Opinion

A Tyee Series

To STV or Not STV? Round Four

Will it create instability? Will it elect more women and minorities?

By Shoni Field and David Schreck, 7 May 2009, TheTyee.ca

STV graphic

Text size:

Rate this:

Login/Register

Also in this series:
BC-STV: The Debate

[Editor's note:This is round four of The Tyee's Great How-We-Elect Debate between David Schreck of NoSTV and Shoni Field of BC-STV. You'll find previous rounds' questions posed and debated here. And an explanation of STV here.]

QUESTION SEVEN: Won't the proposed BC-STV system lead to a perpetual series of unstable minority governments?

Shoni Field, who is for STV, answers:

Let's take a look at the evidence. If we had an unstable government you would expect more elections. So how does the history of elections in B.C. compare to Ireland, which has used the Single Transferable Vote for almost 90 years.

Since 1949 B.C. has held seventeen elections (not including the one on May 12). In the same period Ireland has had exactly the same number of elections, seventeen.

Not much sign of unstable governments there. Nor in Malta with fifteen elections in the last 60 years. Nor in Australia where the states using STV have fixed term elections.

What about proportional systems over all? Don't they have unstable minority governments? Nope. A few election counts: Germany (16), Sweden (18), Norway (15).

The evidence just doesn’t support the premise.

What about Canada?

We have a winner. Since 1949 Canada has held 20 elections -- of which nine have resulted in minority governments!

Understandable that we should be so concerned about unstable minority governments, given that we've had such a wealth of experience of them.

But Canada feels rightly proud of the achievements of some of these minority governments. Perhaps the problem isn't so much the minority, but the instability.

This is where we must be careful not to project our experience with First-Past-the-Post systems onto an entirely different electoral system. The seventeen elections that took place in Ireland since 1949 resulted in eleven majority (one or two party) and six minority governments. However, unlike First-Past-the-Post, minority governments in an STV environment are quite stable -- without the incentives offered by a distorted system, political parties don't rush back to the polls at the first sign of opinion swinging in their favour.

However, the Citizens' Assembly felt that longevity alone wasn't an adequate definition of stability. Our own system usually produces artificial majorities (distorting 40% of the votes into 60% of the seats), which certainly create policy instability. Attracting 40% of the voters requires fewer efforts at consensus than those required to attract 50% -- the result is polarized policy-making, seesaw governments and partisan posturing. British Columbians told the Assembly that they were extremely troubled by the policy instability of our current system.

With BC-STV our governments will have similar longevity but will generally represent 50% plus of voters and are more likely to create consensus based, enduring legislation, create a better investment, business and labour climate, not to mention greater stability for social programs.

David Schreck, who is against STV, answers:

Look up "unstable coalition government" online and you will find Ireland under the Single Transferable Vote is one of the prime examples.

Using STV, Ireland has had only 2 majority governments since 1981. After just 2 years, Ireland's current coalition, formed after its May 2007 vote, is polling at record lows and is in danger of collapsing.

Canada with a minority federal government is "enjoying" much the same instability. The issue is whether one voting system or another is more likely to produce unstable minority or coalition governments.

According to fact sheet 13 published by the Citizens' Assembly, STV is more likely to produce coalition governments. The question and answer section on the Assembly's website said: "The Assembly believes that minority and coalition governments can in practice be a strength, because they encourage MLAs to work together."

We can all see how Canada's current Parliament fails to work together, and we can see how unhappy Canadians were when the possibility of a coalition government emerged. Whoever writes the material for STV proponents doesn't seem to want reality to get in the way of sweet dreams. To the extent that coalition governments are more likely with STV, they place a disproportionate amount of power in the hands of small parties that can extract a price for propping up a government.

One of the questions in Ireland these days is what price the Greens will extract to keep Fianna Fail in power. Voters are not pleased when they see political parties maneuvering behind the scenes to cut coalition deals and bargaining to keep politicians in power.

There are many reasons to oppose STV: local representation is reduced with large electoral areas, there is less MLA accountability and STV's complex counting system doesn't allow voters to control what fraction of their vote goes to each of their preferences.

The increased likelihood of minority or coalition governments is likely another reason to vote no for many voters.

Our federal minority governments are what most of us have to reference when thinking about what STV might be more likely to produce. It is hard to find many who would want future B.C. legislatures and governments to be like what we now see in Ottawa under Stephen Harper and the Conservative minority.

QUESTION EIGHT: Doesn’t the current First-Past-the-Post system work against minority and women candidates?

David Schreck, who is against STV, answers:

The Single Transferable Vote would hurt -- not help -- the chances of women being elected in British Columbia as Members of the Legislative Assembly if it were passed in the May 12 referendum.

Vancouver city councilor Andrea Reimer and former provincial NDP cabinet minister Anne Edwards say that decades of experience in the two countries which use STV as their national electoral system demonstrate the failings of STV for women.

"In Ireland's 2007 STV election just 13.3% of those elected to the Dail, their parliament, were women -- and that was an all-time high," said Reimer, a Vision Vancouver councilor and former Green Party Vancouver School Board trustee. "And in Malta under STV just 9.2% of elected were women in 2003 -- these are very poor results."

Edwards, an NDP cabinet minister from 1991 to 1996 and author of the book Seeking Balance: Conversations with B.C. Women in Politics, says it is frustrating hearing STV proponents wrongly claiming that STV will elect more women.

"We have to do a much better job of electing women but the facts are the facts -- under STV the number of women elected has been simply appalling," Edwards said. "Under our current First-Past-the-Post system in B.C. we have elected between 22% and 27% women MLAs since 1991 -- not good enough, but STV would be a giant step backwards."

A report on the Australian's Senate website states: "Australia was one of the first countries in the world to give full political rights to women, but was one of the last western countries to elect women to its national Parliament."

Reimer noted that: "Supporters of STV will point to the Australian senate as proof STV works for women but what they won't tell you is that those gains weren't made until one of their major parties made a commitment to run 50% women. Before that change, only 14% of elected senators were women, on par with other STV countries. Now 36% are women -- but it has nothing to do with STV and it's disingenuous to suggest it does."

Representation of minority candidates is an even worse case for STV proponents. B.C. can improve, but the face and language of the Legislature includes representation from many communities.

Ireland under STV will elect local and European Parliament representatives on June 5, where between all three major parties only 26 New Irish (immigrant) candidates are running -- more than normal.

The facts are not kind to the record of STV with respect to the election of women and minorities.

Shoni Field, who is for STV, answers:

Our current First-Past-the-Post system has the worst record of electing women in the world, and doesn't treat minorities fairly either. If you think that an electoral system shouldn't place barriers in the way of fair representation then you'll want to vote for BC-STV.

First of all, it is important to be clear that an electoral system is not the sole factor in electing women and minorities. Both political will and cultural will (i.e. will parties nominate, will voters vote for) play a large role. That is why every electoral system has a range of results.

Let's look for example at the election of women: both First-Past-the-Post and STV have lows of 6-9% where there is no political or cultural will to elect women. But what happens when voters want to elect women and parties want to nominate them, as is the case in Canada? Here's where it gets interesting.

Canada has pretty much reached the glass ceiling for women's representation under First-Past-the-Post at 22-24%. No matter the political parties' best intentions -- this is as good as it gets. We rank 52nd in the world.

With Single Transferable Vote we have seen highs of 38% (Irish elections to the European Parliament) to 42% (Australian states). These results are amongst the best in the world.

Do these countries have a greater political and cultural commitment to electing women than Canada does? A quick look at Australia, which uses FPTP in some states and STV in others suggests that isn't the answer. When Australians use First-Past-the-Post, about 20% of the successful candidates are women, just as in Canada. But when they use STV, that number rises to 35 or 40 percent.

If cultural and political will to elect women exist, then Single Transferable Vote will elect far more women that First-Past-the-Post will.

Multi-member constituencies give political parties an easy way to achieve candidate parity goals without resorting to male exclusion policies or parachuting in handpicked candidates -- both strategies have been tried in B.C. with much controversy and little success.

There are only two choices on the ballot, BC-STV and FPTP. It's disingenuous for people to suggest that they are concerned about women and minority representation and then counsel you to vote for the system with the worst record in the world. With our current system we will continue to bump against this glass ceiling, with BC-STV we can shatter it.

On Monday the two sides finish the debate by summing up.

Related Tyee stories:

27 Comments:

Login or register to post comments

  • cocean

    3 years ago

    Question 8

    Schreck didn't answer Question 8: "Doesn’t the current First-Past-the-Post system work against minority and women candidates?"

    Instead, he immediately went into his anti-STV spiel.

    There are TWO systems on the referendum ballot: FPTP and STV. The choices are not Not-STV and STV.

    The No-STV camp has based its entire campaign around STV. Why aren't they defending FPTP and boasting its benefits, the system they are so desperate to retain?

  • notdarkyet

    3 years ago

    I am actually tired of both

    I am actually tired of both sides using other places as examples. BC will get the political culture it wants and deserves. I look at STV and see a much better system. More choice both before and after the vote. More proportionality. Fewer safe seats. And as a northern I am not afraid of those large ridings. I will look forward to my three MLAs speaking out for the good of the whole region rather than three MLAs fighting amongst themselves over some scraps dangled by Victoria.

  • Bison Ravi

    3 years ago

    "unstable coalition governments"

    David Schreck writes:
    > Look up "unstable coalition government" online and you will find Ireland under the
    > Single Transferable Vote is one of the prime examples.

    Well, I'm sorry.

    (1) The phrase "look up X online" is meaningless, because there is no single source of online wisdom. (But then a lot of what you say is meaningless.)

    But...

    (2) The most popular way to "look something up online" is to google it, so I googled your phrase, "unstable coalition government". The top google hits are Fiji, India and Canada -- all use FPTP.

    You lose.

    The top google hits are all "

  • Bison Ravi

    3 years ago

    more factual errors

    David Schreck notes:
    > "Australia was one of the first countries
    > in the world to give full political rights
    > to women, but was one of the last western
    > countries to elect women to its national
    > Parliament."

    Clearly this is meant to be an attack on STV, based on the fact that STV is used to elect the Australian Senate.

    However, the attack is misdirected. STV was not adopted for the Australian Senate until 1948. The period being referred to here, when there were no women in the Australian parliament, ended in 1943. During the whole of that period, the Senate was elected using a winner-takes-all system.

    Since the adoption of STV in 1948, there have continuously been women in the Australian Senate. There have been women in the lower house, with its single-member ridings, continuously only since 1980.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Australian_Senate

    Australia is a good example all right -- it's an example of how STV is better than single-member systems at electing women.

    The web page Schreck cites goes on to state: "Ten women stood for the Senate election of December 1949, and two were elected. This was the first election in which a system of proportional representation voting was implemented for Senate elections. This system requires that multiple candidates obtain a proportion of the votes cast, rather than a majority. (see Electing Australia’s Senators, Senate Brief No. 1). Proportional representation is thought to be more favourable than other systems to the election of women because it represents electors and their interests inclusively, and because it encourages the election of members of small parties and minority groups, which women have often sought to represent."

    An excellent defense of STV!

  • Bison Ravi

    3 years ago

    Australia again

    Schreck quotes Andrea Reimer as saying that the gains for women in the Australian Senate have come about because parties have adopted affirmative-action policies.

    Since the nomination policies of the Labour Party and the Australian Democrats apply to both houses of parliament, why have they been more successful in increasing the number of female senators (STV) than in increasing the number of female House members (single-member ridings)?

  • mmphosis

    3 years ago

    no choice

    Right cocean, "There are TWO systems on the referendum ballot: FPTP and STV. The choices are not Not-STV and STV."

    I don't want either of these choices that have already been made for me.

    We need two questions:

    1. Do you want Electoral Reform in BC?

    No. I want to continue using FPP.

    Yes. I want to choose the electoral system for BC. (see the next question)

    2. Which electoral system do you want to use in BC?

    BC-STV. Single Transferable Vote.

    MMP. Mixed Member Proportional Representation.

  • Bison Ravi

    3 years ago

    process

    We've had a process for determining a new voting system. It was called the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform, and it had the full support of the the BC Liberal Party, BC NDP and BC Green Party. It also had the enthusiastic support of hundreds of ordinary British Columbians, many of whom I watched lining up to make presentations to its members.

    Nobody was rally against it -- and nor should they have been; it was an excellent process which showcased what is best in our citizenry.

    The assembly's shortlist included both MMP and STV. They rejected MMP in favour of STV by an overwhelming margin. And remember, "they" were "us", a representative selection of British Columbians from all parts of the province.

    You would like to see MMP on the ballot. Other people I know would dearly love to see the Australian AV system on the ballot. Still others want to see list-PR. Where should this stop?

    We can't have 10 systems on the ballot. Look how difficult it is to have a sensible public debate with just two. We had an excellent process to narrow down the options; the vote was taken in October 2004.

    Now let's get rid of FPTP. When we do, we'll be starting a wave that's going to bring in new systems across North America. You can help choose some of those.

  • G West

    3 years ago

    Sorry Bison

    I'll vote YES - but I'll do it holding my nose - the process stank from the beginning - it never did have the support of British Columbians - and that's the real problem.

    I didn't want YOU and the Citizens' Assembly hothouse flowers speaking for me when Gordon Gibson dreamed up this insane system and I wish you'd just go away now.

    Fall silent and let the people decide...and that goes for the anti-forces too.

    You're still selling cheese - not democracy.

    This turkey's done - it's not going to pass and a good deal of the blame is going to rest on the rotten elitist process that was adopted in the beginning.

  • Skywalker

    3 years ago

    All these shots taken at Schreck...

    ..have me wondering. The ballot is written and you put an "X" in the space to retain the current system or change it to STV. It was pretty clear to me. Schreck has said he favours a MMPR system so he is opposed to STV. Adopting STV precludes any other option for a long, long time unless you think that after the STV mess is sorted an people are comfortable with it they will want to go through the turmoil once more.

    Adopt STV and it does not work, we are screwed with an abortion only a very few places in the world have adopted. That's not good enough to make such a major change.

    You would have more success if you spent you time educating the voter to make intelligent electoral choices. People still vote for the same crooks who end up screweing them over year after year. You still have a media that does not play its role with honesty. You still have votes and governments bought for by big donors whose only interest is making more profit at the expense of resources and the common person. You want change? Work on the issue in a democracy that really count. Work on the issues that mke any election an unfair contest between the very rich and the rest of us. Stop boring us with talk of a system that works in a few countires and by all reports doesn't even work well there.

  • Frank

    3 years ago

    FPTP

    The current system is nearly perfect when it comes to being ripe for corruption.

    Anyone can run under a party banner and be elected as long as they're running in a safe seat. Those who would influence that person, or for that matter even support their initial nomination, couldn't ask for a better system.

    Changing the electoral system is the first step in changing the political system.

  • ReeferMadness

    3 years ago

    No perfect system

    Skywalker, you should take a look at what happened in Ontario where MMP was recommended. A lot of the same arguments were used to kill MMP as are being used against STV. MMP is also not used in that many countries. MMP was resoundingly defeated in Ontario and PEI. There is NO reason to believe it will do better here.

    STV was already endorsed in BC 58-42. Part of the reason it missed was people holding out for MMP.

    If you are in favour of proportional representation, it's on the ballot and it's called BC-STV. Don't wait for something that might never be there.

  • ReeferMadness

    3 years ago

    G West on Citizens Assembly

    G West, you're being very unfair. If you have specific information or evidence about the citizens assembly, show it. Otherwise, you're just engaging in smear tactics.

  • David Lewis

    3 years ago

    "rock bottom" for women

    Adrianne Carr, when she was leader of the BC Green Party during the last election when STV was on the ballot, declared that STV was "rock bottom" out of all electoral systems when it came to facilitating the election of women.

    Carr wanted all British Columbians to vote NO on STV. She wanted an "emergency" resolution to come from the last Green Party AGM prior to the vote condemning STV. She was unable to galvanize the party into collectively shooting themselves in the head in that exact way so she declared, strangely for a leader of a party that prides itself on not being "top-down" that members would be "free" to vote for STV if they so desired.

    Given the tiny margin STV was defeated by last time, it can be said without much doubt that had Carr and her provincial council taken a different line last time the STV referendum would have passed, and this election would now be being held under STV rules.

    No wonder people say STV is hard to understand.

    Carr made an historic mistake. She advanced a position not universally held even by Canadian feminists at the time and torpedoed the interests of the environmental party she led. The consequences, if STV is defeated this time as well, will last for decades, and the effects will extend to other jurisdictions.

    The Greens are all in favour of STV now. If it takes years for it to finally dawn on the people who would benefit the most from the change, what chance is there that ordinary voters will buy in in the numbers required?

    Consider the words of Toronto Star political columnist Chantal Hebert, after the defeat of PR in Ontario some time ago:

    "I'm not a big fan or a big foe of electoral reform. I just don't happen to think that the root problem of the decline in voting is related mainly to the voting system. I think that a PR system would have as many warts as the system we now have, it would just be different. For sure though if we went to a system like that our parties would have to think differently because coalition governments would be the rule. So instead of having parties that are killing time while they wait to find a majority you would have parties that would be trying to build coalitions that survive long enough for them to govern. But I just don't see, after what happened in Ontario last month, with the referendum on a different voting system, I just don't see that this discussion can move forward significantly over the next few years. Because that was the third strike, P.E.I., B.C., Ontario, where do you go from there? The thing that I can't see is that it isn't going to happen federally until a province does it, and I don't see which province is going to do it now...."

  • G West

    3 years ago

    Specific evidence?

    Look at the posts from self-described members of the Citizen's Assembly here at Tyee over the past four years -look at the numerous self-promoting websites they've set up in that period.

    They smear themselves every time they lay claim to the mantle of promoters of democratic purity and electoral choice for the rest of us - you know the several million people who didn't win Gordon Gibson's little lottery.

    Had The CA had any honour they'd have made their recommendation and walked away - their constant self promotion and half lies about STV and what it may or may not do in BC is old and tired out.

    But don't yell at me: I voted YES last time and I'll vote YES this time - because I don't believe the better and the best have to be enemies when it comes to getting rid of FPTP.

    I'm with Frank - but I also recognize when somebody is trying to bullshit me.

    I'm just a realist and I know the 'process' should have been handled a lot differently. And, I don’t believe in self-appointed heroes.

    That's all. Nothing unfair about that reefer.

  • Skywalker

    3 years ago

    Reefermadness

    Who said I was in favour of MMP. I said Schreck has indicated her is. There has been no debate on MMP and if we were discussing all other options I might consider it. Right now I say no to STV. I can't see anything good coming out of the experiment. I would rather we address the issues mentioned so that one person's political influence is no greater than another's.

  • Frank

    3 years ago

    GWest

    "But don't yell at me: I voted YES last time and I'll vote YES this time - because I don't believe the better and the best have to be enemies when it comes to getting rid of FPTP. I'm with Frank "

    And don't think I don't appreciate that.

    STV isn't the perfect solution and we can't just bring it in and expect the political system to suddenly become hunky-dory. But I think its the first necessary step because without a change in the electoral system it will continue to be impossible to fix our political system.

  • ReeferMadness

    3 years ago

    Skywalker

    I didn't say you were in favour of MMP. You brought it up and I told you about what happened in Ontario. MMP is perceived as being much more 'party-friendly' than STV and that's why a lot of party insiders want it. Based on the results in Ontario and PEI and further based on my belief that British Columbians don't want more power in the hands of parties, I firmly believe MMP would go down in flames. BTW, there was debate - it was done in the Citizens Assembly.

    I strongly suspect that there are *some* STV naysayers who are being disingenuous and promoting MMP only to get STV defeated.

  • ReeferMadness

    3 years ago

    Citizens Assembly a good process

    G West, I think the CA was a very good, democratic process. You can't have 4 million people debate electoral reform. Do you want the parties to get together and decide? That's what has happened in a lot of countries.

    And what is wrong with CA alumni promoting (or in some cases arguing against) STV? They were there during the debate and they are now some of the most knowledgeable individuals in BC when it comes to electoral reform. Personally, I've found what CA members write to be quite informed.

    Most of the disinformation I've seen come's from the no side. Many of them are party insiders.

    In contrast, the stv.ca endorsements page has prominent individuals from all walks of life.

    And I'm not yelling at you. I'm just trying to set the record straight.

  • Sean Ryan

    3 years ago

    Really not that complex

    Let's be clear about this, the anti-STV promoters are primarily interested in maintaining and preferably increasing the level of voter apathy - an apathy produced by the fact that the current First Past The Post system generally represents well under 50% of the voters in a given electoral district. The STV system, on the other hand, provides representation for approximately 80%-90% of voters. The system is conceptually simple even if it is mathematically more complex than the current system - voters simply will be much more likely to elect representatives that they support or at least prefer. The system does not produce over-representation fringe elements, it simply does not under-represent them. If stable government means that a party representing well under 50% of voters gets to do whatever they like, and only worry about pleasing their core of voters, then I'll vote for "unstable" (that is, democratic) government every time. And it's simply outright misrepresentation to say that STV is worse for women and minorities than the current system, the facts being adequately explained by previous posters.

    Finally, maybe we all need to be reminded what democracy really is meant to do - to fairly represent all members of society, not just that group who have more in common than any other group. STV simply provides for greater democracy than the First Past The Post system.

  • Des

    3 years ago

    Voting

    by secret ballot is the essence of what democracy is. Not that many people are very protective of that secrecy, judging by the comments they like to make in blogs like these.

    But the absence of participation at the ballot box by the public indicates general dissatisfaction with the manipulation of government by politicians, male or female, right, left and centre, all of them.

    The system of voting should then be arranged so that only majority votes reflecting the views of the public should elect local members, not government itself. That eliminates MMP, FPTP and STV, and their variations.

    Which leaves only multiple trips to the ballot box in each riding, until a winner with a majority of 50%+1 is determined. The candidate(s) with the lowest polling numbers are eliminated progressively. The new government (which could be a minority, but a minority actually elected by a majority of local voters) waits in the wings to assume power after the final seat is filled.

    Locally, there could be as few as two candidates, and as many as several. After some ridings declare a winner, the electors in other ridings who have not picked a winning candidate have the chance to re-examine the possibilities and could change their selection in the run-off votes until a winner is declared.

    This system makes sure that every vote really makes a difference, allows sober second thought when necessary, and involves personal participation, all good things.

  • ReeferMadness

    3 years ago

    Majoritarian voting

    In some cases, that could mean 3,4 or more trips, assuming that you drop the last place candidate on each vote. And then, you can still have up to 50% of the people not getting someone they voted for. Do you think people are going to agree to that? Most people I know can barely spare the time to vote once.

    I think most people would only vote until they ran out of patience or their favorite was out of the running.

  • ReeferMadness

    3 years ago

    Sean Ryan, you're absolutely right

    STV isn't complicated. It just seems that way to people used to voting with an X.

    Those who have a vested interest in killing it have resorted to all kinds of disinformation.

    Bill Tieleman made a huge deal of Dennis Pilon not wanting to explain it over the radio. I look at it as something like long division. There are a number of steps and if you tried to explain it over the radio, people wouldn't get it. But 5th graders can easily be taught it and adults can easily get it too.

    If they want to.

  • G West

    3 years ago

    Yes you can

    It's called a constituent assembly and that's what this process called for - not the artificial stimulation of a few score of hot house flowers who happened to win Gordon Gibson's stupid lottery.

    I told you what's wrong with them and their never-ending crusade. Get over yourselves.

    The CA is just another facile, pumped-up self-promoting self-appointed elite going around telling people what's good for them.

    There are too damn many trolls of that sort in the legislature now.

    We need to return democracy to all the people - not just to YOUR small circle of friends.

    I'm trying to set the record straight too - give me a group of a couple hundred folks in a hot-house for a year and I'll have them believing there are little green men in their underwear.

    There was nothing democratic about the experience and British Columbians are sick and tired of hearing how nice the CA thinks it is.

    STV is going down in flames - not so much because of anything Bill Tieleman said (and I don't agree with him either) but because British Columbians don't like the feeling they are being manipulated by mouthpieces who spent more time preening than actually listening to the citizenry.

    I voted yesterday. I voted yes to STV. But I have no illusions about what it's going to do for democracy in this province.

    It won't pass - but even if it did - the real fundamental change in democratic governance in Canada is only going to happen when elites like the CA and its enablers are run out of town on a rail...

    Change cannot come from the top down anymore - it can only come from the individual and the community up.

    Furthermore, the suggestion that it’s up to YOU, Gordon Gibson, the Citizen’s Assembly or anyone else to ‘teach’ the rest of us anything is extremely offensive.

    You are not dealing with children my friend and adults don’t appreciate that kind of patronizing attitude – it’s a lesson you need to learn as much as the Premier of this Province needs to learn – to both your benefits.

    Cheers.

  • Tony

    3 years ago

    Schreck's Challenge - He's Wrong

    OK - I took Schreck's challenge and looked up "unstable coalition government" on Google. The first few countries to come up were: Fiji (a variant of FPTP), India (FPTP), Israel (low threshold PR), Canada (FPTP) and Kenya (FPTP). Notice a theme? Countries with STV or moderate threshold proportional representation systems don't show up on this list. Not surprising, since the standard outcome under such systems is a stable majority coalition government for all the reasons Field outlines above. It's really a pity that the status quo proponents are spreading so much misinformation - it really prevents us having an informed and reasonable discussion about the Citizens' Assembly's recommendation.

  • Tony

    3 years ago

    Schreck Opposes MMP

    Skywalker, Schreck opposes any form of proportional representation. Listen to him carefully - what he says is that the NoSTV group has a range of perspectives and that some of them think MMP is better. He's never included himself in that group. To the contrary, he argued strongly against the NDP adopting their 2001 resolution in favour of MMP. Don't be taken in - he'll make whatever argument he needs to to get people on his side, regardless of the facts. That's why we see him and his fellow STV opponents arguing simultaneously that STV won't elect any Greens and (like Dosanjh said on CBC yesterday) that it will elect 10 parties leading to coalitions needing 4 or 5 parties to make up a majority of the seats. Logically, both of these things can't be true, but opponents freely use whichever version will most scare their listeners - arguing the first to dissuade Greens and pro-reform NDPers and folks like Reimer from supporting STV and the latter to dissuade more conservative voters.

    The truth is that BC-STV is a moderate reform that will most likely lead to some broadening of political perspectives in the legislature, likely in the form of one or two more parties winning representation, along with the occasional independent like Vicki Huntington or David Marley or Paul Nettleton. Too bad the opponents will never acknowledge this, but instead make wild and unsubstantiated predictions on either side of the truth.

  • cw

    3 years ago

    I think mmphosis had it right

    I would definitely like to see FPTP - Y/N,
    Then IF N, STV ? or MMP ?

    When I read an article by Tieleman, though some of what he said didn't seem to hit the mark, the idea that STV isn't the only, and isn't the best proportional voting system prompted a little further searching. The one I saw that I liked was New Zealand's "Two Ticks, Too Easy" explained here:

    http://www.elections.org.nz/voting/mmp/two-ticks-too-easy.html

  • BrianWhite

    3 years ago

    STV Works and is not scary.

    I voted in STV for years in Ireland for years.
    It is not hard or scary.
    And after a little while, it is very easy to understand where your vote goes.
    Very little fraud takes place. Strategic voting where you vote for someone other than who you want is almost non existant.
    Strategic voting is the biggest fraud that fptp forces people into doing! But for some reason people are silent on that fraud! People release fraudelent polls all the time. "Don't vote for them because they will lose anyway is one of the major reasons to vote" for someone in fptp. Well in stv those days are OVER! You have to have positive reasons to vote for someone! If your first choice loses, your vote transfers at full value to your next choice, so no reason to follow the crowd anymore!
    I voted for a green woman to europe in the leinster riding before I came to canada and she got elected.
    I forget but around 400, 000 electors in the leinster 5 seater at the time!
    Mary Robinson got elected president in ireland as a left wing woman not running under any party banner!
    We didn't have immigration until about 15 years ago in ireland so hardly any chance of immigrants getting elected when there was hardly any of them, is there?
    The first brown person elected was a doctor in rural county clare for labour back when I lived in Ireland. There were probably only 50,000 brown people in ireland at the time. So the no camp's points are bogus as usual. STV is better than fptp in every way except for backroom boys in the larger partys. They are the main supporters of fptp right now.

    • The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.