Supporters of a 'yes' vote in the referendum on changing B.C.'s voting system have polled to see which messages and logos resonate with voters.
"Are you satisfied with the current electoral system?" asked the first question in the Angus Reid internet poll, according to one participant. The poll then asked the participant to rank the importance of various qualities of electoral systems, including:
* "elects a higher proportion of female candidates";
* “every vote counts”;
* "politicians are less like trained seals";
* "no vote gets wasted"; and
* "less antagonistic politics."
The poll asked if the participant was familiar with STV, then asked the referendum question that will be on the ballot May 12. After voting 'no' the participant was asked to explain the choice. The poll then asked the participant to say whether various statements made him think better or worse of STV, including:
* BC-STV was proposed by a non-partisan citizens' assembly;
* under BC-STV almost every voter would get at least one of their selections;
* no vote is wasted with BC-STV; and
* BC-STV would ensure better representation of minorities.
The poll then put up the whole list and asked the participant to choose up to three that were the most convincing, he said.
“I find it interesting they complained we were doing argument testing,” said Bill Tieleman, a spokesperson for the No BC-STV campaign, “then we find out the 'yes' side is also doing argument testing.”
Some of the statements, said Tieleman, such as suggesting politicians will be less like trained seals if they're elected under STV, are at best debatable and should not be presented as fact. Still, he said, both sides should be free to test their messages.
“We're both polling and testing arguments. There's nothing wrong with that,” he said. “Don't go out and complain when the 'yes' side is doing exactly the same thing and act like you're a choir boy.”
There is, however, a difference in how the two sides polled, said British Columbians for B.C.-STV spokesperson Bruce Hallsor. “We didn't ask a bunch of loaded questions and we're not testing negative messages.”
Public Eye reported last week that NO STV used the polling firm Ipsos-Reid to ask questions about whether people would support STV more or less if they knew “only two small countries in the world used it”, women would be less likely to get elected, MLAs would be less accountable, small towns would be less represented, politicians would have less power and the results would be less proportional.
The 'yes' side questioned whether that was an appropriate use of the $500,000 public education grant each side got, the Tyee reported.
“They were, in our view, polling for results on statements that provide disinformation rather than information,” said Hallsor. “We don't think we've done that.”
Andrew MacLeod is The Tyee’s Legislative Bureau Chief in Victoria. Reach him here.
7
Login or register to post comments
Bailey
2 years ago
unclear
I really have to wonder why such a totally confusing system was chosen.
It is clear that voters feel defrauded by the current system which allows such abuses as one party supporting another philosophically opposed party for the sole purpose of splitting the overwhelming popular feeling against them to produce a huge majority with a pathetic minority of voters' support.
A much more sensible system would be to simply abolish electoral boundaries entirely. They're already hopelessly corrupted by gerrimandering redrawing by parties in power.
Then all candidates would be running for all seats. Or maybe I mean each candidate would run for any seat.
If there are 100 seats, the top 100 vote getters would be elected, and all would proceed from there. Parties would form up majorities, minorities and coalitions as they do now.
In so many ridings in the last two elections the member elected had so few actual votes that most voters felt cheated, and are discouraged from bothering to vote again.
To it's advantage, it's clear, it's easily understood and one could vote for whatever candidate represents one's point of view best, whatever they might be.
cocean
2 years ago
BC-STV a "totally confusing system"?
BC-STV isn't confusing at all. It's more complex than FPTP, true, but so would ANY system be.
What BC-STV delivers is a vastly richer range of choice for voters and fairer representation. A little more complexity in exchange for such substantials gain is nothing to shake one's head at.
frenchy mcswede
2 years ago
The facts
that bruce hallsor, a major gary lunn and harper supporter in victoria likes stv, that arch neo-conservative gordon gibson heavily influenced the choice of stv over more democratic proportional representation systems, and that gordon campbell's unqualifiedly supports stv, (campbell chose to hold another stv referendum despite it falling short of enough support in 2005) makes me highly suspicious, that this system is highly tweakable, especially in rural ridings where conservative candidates have by far the most financial backing.
Nor do we continually read of rave reviews for the estate of the common man in either malta, or ireland, where this system has been in place for years.
Skywalker
2 years ago
Strange but true..
...that if Hallsor and Gibson like it, it is suspect.
Van Isle
2 years ago
I was visiting Ireland 2
I was visiting Ireland 2 years ago when they had an election. It seems that the political parties don't like their election system but the people do and are certainly not going to change. It took about 2 days for the election results to be announced because of the counting system, but other than that everything seemed to be above board and no shenanigans. Oh yeah, the Prime Minister (forget his name off hand) had to later resign cuz he was caught with his hand in the cookie jar.
Frank
2 years ago
Bailey
I'd prefer your system too. Essentially you want STV with the province as one big riding. Works for me as we get the best people regardless of where they live in the province. But since we're electing provincial politicians and not municipal ones I don't have a problem with that.
But unfortunately many people prefer having local candidates.
Bailey
2 years ago
Local candidates
Dear Frank;
I hear your point. Especially important in such thinking is the idea that a relatively small player, freeholder or small business owner say, can exert influence over 'his' member to advance his own interests.
What's lost in it though, is the principle of service to the society as a whole. A member, too conscious of the need to stay in the good graces of a small number of influential local types to get re-elected, or even nominated, becomes essentially a single issue lobbyist.
I think that in the great majority of cases, candidates would still campaign in local ways, particularly urban neighbourhoods and rural industrial blocks. Logging, farming, etc. But they would be somewhat insulated from undue influence wielding special interests, and freer to represent the general interests of the province as a whole.
There would be a tendency over time toward celebritization of candidates. Techniques of mass merchandising are very effective, as we are seeing now to our chagrin. This problem would not be solved simply by removing boundaries, and might well even become worse.
However, on balance, it would knock local machines off kilter, and make it harder to bring pressure to bear on individual members. The problems of false advertising could be dealt with by checks and balances type legislation and regulations enforcing ethical standards on these bozos, which they really do need.