The count's the thing.....

I really hate how STV supporters ignore the importance of how the count works, because the reality is that it will not produce the results they're touting.

What happens is this. When the votes are counted, any candidate who reaches the required threshold is deemed elected. But any votes that candidate receives above the threshold are then transferred to the second preferences of the voters involved. In effect, if you vote for a winner, your vote counts for more!

Now, a few voters will split their ballot by party, and a few may vote for an exceptionally popular local candidate, but it's naive to think that any more than a tiny minority will do so. If you're a Liberal supporter in a Liberal area, your vote is going to help elect a string of Liberals. If you're a Liberal supporter in an NDP area, chances are your vote will never be counted.

Frankly, it says it all that Mr. Pilon focuses on the problems with the present system. Those are broadly acknowledged. But STV is not the answer. Bring on MMP, or a straight pro-rep system - that's transparency.

"No" voters disrespected

How about some discussion of the fact that a significant number of BC voters voted "NO" and nothing has been done to address legitimate concerns. After the last referendum failed there should have been a re-examination of the proposed system. Instead they are running the same question again. I am a huge supporter of electoral reform but I see flaws in the BC-STV system. It was not simply that I did not know the proposed elctoral map (the excuse of the "YES" supporters) because the electoral map is not the biggest flaw in the system. I will vote "NO" again and this time will be voting in anger that in four years nothing was done to make it a better proposal.

Tweedle dum or tweedle dee?

Seems to me the great problem with the whole system is the huge majority of people have issues, they have big concerns, philosophies and beliefs. Sometimes these are so strongly held their holders consider them to be no less than life or death matters, over the long term. Yet only the parties who can raise large amounts of money from corporate contributors have any members elected.

So maybe 60 or 70% of the people feel that their livelihoods, their futures and their children's futures are in the hands of people who represent only their enemies, and do so exclusively, ignoring the wishes and needs of the rest.

It doesn't seem as important that each riding be represented by a particular member, as that there be real representation for each set of concerns held by a significant number of citizens.

For example, the oceans are dying, yet the party who form the government establish the fisheries ministry who represent only fishing industry interests. Many voters have strong interests to the contrary which go unrepresented.

Perhaps a large number of small parties with limited interests might not be so bad a thing, provided they weren't limited to represent those interests only in a single riding.

illogical objections

Above we have Dan, who wants what? The Netherlands model, where a party getting 0.75% of the vote gets one of the 150 seats? A Marijuana Party supporter would prefer that, yes. But today he wastes his Marijuana Party vote, and with STV at least his second preference (NDP?) will count. A definite improvement. Why would any socialist prefer FPTP?

And then we have Vortigern1, who is either obtuse or more likely obfuscating. None of his statements are correct. Go to http://stv.ca and learn more.

Tedward doesn't say what changes he wanted. STV is a simple concept; the only possible change in any STV recommendation is in its district magnitude. The Citizens' Assembly discussed that at length and made their recommendation. They did not reconvene, nor did the government have any power (thank heavens) to tinker with their recommendation. The only thing missing was the map, without which you could not see the precise district magnitude, and now that's known. If you want electoral reform as designed by voters, vote for STV.

The Citizens' ASsembly got it right.

160 of our randomly selected fellow voters spent nearly a year becoming experts in electoral systems, listening to what the voters in all regions of British Columbia wanted from an electoral system, and deliberating. They concluded that BC-STV system they designed is the best system for British Columbia. It gives voters much more choice, and useful choices, than they have now, better local representation (because about 90% of voters will have an MLA that they voted for instead of about 50% now) and proportional representation.

Your fellow voters considered in great detail the arguments put forth above. There is no such thing as a perfect system. The question is which values should be paramount. The Citizens' Assembly got it right. Nobody who wasn't one of the Assembly has gone through all the discussions they did. The agreement they reached at the end was an astounding 146 to 7 in favour of recommending BC-STV to to us. Any randomly selected voters would have come to the same overwhelming conclusion.

Dan the socialist is evidently not aware of the advantages of having a far superior choice of candidates while maintaining local representation; is he really willing to give these up for a very slight improvement in proportionality? That would not be a good tradeoff.

Vortigern1 makes two serious errors. Firstly each voter has exactly one vote, and it remains as exactly one vote at all stages of the counting. Nobody's vote counts for any more or any less than anyone else's. He states "If you're a Liberal supporter in an NDP area, chances are your vote will never be counted." This is absolutely false. He wants a system in which something like 40% of MLAs are not voted for individually but are "elected" because they are on a party "list". People do not want MLAs that they did not elect individually. The system he wants has less local representation, and does not have the choice of candidates that is a great feature of BC-STV.

Tedward should realize that the members of the Citizens' Assembly already did all the hard work to produce the best system. All the arguments that I have seen against it are either completely wrong or of no significance.

It is clear to me that those opposed are afraid to state their real reasons; they like the present system which does not give us the legislature we vote for and puts too much power in the hands of the party leaders and not enough power in the hands of the voters.

BC-STV should be in now!

58% of voters supported BC-STV in 2005. In 77 out of 79 ridings, the majority of voters supported replacing the current system with BC-STV.

People say that politicians don't listen. This is just proof that the politicians were not willing to listen to the overwhelming wish of voters. Why on earth do 50% more people have to support electoral reform than oppose it?

It is so obvious we need change.

161,000 voters supported the Green Party last election and they don't receive a single representative? Yet, for every 161,000 voters who supported the BC Liberals, they received 9 seats and the NDP received 7 seats.

To like the current system, you have to be so arrogant as to believe that some voters deserve less of a voice than others. Democracy should involve giving everyone an equivalent voice.

The BC-STV is the best system that gives fair result, keeps representation local, and allows voters to vote for people rather than one size fits all political parties.

If you trust voters to make the right decisions if given real choice, you should support STV.

-----How it works------>

Voters rank candidates and get to pool their votes to elect the candidates they want. STV transfers votes, if needed, to make sure that as many votes as possible are counted.

What is so hard about that?

-----Why transfer------->

If my candidate is extremely popular and only needed half of my vote, then half of my vote can help support another candidate. STV prevents popular candidates from cannibalizing votes.

If my first choice was a less popular candidate and is eliminated, then my whole vote to my next choice. This prevents vote splitting.

David Huntley

I respectfully disagree with your conclusion:

...160 of our randomly selected fellow voters spent nearly a year becoming experts in electoral systems,

MMP systems work far better than STV systems do...that's why there are so few STV options being used worldwide and so many MMP systems. That said, even a MMP system needs some limitations - having a threshold of 2% sure hasn't worked out in Israel.

As for the upcoming referendum, I'll probably vote 'yes' again - but not because I like you or your constant promotion of your own little ginger group.

In fact, you and your buddies have probably turned more people off to STV since the last referendum by your constant self-promotion. Don't be surprised if you fall even shorter from the mark this time around.

Until the political parties decide it's time to actually 'reform' the process it ain't likely to happen....sadly.

Response

Wilf, I fail to see how "none" of my statements are correct. To quote from the STV website: If a candidate is very popular and wins twice as many votes as they need to be elected, each vote is only half used on your first choice and voter ballot's 'balance' goes to your second choice. This is precisely the system I described. In my opinion, it will lead to the election of Liberals in Liberal strongholds and NDPers in NDP strongholds.

David, with respect, I never suggested that anyone receives more than one vote in an STV system. I do not agree, however, that everyone's vote is equal under this system. A Liberal in, say, the Fraser Valley will find his first, second, third, etc. preferences winning. A third party supporter is likely to find his first preference eliminated and, at best, some subsequent preference counted, either toward another Liberal, or maybe, just maybe, an NDP candidate.

Now, you are highly critical of the party lists used in MMP systems, and with some justification. But I can not concur with your claim that people "do not want MLAs that they did not elect individually." While, ideally, voters would focus on individuals, in practice, most cast their ballots along party lines. This fact, and the improbability of split ballots is even indicated on the STV website itself: Generally, voters will be able to rank two or more candidates from the same party, though they are also free to rank candidates from more than one party if they wish.

The reality of MMP is that it retains much of the local representation of the existing system. Say the present system has 50,000 people per MLA. An MMP system (60 constituency seats, 20 list seats) might have roughly 67,000 people per constituency. STV, however, would involve ridings of up to 350,000, represented by 7 MLAs. David seems to think that 1:67,000 is worse than 7:350,000, and numerically it may be. But I would argue that, in an STV riding, the interests of smaller communities can be more easily ignored, simply because those communities constitute a smaller fraction of the population.

As I said, party lists are imperfect, and it would be troublesome if those lists were determined by diktat from party headquarters. There is nothing, however, to prevent the parties from arriving at those lists by democratic means among their membership. Furthermore, those lists can help to improve the representation of women and minorities in the legislature.

To conclude, I will be voting no to STV.

Vortigern1

Well put.

And of course, another problem with STV as the ginger groupers have it results from the way it emphasizes urban, multi-member ridings over rural single member ones. Neglected areas will be more neglected under STV.

I agree that MMP can be improved by the careful administration of the party list and how folks get their names on it.

But, there's another point which must be made too - recent events in the Federal Parliament indicate exactly how confused Canadians, their elected representatives and the media are about the functioning of the parliamentary system and representative democracy generally.

And that bit about the importance of local and identifiable candidates... what a load of hooey. Fact is most British Columbians 'don't' know their MPs and or MLAs anyway...And, in this province, what difference would it make.

The Premier runs the whole show off his credenza anyway. And the candidates who get to run are hardly chosen in a broadly democratic way anyway… Canadian party politics and it stinks.

Having a few more MPs or MLAs off a list - elected proportionally - can only help the situation - for once, there might be some 'rules' that all parties had to observe and comply with.

I agree with you entirely.

Still, I'll likely vote 'yes' - despite its obvious warts, the STV option is likely somewhat less offensive than FPP.

But I'll do it with a bad taste in my mouth and utter disdain for the 160 so-called experts.

G West is right

There are fewer STV options being used worldwide than MMP systems, yes. The one place the two are now going head-to-head is Scotland (MMP for the Scottish Parliament, STV for municipal elections.)

If BC-STV passes, both models will be on the table for Canada (Quebec is still looking at MMP), and we can discuss which one would work better federally. If you compare the likely results in BC from an open-list MMP model with one regional list for the Lower Mainland and another list for the rest of BC, or an STV model with six districts (three in the Lower Mainland, one for Vancouver Island, one for the Interior, one for the North), you will find the outcomes are virtually identical.

The differences between the two systems are often overstated. STV works best when you have higher numbers of MLAs per person (as BC has, and most STV models have), while jurisdictions with lower numbers of MLAs per person would find STV districts too large.

But this is all academic. Someone had to choose which to recommend, and what the district magnitude should be. As between an expert commission or a Citizens' Assembly, both parties in BC supported giving the job to a Citizens' Assembly. You now have a clear choice: electoral reform or the status quo.

As for neglected areas, if they had been drowned in six-seater districts they would risk being more neglected. The three-seater district in the northwest will be very competitive: which party will get the third seat? Which Liberal candidate will win the first (and only?) Liberal seat. No neglect likely?

As for voting by party, the CA chose the Tasmanian ballot with columns for each party, not the Irish ballot with all candidates alphabetical. Voting by party will be common and easy, and results will be very proportional.

Vortigern1: I don't think you understand STV. You ask about a Liberal stronghold such as the five-seater Fraser Valley East. Based on the 2005 vote, the Liberals got 57.96% of the vote there: 3.48 quotients. The NDP got 31.30% of the vote: 1.88 quotients. The Greens got 7.82%: 0.47 quotients. DRBC, the Marijuana Party, etc. got enough for 0.18 quotients. The Liberals get 3 MLAs, the NDP one, and the NDP the fifth one unless the Greens manage to pick up enough to overtake the fourth Liberal and then pick up enough Liberal transfers to edge the NDP for the fifth seat, a long-shot.

If you prefer MMP, fine, but this is no reason to vote for FPTP. If BC-STV loses, electoral reform is off the agenda in BC for a long time.

To Vortigern1

You may view this response as disingenuis but I assure you that it isn't.

I can tell that you believe strongly that the first past the post system is flawed, and that reform is needed, however I think a no vote by you will undermine your own choice just as much as it undermines the one being decided upon.

If this referendum is truly defeated (rather than last time, when a clear majority voted yes but a minority blocked the change), then the two major political parties who benefit form the current system will claim that nothing is wrong with the status quo, that no change should be made, that people are happy. That is clearly wrong, but they will do it anyway. Thus, by voting no, all reform options are basically killed.

By voting yes, we get a chance to try out this system, see if it works, and then judge it accordingly. We're much more likely to look at further reform after a successful referendum than after a failed one.

Also, surely you do not believe that first past the post, which is so clearly flawed in so many respects, is worse than BC-STV. Ireland has a very stable, multi-party system with input from many citizens, and STV is certainly the better of those two options.

I once supported MMP over BC-STV, too, but in the time between the last two elections have fully changed my mind. I disagree that Liberals will only be elected in Liberal strongholds and vice-versa. The way the system works, only half a vote is transferred, and in a six?-person riding such as Vancouver West, those votes will quickly be used up and won't be able to make a majority, likely after two candidates. Then an NDPer or Green might get elected before enough votes are there to elect another Liberal. What happens is the riding's representatives will be proportionate to the riding, especially in larger ridings, though less so in two-member ridings such as Peace River.

Vortigern1

"What happens is this. When the votes are counted, any candidate who reaches the required threshold is deemed elected. But any votes that candidate receives above the threshold are then transferred to the second preferences of the voters involved. In effect, if you vote for a winner, your vote counts for more!"

Not true.

In the end everyone gets only 1 vote. 60% of your vote might go to the guy you picked first and 40% to your 2nd choice after the first guy gets elected but in the end its just one vote, same as everyone else's.

And by the way, it also works the other way if your first candidate is dropped.

"Now, a few voters will split their ballot by party, and a few may vote for an exceptionally popular local candidate, but it's naive to think that any more than a tiny minority will do so. If you're a Liberal supporter in a Liberal area, your vote is going to help elect a string of Liberals. If you're a Liberal supporter in an NDP area, chances are your vote will never be counted."

What happens is that now a Liberal supporter will pick which Liberal gets his vote. This is a huge plus. It means a voter in a 5 seat riding has to rank his Liberal candidates. It breaks party solidarity when you're competing with other Liberals for a person's vote. As for that person not voting NDP, who cares, he doesn't do that now either.

"Frankly, it says it all that Mr. Pilon focuses on the problems with the present system. Those are broadly acknowledged. But STV is not the answer. Bring on MMP, or a straight pro-rep system - that's transparency."

MMP will produce a system far worse than the present in terms of party solidarity.

Frank, let's be positive

"A Liberal supporter will pick which Liberal gets his vote. This is a huge plus. It means a voter in a 5 seat riding has to rank his Liberal candidates. It breaks party solidarity when you're competing with other Liberals for a person's vote." True. Furthermore, take the Fraser Valley West four-seater, which includes Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge. The Liberals are sure to run at least three candidates, but on past performance they elect only two, and the NDP two. Which two Liberals get elected? The greenest ones: the ones who pick up the most transfers from the Green Party.

But you say "MMP will produce a system far worse than the present in terms of party solidarity." Not true at all, if it's the regional open-list MMP system designed by the BC CA (to which they preferred STV). With MMP you vote for the candidate you like best for your local MLA without regard for party, and then vote for the party you support and its regional candidate you like best. Not so different from the outcome of BC-STV.

STV produces as much or as little party solidarity as voters want: in Tasmania and in Belfast City Council lots (and lots of women too), in Ireland far less solidarity and far fewer women, in Northern Ireland solidarity somewhere in between.

Wilf

My problem with MMP is that as soon as you have a number of people chosen by a party to fill up its "pro-rep" allotment you have the basis not only for internal corruption but also stronger parties and weaker candidates.

STV is far better in the areas I'm concerned about than MMP.

"Open lists" in MMP

Frank, I agree STV gives voters the most power, which is excellent.

But perhaps you don't know what I meant by "regional open-list MMP." That's the system used in Bavaria, which the BC CA chose as their MMP model before they decided they preferred STV. The party doesn't choose the MLAs to fill up the regional top-up seats. The voters vote for their favourite regional candidate, and if the party's supporters deserve to elect a couple of regional MLAs from that region to represent unrepresented voters (or under-represented voters) the two elected would be the two who got the most votes. Not so different from STV.

My point is, let's not waste time on the pros and cons of MMP. It's not on the ballot, and open-regional-list MMP is not that different from STV. Both are fair voting systems which are far superior to any winner-take-all model.

FPTP is the Enemy

While I am a STV advocate, first past the post (or single member plurality) is the absolute worst political system. (Alongside at large..AKA multi-member plurality)

We must keep in mind at all times that plurality is the enemy. Everything else is a matter of preference.

We must get rid of these systems where 40% of votes turn into 60% of seats, where voters cannot vote for who they want, and huge portions of the population are systematically disenfranchised.

STV and other forms or proportional system all have very similar results in terms of the votes matching up with seats.

The differences between variations of PR are who gets elected and how votes are counted. Who knows, at some time in the future we may get two or three system and see who ultimately is right.

The B.C. Citizens' Assembly had no material gain for choosing STV, but were biased towards a system that favored candidates instead of political parties.

Also, I uploaded a chart showing historic results in Ireland for parties receiving under 10% of the vote which one of the Citizens' Assembly members, who happened to have a PhD in theoretical physics from Oxford University, produced.

http://www.stv.ca/download/minorireland.pdf

You will see that in Ireland, under STV, no political party that has received more than 3% of the votes has ever been denied a seat. In fact, only once has a party receiving more than 2% of the vote ever been denied a seat and that was in 1961.

Also, the proportionality under STV is usually within 1-2%.

STV and me

In the past I have been very vocal in my opposition of BC-STV. I still have problems with its mechanics. How anyone can say that it is more "transparent" than FPTP is beyond me.

BC-STV has a huge amount of warts. Lots of people who are its champions clearly do not understand, or are unable to correctly explain, how votes are transferred. Even people on the non-elected, Citizens Assembly, who were lead to their conclusion by Gordon Gibson from the Fraser Institute, have said that BC-STV is too difficult for the average person to understand.

What I hated most about the last campaign was all the misinformation in the media. Proponents, like Gordon Gibson, who say "every vote counts" is simply ignorant of what they are selling or simply lying.

Besides all its problems, I'd be willing to vote for it this time around if the proponents do not sell it as something it is not. Besides what some textbooks may tell you, it is not truly a proportional representation system. It could very well do worse that way then the last provincial election under FPTP.

Perhaps it is a small step to something more reasonable. That is my hope. Perhaps any change at this point is better than none. Voter apathy is just too high.

I'd stay away from the argument that people don't understand FPTP. That would mean that people must understand BC-STV better. There is no chance of that happening!

You're right Chris

It isn't just first past the post that people don't understand - it's the actual mechanics and rules that govern representative democracy in a parliamentary system once the voting's done. For example, the expectation that the government and the opposition are going to 'work together' in any significant way is simple-minded. In an adversarial system like the British Parliament, it ain't gonna happen except in very narrow and infrequent circumstances.

Whether or not the adoption of STV would make - (or even could make) - a parliament so elected into a more responsive political organ than the current electoral methodology does is not actually discernible from the evidence I've seen....

My point about the purposeful misrepresentation of many in the media, the outright lies of members of the current Federal Conservative 'government' and the impression many Canadians seem to have gleaned about the role of the Governor General, the functioning of the House of Commons and the responsibilities of our elected MPs in Ottawa as a result of the current Prime Minister's reluctance to follow the rules leaves me far from sanguine about the expectations that a change in the way we elect provincial MLAs will make all that much difference....

Without a media that is responsible and politicians who care more about the country and less about their own image I think we’re going to have a bad time anyway – there are no magic fixes.

What is required is a much greater level of awareness on the part of the general public than could ever have been engendered by the trite and irrelevant actions of the Citizen's Assembly.

What this province and country really needs is a constituent assembly with the power to undertake thoroughgoing and comprehensive reform of the whole stinking mess. The expectation that simply adopting STV will achieve that result is hopeful but probably naive.

Given all that, it is probably worth a try so I’ll still vote ‘YES’…at the same time, I don’t think there’s a chance in hell that STV, once adopted, will morph into a real and carefully organized MMP system – which is what active and involved citizens really need.

I think a majority agrees

I think a majority agrees that the present system could be improved. To make a change to STV or whatever is a big step and many may wish to stick with the status quo, even with its faults.
A major stumbling block to making the change is that such change does not come with any type of timeline or "trial period". If we change to a different system, are we stuck with it forever? What if, after a few years, we come to the conclusion that the "old" system was actually better?
I think those who want to promote STV or whatever, should also consider a "trial period" of 2-3 elections and then an evaluation. I think support would be garnered for a new system, if the change was viewed as not necessarily "forever."

Chris H

Chris H seems to think STV is some kind of right-wing scheme. Tell that to the Tasmanians. They've used it since 1909. Labor won majorities in 1925, 1937, 1941, 1946, 1964, 1972, 1976, 1979, 1998, 2002, and 2006, and minority governments (supported by independents) in 1934, 1948, 1950, 1959, and 1989.

No doubt there was some misinformation in the media. Surveys showed that, the more voters understood STV, the better they liked it.

It is not "truly" a proportional representation system? With STV, the higher the district magnitude, the more proportional the results. The district magnitude of BC-STV is higher than in Ireland, lower than in Northern Ireland or Tasmania. In both Ireland and Northern Ireland it is called PR-STV, or "PR" for short. They understand very well that it is more proportional with larger districts; Northern Ireland was not satisfied with five-seaters and changed to six-seaters. Yet they still considered the five-seater model as "proportional representation" -- because it is, although six-seaters are even better.

G West: could BC-STV morph into a more proportional mixed system? No STV jurisdiction has tried to use what the Swedes or Norwegians would do to STV if they used their PR approach: add an extra 5% or 10% of MLAs awarded to under-represented parties, filled by the candidates who came closest to winning district seats (which would often mean the candidates who lost on the final count). Mixed member STV is quite feasible, but no one has done it because they found it unnecessary: Even Ireland's smaller districts give remarkably proportional results. Ireland used to have some six-seaters and seven-seaters, and if they really wanted to improve their system they'd be more likely to add some MPs, get a higher district magnitude, and keep all MPs directly elected.

Wilf

My main problems with STV relate to the way it under-represents huge and sparsely populated rural areas and over-emphasizes the influence of smaller and densely populated urban ridings with multiple candidates.

Further, I think it would be pretty easy to game if you had a mind to do it and, I'm not all that sanguine about a few special interest 'parties' using local organization and strategic voting to send members to the legislature who are really unconcerned with anything except their own narrow interests.

And, I don't have any problem with party lists as long as the mechanism to put names on the list is open and subject to administrative review and regulation.

In fact, the one thing that really needs to happen in BC is to do something about the power of lobbyist's money and influence - there has to be a better way to finance politics and I think the federal per vote assessment is the only way to go.

Notwithstanding my reservations, I'll vote YES but I wish the process had been different and less subject to the hothouse atmosphere of the self-promoting Citizens' Assembly.

I think Ireland's a poor example, as is Malta - their populations are much more homogeneous than British Columbia's and the differences in priorities and programs between rural and urban; service and resource development etc...between the megalopolis and the rest of the province make the different electoral architecture problematic for this province.

In fact, at large or list MLAs might well (in a MMP system) tend to counteract the difficulties.

58% + 2 = reasonable outcomes

For all those concerned on how votes are counted, I ask this: How are votes counted in the current FPP system?... The fact is, the more people understand STV and are educated about how the results are determined (who cares about the counting as long as your vote IS counted, right?), the more they support it (empirical evidence supports this).

The results of the past 2 federal elections, '96 and 2001 in BC should make ANY progressive voter support STV alone. Forget partisan bickering and slandering -- it's time for a change.

Progressive voters, unite in getting results. Hacks -- like Tielman and Carole James -- step aside.
British Columbians deserve transparency and a just electoral system -- not rhetoric and negative campaigning and outright whining from the opposing side while government steamrolls through policy without concrete dialogue and debate.

It may be our last chance in leaving the 18th century behind us once and for all in a time where we all need it more than ever.

The problem is with the antiquated FPTP voting system

The current voting system is meant for the parties to divide and conquer. Their strategy is to obtain a majority of the seats with a minority of the votes. Once they have achieved their majority of seats, the ridings don't matter; the voters don't matter. It's a voting system meant for the elites--the Tielemans

As a voter, I lack choice under FPTP. I can only choose among two or three lousy candidates. The current system is designed to discourage voter participation. We need a voting system that gives better voter choice. STV is that systtem.

G West

I don't know why you fear STV will under-represent huge and sparsely populated rural areas and over-emphasize the influence of smaller and densely populated urban ridings with multiple candidates.

Each district has the same number of MLAs under either FPTP or BC-STV. The only under-representation of voters in sparsely populated three-seaters is of Green Party voters: their votes will count for their second choice. If that's what you mean, you're right, but the Green Party isn't complaining. They're okay with the map.

Do something about the power of lobbyists' money and influence? The federal per vote assessment is the only way to go? Agreed. Do you expect a legislature elected under the present system, with one party getting a manufactured majority from a minority of voters, is going to open up the system? That would be lovely. Aren't the odds a lot better with a more fully representative legislature?

Is Ireland a poor example? I find Tasmania a better one. But it's true that the majority of PR systems of all kinds are in more compact and homogeneous places than British Columbia (with some exceptions like Brazil). That was one of the challenges the CA faced: to adapt to BCs geography and regional differences. They weren't sold on someone from Victoria on a regional list for Vancouver Island representing Campbell River voters. STV is more local.

Would STV be pretty easy to game with strategic voting? Very hard. "Vote management" as it's called in Ireland is not usually successful. It requires a party to know very accurately what votes it will get, and then instruct the right number of its voters to give first preferences to each of its candidates so that they all survive early counts and outrank lesser candidates. In the rigid divisions of Northern Ireland's fractured society, Sinn Fein has sometimes had some success with this. Pretty easy in BC? I'd say impossible.

Other jurisdictions

One of the funniest things about STV was an article in one of our major dailies that had quotes from people in Ireland about STV. One of them was something like, "STV is great. With STV you don't get just one vote, but many." It struck me then that maybe the people in Ireland didn't really understand STV either.

The main problem with proportionality and BC-STV is that people do not have to put a preference in for more than one candidate for their ballot to be counted. That was a big selling point by proponents: "Vote for as many or few candidates as you wish". If the majority only rank one candidate in a five or six candidate area, can you imagine what that would do to proportional representation? Maybe that is why in the Australian Senate ballot, it is required to rank all candidates and they actually end up with something that looks strangely like party list proportional representation. Maybe that is why I have heard people say, "only an idiot would rank only one candidate."

As to the right-wing plot, I am not sure I said anything about that. It is clear that Gordon Gibson held a captive audience of unelected citizens. And, that he came from a very dubious organization. I am sure he made great arguments for what he believed was important in a voting system. Clearly, there was a bias against political parties from all the Citizen's Assemblies comments.

What is also clear is that people DO NOT have a great understanding of what STV is. My local paper, gave a two page spread regarding STV and got a lot of the information completely wrong. If the media cannot even report on it properly, how is the general public supposed to understand it?

Proponents of STV have a big information piece to give voters on that system. You need to sell STV to the public without trying to confuse people and just use a lot of rhetoric against FPTP. In the end, I still believe that you should understand how votes are counted before making a determination on what system is best. Counting is VERY important. Just ask Florida voters!

Chris H

I think the video at http://www.stv.ca/watch explains how stv and the counting works in a fairly simple and easy to understand way. People keep making it out to be so complicated but it really isn't that hard to understand.

Really?

That was the video that caused so many problems because it gives such a simplistic explanation. It is not always so simplistic as that. Many people are under the impression that your vote will always count towards the election of a candidate if you rank all the candidates, that it is a requirement that candidates reach the droop quota to actually get elected, and that there is some mechanism in STV counting that ensures proportional representation.

Wilf

Simply because the urban areas have more representatives and a broader range of issues and power - in a house created by STV the power of smaller groups to promote purely 'local' issues is enhanced while the large rural areas have only one member to further the interests of the whole area.

In any voting contest - especially in a house where smaller parties (which will only be elected, in my view, in urban areas) can leverage their power to take up both time and promote parochial interests.

And it won't help the Green party at all because their votes tend to be spread throughout the province. Ginger groups, like the CHP in the Fraser Valley, or a Chinese ethnic party in Richmond (I use these only as examples - so please, no one take offence) are much more likely to get members in the house than the greens because their populations are concentrated in urban areas where multiple candidates are running. Also much more subject to gaming because they don't have to rank all the candidates - again, a consequence of the fact that BC's population is much more diverse and multi-ethnic than a country like Ireland or Malta. Given the increasing use of the internet to promote and enhance strategic voting I don’t think you can ignore the possibility that STV will be ‘gamed’ by special interests. On the other hand, were we to go to MMP I don’t have a problem with small parties getting members elected as long as the party gets beyond a certain threshold of support – somewhere between 3 – 5% overall.

I can see STV working fine in PEI, but I don't think it's going to be such a success story in BC...As I said, MMP works just fine in the areas where it has been the electoral system for decades - why take a chance on a system that has so much potential for mess-ups.

But, once again, as I said above, despite the warts and my discomfort with the self-promotion of its proponents and the - in my opinion - stupid way it was arrived at, I'll be voting YES.

Chris H with regard to wasted votes

I still think the video helps to explain it.
You said...
"Many people are under the impression that your vote will always count towards the election of a candidate if you rank all the candidates..."
but the video clearly shows that that is not the case. The word 'always' shouldn't be used but rather 'most often'. Of course if your 1st choice is holding another candidate in contention right up until the end then your further choices would not be available to be transferred to another candidate for them to be elected. Your vote is already being used. Far more votes are being considered with STV than with FPTP where all votes going to somebody other than who was elected are completely disregarded. If you look at the Vancouver-Burrard Riding from the 2005 election as an example, the liberal candidate won with 42.16% of the votes. This means 57.84 % of the votes are disregarded entirely with FPTP which to me seems very wrong. At least some of those 57.84 % of votes would be used elsewhere with STV in being transferred to another candidate. There are far less 'wasted votes' or completely disregarded votes in STV.

voting

I'm not from BC, but any voting system should necessarily be a national one, equally applicable to local, provincial and federal elections.

Personally, I like the run-off process, the same one most political parties have used to select their various leaders. It guanantees that a majority (50% plus 1) of the electors pick the winner, while eliminating nuisance low-appeal candidates from the process.

After the initial vote, if there is a winner confirmed, the rest of the population can assess probilities which may happen in other ridings and adjust their subsequent choices to either support or reject the leading party reflected in that vote.

The eventual outcome may not be instant, as elections are now, including those with rude surprises for the electors. But it is also a system which places the onus for "sober, second thought" on the public, eliminating an expensive and derided Senate along the way.

..

The video is a good way to get a general idea of how the system works for the average person. Not perfect, but enough that people understand what the "transferable" portion meant and a very useful tool.

If anyone needs a copy, we have some extra DVDs we are going to send out to people. Along with the CA video explaining the process. We will have more replicated hopefully for the campaign.

With STV, like any PR system, its proportionality can be increased or decreased.

Shrinking district sizes could result is a higher quota. Increasing overall seats would result in more proportionality. But the same can happen with other systems such as MMP. Its up to the voters I guess, you want more representation, you get more politicians.

This changes the accessibility for third parties, but not the winner. Unlike FPTP, where you can grossly inflate seat count by selectively dividing up your opposition. AKA, Gracie's finger.

As for who gets in, the Greens has strong concentration is a few areas, but they will do better as they are more likely to get transfers. In Ireland, they make 16% cutoffs with 9% of 1st place votes due to getting a lot of seconds.

Chris H... the details

To learn more of the details about stv, beyond the basics of how stv works and the counting that was presented in the video, you could read the article by Huntley and Wortis at http://www.stv.ca/download/BCSTV_Huntley_Wortis.pdf
It has a lot more of the depth that you may be looking for. STV is not truly proportional but it is far more proportional than FPTP which is what we are comparing it to . The ridings with a greater number of MLAs have a very high degree of proportionality while the ridings with 2 or 3 MLAs have considerably less. In the latter, it is a balancing act between local representation and degree of proportionality. It strikes me that a very reasonable balance has been achieved as proposed for the very spread-out regions of the province.

Rural but not concerned

I live in the constituency that has the second greatest area and only 2 MLAs. I would welcome STV and another MLA in a larger riding even if it means an extra hour to drive to see them. Even though it is another liberal strong-hold, at least the candidate that has traditional won the other part of our potential riding is much better than what we are faced with here. To me it means another MLA that has to listen to you even if its not the party of your chosing, as you are their constituent, even though it means a bit more driving.