The argument against STV I most often hear is that it is not proportional representation. I'd like to make an informed decision about this, but I haven't been able to find a clear, concise explanation of why it wouldn't allow for proportional representation. And I don't understand Chris H's comment that some people will vote in many candidates while others vote in few or none. How could this happen?

Can someone point me in the direction of where I could find an argument against STV that is more than just a few sentences saying these things will happen. Or could some of the more eloquent posters comment on this for me.

Many thanks.

I agree that STV will not lead to more minority representation. There is a good example, although over-simplified, in the Saturday Globe & Mail of how it would work.
I strongly suspect that STV will lead to more central control of party policy and local candidates. Bigger ridings mean that more money will be needed for advertising. Local organizations will be marginalized because their effect will be quite limited.
I think that if one wanted individual MLA's to be responsive to their constituents, then ensuring that the constituents' approval is required formally at more frequent intervals would be a central feature.
Reducing the power of the leader of the party would go a long way to achieving some of the results which Mr. Mair would like to see. For example, if the leader were dependent on the support of his caucus, then he'd have to ensure that he had that support for any policy.Imagine what would happen if a simple vote in caucus was all that was required to end the term of the leader.

None of those options are on the table. Nor is there a chance of them doing so.

Its FPTP or STV. That's it. You love one or the other, there's no other choice.

For eleven months last year, an Assembly of 160 ordinary BC Citizen
Volunteers investigated the voting system of our Province to see if it was
the best system available and if not, whether there was a better one we
should consider.

This enthusiastic group held 50 public meetings and thoroughly reviewed
1,600 submissions from all interested stakeholders. Anyone who was
interested and had an opinion was invited to speak up; and we did in droves!

After extensive and focussed investigation, reviewing all voting systems in
place in Canada and around the world, this democratic Assembly decided first
and foremost that our present "First Past The Post" (FPTP) system has got to
go. I daresay nearly all of us agree on this point.

Given that no political system is perfect, nevertheless the Assembly
narrowed their recommendation to just one alternate voting system as being
the most fair and democratic. It's called "Single Transferable Vote" (STV).

As much as is possible in an imperfect world, STV genuinely offers us
several things: fair election results; effective local representation; and
greater voter choice.

I am dismayed that the public explanations of STV put forth so far seem to
have focussed on the mathematics of the process. Why? I have a computer.
I'm sure there is a lot of mathematics underlying how it works, but I don't
need to know it. What I need to understand is how to USE it to get the job
done.

Let's stay on point here: FPTP is not a truly democratic electoral system.
We asked 160 folks like you and me to take a year out of their lives to find
out why and to give us the best alternative available. Thousands of us all
over British Columbia - individuals and groups - gave them the benefit of
our best, carefully considered opinions. And the answer is STV.

Changing the system requires 60 per cent of the vote Province-wide, with at
least 48 of 79 ridings in favour. That's a very high threshold. And those
in power know it.

Don't let yourself get misdirected by the status-quo naysayers, who will
happily befuddle your mind with the underlying nuts and bolts. You know
that the system we have now is a poor shadow of the democracy that we
deserve. And now you know we can have a better system - one that is already
in use in other places.

STV is better than what we have now. It will give your vote more power and
your opinion more influence in Parliament. That's pretty simple, right?

On Tuesday, May 17th, vote YES for democracy; vote YES for the Single
Transferable Vote.

i'm voting no on general principle.

why don't you start the "i hate fish farms" party. these fish farms seem to be a real bee in your bonnet. i can co-exist with fish farms easier than i can co-exist with liberals. the only thing i have to remember on may 17 is vote against gordo and his gang.

BC-STV is proportional. Look at the fact sheets at http://www.bcstv.ca/bc%20fact%20sheet.htm. Some good descriptions of how BC-STV works is at http://www.bc-stv.ca/bcstv%20counting%20demystified.htm A good clearing house of online information is at http://www.stvforbcvoteyes.blogspot.com/

Those who speak against STV don't seem to speak FOR our current system. Is that because there is very little good about our current system that they can point to? If that is true then why wouldn't we want to change?

Too many assumptions, Rafe. Let's number your dreams:

1. Liberals will win in 2005
2. STV referendum will pass
3. There'll be an election in 2009 (likely, but the Act can be amended)
4. Liberals will win in 2009 under STV
5. But there'll be a big opposition
6. The Greens will elect members
7. Government members will have "broad perspectives" (Huh?)
8. Government members won't feel the Whip
9. If a minority (coalition) government, all votes will be free votes
10. Ergo, government will be truly representative
11. And it will be good government!

Laughable.

You'll surely know, Rafe, that the proponents of STV are, firstly, those of our many political flakes who, having launched one-note fringe parties, have come to believe the system owes them seats in the House; secondly, those gullible enough to be co-opted by the aforesaid political flakes; thirdly, the disgrunted left; fourthly, the radical right; and lastly, those naive folk who long dreamingly for the ideal system of no-fault governance. It's nonsense, Rafe, and, as you well know, it's going nowhere. Suggest you stick to fish farms.

To Chris H, Rafe has spoken and written extensively answering your points, so don't write like he's afraid to.

CM Tara, some political scientists say STV is not pro-rep because it doesn't guarantee that result, as MMP does. But no matter because that's the outcome, anyway, or else 160 randomly picked citizens wouldn't have chosen it by an overwhelming vote.

Disraeli and "bud carlos", all your points are all silly. You obviously know little. Please read the Web sites below and then write back to apologize.

Please see

Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform (CAER): citizensassembly.bc.ca

Korky Day's submission to above: citizensassembly.bc.ca search DAY-1390

Citizens' Assembly Alumni (of CAER): bc-stv.ca

STV for BC STVforBC.com

Fair Voting BC fairvotingbc.com

--Korky Day,

My fear is that the referendum may inappropriately pass or fail simply because many voters did not know what the question meant when they saw it for the first time in the voting booth. Whether you're for or against this, please raise as much awareness about it as you can.

To set the record straight, when I posted my comments earlier I was unaware of the fact that Korky Day had submitted a rambling manifesto to the Citizens' Assembly, and thus my reference to "political flake" was not directed at him; further, I was unaware he had joined the Greens when spurned by the NDP, and thus my Inclusion of the "disgruntled left" as supporters of STV was not directed at him. No personal offence meant, Korky.

So lefties want STV but righties love FPTP?

Most Canadians have had enough unfair elections, and want proportional representation. BC can be in the lead.

Ireland and Northern Ireland call the system "PR/STV" -- the Irish proportional representation system -- because that's exactly what it is. You can argue that Scotland's system might be better, or Germany's -- I like Hungary's myself -- but there is no argument that BC-STV is a proportional representation system. In fact it's more proportional than Ireland's, because their average district has only four MLAs -- too few for good proportionality -- while BC-STV will (except for a handful of MLAs from the North and the Kootenays) have close to seven MLAs per district. This will also be better for women's representation, which is especially poor in Irish four-seaters or three-seaters.

BC-STV's biggest problem is that the government left it to sell itself. Did you know the CA Alumni don't even get mileage? If voters fail to give it 60% just because they don't understand it, there will be no shortage of powerful political forces saying "this shows our present system works fine." This is BC's one golden chance to change the system.

Frank, as far as I can tell it cuts across party lines.

I think so too Wendy, I was just being sarcastic. Nobody ever actually defends FPTP.

For those who think "Party" will count for less in WHO gets elected, think again. Disreali had it right. The parties will exercise more control over who gets nominated, and money will be more important in getting elected.

At the same time, there will be better representation of parties in the house, with, hopefully, wiser policies followed (along lines suggested by Rafe Mair)

Too bad the CA wasn't able to propose a system which involved any increase in MLAs (in which case, there could have been a better mix of proportionality AND local representation).

Our current system stinks I cannot understand why anyone would want to keep it. Those who do I think are being selfish. Those who are for it may be optimistic, those who are against it have taken to being outright deceptive in order to confuse and scare people. What is the motivation for the naysayers? Why would anyone say that having more diverse representation is bad? Why would anyone claim that a system that has consistantly returned seat counts that reflect the breakdown of votes is not proportional. How can anyone claim that STV will reduce local representation, when you're local representatives half the time don't listen to you, and even if they do, they have no power to act on your interests. Why would anyone want to keep a system that was designed to keep out minorities, and is based on the principal that might is right. Do these opponent think that we are not as bright as the Irish and Aussies, who can understand this system and vote perfectly fine?

I think the funniest thing is when people claim that they can get rid of government corruption without changing the system. That they can reduce the control of the premier/prime ministers office without changing the nature of politics. No way!

Look who is opposing STV. Old union bosses and has been politicians coming out of the woodwork for one last moment in the press. Opinionists looking to make a name for themselves, and get a bigger column. Oh, and 3 of the 161 members of the Citizens' Assembly, who hold some kind of grudge against the rest of them. Oh, and a few misguided souls, who think that if this fails, that British Columbians are going to want to stomach another referendum on electoral reform. Then of course there are those who vote no on principle, for no other reason than out of spite for those who seek good governance and less polarization. STV is light years ahead of the system we have now.

I've never been a member of a political party, and neither have half of the STV promoters. Not the names in the media, but those who are out on the street handbilling, doing the grunt work, and writing letters. And we're still looking for more volunteers and some donations. stvforbc.com

Rafe, I think with already a pretty active online discussion, it might be wise to have someone who can explain succintly to us that don't really like our current system to understand what in fact they get in its place. Doing so on your radio program might be good especially if you get the major party reps to give their two cents on STV.

My suggestion for this discussion:

Carole Taylor, Liberals

Adriane Carr, Green
Gregor Robertson, NDP

It seems that if a major focus group could consent to the current proposal it must have had some serious merits over the current system. So I wonder why do the Naysayers get into name-calling and general negativity on something

Rafe, I think with already a pretty active online discussion, it might be wise to have someone who can explain succintly to us that don't really like our current system to understand what in fact they get in its place. Doing so on your radio program might be good especially if you get the major party reps to give their two cents on STV.

My suggestion for this discussion:

Carole Taylor, Liberals
Adriane Carr, Green
Gregor Robertson, NDP
and some of the people that did the research to get us this far...

just some thoughts ...

Korky: He has? Where? Not here, not in his North Shore News column. Please provide the link where Mr. Mair analyzes STV in full detail.

Possible scenerios under STV:

- The majority of seats aren't filled.
- A candidate is ranked on a ballot 20,000 times while another is ranked on a ballot 10,000 times. The one named 10,000 times gets in while the other does not.
- 50% of voters vote strictly for the Liberals while 50% of voters vote strictly for the NDP in a 7 candidate riding. The Liberals get 6 seats while the NDP get 1.

STV is a complicated and wonky system that hardly anyone understands. Remember Angus Reid's comment: "I have a PhD in stats and I can't explain it."

Thanks to everyone who offered their insights. Wendy, thanks very much for the websites. I also managed to find links to websites for arguments against STV, and I have to say, none of them were very convincing. While there are some legitimate concerns about STV, none of them are great enough to convince me to vote against it. It's still much better than what we have.

In the distant past, under W.A.C. Bennett, British Columbia did flirt with another method of voting.

Anybody know what it was called? And why it was suddenly tossed aside after one provincial election?

All I can remember is that it was something to do with proportionality, and I think it was copied from either Australia or New Zealand.

Could it have been ... (gasp!)... STV ???

Understanding STV requires a little time and effort. Something even people with PhD's may be too lazy to bother to do!

The other system BC flirted with had a preferential ballot with single member ridings. This is known as Alternative Vote (AV) and is not proportional. Apparently the Liberals and Conservatives thought that it would keep them in power and the CCF out of power. Instead, it handed the province over to the Social Credit.

After winning a second election with AV WAC Bennett realized that the old FPTP system would do a better job of keeping him in power and changed back to it.

BCSTV sounds like a sexual transmitted disease, and is wrong headed. Let me
Give you some reasons) Most folks do not understand it as its very complicated
so why vote for something you don't understand.
2) This BCSTV is just exploiting our need for change, bad change is worse than
No change in the short term,
3) The first past the post system is easy to tabulate, who wants voting machines and
Erroneous hard to follow results like the US.
4) The rural urban divide is going to get worse under STV, its done on population density and
Not Geographic areas, so the entire north will only have one or a couple of MLA'S while the city will have large #'s
5) The less folks who understand the process, the less will vote.
For example, this year we already have record voters registered,

And sorry Raif, those with integrity do not care about the Whip etc,
There are some out their who have higher principles than keeping a good job.
Anyway huge voter are registered, Gordo is good at getting folks involved on
A mass scale.

Noteable quote:

"I have a PhD in Statistics and I can't for the life of me figure it out." - Angus Reid

yes, let's keep a system where the result has never matched the voting preferences of the people involved. In fact, why not get rid of ridings and have a big provinmce wide vote under FPTP, and the party that wins gets all the seats.

This whole idea is designed to get the anti-abortion fundamentalists back into the political game. Why do you think they've left Campbell alone and not pushed him to restrict abortion as Vander Zalm did, even though he had an overwhelming majority?

The guy who's been pushing electoral reform the hardest, and the earliest, is Nick Loenen, a former Socred MLA and Vander Zalm's seatmate in Richmond.

At the Social Credit convention in 1989, Loenen proposed retaining a commitment to "Christian principles" in the party constitution. When he left office, he urged the religious right to get out and "fly their colours more openly" on issues like abortion.

At that time, Loenen said he was thinking of writing a book on religion in politics. That book eventually transmogrified into one touting electoral reform which, not coincidentally, is tailor-made for groups hoping to restrict a woman's right to choose.

Darn right they should have a voice. No political system should be designed to marginalize people.

But no system is complety propotional and no system is without wasted votes.

The point is that STV will be more prportional than FPTP and there will be less wasted votes under STV.

But under the U.S. "black box" system there is not a voter-verified paper trail. Under BC-STV there will be a voter-verified paper trail. Any repersentative of any party can check the results by counting the paper ballots.

Norman Spector, you are so full of crap and lies, it is ridiculous. I can't understand why the Sun still publishes your worthless rants. You're the perfect example of an political hack I described earlier. No substance, or basis for your argument. Just some petty personal battle with Nick Loenen. He's part of our team along with plenty of athiests, womens rights activists and others, who I know take your deceptions personally.

I wish the STV campaign had the Christian right onside and funding us, perhaps we would have some funds. However, your argument of STV helping the anti-abortionists, is pure lie, and you either know it or have gone senile on us.

And a comment for Chris H, try STV out before you put out such outright flawed arguments. You don't need a PHD, you need common sense. At 50% of the vote, a party could capture 4 of 7 seats, not 6. IN order to get 6, they would need over 75% of the vote. All seats will be filled. Candidates need 1 divided by (number of seats + 1) to get elceted. 1/(s+1). Now I was a little bit of achiever and learned fractions in grade 6, but certainly you should have learnt them by grade 9 or 10.

I was initially suspicious of STV, for a myriad of reasons, but came to the conclusion that it was a major improvement over the status quo. If for no other reason than it would mean that there would no longer be possible the wild swings that our current system has enabled in final election results. It would guarantee a viable opposition — which is something that every gov't needs to function properly.

The argument that no one understands how STV works is disingenuous. I challenge anyone to conduct a poll of bonafide, knowledgeable BC voters on the question of how our first past the post parliamentary democracy works. Nine out of ten would fail the test on even the most elemental questions. But that doesn't mean their vote is invalid, it just means they have more important or relevant matters than poli-sci on their minds.

You might not understand it but the citizens assembly (which represented a cross section of average people) figured it out, so I am sure that most folks could.

And based on this reasoning everyone should stop using electricity (since most don't understand it).

But you haven't explained how it is bad change.

Both STV and FPTP require redistricting based on population density. You might want to research the voting systems a bit better.

There is no evidence to support the conclusion that fewer people will vote under STV. Perhaps more people registered to vote this year because they want to vote in favour of STV.

Sorry STV exploits our need for change without really doing anything. Democracy does not happen at the polls it happens every day. We are having this conversation because so little get involved and so many are lost in mediocrity and feel powerless. Democracy happens at the grassroots level and should funnel up threw different groups and your Mla'S. It helps to win your riding but it helps more to get busy. Does STV increase the # of MLS's in rural areas, NO, it gives more power to urban areas, even more than currently. STV in just window dressing hiding the real issues that face us. 99% of folks did not attend the STV meetings and the harsh reality is that no one really understands it, sorry I don't have blind trust in a confusing erroneous new system. You want your party to participate, make collations , join other parties that closely resemble your stand. But don't try and trick the voter to get power. Sorry sounds like hard work. How many are going to support the NDP who will ban corporate and union donations. (a good start )

STV doesn't stop anyone from becoming more politically active. Its not an either-or situation. People can be politically active under any voting system.

Its not STV versus grassroots democracy.

Its simply STV or FPTP, that's it.

Dangrice.com: Wow! Sorry, but you don't understand STV at at all if you believe that 50% of the vote could not take 6 out of 7 seats. Why don't you do some research on the electoral system you seem to love so much. Go back to Mr. Mair's first article here on the Tyee about STV and read the comments. You might learn something; like you don't know what your talking about.

Actually Chris, you never did say how it would happen, so going back and reading the comments won't be very illuminating.

I'm still waiting for your description of the BNA Act and a guess as to how many voters in Canada understand our present system.

Because those without a degree in political science probably don't.

Also, there's the issue of a party getting only 40% of the votes and possibly getting 90% of the seats under FPTP.

There's also the issue of wasted votes which everyone in Canada seems to know about except those in love with FPTP.

There's also the issue of declining participation by registered voters which is happening under FPTP and adherents of that system have been unable to do anything about.

Frank, you should go back and look. James G accurately posted how that would be possible.

There is also the possibility of getting only 40% of the votes and getting 90% of the seats under STV as well. It isn't proportional representation, you know.

Elections BC has done a great job registering new voters this time around. The voters list is bigger than ever. We'll have to see how many people actually come out and vote though.

Frank, I hate to tell you this, but the BNA Act is no longer in force. Canada has its own constitution now. Welcome to the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s!

Wrong Chris, the BNA Act set up out government and system, we didn't get rid of provinces or parliament when we brought our constitution home. You can't understand the history and government of Canada without understanding the BNA Act.

And I have yet to see anyone turned away by Elections Canada because they didn't understand the constitutional framework under which they vote. Even though I would think understanding the government structure you're voting under would be more important than understanding how the votes are counted. After all, what's the point of voting if you don't know what you're voting for.

As for James G, his scenario was a meaningless exercise. It'd be like me saying under FPTP everyone who votes in East Van will vote NDP. Everyone. Everywhere else the Liberals will win each seat by only a few votes. Therefore you could have the NDP win the popular vote and only get one seat. Such scenarios are not instructive, they're just game-playing.

Why should a green party member or say BC Conservative be an MLA because they
Lost 5 times. Sorry STV (sexually transmitted vote) is a joke, and yes there is a
Correlation between being active and STV, the reason we are having this debate is because
There is not enough activism at the grassroots. Anyone with 25 signatures can get on the ballot and run, just fill out the election BC forms. We have a candidate in Port Moody/Westwood with the MYBC Party, he's a student under 25 yrs old, he is articulate and informed and active.
SOOOOO the only reason other parties are not in power is their lack of will to get busy, make collations and compromise with others. I say keep it simple and get busy, if everyone just did one thing political. 1) Write a letter to your local MLA
2) Have a community hall meeting 3) Talk to your friends family and neighbors
3) Lobby media or CRTC etc, 4) Arrange media stunts
The political landscape would change over night. Why do you think Gordo is so
Scared of bad press. Sorry I don't like my 3rd choice becoming my first.
Once we realize we have all the power and the MLA is our rep than the whole picture
Changes.

Frank, while you are correct in the assertion that it is important to know our history, your obsession with the British North American Act is hilarious. There have already been Supreme Court rulings under our current constitution with regards to riding sizes and the like. The Court uses our current constitution when dealing with the constitutionality of any aspect of parliamentary tradition or electoral process. If STV passes, you better believe that it will be challenged in the courts. There are already numerous opinions out there from constitutional lawyers that its constitutionality is in doubt.

I believe that people understand the electoral process that we operate under now quite well. The mechanics, especially, are easily understandable. The same cannot be said for STV.

Imagine a riding with one very popular NDP candidate. The proponents of STV state over and over again that people can vote for only one candidate if they wish. You don't think that will have an impact in the results of an election under STV? The popularity or unpopularity of each NDP candidate will effect each other. How many people will only vote for one candidate, Frank? You can kiss any chance of proportionality away if a lot do. One of the biggest beefs with STV is that people already find it difficult to find someone to vote for. They sure as hell aren't voting for independents now, so why would they under STV?

I have seen it posted numerous times that people that vote NDP are stupid. Someone mentioned earlier that it would be stupid to vote for only one candidate (which is true if you don't want your vote "wasted", but not true if there is only one candidate that you feel deserves your vote). Sounds like a conservative plot to me! LOL!

I feel badly that I have not researched this at all. But one of my concerns is rural representation. Although I live in Vancouver, my area of work responsibility is everything North of Williams Lake. Because of this I get to chat to a lot of rural people and the anger and frustration at being forgotten is very strong. Whatever system we have, these people need more of a voice, not less.

Thank you to all the people that posted links, I am going to try to read some this weekend.

Explaination of useful vote : a vote that contributes to the election of a candidate.
I got random election results from Great Britain, Canada and Ireland
for a comparison of the 2 systems. STV and first past the post.
In my sample
The UK came out with a mean of 52% useful votes and a standard
deviation of 5.64
Canada (last federal election) came out with a mean of 45.55 and a
standard deviation of 6.40
and Ireland (an equal number of 3, 4 and 5 seaters) and as a
percentage of total valid poll) came out at
79.55% average useful votes and a standard deviation of 3.35.
In the interests of speed, I just used whatever standard deviation was on my computer calculator. In a normal distribution, (which is probably the statistical measure that election results belong in) 2 standard deviations round the average covers about 95% of the results.
The results of my little experiment are very encouraging.
It does indeed show that STV has a much tighter distribution of
results. First past the post gives a different result depending on where it is carried out. GB is less homogenous than canada and itwould seem that fptp is a worse fit in a homogenous country. Basically, if a machine in a factory was as inefficient and as unreliable as first past the post, it would be thrown out!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/single_transferable_vote/ has a graphical representation. (I made the graph before getting the results so it is close but not completely accurate)

Chris, sorry man, you and James are in the same boat and its not been floating. His argument that 40% could get 6 out of 7 votes it was so implausible it was silly. Is it statistically possible? certainly. Would it ever happen, not in a bloody chance. In case anyone else wants to know how Chris, just like Tieleman and Spector is totally distorting facts or just making them up, here is James argument:

Yes if there were 7 candidates, and if 6 were running from 1 party and if there was only 1 from the other party who got votes, and if there was no other parties or independents, and if 40% of people voted evenly for the 6 candidates and if everyone else voted for the one candidate then STV could be skewed. Notice the 6 bold ifs.

Sorry, thats so off base, I think the odds of there being ETs among us are about 10,000 times better. And constitutional lawyers are not declaring STV unconstitutional. David Schreck said that before constitutional lawyers told him he was dead wrong. That's why his argument went from its unconstitutional, to now telling people to vote no if they are unsure. Why, because it didn't hold water. The # representative per region won't change.

Simple as that. If anything, our current system is unconstitutional, as strict geographic ridings disadvantage minorities and demographics whose population is either spread too thin or too highly concentrated. (Case in point 1: 200,000 voters who support the greens have absolutely no representation, case in point 2: the Liberals lost in 1996 while achieving more overall votes, as areas with very heavy Liberal concentrations such as West Van (20,000 per riding) achieved the same representation as candidates who won with (8,000 per riding) in other areas where the vote was split.)

Lastly, why would someone under STV vote for an independent. Because, under STV, the fear mongering regarding vote splitting, wasting a vote, and the nader effect, have no bearing. Under STV, if you vote for an Indy and they get elected, your vote counts. If you vote for an Indy and they don't get elected. Your vote will still count, if you listed an alternative. While you can still vote for only one if you want, by doing so, you as a voter are showing your true intention. That's what STV does. It asks voter, who do you want elected. Do you want candidates elected from a party, a region, a demographic. Thats the beauty, it asks the voter what they want, and parses them into seats. Our current system ask the voter which party don't you want, and gives one alternative.

Why is STV better than FPTP. Because STV listens to the voter, and makes party's listen to them as well. In a STV, voters rank who is the best for me. In FPTP, the party's tell you who the worst is, so winner can take all. Under STV, parties would want to run as broad a slate as possible, to reach out to as many voters, under FPTP, parties are encouraged to run only the safest candidate, to reach out only to the majorities.

LOL ... wrong again dangrice.com. It really does look like you don't know what you're talking about.

Your first three ifs hold out as true (although I don't think you can count the first one ... it was part of the question). The 40% of people voting for candidates do not have to do it evenly at all (I do believe that I used 50% in my example though). A candidate can be elected with one vote under STV. Hey, is that possible under FPTP? I guess it would be if only one person voted. LOL! Additionally, it doesn't matter if there are independents or people from other parties on the ballot. If people do not vote for them they are irrelevant. I hope you aren't writing any mathematical proofs for anyone soon.

If STV passes (and it looks more and more likely it won't from the latest polling), it will be interesting to see what is the lowest number of votes any candidate got and still got him/her elected. You can bet that it will be way under the droop quota.

Looking at the Sun this morning, it seems that the Irish voters don't even know how STV works. Here are some examples:

"It gives power back to the people because your first and second votes count." Sebastian Luthers

"It's a good system. If you only have one vote, that's it. It's a fairer system than having just one vote." Therese Ryan

You've got to be kidding me! Do they know what STV stands for. Single Transferable Vote. You only get one vote!

The German model of combined local ridings plus proportionality and a cut-off minimum of 5% is the ideal method. The power elite don't want that because democracy is the biggest threat to corporatism.

A bit of British Columbia history which I came across today. See Wendy (above) 04.26.2005 for more.

Chris H, I'll take back the first IF , but nonetheless your scenario would never happen outside of the twilight zone. Anyways, on to the next myth.

BC Mary: As much as you think you are being clever, the 1952 election was not used in any districts with more than one representatives elected on a ballot. It used the preferential vote as proposed under STV, but did not use surplus nor transfers, and applied only when candidates failed to get 50% off the bat. Thus, STV without the proportionality. In such cases, it did prevent vote splitting, but was still a majoritarian system.

However, if you want to know BC and Canadian history, I'll help you out a little. Until the 1930's, Vancouver had a 6 member riding, and Victoria had a 4 member riding. Voters had no trouble, pre TV and internet choosing their candidates, though under that system, it was a non-transferable vote so vote splitting and vote wasting still occurred. Pre 1900 there was no parties, and FPTP was perfect when representatives were actually elected on merit.

STV was used in two jurisdictions, Alberta (for Calgary and edmonton) and Manitoba (Winnipeg), from the 1920's to 1950's. In its use it was much more fair, until the government threw it out for no valid reason except to secure their majority. Manitoba was an amazing example for history. They had 30 years of stable, cohesive, coalition (non-partisan) governments. In 1922, the party that won, didn't have a leader and they ended up drafting John Bracken, the head of the agricultural college. Who remained premier until 1923.

Anyways, opponents of STV, there are legitimate arguments that can be used against STV and then there is FUD and Distortions.

Arguments against STV that are "rational" are:
FPTP's provides majority governments and thus government can be more efficient.
FPTP ensures only established parties take place in government.
FPTP keeps representation based solely on geography.
FPTP holds a single individual responsible for an area.

While I personally think those are deficiencies, I can respect those views. However, when opponents go off on tangents and make things up, or quote others who make things up, it is really frustrating for us who are believe that are current system provides us with elected tyrannies, and is far from being democratic.

Now STV is a good system, it has no real drawbacks, and while it won't give parties with 2% of the vote a seat, it does remove barriers from smaller parties from getting elected.

If the B.C. government has determined the first-past-the-post system needs to be changed then why isn't the referendum on two different forms of proportional representation instead of status quo and STV.

If STV gets defeated will they say people want FPTP and not pursue other options?

My brother says he's voting for STV because every single politician he knows is against it. Much as I find this a compelling argument, I am so confused that I'm not going to vote on it at all.

I am above average intelligence, yet I don't understand the arguments for, and I don't understand the arguments against. Yes, maybe I'm just too lazy to study it in depth, but when I've tried to understand it my brain fuzzes out and goes blank. Then there are the contradictory arguments. First, there was an article in Tyee a while back that claimed STV would give more clout to the "rural right". Then, I read an article, elsewherer, from a member of the committee who disagreed with STV and who said it would be unfair to rural voters. I've also seen this latter argument on this comments list.

I don't think STV will pass. I think most people will either vote against it or vote neither "Yes" or "No" simply because they don't understand it.

Anne; Stop worrying about the math. It doesn't matter. The thing to keep in mind is that it will make a strong majority government like our present dictatorship which has wrought such havoc among the poor and defenceless in BC very hard to achieve.

We will have more minorities and coalitions, which mean co-operation between all parties. Like Layton forcing Martin to put some real Canadian social values back into his budget recently. Nothing will get done unless people of different circumstances agree that it's a good idea.

Just think 'they wont be able to rob and steal, they'll have to be accountable to somebody besides themselves". Then you'll probably be able to find a good place to put your X.

Anne, don't you wonder about people who tell you to "stop worrying about the math." And, "It doesn't matter." Kinda sounds like the used car salesman who wants you to sign on the dotted line without seeing the final price.

I find it funny that the proponents of STV that post here presume to "know" how people will vote under STV. The facts are that STV is not proportional representation and anyone who says it is, is a liar.

Don't believe that STV will "free the MLAs" as Mr. Mair believes. In Ireland, any deviations from party solidarity are usually met with expulsion from the party. With the major political party, Fianna Fail, a member will be faced with automatic expulsion if they even abstain on a vote that the party wants to go one way. Good luck winning the election next time without any party financing or support. It is still hard getting elected as an independent under STV, particularly when the big parties can spend millions of dollars in ridings that aren't strong for any particular political party. In BC, the ridings will be so huge, you'll probably not even know who the independents are until you see their names on the ballot!

The reason party discipline becomes so desperate might be because the representation is so well spread out that all votes are very close.

I point out that if 46% or something of us were represented as we voted, most of the damage the Liberals did with their huge majority might have been avoided.

I was simply trying to encourage Anne to think about it in a way less confusing to her. The math is of course available to all.

There's a different kind of transferable vote which, at first glance, seems plausible: the Coalition idea, in which Greens promise to vote N.D.P. in N.D.P. strongholds, in return for N.D.P. voting Green in ridings where the Greens look strong ...

We have secret ballots. We also have a Party leader who lies in his teeth on any given day.

Q. So what's to stop unscrupulous persons from ignoring the Coalition promise, once inside those secret enclosures?

Q. No court would convict a voter who exercised his basic right to vote as he chooses, surely?

Q. Besides, who would know?

It's not the math that bothers me, Bailey, it is the fact that each side on this debate accuses the other method of the same things, and gives long, complicated reasons why. I am suspicious of S.T.V. not because of the math, but because it seems really complicated in a lot of ways. I figure, if it was something that could work, it wouldn't be so complex that the average person can't understand it. I therefore refuse to vote either way on something I cannot understand.

I feel demoralized about this whole election anyway. The Liberals, Greens and N.D.P. are all headed toward corporate fascism, some more slowly than others. The N.D.P. is claiming it wants to be nicer to business. In the small community where I live business is getting away with murder due to a desparate, under-employed labour force. Professionals are informing women who turn up for interviews for receptionist jobs that they will be "independent contractors" ineligible for the protections of E.I. or Workers Compensation. The prospective job seeker is told, "Every small business here is doing it this way." (Indeed, they may have no choice if the ones that are can undercut them.)
Just today I talked to a woman who reported her employer for this and won her case. However, he turned around and reported her for Welfare fraud. She says she's not guilty, that she declared all her earnings. She is being put through the ringer by Human Resources, nonetheless. So, what will the effect of the N.D.P.'s new "business-friendly" policies be on marginalized workers? That employers will now be able to pull this kind of trick legally?

I think Anne's brother is on to something. Rather than debate the fine points (of which there is obviously no shortage) of the two, let's ask just one question:

What do the Liberals think about it? If they are in favor of STV (even marginally) I think that should set the tone for one's decision to support it or not.

A bit simplistic yes, but this issue cries out for a bit of simplicity, I think.

I feel demoralized about this whole election anyway. The Liberals, Greens and N.D.P. are all headed toward corporate fascism

Anne I feel your concern and have come to the following conclusion. I would love Carole to shout and rant also and justify my concerns but it won't happen and that’s okay. Just look at the media environment she is living in, why do you think the mainstream media was dogging her weeks ago regarding her platform. If she comes out hard and radical she will be tagged as a typical hard liner or extreme leftie, if she says she will reverse all the cuts she will be tagged tax and spend NDPer and everyone will be scared of the taxes and dept going up.
So Carole has no baggage and it makes the media crazy, the only one to focus on is Gordo, keep the focus on Gordo, Lets face it hard line NDP support can never vote for Gordo no matter how Carole acts, but she is attempting to be moderate and pull in some of those who were betrayed by the BC lIbs. I hope it works

Stuart, the N.D.P. had already started to turn to the Right in the name of being "moderate" when they were in before! They betrayed the poor as soon as the media attacked them for being "soft on Welfare". They were letting the media run the government. Now they are set to betray organized labour. During the Harcourt years the N.D.P. brought out a paper entitled "Working and Living" that claimed that "apprenticeships and collective agreements" were barriers to young people entering the workforce! This was the document upon which the regressive changes to Welfare legislation in B.C. Benefits were based. No one seemed to notice that skilled workers were also being bashed by the committee that produced this study. I don't recall the B.C. Fed saying anything against it. Now, the Liberals are trying to de-skill the workforce. They want apprenticeships based on taking an exam instead of hands-on experience (see latest I.B.E.W. bulletin) and they have decertified the trades.
Will the N.D.P. reverse this, given that they, too, seemed to be endorsing this kind of thing based on their aforementioned "Working and Living" study of the mid-nineties?

I don't believe Carole James is talking "moderate" simply to get in, I believe the suck-up to business interests will continue should her party win.

I forgot to mention that this "independent contractor" nonsense was going on under the N.D.P. too. That's when I was interviewed for one of these bullshit jobs.

Anne, I loved your variant Occam's Razor reasoning for opposing STV. My sentiments exactly!

I thought Tyee was going to send me notices when someone responded after me but they haven't. Sorry I'm late answering.

Dear Bud Carlos who wrote 2005 5 2? (Tyee has stupidly messed up the dates and just says "2 weeks ago".) No offence taken. Besides, I'm not thin-skinned. However, it's not correct that I was "spurned by the NDP". Never happened. I quit the NDP (after many years) in the mid-1990s when Ujjal refused to my face to support any electoral reform.

Dear Chris H (who wrote a little later), Rafe discussed it a lot on the radio (600 AM) and in speeches but I don't have any written references for you, sorry.

The low level of rationality and progressiveness of the STV opponents really disappoints me. I thought Tyee readers were better. I don't have time to answer all your silly falsehoods right now. You really disappoint me, as did Ujjal regarding pro-rep, regarding Sundancers at Gustafsen Lake, etc.

Korky Day,