Parties are basic to BC-STV

Parties are not awful. Parties are what give a parliamentary jurisdiction "responsible government," a government responsible to the legislature. And the BC-STV ballot resognizes this by grouping candidates by party, not mixing them up in an alphabetical list like the Irish ballot.

But modern voters want more choice. That's why many European countries have moved from closed-list to open-list. Parties can nominate whom their members like, but the voters can rank them as they choose. A party that nominates no spares risks voters ranking a newcomer from another party higher than the old warhorse.

Critics complain that BC-STV has a higher threshold than some PR systems, but then they complain there will be too many coalition governments. You can't have it both ways. The fact is that BC-STV is a moderately proportional system that will make MLAs and governments responsive without giving micro-parties power.

Has David Scheck really forgotten what the federal NDP has done to get results from minority parliaments over the past 57 years?

So stv hasn't made things fairer

in ireland, malta, or australia, but it's going to be different here? Isn't one popular definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result?

And I can't help wondering if two issues in particiliar would not pit stv riding constituents against each other: specifically, renters in the west end impacted by the liberal's gutting of the residential tenancy act against yaletown investor, free market supremacist types, and; small business owners impacted by the cambie line against wealthy investor types in shaughnessy and point grey, to give just two possible scenarios.

You see, renters in the west end like the fact that spencer herbert doesn't have to kow tow to yale town investors to get elected in the west end. He's responsible to the people that voted for him, who have a large number of interests in common, and therefore he doesn't have to please several masters to remain electable, as he would under stv. Then there's gregor robertson who stood up for cambie line small businesses; how could he have effectively done so, if he'd needed to please those in shaughnessy, who are ninety percent free market advocates...?

So, in summation, my argument is that because mlas under stv would have to please so many people to be electable, and that classs interests in adjacent ridings are often so diametrically opposed -think of the main street boundary, the working class predominantly on one side, the wealthy and well to do, once you cross cambie, on the other- it would be impossible to help renters and remain electable (unless you assume populations exactly balanced in numbers and class on both sides of the line, a breathtakingly unlikely scenario.) Thus, having to please everyone, stv mlas would end up pleasing almost no one, or simply have to render themselves ineffectual to get elected.

Or, as I believe has been raised before,

election results could be stacked along class lines by lumping the working class areas like the one around mainstreet with 4 well to do ridings on the other side of cambie. This would ensure that virtually everyone in the mainstreet riding would have to vote 100% for a progressive mla to elect him, another highly unlikely scenario.

The same trick could be accomplished by pitting yaletown, and false creek and shaughnessy against the west end. Stv more more democratic? -stv infinitely tweakable in favour of the upper class! Remember gerrymandering? Under stv, we could see super gerry mandering...unless you think once stv gets in, gordon gibson, bruce hallsor, and campbell, if reelected, are suddenly going to overwhelmed by the democratic spirit, tears coming to their eyes, as they pledge to implement stv fairly...

variations in district magnitude

David Schreck writes:
"If STV passes, it might not withstand a Charter of Rights challenge on its inherent inequality."

What ludicrous scaremongering. There's been absolutely no opinion published anywhere, by any political science, lawyer, or judicial expert, which even suggests that this is on the table. Nobody has ever breathed a word about challenging STV in the courts.

Nor, indeed, is there any legal precedent from anywhere else in the world. STV has been used in at least half-a-dozen countries, *including Canada*, and has never been challenged on legal grounds.

In any case, the variations in district magnitude are not as extreme as Schreck is forever making out: fully three-quarters of all the MLAs come either from 4-seat districts or 5-seat districts. There is really not that much different between campaigning in, being elected in, or representing a 4-seat or a 5-seat district.

Only 13 MLAs will represent larger districts -- a single 6-seater and a single 7-seater. Only 11 MLAs will represent unusually small districts.

Thus, in the worst-case scenario, if the courts objected to unequal district magnitudes, they would have a very easy remedy, to require all district magnitudes to be equal. This would affect very few MLAs and wouldn't change much for the voters. They obviously wouldn't need to throw out the entire system!

And why would they do that anyway? First-past-the-post, the system Schreck prefers, operated for most of BC's history with unequal-sized districts. For a long time, Vancouver and Victoria had 5-seat and 6-seat districts, while much of the province had single-seat districts. Two-seat and three-seat districts operated alongside single-seat districts into the 1980s. Nobody ever took this to court, least of all David Schreck.

Finally, the reason that 2-seat and 3-seat districts are built into BC-STV is to provide extra protection for remote areas in the North and Interior. The courts, both in BC and other provinces, have along history of approving such accommodation, setting only reasonable limits on its use.

The main thing is that STV is Proportional Representation

For people who find it hard to understand how a party with less than 10% support can win any seats in an STV system that appears to demand that a party win around 20% support in a typical five seat riding think about this: each voter in such a riding gets five votes. An individual voter can vote for more than one party.

Five members elected means five votes from each voter would be counted. The choice facing each voter wouldn't be the black or white choice facing us today: someone who supported either the NDP or the Liberals but wanted to see a Green finally get elected could, for example, put 4 Liberals at the top of their list, followed by one Green.

The fact is, STV delivers proportional results. Just look at Ireland. Greens there, with less than 5% support, get seats. A party with 10% support gets roughly that percentage of seats.

If you think it is a problem that the composition of the Legislature does not reflect the percentage of votes each political party got, you should support STV.

If you believe the tendency of First Past the Post to produce a majority government that has the power to implement its vision regardless of whether any party won a majority of the votes is a good thing then you want to oppose STV.

The rest of it is details.

All other proportional systems involve people voting for parties, and the parties, to a greater or lesser extent, pick the representatives from their lists. Under STV, voters directly elect representatives. No one, under STV, wins a seat because party bosses in some back room put their name high on a list.

But STV would hand the balance of power to the Greens. These are the clowns who, last election, allowed their leader to badmouth STV as if it were the worst thing that had ever been proposed. These are the same idiots who now tell you that they supported STV last time, and they are the exact same morons who now, finally, see that STV is their ticket to electing the first Green M.L.A.s and Cabinet Ministers ever seen in Canada.

Imagine what they could do as the holders of 5% of the seats in the Legislature as coalition partners in government. It sounds like a recipe for chaos, for the first years at least, as people work out exactly how much influence a minor member of a coalition government should get.

STV would have as many or more warts than the current system, have no doubts about that. The big thing is that it will tend to deliver a proportional result.

BC-STV is the way to go

The "giant" ridings Mr. Schreck talks about are not much bigger than our federal ridings, which are serviced by only one MP. In fact, in the North, the ridings are smaller than the federal ridings, but they have 2 or 3 MLAs and the quality of representation will improve.

I want more choice as a voter. I want representatives who are more accountable to their constituencies than to party discipline. I want to be able to vote honestly and not strategically. The polarized ideology we are governed under now is a total mess and first-past-the-post is an antiquated system that puts all the power into the premier's office.

BC-STV was designed for use in BC by a group of non-partisan citizens who studied electoral reform for 11 months and then listened to BC citizens about what they wanted.

I'm voting for BC-STV on May 12.

The Chocolate Chip, Orea and Fudge Cookie Analogy on STV

I heard the 'cookies' anaolgy on CBC Radio this morning and it did a brilliant job explaining why single transferable vote (I am SICK of the acronym!) is more fair then first political hack past the post.

I want politicians to have to think about the broader good rather than some narrow interests!

And MLAs should not need a 6 figure salary and gold plated pension (for usually limited years of service) to work for the broader good of BC!

Frustrating Debate

As a supporter of MMP, I'm frustrated by the frame of this debate. If only BC voters were trusted to make the overall decision for themselves, and, like New Zealand, get the chance to vote on our current system AND be able to choose from a number of alternatives. The artificial either-or nature of the current discussions has turned off a lot of people who are genuinely interested in electoral reform, but find the two choices wanting. The educational value of these debates feels so wasted. Time for a write-in campaign: place and choose MMP on the referendum ballot!

STV Is More Proportional than FPTP, but not MMP

One of the more frustrating elements about our current debate is the argument that STV = proportional representation. Not really. It is a preferential balloting system that allows a winning candidate to claim significant support, though usually with second and third preferences added to the initial first preference. This gives the candidate a somewhat contrived popular mandate. But let’s be clear: this is about greater inclusiveness [More people backed a winner!], not true proportionality. On scales of proportionality, analyses have shown that STV is somewhat more proportional than FPTP, but much less than MMP or pure PR schemes. True proportionality means voters cast a party preference, and a directly proportional number of candidates are thus chosen from a descending party list. 35% of party support = 35% of the seats, for example. That's proportionality. STV gives a facsimile of it, but does not use a percentage of votes to determine a percentage of seats. Is it better than FPTP? Sure... but that's not saying much.

List Sytems Can Improve Party Politics, not Debase Them

One final point: the power of parties does not change under STV compared to FPTP. Leaders still have the power to disallow candidates, and local riding associations (which might be much bigger and less responsive, depending on how parties respond to STV) will still need to be mindful of head office rules.

A PR system, like MMP, creates a key political artifact: the party list. If the list - from which candidates are chosen in a proportional, descending manner - has a skewed distribution of gender, region, class, etc., and too many party hacks from the largest city, the party risks intense condemnation during an election. If it's done right, creating the list can reinvigorate party activism, and make the party more than a part-time electoral machine. Even STV supporters admit this point.

So why would party control be better in STV?

STV and Proportionality

Grapeman, check out http://stv.ca/proportionality. STV in practice has a discrepancy of about 3% between vote share and seat share, essentially equal to Germany - FPTP in BC has a 20% discrepancy. MMP and other systems don't have perfect proportionality because they have a threshold - parties often need 5% or so of the vote to win seats. BC voters don't want an Israeli-type system where 1% of the vote wins you a seat. STV is highly proportional, but you can safely vote for a tiny party and still have your vote count in subsequent stages of the count. In practice, there's little difference in the proportionality of the outcome, but voters have more say with STV over which candidates get elected.

How Many Candidates to Run

David says that Greens will probably only run one candidate. That may be true in the 2-4 seat districts, but they'll likely run two in the larger ones. The rule of thumb for the larger parties is to run at least one more candidate than the number of seats available. In Ireland, there's an average of 2 candidates per seat available, so there's plenty of voter choice.

More importantly, voters have a much greater chance of seeing their favourite candidate elected. If the Greens only run one candidate, voters can still decide whether they support that candidate enough to elect them. Besides, with FPTP, the Greens only run one unelectable candidate - surely it's better for them to run an electable one!

In addition, we can create voting legislation that encourages more candidates. For example, if we implemented by-elections using the recounting method (in which the original ballots are recounted ignoring the departing MLA), then each party will want at least one extra candidate so that they can potentially win a by-election seat.

Most Political Scientists in Favour of BC-STV

I agree with Bison - there's been no suggestion that STV is open to legal challenge (a bit hard since it has been used before in Canadian cities).

In contrast, a noted constitutional expert, Prof. Patrick Boyer, has argued that the 60% threshold in the referendum is open to legal challenge (http://www.commonground.ca/iss/0507168/cg168_stv.shtml): "The democratic right of British Columbians to vote in referendums is granted by statute enacted by the legislature in accordance with the constitution of the province. Once that right is granted by law, even though it is not one of the explicitly enumerated democratic rights in the Charter, it does exist as a right that can only be subject to “such reasonable limits as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” To argue otherwise is to change the rule about changing the rules. A court ruling in response to a citizen-based challenge to the double 60 rule is not the next thing Premier Campbell would hope to see, but the prospect is not unimaginable."

BTW, virtually all BC's political scientists are in favour of BC-STV - check out http://stv.ca/endorsements where over 60 political scientists, most from BC, have endorsed BC-STV.

Thanks for your points,

Thanks for your points, Tony.

... STV in practice has a discrepancy of about 3% between vote share and seat share, essentially equal to Germany - FPTP in BC has a 20% discrepancy....

I agree, which is why I dislike FPTP so much... and prefer MMP!

... MMP and other systems don't have perfect proportionality because they have a threshold - parties often need 5% or so of the vote to win seats. BC voters don't want an Israeli-type system where 1% of the vote wins you a seat....

Again, I agree, but that's not because MMP is disproportional, but because countries choose to make them so (e.g. Germany). Thresholds are artificial ways of distorting list proportionality.

... STV is highly proportional...voters have more say with STV over which candidates get elected....

Perhaps... IF people choose to rank a lot more candidates than their party preference. That's how STV systems get the appearance of proportionality. But it's not always so. In Malta few people rank candidates outside of their party. It remains a 2 party system. In Australia’s senate election, where you can vote one of two ways, most voters choose a party from a list of parties rather than rank individual candidates using STV. And to the extent that we see party bloc voting, there will be little difference from our current system.

Proportionality Not Dependent on Cross-Party Voting

Hi Grapeman - I don't think BC voters would accept any form of PR without thresholds - there's too much concern over micro-parties winning seats. I grant you that it's arguable whether or not that's a good thing, but MMP as it would be likely to be implemented in BC if it were ever the system of choice would have a threshold of 5% or so, so in terms of proportionality it would be equivalent to STV. If near-perfect proportionality is your goal, the alternative that's on the ballot (FPTP) is 6 times worse than either STV or MMP.

If you really want MMP, I think you've got a better shot at it by adopting STV now, which establishes the principle of voter-led reform; there will be a formal review process after 3 elections where the case can be made that MMP would be even better (though I just read that there's a movement in Germany now to adopt STV to give voters more control over which candidates get elected than their MMP system currently offers).

BTW, proportionality under STV doesn't depend on cross-party transfers - if voters restrict themselves to a single party, as happens in Malta, then there's still only a 2-3% discrepancy (see aforementioned link). Cross-party transfers sometimes help decide the last seat in a district - when the third to last candidate standing is eliminated, their supporters' preferences often determine the choice between the two remaining candidates, and these can often be candidates from different parties.

STV Proportionality

STV remains a preferential ballot system first and foremost. It's not designed primarily, unlike list systems, as a proportional system, no matter how it's being sold in BC. The primary goal for STV is for mandate legitimacy: a successful candidate can say he or she has wide support (50% +1 in a single member riding, and between 12.5% and 33% in BC's proposed system). But is this genuine support? Are the second, third, and fourth preferences that are often used to "top up" a candidate equal to the initial votes? Or are they just fractional? If they aren't equal, and I don't see how they can be, then the mandate is somewhat contrived. Now, I haven't seen the methodology on all of these cross-studies of degree of proportionality, but if the studies don't allow for that variable support, the comparisons really aren't valid.

BTW, I really don't want to wait for 3 elections! The power of the party (and esp. party leadership) that we see in FPTP will remain in STV, and I don't want that to keep going. It's been corrosive for too long.

BC-STV for Healthy, Prosperous and Sustainable Communities

BC-STV for Healthy, Prosperous and Sustainable Communities

There can be no doubt that the approach to electoral reform as
laid down by the current government of BC has been rigorous,
equitable, intelligent and thorough. The mixed member
proportional option was carefully considered by the Citizens
Assembly, and contrary to the opinions of several hundreds of
people writing in and the constant advocacy of the Green Party of
BC, the MMP option was voted upon and dropped from consideration.

Personally, I very strongly supported MMP and, along with my
fellow Greens in BC went through a difficult transition to
accept BC-STV as the best remaining alternative to first
past the post. Simply stated, the citizens of the
assembly voted for less political party power in exchange for a more
detailed counting system. Everything involves a trade-off,
and In this case, a net benefit.

"Fragmentation", "Perpetual Minorities", "Complex", "Less Access",
- these descriptors are not based in fact. What is true and based upon fact, is that BC-STV will provide a multi-dimensional perspective in the BC Legislature. It will no longer be
the capitalists against the social democrats against the environmentalists against the capitalists, ad nauseum. On every single ballot the citizen will be able to engage the rich diversity of political thought, and to create, by voting his/her preferences, a unique outcome. The citizen can choose the party, the candidate and mix and match these combinations to provide the most powerful vote conceivable. The message this sends to
candidates and their affiliated parties is -

"You Are Here To Serve!
Fail to serve the entire population of the Electoral District,
and "out you go", regardless that you may have been following
the "party line".

Like all technologies, ideologies and philosophies the time of
"first past the post" has reached the end of its cycle.
Uni-dimensional politics is simply no longer able to address the
myriad of multi-dimensional issues that we face in our economic,
social and environmental lives. We now need the best of
all our ideas and we need those ideas to compete and to
complement in the creation of:

Healthy, Prosperous and Sustainable Communities.

This is one crucial step on the path ahead.

> > And for even more fun, try out your STV vote here:
> > http://www.trystv.ca/

John Hague,

"Creative Conflict Services, BC" ::
"NATURE, PEOPLE, BUSINESS, In Harmony"
1379 Sea Lovers Lane, Gabriola Island, BC,
V0R 1X5, 250-247-7675

Shoni Field's fantasy

Shoni field lives in a world of political junkies who will carefully scrutinise every candidate in their constituency. An STV ballot will typically contain twenty or thirty names. The average person, presented with this, will just vote the party line. Mediocre candidates, party hacks, are more likely to be elected than under FPTP.

party insiders or 160 regular, randomly picked people

Variations on pro-rep, such as BC-STV, are sweeping the world. It's amazing how supposedly upstanding party insiders can be so short-sighted. Good thing we had the Citizens' Assembly to give us the straight, grassroots assessment.

Proportionality Again

Hi Grapeman - I don't see how lower preferences are at all contrived. If you cast a party vote under MMP, you have no control over where your vote goes. You're in effect saying "I don't care who you put in - just make sure they wear this party label." With STV, your ballot says "I like this member of party X most, but if other voters don't like this candidate very much, give my vote to this other candidate." You can rank all the candidates from your preferred party and no-one else, and you can even do it blind (ie, without knowing anything about any of them) if you simply want to vote for the party. The point is that the voter makes this decision, not the party leadership. I therefore don't see why you see putting control over list position in the hands of the party leadership under MMP as a means of reducing party control - I see the exact opposite, which is in large part why Ontarians rejected MMP.

Re: the review after three elections - just as with our current system, there's nothing that says that the government of the day can't review the system earlier. Voting laws are matters of simple legislation and can be revised at any time. If voters turn down STV, it will be very hard to get any change at all (what process will parties use? Both the Libs and the NDP have affirmed the primacy of a citizen-centred process, but I don't hear anyone talking about reconvening the assembly). In contrast, if we affirm that the voting system can be changed, it is to my mind more conceivable that a movement to modify the details of the voting system or to address related issues (eg, financing, a province-wide 'layer' to add micro-party proportionality, etc) could be more warmly received than if we hadn't made a change at all - I suspect that the Liberals, in particular, will be tired of this issue and will do everything they can to make it go away. Turning down electoral reform is not a way to turn up the pressure on this front.

Hi Tony, ...I don't see how

Hi Tony,

...I don't see how lower preferences are at all contrived...

If a candidate says he has a mandate, but half of his or her votes were not from the first round, that's contrived. It makes people feel we've gone from a plurality to a majority (a major goal for preferential balloting), but we really haven't. As someone else has said, it's like betting on all the horses and declaring yourself a winner.

... If you cast a party vote under MMP, you have no control over where your vote goes. You're in effect saying "I don't care who you put in - just make sure they wear this party label." With STV, your ballot says "I like this member of party X most, but if other voters don't like this candidate very much, give my vote to this other candidate." ...

Nice in theory, but I think this is highly unlikely. As in Australia's Senate election, the preference ballot was too onerous. Nobody knew who most of the candidates were (except wealthy and media-savvy types). So they allowed you to vote just for just the party (above the line), which is now preferred by most voters.

...The point is that the voter makes this decision, not the party leadership. I therefore don't see why you see putting control over list position in the hands of the party leadership under MMP as a means of reducing party control - I see the exact opposite, which is in large part why Ontarians rejected MMP...

My reading of Ontario is that corporations and the corporate media were deathly afraid of MMP. The list portion makes the party very vulnerable. Since parties and party leadership will always be with us, and STV is no exception, a list can expose a party for what it believes (or doesn't). It's not perfect, but it's better than STV, where the key problem of party leadership remains untouched. STV really has nothing to say about it.

As to the future, you're more optimistic than I am. Constitutional fatigue has killed constitutional reform in this country. Most people say good riddance. Likewise, I fear electoral reform will exhaust people to the point of saying, "This one didn't work, so why should we try another one?" No one knows, of course, but I see the glass half-empty. In my mind, most STV supporters see the glass 1/3 full.

Nicely Argued grapeman

The problem with STV, and why it's not going to win, was the self-appointed nature of the so-called Citizens' Assembly hot house that came up with it.

It would have died on the vine - and perhaps been replaced by a real choice between MMP and FPTP - if the self-appointed saviors of the province hadn't taken themselves and their progeny so seriously.

That said, I'll vote YES because bad as it is, STV is better than FPTP but anyone who doesn't recognize that the concept of the multiple-member riding is going to be gamed by special interest groups and traditional political parties is dreaming in Technicolor.

In any case, it won't reach the 60% threshold and maybe, finally, you members of the CA cult can get on with your lives!

Shreck writes:

"The power governments have with parliamentary democracy is what enables political parties to make campaign promises and deliver on them or be held accountable rather than blaming a paralyzed Congress as happens in the United States."

If only governments delivered on their campaign promises -- and also let people know what they intend to do! The Liberals ignore their platform when convenient (e.g. BC Rail sale, gambling expansion). Our premier also makes big policy shifts without notice or any chance for party, let alone public, approval (e.g. carbon tax).

Campbell isn't alone in this. Leaders of federal as well as provincial governments have increasingly come to dictate all sorts of policies -- even the things their ministers can say or people they can talk to!! Flip-flops become the order of the day. Accountability declines. Elections increasingly concern the character of the leader rather than the policies or competence of the party. Bench strength deteriorates. It is no surprise that many voters refuse to spend time voting for "liars and incompetents."

STV can help ameliorate this situation. In the BC context, STV is likely to produce minority governments. Policy changes will therefore have to be made in public -- not behind the door of the premiers office -- and even members of the major party will have somewhat more ability to speak their minds without being rusticated.

In a nutshell, STV is almost certain to reduce the power of the premier relative to that of other elected members (including members of the premiers own party).

I can see "political operatives" don't like that outcome. But democrats will -- I hope!!

But MMP is not on the

But MMP is not on the ballot. Why not vote for STV instead of the same old same old?
------------

Yes but if STV was voted down again, would it not force them to offer another alternative like MMP? I think STV should squeak by this time but if it does not are we going to vote on STV again in 4 years or something else?

Plus in a two party province, is STV going to work? Sure we have the Greens but they poll 10-15% between elections and up to the election but come election day are lucky to get half their polling numbers.

Do people want fringe parties with 2-5 seats holding us 'hostage' threatening to bring the government down on a regular basis? I don't mind voting every year or two but many others do not.

I really do not think STV is the way to go here, so I will be voting No again. On the off chance it does fail, maybe they will offer us other alternatives to vote on...

Like why other than Ireland and Malta and a few municipalities and the Australian Senate no one else's uses it and if you view the results you will see parties with less popular vote under STV can still get more seats than parties with more popular vote.

If you Go here and scroll down a bit you will see the Irish results from 2007 with STV... A party with 2.73% of vote gets 2 seats, fair enough but how does a party with 4.69% of the vote get 6 seats while a party with 6.94% only get 4 seats??? It does not seem fair to me. I see parties on that list with 10% of vote getting 12% of seats, 27% of vote getting 31% of the seats and 41.56% getting 46.6% of the seats....seems odd with weird math to me. Plus they only had a 67% turnout.

I want something simple. The percentage you get on election night is the amount of seats you get in the Legislature.

MMP

"The percentage you get on election night is the amount of seats you get in the Legislature."

STV is close enough to proportional that you won't see a repeat of 2001.

And yes MMP would be moreso but for a lot of us that's not the most important thing.

Although I'm for electoral reform I would oppose MMP just like the people of Ontario and PEI did, because it exacerbates the real problems we have which is party discipline and CEO type control of government by the premier.

With STV, the people are in charge of who gets elected, with MMP they aren't, the party is because they determine who's on the list.

Under STV I can vote NDP while still opposing Gregor Robertson. Under MMP all I can do is vote NDP.

STV Now

Dan, voting down STV won't force them to put MMP on the next ballot. People are going to get tired of electoral reform and tune it out.

And say, they DO put MMP on the next ballot - then what? MMP was thumped in Ontario and PEI - what makes you think it would do better here? Go and read the things the anti-MMPers were saying in Ontario. They sound almost identical to what the anti-STVers are saying here. Too complicated. Gives parties too much power. We want electoral reform but this is the wrong way to go. Let's wait and vote on something different next time.

I'm sick and tired of the bullshit. A lot of the people against STV are insiders who want to protect their privilege.

If you believe in proportional representation, it's on the ballot and it's called BC-STV.

I think a lot of people are

I think a lot of people are against STV because it's a pale image of MMP or total PR. They dislike insider privilege as much as the STV crowd, and believe that STV merely perpetuates insider privilege.

In STV, riding associations (which could potentially be huge and more distant from front line party members) will still need to be mindful of party discipline and the leader's ability to cancel candidates. STV doesn't change that, and certainly doesn't have a party list that's exposed as a part of the election.

The image of picking and choosing all these different candidates seems nice, until you see a 20 to 40 person ballot in the biggest ridings. Municipal ballots are bad enough... and we know how poor attendance there has become.

Popocracy

Friend of mine has a different model for democracy, which he calls Popocracy (http://popocracy.wordpress.com). Just randomly select citizens and put them in power. How could it be worse? It might even be better. I would add, put them in power for random and irregularly staged periods, so that the butcher may get in for three years while the elementary school teacher gets only six months and the dentist eighteen months. Popocracy: let us all get a crack at running things. After all, its the civil service who keep it going, between and during these elections.

MMP holdouts need to do homework

If that's really what MMP holdouts think, they need to do some homework.

STV doesn't need an exposed party list, you actually vote for candidates directly. Party discipline exists but it's weaker than in MMP and much weaker than party list. With STV, independents can get elected. The party can't crack the whip too hard because the candidates can run as independents.

I live in the Victoria area and so will have 7 MLA's. I'm told by the experts (like Dr. Dennis Pilon) to expect about 20 candidates. They will be sorted by political party so if you like voting the party line, it's no issue.

If you believe in proportional representation, it's on the ballot. Vote for BC-STV.

"Party discipline exists but

"Party discipline exists but it's weaker than in MMP and much weaker than party list. With STV, independents can get elected. The party can't crack the whip too hard because the candidates can run as independents."

With larger ridings, the ability to get yourself known - esp. outside your particular community - might make it more imperative to rely on party resources. In this scenario, it would be even less likely that a independent would win. Indeed, I don't see any evidence from other jurisdictions that there are more independents in STV than in FPTP.

"I live in the Victoria area and so will have 7 MLA's. I'm told by the experts (like Dr. Dennis Pilon) to expect about 20 candidates. They will be sorted by political party so if you like voting the party line, it's no issue."

The ballot numbers remain to be seen, but I think 20 is a little low for a 7 member riding unless the Greens take a chance with just a few candidates. In any case, to the extent that people are obliged to vote the party line, then not much will change from our current situation. STV becomes most interesting when people make many preference rankings outside of their main party choice. If citizens stick to one party (as I fear, because they will find it hard to know individual candidates) then we will not witness dramatically different electoral results.

STV Rules

In Ireland, there were 5 indepedents in the last election and 13 independents in 2002. How many do we have in BC?

It's a pity that more people didn't take in the lectures at UVIC. They explained this very well. Parties will tend to run the number of seats they think they'll win plus 1 or 2. So in Victoria, we'd likely see 5-6 NDP, 4-5 Liberal, 2-3 Green and a bunch of hopefuls.

The reason for this is purely selfish. Running a bunch of candidates where you can't win leaves you at risk of having your votes transferred among losers.

Nobody is "obliged" to vote the party line but many will. But if you would really like to support a candidate in a small party that can't win without wasting your vote, you can.

Even if most people do vote the party line, the results will still be more proportional. It's just the way STV works.

strategic voting

See Doug Saunders' "Kenny urges voting for minor parties; Strategy aims to prevent electorate's second and third choices from carrying Ahern to victory." Globe and Mail BC edition May 24, 2007 p. A12

proportionality

Looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_general_election,_2007#Result,
Dan the Socialist sees a discrepancy between a party's vote% and seat%, and writes:
"I see parties on that list with 10% of vote getting 12% of seats, 27% of vote getting 31% of the seats and 41.56% getting 46.6% of the seats...."

Dan, have you compared that to the German MMP results? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_2005#Vote

You will also see that each party with seats has a seat% slightly higher than their vote%: e.g. SPD 34.2% of the vote, 36.2% of the seats. This is because there are always some votes cast for minor parties which elect nobody. It happens under MMP, STV and all other forms of proportional representation.

It is simply not possible to do what you want, Dan -- "The percentage you get on election night is the amount of seats you get in the Legislature." But STV comes close.

singleness

Grapeman writes:
"STV remains a preferential ballot system first and foremost. It's not designed primarily, unlike list systems, as a proportional system, no matter how it's being sold in BC."

No, that's where you are wrong. The "first and foremost" feature of STV is that each voter has only a *single* vote. The transferability of that vote is a secondary feature.

Of all the other electoral systems (FPTP, two-round voting, alternative vote, list PR...) the one which STV most resembles is SNTV, the single NON-transferable vote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_non-transferable_vote#Proportional_representation

In fact, STV can best be thought of as SNTV with the guesswork removed. (Having to guess how the vote will turn out is a *major* flaw in sNtv, but it is completely fixed in STV.)

The proportionality of STV derives from the fact that the electorate is broken up into equal-sized "quotas", each backing one successful candidate. It doesn't come from the transfers or the higher-order preferences. These are just a way of managing the division into quotas.

And dividing the electorate up into proportional quotas is *exactly* what STV was, and is, designed to do.

We're Missing the Point

Although the Citizen's Assembly recommended the STV system be tried for three elections, the government has made no commitment that they will consider this option. The STV won't solve our electoral system problems but the government has made no mention that they will continue to try to make it right after this referendum.

As the Liberals gain nothing by switching to STV, should they win this election, they will probably drop the topic all together. The issue is not whether or not you agree with the STV but do you want change.

No electoral system is perfect

No electoral system will fix all the problems. STV is only a first step.

But STV will help us get control over our government so that the problems can be fixed.

I am with these posters:

"I'm sick and tired of the bullshit. A lot of the people against STV are insiders who want to protect their privilege. " (reefermadness)

Yeah Bob Pleckas (sp) would probably no longer be able to comment on politics because its too fn'hard' for him to understand!

"In a nutshell, STV is almost certain to reduce the power of the premier relative to that of other elected members (including members of the premiers own party). "

I can see "political operatives" don't like that outcome" (frank2) eh Kinsella!

A Single Vote?

"No, that's where you are wrong. The "first and foremost" feature of STV is that each voter has only a *single* vote. The transferability of that vote is a secondary feature."

We'll have to agree to disagree then! It certainly IS a single ballot from a single voter (ie. not runoff ballots), but when you list many preferences, and your ballot can be counted many times (at a fractional value if you back a first-round winner, at full value if you support a first-round, bottom candidate) it's not really a single vote.

"... These are just a way of managing the division into quotas."

If I understand your argument, then quotas are managed by drawing on variable levels of preferential support, which are intrinsic to the concept of proportionality in a preferential system. It still is unclear how that matches the one-for-one proportionality of a direct list system.

A Single Vote!

grapeman, here's what I mean by "a single vote".

If you vote in the election for the Vancouver City Council, there are ten positions to be filled, and you are given 10 votes.

If you vote in the STV election for Vancouver East, there are five positions to be filled, and you are given *one* vote. You aren't given five votes. If you were, then the results would be radically different!

In this sense, the voters under STV have *a single vote*. Meaning, not multiple votes. Is that any clearer?

Voters power to decide who represents them

If a party decides to field less than a full slate of candidates, and if voters vote for parties, voter choice becomes the choice of whatever slate is offered.
If a party runs as many candidates as seats available, and voters vote for parties, voter choice is still the choice of whatever slate is offered.
Where is the power to voters? Just ranking?
Only if there would be in the running many more candidates than seats would there be actual choosing. And this involves long ballots.
STV proponents have promised both choice and manageable ballots. So which is it?

yes there is strategic voting with STV

From the Globe and Mail May 24/07

Here is electioneering, Irish-style: Opposition leader Enda Kenny, in a neck-and-neck race with Prime Minister Bertie Ahern in today's national election, storming across the country yesterday urging voters to mark their ballots for two small parties that have no chance of winning.
In the strange calculus of Irish politics, Mr. Kenny's advisers realized that votes for minor parties, on Ireland's complex proportional-representation ballot, can give his party a better chance of ending Mr. Ahern's 10-year reign at the height of Ireland's economic boom.
It means that the Irish will be glued to their TVs through the weekend as the computers work their way through the count. Instead of placing an X beside their favourite candidate, Irish voters can mark a number next to each candidate ranking them in order of preference. If their favourite is either elected or rejected, the excess votes are passed on to the next candidate on the list in each riding.
In Ireland, where the transferable vote is beloved by voters and bookmakers alike, it turns elections like today's into complex chess matches.
So, in his bid to replace Mr. Ahern, Mr. Kenny is urging voters to choose the small Green and Labour parties as their second and third choices on the lengthy Irish ballot. This could prevent Mr. Ahern's Fianna Fail party from scooping up the surplus votes - though it could also backfire and defeat Mr. Kenny's own MPs.
"We have an alliance with the Labour Party, and it is also clear that it is also the objective of the Green Party to remove Fianna Fail from office," Mr. Kenny told voters yesterday, and added, in a speech that could only be made in Ireland: "I will therefore be asking Fine Gael supporters to vote for Fine Gael and Labour and then to pass on their preferences to the Green Party."
The voting system, which has been used in Ireland since 1919 but hasn't caught on widely, can produce surprising results.
For one thing, it pits MPs from the same party against each other. Under the Irish system, it is possible for a party to have three or more of its candidates on the ballot - parties can generally run as many candidates in a riding as they like. If a party fields too few candidates in a riding, their surplus votes could end up going to the opposition candidates.
But more often, the candidates end up competing against each other, often attacking one another's characters . . . .

Number of Names on Ballots

El, in Ireland, the major parties run a number of candidates equal to approximately 1.7-2 times the number of seats they expect to win (see Prof. Marsh's paper on Irish campaigning at http://tcd.ie/Political_Science/Staff/Michael.Marsh/LagunaBeach.pdf - table 4). In practice, this mostly means running 2 candidates when they expect to win 1 seat or 3 candidates when they expect to win 2 seats (ie, one more than the number of seats they expect to win). Translating to BC, this means we'll likely see a number of candidates on the ballot equal to the number of seats available, plus 1 extra candidate for each major party (possibly including the Greens), plus any independents or other hopefuls. In a 6 seat riding, this would mean about a dozen or so candidates.

To my mind, this gives voters meaningful choice (a party's supporters determine which 2 of 3 or 3 of 4 of their preferred party's candidates win) and a manageable ballot size (a voter needs to learn about the 3 or 4 candidates from their preferred party, plus any others they're potentially interested in). I find this a very balanced and reasonable system.

Strategic Voting Very Different Under STV

El, strategic voting with our FPTP system means that you have to lie on your ballot to prevent the election of the person you like least.

In contrast, with the example you've shown above, all that's happening is that the Fine Gael leader is asking FG supporters to ensure that any unused portion of their ballot remaining after helping to elect FG goes to help potential coalition partners rather than their primary opponent, Fianna Fail. There's nothing dishonest about voting this way - it's simply a way of reminding voters that the full value of their vote is put to use in Ireland's voting system, rather than being tossed in the garbage the way it is with so many of our votes.

Party Politics

With the large number of candidates and the importance of electing he Premier, voting along party lines will be even more important.

At the STV information session at UVic one of the panel stated that we would be given "instructions" by the parties on how to vote so that they can ensure the right candidates get elected.

In Australia there is a system called above/below the line voting where voters select their preference order by checking a box and duplicating what a party wants. 96% of voters chose to vote exactly along party line in the last election.

This sounds like less choice rather than more.

Try It For Yourself

To see how STV works in practice in BC, visit http://trystv.ca - this is an online virtual election using real candidates in the real proposed STV districts.

To TooManyChoices - the Citizens' Assembly opted not to go for the Australian above-the-line voting because they thought that voters here would want the increased choice over specific candidates. The problem with the Australian system is not that it doesn't deliver proportional results (it does!), but that they have a rule designed to ensure that voters follow what the parties want rather than making up their own minds - that rule is that voters can either simply approve the party's preferred order (where central office's top picks are put at the top) or rank EVERY SINGLE ONE of the candidates. They don't offer the very sensible option that the Citizens' Assembly chose for us of allowing VOTERS to decide how many candidates to choose - 1, 2, 3 or whatever. The parties can try to 'instruct' us all they want, but with BC-STV, it's all up to the voters, and that's why there's more choice - both between parties and between different candidates of the same party. Evidence from Scotland shows that 90% or more of voters will see one of their top three choices elected, and virtually every voter will be represented by an MLA from their preferred party.

strategic voting

Tony,

". . . in his bid to replace Mr. Ahern, Mr. Kenny is urging voters to choose the small Green and Labour parties as their second and third choices on the lengthy Irish ballot."
Second and third.

Seats for women and minority members

If, under STV, parties ran more candidates than seats, parties might feel ok about running risky candidates.
But we're told that parties will limit the number of candidates they run. So what happens to risk?
Without the many-candidates-from-whom-to-choose option, how would STV improve the election chances of women and minorities? And how can we predict how parties, candidates and voters in BC will act?

For the wrap-up

For the last round, might the editors ask the STV proponent to answer question three (that one Northern resident likes STV is not much of a response)?
And would they ask her to correct the impression given by her response to question two? The consolation-prize feature of STV--“If your choice doesn't have enough votes to get elected, your ballot goes to help your next choice, so it's not wasted”--hardly covers the count. Proponents seem to be acknowledging that how STV works is tough to sell.
(And as to results - STV proponents have said that there would be choice AND that parties would field less than full slates of candidates and that ballots would be manageable; that local concerns would be represented AND that voters vote for parties; that party control would be lessened AND that political parties would remain strong. . . .)

Tony

Respectfully, you're asking voters to accept YOUR VERSION of how STV will work in BC.

In actual fact, no one knows how it will operate because it has never been used in this jurisdiction.

To suggest that anyone knows how parties will adapt to the system here when and if it passes is totally conjectural and hypothetical.

There is absolutely no reason to conclude that parties - or smaller groups of voters with peculiar and specific needs or prejudices - will not use STV and its idiosyncrasies to game the system in ways that have been not even been imagined.

The suggestion that all will be sweetness and light, on the basis of the assurances of the Citizen's Assembly's proselytizing is vaguely religious in its fervor.

Like religion, it would appear a lot of citizens are NOT prepared to take your assurances on faith....