voted for.
"Consider that over time, one or two MLA's will become better at providing constituent services than the others, and most likely one or two MLA's will seriously work at providing better services than the others, just to become dominant."
Yep
"Then even before the election begins, there's the nomination process for each of the parties... How does that work? Instead of two or three people going after one nomination, you may end up with 10 or more going after 6 nominations."
This is one of the parts I like best. It means MLA's of the same party competing against each other. It won't be enough to be the only Liberal in a seat that's voted Socred or Liberal since 1952. Now that MLA will have to outshine other Liberals of the same party including, gasp, looking for support from non-Liberals. I think it will break caucus solidarity and the result will be MLAs that don't vote in lockstep with their leader because suddenly your leader signing your nomination papers isn't worth that much because he's signing the papers of the guys you're competing against too.
"It will be one big mess for the major parties"
Yes, it will be. But the public will get MLAs that are more responsive to what the public wants even when it conflicts with what the party wants.
How would it work?
It would work well. The constituency office is a non-issue. Right now each MLA has his/he own office. That would stay the same although in areas like Victoria and the Lower Mainland some MLAs may choose to share with people from the same party as a cost-saver.
Who do I go to is another non-issue. As always I will go to the person who I feel will do the best job of representing my interests. Most likely that would be the person I voted for, but it could also be one of the other MLAs in my riding that I feel knows the issue the best. More choice for me.
And the issue of minority/coalition government is a fear that we need to put aside. When we get minority governments federally it appears to be unstable because everybody is waiting for the issue that will help the government or opposition win a majority. The members are not looking to work co-operatively; they are looking for a way to hurt their opponents. That attitude of politicians has to change. STV would force them to change because winning that elusive majority might be difficult.
And if you think majority governments have resulted in stable governments, I ask you to consider the last 20 or so years in BC. Whatever your political stripe the extreme swing from right to left to right and maybe left again has not been a positive feature of our system.
Give it a shot
What is there to lose? Only unrepresentative, unresponsive, corporate/labour maid-servant government.
STV is still an abortion,
All you are suggesting is that there will be more voting based on nothing more than name recognition over a large area. In the North it is the entire northern half of the province. I submit that what you expect from the voter (more intelligent choice) will not happen and the opposite will be true. That is not worth the risk. Currently we have a set group of people (small Riding) select one member who is then held accountable at the end of the mandate. No confusion, no escape, no blaming the other guy for your lack of effort., There are options better than STV and choosing STV means those options are gone.
Who decides who will be the
Who decides who will be the ministers and the government, under the STV?
Ed Deak.
Skywalker/Fiat Lux
Not to make light of the size of the ridings but you are misleading people when you say it is the entire northern half. The north will be divided into three districts comprising eight current ridings. My riding, the northwest, will have three MLAs. And yes there will be more candidates to choose from but I don't have to know everybody. (More than likely I will stop putting preferences down after four or five,) If I want to choose based on home town I can; if I want to choose by party I can. If I don't like the local guy from the party I support I can give my vote to another party member. If I want to give support to a person who may not win, I can and still know that my second choice will get my support if my first choice fails. There are few wasted votes. And candidates do not have to service the entire riding. There will be three people who more than likely know their main constituency and will react to those needs.
And I am not sure what FiatLux meant by his question, but if it is a reference to the possibility of minority governments, I am pretty certain that Ireland has had fewer minority governments under STV than Canada has under our present system.
translations??
Doesn't look any of the STV material has been translated into other lanuages for voters who have English as a second or third language.
For English speakers as a first language it is confusing-how about if English is NOT your first language.
The You Tube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-4_yuK-K-k and the website http://www.trystv.ca/
are in English with no translations available.
This system is another barrier for immigrant voters. Especially for older, women and disabled immigrants who do not have the same opportunites to access Englsih language training.
What I've asked was: Who
What I've asked was: Who decides? Still the majority party, or is there any other method?
I have no objection to minority or coalition governments and thank goodness Harper is in minority. As far I'm concerned the Gov.Gen, acted illegally when she denied the coalition, which represented a majority at the time, to form a government and permitted herself to be browbeaten and forced by Harper to prorogue.
But if the majority seatholder party under the STV still decides the formation of the government, even if they are in small minority, what is the justifiable system for the formation of the government and the distribution of cabinet portfolios?
I've voted for the STV the last time, but now with all the controversy about it, I still haven't made any decision for this time.
Ed Deak.
We need a system like New
We need a system like New Zealand not this STV business.
Minority government problems?
I have two concerns about the STV proposal. First is the size of our northern ridings - already difficult to service, the enlarged areas become impossible to handle effectively. Second is the liklihood of frequent minority governments. Anyone who thinks a minority goverment is a good thing has not been paying attention to what is going on in Ottawa. It is quite possible that STV, which is lauded for bringing fairness, could result in shifting the power to the party drawing the least votes as it may hold the balance of power.
notdarkyet
I'm looking at Election BC's information on the 85 MLA's divided into about 20 Ridings in the province. You can easily come up with the same conclusions if the Ridings are divided by population as they will ultimately be. Down South they may be closer together and heavens, the lower mainland is almost all one kind of place but up North it is different.
The notion that if your first choice meets the quota and if your vote is then not required you can have it conveniently transferred to another candidate while another does not get their second choice is just weird. Also the suggestion that you don't have to know something about all candidates means you vote along party lines and so what changes in terms of the whole political scene. Nothing. It is still a camel - a horse designed by a committee or a citizens assembly.
Skywalker
"Also the suggestion that you don't have to know something about all candidates means you vote along party lines and so what changes in terms of the whole political scene."
If the vote was like a Vancouver Civic election that would be the case. 11 positions available so 11 candidates from each side run and one side or the other wins in a landslide.
But that won't happen with STV because you only get the one vote even if there are 5 people running from the same party. So unlike a civic election you get to pick which of your party's candidates you prefer to represent you instead of the party alone making that decision.
Perhaps I'm wrong but I think that simple change could be quite revolutionary and break a leader's ability to enforce discipline over his caucus.
Frank
You make a riding so big that no one individual could ever launch an effective campaign. That means you rely on an organization. The minute you do that you owe that organization. There will be less independence. You are going to rely on votes even if some vote for the individual as a second or third choice. You still have to launch a campaign throughout the whole. Sure you can be selective but then you choce which are you represent and forget about the rest. Much like Campbell does with rural BC. Maybe if the ridings were single member and smaller, not as it is being proposed