Who Killed BC-STV?
For most voters, the more they knew, the more they liked it. But not Liberals.
Logo for 'yes' side's 2009 campaign.
British Columbians spoke clearly last month when 62 per cent voted against changing our electoral system to single transferable vote [STV]. Just four years earlier, 58 per cent voted in favour of the very same system. What happened?
Opponents of STV claim that British Columbians were better informed and came to their senses, recognizing the system's flaws this time. The advocates of reform suggest there was more misinformation in the 2009 campaign and that voters with more and better information were more likely to vote for change.
The Centre for the Study of Democratic Institutions at the University of B.C. sponsored detailed scientific surveys in both 2005 and 2009. Voters were asked if they knew about the referendum and the BC-STV system, general attitudes about politics, likely consequences of the change, familiarity with the provincial Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform that proposed it, and a host of background information. These surveys tell us why voters made the choices they did and what was different this time.
The surveys tracked the drop in support for STV but show hardly any change in attitudes that explain a 'yes' or 'no' vote. There was more awareness of the referendum this time -- 66 per cent versus 56 per cent in 2005. And voters were slightly more interested in it. But this didn't translate to big gains in knowledge; in fact, scores on a STV facts test were only slightly higher. More than one in three people admitted they knew absolutely nothing about it.
General support for coalition governments
Had British Columbians' attitudes about government and the electoral system changed over these four years? In 2005, voters were strongly inclined to proportionality, choice among multiple parties and even coalition governments. In 2009, they still favoured coalition over one-party governments, though this was down from 62 per cent to 52 per cent. There was a small drop in support for proportional representation, but three-quarters of the province still thinks it is unacceptable for a party to get a majority of the seats without a majority of votes.
There was even smaller change in concern with STV's complex vote-counting procedure and the possibility of unstable governments. And three in four voters continue to prefer a multi-party over a two-party system. The marginal changes in these attitudes contributed to the loss of support, but they are nowhere near enough to fully explain the 20 percentage points drop in support for STV.
Neither of the two main political parties took a position on STV in either year. Commentators thought Liberal supporters would naturally shy away from changing the system that gave Liberals power, and that NDP supporters would be more sympathetic to a change.
Liberal support plummeted in 2009
In 2005, not surprisingly, NDP, Green and undecided voters were more pro-STV, with support in these three groups well over 60 per cent. But Liberals were unexpectedly supportive too, splitting 50/50 on STV.
All this changed in 2009. Support among Liberal voters dropped 30 points, leaving only one in five voting for BC-STV. Among those who were still deciding which party to vote for during the campaign, support for STV dropped from 63 per cent to 43 per cent. Those two groups are the key to understanding the rejection of STV because both NDP and Green voters dropped less than 5 points and remained above 60 per cent. The Liberal-NDP gap in support for STV jumped from 10 points in 2005 to nearly 35 points in 2009!
So what drove Liberals away? It wasn't more information. For Liberal voters, knowing more about STV didn't make a difference. For other voters, the more they knew, the more they liked it. It wasn't the riskiness of a change for Liberals, either -- they say they like risk more than other voters.
What changed was that Liberals became more positive about the existing system's seat majorities producing strong single-party governments. Liberals were about 10 per cent more positive about representatives making decisions rather than the people, 20 per cent more positive about parties winning a majority of seats without a majority of the votes, 10 per cent more positive about one-party rather than coalition governments.
All this shows that the context was tremendously important. We are further away from the problematic election results of 1996 and 2001. The Liberals had a much more moderate second term. And then there was the coalition government scare at the federal level.
Faded luster of Citizens' Assembly
Another key reason for the drop in support involves the role of the body that proposed BC-STV, the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform. After the 2005 vote, we published an analysis showing voters who knew about the Citizens' Assembly and its deliberations were far more likely to vote in favour. Voters said yes if they knew the Citizens' Assembly was made up of ordinary folks and not stacked with government-appointed elites.
In 2009, the influence of the Citizens' Assembly all but evaporated. Decisions were primarily determined by views on the substance of STV. Some may applaud this greater independence. Others will lament that voters were still not very well informed about STV -- respondents scored an average 2.5 out of 6 questions correct on our 'test' -- and were unable or unwilling to rely on the informed judgment of their fellow citizens in the Citizens' Assembly, as they did in 2005.
Ballot wording changed this time
So far, we have explained about two-thirds of the drop. The rest, we suppose, comes from voters seeing the choice very differently in 2009. A different question on the ballot may have reinforced this, especially for the one-third of voters who walked into the booth unaware of the referendum.
Survey researchers know that different question wording can produce big differences in public opinion measures. In 2005, the ballot asked simply if B.C. should "change to the BC-STV electoral system as recommended by the Citizens' Assembly". Times were good, the Liberal premier initiated the process, and a bunch of ordinary citizens had "recommended" the change. There was no reference to the status quo. Liberal voters would not have seen it as an obvious threat to the party.
In 2009, the ballot asked voters which electoral system BC should use "the existing electoral system" or the "single transferable vote electoral system proposed by the Citizens' Assembly". It explicitly mentions the status quo and the new system is only a proposal. Some voters must have thought that the question applied to counting the votes in the current 2009 election. And Liberal voters could have more clearly understood this status quo-versus-change question as a threat to their government.
BC-STV failed at the ballot box because of the disappearance of the positive influence of the Citizens' Assembly and because Liberal voters were more positive about the current system. The wording on the ballot may also have heaped dirt upon STV's grave. But it did not go down because voters learned more about the system itself.
Related Tyee stories:
- British Columbians again reject STV
- Clip and save: The STV voting system, explained
- BC-STV: The Debate (series)
The Tyee has arranged a debate to help citizens prepare to vote on May 12. 2009, for or against changing B.C.'s voting system. David Schreck, secretary-treasurer, No STV, vs. Shoni Field, spokesperson for British Columbians for BC-STV
![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
sunshine coast girl
07-07-2009
I voted no this time
because I was nervous about the huge ridings and the fact that possibly none of the candidates I voted for would win. I was also worried about being represented by people who lived outside of my area who had nothing in common with my community. We on the Sunshine Coast always get lumped in with the Lower Mainland.
DSchreck
07-07-2009
STV
It is interesting that I was phoned and participated in the 2009 UBC follow-up poll on the referendum. It’s even more interesting that the poll didn’t ask whether I played any role in the referendum campaign. I hope that all of the questions and tabulated responses will be made available on a website.
The researchers should consider the explanation that proponents of STV ran a terrible campaign in support of a terrible system. They lost the opportunity of a lifetime in 2005 by recommending BC-STV rather than some more acceptable form of proportional representation. Blaming others must be easier than accepting responsibility for failure.
r smaloney
07-07-2009
On the other hand maybe
On the other hand maybe there were a lot of people like me. I took the time in 2005 to learn as much as I could about STV. I think, but I am not sure, that I was eventually able to figure out how it is supposed to work. This year I discovered that I couldn't for the life of me remember a single thing about it. So instead of taking the time to start all over again and relearn everything I had forgotten about STV, I just decided to reject it. I admit it I am one of ones you are looking for. I helped kill STV.
Dan the socialist
07-07-2009
I voted NO! I want MMP or
I voted NO!
I want MMP or Line PR. I will not vote yes for anything less.
wayfarer
08-07-2009
Schreck
David Schreck has said in the past, in his opposition to STV, that our FPTP "works pretty well" and is "better than" the proposed STV system. Oh really?
In 2001, BC voters elected 77 Liberals and 2 New Democrats to the Legislature. 97% vs. 3% of the seats. Yet, the actual popular vote was 58% Liberal, 22% NDP, 12% Green and 8% went to other parties.
This is "better than" a system - ANY SYSTEM - that distributes votes more proportionally?? This is a system that works "pretty well"??
2009 = lowest voter turnout in BC electoral history. Could there be a correlation between voter apathy and a FPTP system that polarizes the few voters that decide to participate, alienates the rest?
The only deduction I can draw from old guard NDP opponents to STV is the following: (1) their former boss Glen Clark (who both Schreck and Tieleman worked under) would never have seen the light of the Premier's office in '96 were it not for FPTP (a majority govt with a minority pop vote); and more generally: (2) political greed. A stubborn, reactionary unwillingness to support electoral reform and the democratization of our system in the fear that smaller parties like the Greens might actually become bigger parties under STV and present a serious challenge to the New Democrats.
ME2
08-07-2009
I voted STV
Good analysis, Wayfarer
Wilfred Laurier
08-07-2009
The STV
I don't consider myself to be poorly educated and I can usually figure most things out given enough time but for the life of me, I could not figure out the STV. It was simply too complicated.
The clincher was when an STV canvasser came to my door. I said I thought the STV was too complicated. He stated that, "Well, it is too complicated for you." That ended any chance I would vote for it.
Any Grumpy is again correct. Neither of the main parties in this province are interested in sharing power with anyone.
Skywalker
08-07-2009
Wayfarer
Please get off your old hobby horse about how it is all Glen Clark's fault or the fault of the "old guard" just because some people once worked with Clark. It all sound a bit infantile.
STV went down because of the reasons people are describing here. People don't want multi-member ridings that are large and where the tallying of votes is complicated. Really simple some of the them may have worked with Glen Clark some may not. The latter is irrelevant. Move on!.
sunshine coast girl
08-07-2009
Sorry Wayfarer,
I have to disagree with you. I am neither an "old guard" NDP nor a Glen Clark supporter. I don't think the FPTP system is the best system but I don't agree with replacing it with something that I don't think is superior. I am not against electoral reform in the slightest, in fact don't believe it could do anything except help the NDP as we seem to be on the losing side often enough with the current system. But why replace one inefficient system with another? If STV is such a good system I wonder why more progressive countries don't use it.
By the way, during this last provincial election there was an interactive website that showed how the BCSTV system would have worked and I was not comfortable with the results that I got when I tried it in various areas around the province.
BC Boy
08-07-2009
BC-STV's Fiefdom was the failure
Surveys such as this one are what makes the academic enviroment live. It is interesting that there's much mention of the "Liberal" vote rather than the composition of "Liberal/NDP" support.
There wasn't anything wrong with the wording. Proposed is just that, it doesn't exist unless it is a go and set into place.
The main flaw was that the BC-STV was too focused on the Citizen's Assembly which came up with the decision, it is not and never was an authoritarian body. It was put there to explore and decide what system
would be best to change the electoral system. They did not at any time have the authority to actually make the electoral change, that comes from the Legislature which technically was not bound to their final decision (they could approve as is,
make changes, or deny it).
The largest problem with BC-STV was the huge ridings with multiple members. If the geniuses behind STV had not stuck with the Irish based system and set a system whereby there would be a single member for each constituency elected as is done in Australia for state level MLAs, then there may have been larger support.
Face the reality. If BC-STV had passed, the major parties and the medium sized ones would have a real mess on its hands when it comes to nominations of candidates, and the campaigns, as there would be power plays, congealing of support for two or three candidates over the remainder and deciding who exactly gets the campaign resources more than the other (do incumbents do, or do the newcomer candidates?)
In addition, the election of a minor party candidate such as the Greens, would not be mathematically guarnteed since the NDP and Liberals would run a full seat of candidates increasing the advantage over the smaller parties.
The larger ridings would be difficult to
handle, and just who exactly 'represents' the ridings, and how would the riding offices be made up? You'd never ever get an NDPer and Green working the same office
location, and you certainly would not get a
Liberal MLA and an NDP MLA sharing the same office (and who decides if the seperate offices go into the respective parties' "good areas")?
There's also the domination of a few MLAs over the others for power and prestige.
A real mess that was best avoided, and
A real mess best put into the books for political scientists to discuss over lunch.
A real mess that Joe and Mary Sixpack wouldn't care all that much about.
DPL
08-07-2009
Time to let this faded dream
Time to let this faded dream go away. A umber of people we know voted for te STV first time around to get some viable opposition in the province. Two MLA's are pretty limited no matter how hard they tried to keep him in check and they worked very hard to do so. This time around there was more information available , a much larger opposition party in place and by gosh it failed. It didn't help for example when we heard the green lady talk about stopping logging on Vancouver island as logging jobs were fast disappearing. Over time other options may well be reconsidered but right now the idea of massive riding sure don't turn my crank. I like my MLA to be close at hand when I want to congratulate of complain. Not somewhere far away.
coyoteman
08-07-2009
Supported but...
I actually voted for STV, not because I waa convinced of its superiority... Au contraire, I favour a more straightforward proportional rep system as the preferable of choices that should be available within THIS party system, which STV, in my judgement is not. ... but rather I voted STV just so folks would discover for themselves, precisely that. It is NOT a true proportional rep system. (It was only going to continue the dominance of all the current status quo "parties" to the system, no matter how you dressed it up, and which was why the Liberal-Con alliance leadership was prepared to accept it even being an alternative in the first place.
Though really, even a true PRep system will not give us what I think we really need, though it could add to the potential "party mix" in the legislature, which is to move away from the party based system entirely.
But even allowing for the hue and cry that goes up with that suggestion, from those of left and right joined at the hip to the status quo ruling class controlled system, the real foundational change that has to be made, that would open up even other more dramatic possibilities at all levels of society, not just the political, is deep democratization of the economy and especially its large scale corporate enterprises. Short of this degree or scope of change, everything else is just an attempt to make a pig look like a pope.
It is what occurs in the economy, and the power relationships there, that sets the real tone and direction for the political structure built thereupon.
Matt T.
08-07-2009
Interesting Analysis
NDP voters and Green voters supported STV by a majority 60%+ vote. OTOH, Liberal voters only supported STV by a 20% vote.
Liberal voters not only decided the outcome of STV but also the general election. That about sums it up.
wayfarer
08-07-2009
Status quo vs pragmatic change
My point is that there is an element within the NDP (represented by Schreck and Tieleman) who seem to view the status quo FPTP system as better for the party than a reformed system that distributes votes more proportionally. I cited the '96 Glen Clark case because it's another glaring example of how unfair the FPTP system is. Both Schreck and Tieleman worked under Clark and enjoyed the spoils of that unfair outcome.
There are many high profile NDPers who supported STV. Andrew Petter, for example, is no political slouch and has a much more refined legal mind than Schreck and Tieleman combined.
There's no doubt about STV's imperfections, but then, when you begin to implement electoral reform, you don't ask for, nor expect, perfection. You look for improvements. The 2001 election result is clear proof that just about anything different from the current FPTP system, short of dictatorship, is an improvement.
Guys like Schreck and Tieleman tasted the apple in the 90's, thanks in part to the FPTP system, and they want a taste of that absolute style of power again. Ironically, under this current system, with the changing dynamics in our political world, the increasingly irrelevant NDP (which seems more concerned about reviving the ghost of Karl Marx than facing the green realities of our time) likely will never see power again in BC, especially if the latest revolt led by Tim Louis succeeds in driving another wedge down the middle of the party. But I digress....
Tony
08-07-2009
Sunshine Coast Girl's Comments Puzzling
SCG was worried about STV not electing a candidate she supported. FPTP only gives half the voters an MLA they voted for; STV does this for about 90% of voters.
She also worries about being lumped in with the Lower Mainland, but the Electoral Boundaries Commission put the Sunshine Coast with the other coastal communities, as requested by presenters at the public hearings.
I'm also curious what she didn't like in the trystv.ca simulation (which I presume she's referring to) - it showed excellent agreement in all regions between the popular vote and the resulting MLAs.
bontano
08-07-2009
Suicide? Or maybe we all killed it
Four years ago, I voted in favour of STV fairly enthusiastically. This year, I hemmed and hawed about, and then voted in favour of it feeling as though I were holding my nose while doing so. I tend to think of myself as a fairly avid supporter of electoral reform, so if I was experiencing scepticism, it's does not surprise me that a lot of British Columbians less committed to it were too.
So why the change in my perception? I had reservations about the giant ridings, mainly. With all of Vancouver split into two ridings, I was concerned that the benefits of the transferable vote to independent candidates would be offset by the expense of trying to get one's name known by the voters of such a large riding. Effectively, I was worried that the new system would provide an illusion of reform while continuing to protect a system in which money and party affiliation are the keys to getting seen and elected.
Additionally, the size of the ridings appears to have the potential to dilute the voices of smaller neighbourhood areas. With The downtown-eastside, Vancouver-Hastings, and South Vancouver all lumped together, it is likely that smaller pockets, such as the downtown eastside or Strathcona, for instance, would end up with even less representation than they have now. I feared that what amounts to fringe voices, which are already almost ignored, would have even less ability to be heard once they had been deposited, electorally, into a great melting pot.
These concerns are valid, I think, but one of the failings of the STV campaign is that they did not address them very noticeably. Oh, I got STV brochures in my mailbox, but most of them featured vague enthusiasms rather than address directly concerns voters might be having.
Wilfred Laurier
08-07-2009
Source?
"NDP voters and Green voters supported STV by a majority 60%+ vote. OTOH, Liberal voters only supported STV by a 20% vote."
Where is your source for this, Matt? I would be interested to see it.
Skywalker
08-07-2009
Wilf.
Maybe you should read the article first. It is a good idea to do it all the time before posting.
Chris H
08-07-2009
I was an NDP supporter and I voted no
I was a voter who really wanted change and learned everything about BC-STV last time. I was shocked to discover that any group of randomly selected citizens would ever put forward this as the "best" way to elect our representatives. Perhaps it was those who set the terms of reference and facilitated the group? Were there any links to the Fraser Institute? Hmmm.
There was nothing new that came out in 2009 to convince me to change our electoral system that actually allowed a mathematical possibility of producing a worse result than the 2001 election. Until we are actually given a choice of a system that actually has an mechanism built in that ensures some degree of proportionality, I'd rather stick with the easily understood FPTP system we currentlty employ.
I guess I don't fit the mold of why people voted this down according to article.
G West
08-07-2009
Gordon Gibson
Is the link to the Fraser Institute.
alive
08-07-2009
"only in my backyard"?
People were worried about maybe electing members who would not properly represent them, and so they rejected the only system that at least had a chance of getting people of your choice elected, even if they perhaps did not live in your backyard?
Yeah Yeah, so now we keep the old system where our choice can be lost completely by very few votes, and a candidate you do not like wins.
Just great, he is local but of the wrong party --- like thanks a lot.
dangrice.com
08-07-2009
Insider
If you want an detailed insider perspective from an organizer, you can read my 4000 word write up:
http://dangrice.com/node/244
In short:
While the campaign missed opportunities (particularly in running a slick TV campaign rather than putting the money into informative print), there were huge external factors that hurt the cause.
The BC-EBC, when drawing the boundaries, created huge 4 and 5 seat district in North Island, the Cariboo, and the Kootenays that should have been 2 or 3 seats. These were made worst by the attempted removal and then reinsertion of rural seats by bill 39. As well, the federal coalition attempt turned off conservative voters, and one must remember that in 2005, there was an active right wing push for electoral reform after 12 years of federal liberal dominance.
STV, though, despite its merits is off the table, and it is hard to see BC Liberal voters supporting an alternative PR system such as MMP at this time for the same reasons they rejected STV 4:1.
G West
08-07-2009
@ dangrice
Next time dan, if there is a next time, might be a good plan not to sound like elite experts and promote your option as being the next best thing to God and apple pie.
Hopefully, if there is a next time there will be a real constituent assembly with the power to actually 'consult' and not just take a few scores of people and turn them into hothouse flowers.
No hard feelings - I voted 'YES' - just like in 2005 - but I had no illusions.
Being 'better' than FPTP is damning with faint praise.
dangrice.com
08-07-2009
The next step-> Choice Voting?
While I would like to see more proportionality, the biggest problem with our voting system is strategic voting and the lack of real local competition that discourage MLAs from standing up for their community, and forces voters to vote against a party or candidate rather than giving each candidate a fair chance to prove their merit.
As such, I have set up a campaign to push for choice voting (also known as the alternative vote, or instant run off voting) which is used in Australia, a few US cities, and which Britain is also considering changing to. It was also used in BC for two elections, Alberta and Manitoba (1920-1950s) to much success until the governments dumped it to stifle competition.
You can learn more here or sign the petition:
www.choicevoting.ca
Choice voting would allow voters to have a first and a second choice within the current districts so they could vote a protest vote or support an independent or smaller party without worrying about splitting the vote.
This would reduce negative campaigning and prevent candidates from winning with 30% of the local vote, while still retaining the local districts and probably delivering majority government.
Recently, Papau New Guinea switched from first past the post to a choice voting system, and it reduced election deaths from over 100 down to 3 as instead of candidates being hostile to each other, they were encouraged to reach out to each other supporters and work together.
It is a foundation for future reforms. In australia, for instance they use a preferential ballot for local seats, while having an upper house elected via PR.
dangrice.com
08-07-2009
G West, I can admit we were
G West, I can admit we were passionate about the cause on forums and such but I don't think that affected the average voter. I also know, that there was a lot of frustration with people opposing STV because of misconceptions.
I wasn't a CA member, but I do think the process was strong. They did have hundreds of hearing and listened to the concerns of constituents, and spend a lot of time comparing options and consulting with experts from around the world. STV was the system they felt best represented the values that people expressed to them. It is a good system, but you have to get used to vote counting machines and regional representation.
That being said, there was a huge degree of misunderstanding about STV. A lot of voters thought there votes would go to some random candidate if they didn't rank everyone and while statistically impossible, felt that one town would get all the MLAs. (mixing up at-large with STV.) STV is difficult to explain without pictures, but that doesn't mean its bad.
That being said, MMP bombed equally as bad in PEI and Ontario.
At this point, I think incremental changes are the best way to proceed.
North of Hope
08-07-2009
Electoral system
The problem with either system is that the representative represents the party and not the people in the constituency. There-in lays the rub. THe MLA or MP doesn't represent the people, he or she represents the party.
I voted yes in the last election, because I wanted a change where our representative, represented the electorate, not the party. This time I voted NO! because that option was not presented. There would be no change if YES won without some peramaters stating the direction in which we should go.
We would still have a party system that insists on their MLS's to follow party lines, so their is no change from what we have now.
dangrice.com
08-07-2009
Noh: It wasn't always so,
Noh:
It wasn't always so, and in the US, with the separation of the executive from the legislative and a legislated primary system, individual candidates exercise a lot more constituent discretion than they do under a unicameral system. (In the US, safe seats still often have primary competition)
STV would have improved that, since candidates from the same party would have ran head to head, and those that would win would likely be the ones that stood out by representing their constituents.
Any system that increases local competition, will shift power from the party to the constituencies by various degrees. The problem with the current system, is as soon as a candidate exercises individual thought, there opponents try to use it against the leader and the party. However, if you remove the "vote liberal to keep out the NDP" message of a plurality by offering voters a valid choice on a ranked ballot, suddenly, without a good constituent candidates, the liberal may move to a second or subsequent choice. Of course this does depend on competition existing.
ReeferMadness
08-07-2009
"Choice Voting"????
Dan, let's skip the marketing lingo and call things what they are. You're proposing something properly called Instant Runoff Voting or Alternative Vote. It was tried in BC in 1952 when two of the parties tried to use it to screw over the third. It doesn't produce proportional results. What it does produce is a completely artificial perception of consensus and mandate. If you ever succeed in getting this abortion in place, I won't show up at the polls.
To those of you voted against BC-STV because you couldn't wrap your heads around the nuances of how votes are counted, I ask you this:
Do you own a microwave? A smoke detector? A computer? A DVD player? Can you explain in detail how they work? Why is it exactly, that a voting system has to be so dumbed down that a chimpanzee can do the counting?
ReeferMadness
08-07-2009
Why STV went down
STV failed because the no side was successful in getting people to focus on the mechanics of the system. Voting systems should be about translating the desires of voters into representation within the Government and BC-STV would have done that very well. Everyone was hung up on riding sizes and counting methods.
If you went out shopping for watches, you wouldn't pop open the back and look at all the gears before you decided whether to buy it. But that's exactly what people were trying to do with BC-STV.
dangrice.com
08-07-2009
Reefer
You give the no side too much credit to suggest that the referendum failed due to their efforts.
And you give voters a great disservice to suggest that they were supposed to not worry about how the electoral system worked or ignore the details.
I assume you have never sold computers, as I can assure you (having done so myself) that you have to be ready to answer objections and whether people intend to read instructions or not, they still expect to have them.
Imagine walking into a car show room and asking a sales person what compression the engine had or what fuel it ran on, only to be told that you didn't need to know and should trust the engineers. And yes, if you had never seen a microwave before, you may have questions as to how it worked before you bought it.
I argued vigorously to the campaign executive against a TV campaign and in favour of getting a multi-page newspaper to every household, explaining how STV worked and how it would improve representation and getting them familiar with their districts.
We knew what the objections were (it was our second campaign!), what the challenges were in regards to questions of stability, transfers and district size, and instead of answering them in advance, we hoped that a TV ad showing a graph of seat distortions would move votes.
In 2005, every household received a copy of the Citizens Assembly final report, and whether people read them or not, they could at least refer to them or ask a friend if they knew how it worked. We may not have passed 60 this time around with the perfect campaign, but we could have done better if we got past the "you don't need to know mentality" that seem prevalent in our organization.
STV is now off the table in BC for awhile, and MMP would depend on convincing voters that Greens deserve seats. We can probably convince 50% of voters we deserve one or two seat, but certainly not 7 or 8 or whatever we would proportionally be entitled to. Cross your fingers and hope that the BC Conservatives can pull 10% of the vote in 2013 and maybe we will have enough support to get PR for 2021.
AV/IRV/Choice is probably the only viable form of electoral reform, and if you're telling me that you somehow enjoy strategic voting and vote splitting and would refuse to vote if those glorious distortions of voting intentions are removed, then you certainly have your own set of issues.
No, runoff votes are not proportional. No one is claiming they are or ever has. But they solve other problems. Disproportionality is not the only problem with our current system.
If you think so, then you have never had someone come up to you nearly in tears on election day apologizing because they felt they were compelled to vote for a candidate they didn't like to stop one they liked even less.
ReeferMadness
09-07-2009
Dan
There's a considerable difference between being interested in the details and obsessing over them. Why don't you go into Future Shop and insist that your sales person explain to you exactly where the microwaves come from? Tell them you really don't care if it can heat food or not, you're just interested in details. (Note: if you're actually going to do this, let me know - I might like to get some footage).
Also, you don't appear to make any distinction between selling someone a computer (where you just want them to pay you and get out) and convincing people of the benefits of a new voting system (where the emphasis should be on education, not selling).
In fact, you appear to be treating this as one big marketing exercise. Voters didn't buy product A so let's just launch a new campaign with product B. Read Dennis Pilon's excellent book The Politics of Voting . Historically, most of the time voting systems are chosen by elites and get changed when they decide it's time. You want to launch another marketing campaign? I suggest that you lobby the big parties instead.
This isn't an issue of voter choice, it's an issue of systemic discrimination. FPTP doesn't produce governments that represent everyone. And if you look at the history of discrimination, it's rare for an oppressed minority to be willingly given fair treatment by the majority. Fairness needs to be demanded, litigated for, sometimes fought for.
ReeferMadness
09-07-2009
Sunshine Coast Girl
Your position that only someone who lives on the Sunshine Coast can represent you is perfectly valid - assuming you still live in the 19th century. Back when travel was rare and communication without travel was impossible, geography was the sole determinant of community.
Now, constituencies are based on many things of which geography is not one (and arguably not the most important). One of the hidden beauties of STV is that it allows people to dynamically form constituencies and still have some chance that those constituencies will have a representative.
The whole "You might be represented by someone in Vancouver" schtick is fearmongering based in tribalism and parochialism. Still, politicians like it because it's time-tested and it works.
Open your eyes and open your mind. Would you rather be represented by someone 500 miles away by someone you agree with or would you prefer a troglodyte who lives around the corner?
And yes, I live in a city today. But I haven't always. I know what it's like to live in a remote area.
Chris H
09-07-2009
ReeferMadness
"If you went out shopping for watches, you wouldn't pop open the back and look at all the gears before you decided whether to buy it. But that's exactly what people were trying to do with BC-STV."
No, I wouldn't ... but I would like some reason that I needed to get a new watch in the first place. And, I definitely wouldn't want one that had a chance of keeping worse time than my present watch. Since BC-STV allowed voters to rank as few candidates as they wanted, the mathematical possibilities made the system problematic. Imagine if the majority of voters only ranked one or two candidate! People should be happy that some us did "open the back of the watch." In the end, I might have been able to support STV if it was mandatory to rank all candidates as they do in Australia. However, even marking down a BC Liberal candidate as a ranked preference on the ballot may have been enough to keep me away on voting day. Perhaps our province is just too polarized to change voting systems at the present time.
dangrice.com
09-07-2009
Objections, real (sunshine
Objections, real (sunshine coast) or absolutely false and stupid (Chris H.. yes, its mathematically possible for your watch to spontaneously explode) did exist and ultimately defeated STV. As a proponent, we had to address them and show people that they gained more than they lost.
Whether STV is superior or not, or whether systematic discrimination exists is besides the point. The question is how do we get the people (the 90% whose party gets seats in the legislature) or those with power to support change.
How do we get reform back on the agenda?
Drastic Reforms require a cataclysm, wrong winner elections got electoral reform on the table in BC and New Zealand. Women's representation took 2400 years to achieve and only came about after the first world war as women had taken over many of the industrial jobs as the men took off to war. Universal suffrage (for men) originated in Athens and later in the US after revolutionary wars in which peasants joined aristocrats to fight for freedoms.
If you want to help the BC Conservatives organize, split the vote, and let the NDP win, perhaps you can get the right of center back on side for PR.
Otherwise I see no other path in BC but to push for an alternative vote or a variant.
We can spend the next 100 years promoting STV or MMP, as the UK ERS has done for 100 years, or we can push for interim change that will set the conditions for PR.
Push for a runoff vote, watch small parties first preferences on the left and right increase dramatically, and then have a much more firm case to promote STV, additional member, or a parallel system.
LeftRightLeft
09-07-2009
THE BASIC, SAD FACTS ARE...
1. For all of you who really, really want to see electoral reform but think a PR/mixed-PR/AV/IVR/leg-wrestle-runoff would be better, too bad. Electoral reform is dead, for at least eight years, probably more. Which is a shame.
2. I'm surprised Ken C et al didn't mention the fact that this time around there was a slick ad-campaign that used US-style issue simplification and repetition to reinforce a basic message - STV is confusing, and it will reduce your representation. This was a great campaign. And it sickens me. And its messages are wrong. If you think it wasn't effective I humbly submit that you're wrong. Studies have shown that TV ads form the basis of more than 50% of peoples' opinions on key issues and influence their "talking points" on how they vote.
3. While Liberal VOTERS were more opposed to the STV, their party's organizers were less actively opposed to it than were the NDP's. Which is shameful for our province's "progressive" movement. I will never, ever, ever again vote for that party.
4. I would appreciate if my comments weren't deleted for being "defamatory" to any particular individuals who organized against STV, as I didn't mention names in here...
dangrice.com
09-07-2009
Electoral reform is not
Electoral reform is not dead, but is limited.
George Brown in Britain is pushing for AV there which may be in place over the next few months, and if so it would definitely trickle down to Canada.
Plus, the 50% voter turnout does put the pressure on the BC government to do something, even if there isn't real desire to do so.
BrianWhite
09-07-2009
Why stv lost and Chris has a broken watch.
Stv lost because it won a massive majority the first time but people are just too thick to realize that 50% +1 vote is a win in a referendum and because voters are just too stupid to figure out that they were had.
Also, the leadership in the provincial ndp refuses to follow the lead of either their own voters and elected ndp MP's like Crowder and Savoe.
Plus, people think that 77 of 79 with just over half the vote is the equivalent of a good watch or G Clark winning a majority of seats with less votes than the opposition is as good as an accurate watch!
I lived in STV land for over 30 years and people just in this comment thread continue to write pure inaccurate crap about it. It is not pure pro rep. Well any mmp system with a 3% or 5% threshold is not pure pro rep either and stv is just as proportional as them. (Would the Irish greens get any seats with a mmp 5% treshold?)
And 77 of 79 with 55% of the vote is Mathematically IMPOSSIBLE IN STV. But because it is a propaganda war, with no penalty for untruth, people like shreck can basically say what they like and facts be damned.
"No, I wouldn't ... but I would like some reason that I needed to get a new watch in the first place. And, I definitely wouldn't want one that had a chance of keeping worse time than my present watch".
How come Chris, if fptp is so good there is nobody in BC voting conservative provincially?
Tony
09-07-2009
Chris H
Just to set the record straight here, even if everyone marked only one preference, STV would be far superior to FPTP. With FPTP, barely half the voters see their choice elected. With STV in Scotland in 2007, 68% of voters saw their first choice elected (the equivalent of voting only for one person). 83% of voters saw one of their top two choices elected (and remember than most voters would vote for more than one person from their preferred party, so 5 of 6 voters likely helped elect someone from their preferred party). 87% saw one of their top three choices elected.
Chris H
10-07-2009
Tony
And if everyone marked only one candidate in a five MLA riding, you could be elected with as little as one vote ... yes ... a single vote.
For example, say 100,000 people voted in that riding. 40,000 vote for person A, 30,000 people vote for person B, 20,000 people vote for person C, 9,999 people vote for person D, and 1 person votes for person E. That is a mathematical possibility under BC-STV. While under that scenerio everyone who was voted for gets elected (much better than 68%), it is ridiculous that someone actually has a mathematical shot of winning an election with only one person out of 100,000 voting for them. The system is simply stupid unless you are forced to rank all candidates ... and I don't think BC is ready for that.
People are using big assumptions when determining how the vote will come out. The people of BC have never used BC-STV. Other STV systems are not exactly the same. I have no idea how a BC voter would approach a BC-STV ballot. Not that it matters a whole lot anyways. It lost in the referendum big time.
Tieleman
10-07-2009
Bill Tieleman - NO STV president - weighs in
I appreciate the time taken by my former UBC political science professor Ken Carty and his colleagues in analysing the strong rejection of the Single Transferable Vote in 2009 versus the near win in 2005.
However I don't agree with many of the conclusions they reach in this article.
While I'd love to take credit for the "great campaign" and ads that sickened LeftRightLeft as the sole reason for STV's defeat, the reality is that British Columbians did reject STV the more they knew about it.
The NO STV campaign research by Ipsos-Canada - both polling and focus groups - made clear that to British Columbians STV was a complicated and confusing electoral system; that they were very concerned about the enormous ridings with multiple MLAs and no accountability to local voters; and that it was very obscure.
NO STV communicated STV's serious faults to voters through both paid and earned media to the best of our abilities - even though we were seriously outspent and had very few volunteers compared to the massive Fair Voting BC forces - bolstered significantly by out of province money and volunteers.
As for the Citizens Assembly angle, we posted their own video on how STV works on the front page of the NO STV website - because focus groups were appalled by how it explained STV!
The CA would not have been able to save a bad system - they recommended it.
As to a number of posters attacks on myself and David Schreck - remember a few points - first, both Schreck and I broke with Glen Clark during his term in office; second, both of us are at times highly critical of the NDP despite our general support; and third - ask anyone in the NDP caucus or staff if we "take orders" from them! Too funny.
I do agree that the ballot questions was more reasonable in 2009 than 2005 and may have added a small margin of support to the NO side.
For those who want to read a longer analysis I wrote on the NO STV campaign, go to my blog at:
http://billtieleman.blogspot.com/2009/05/death-of-stv-analysis-of-failed.html
slim
10-07-2009
I don't think Schreck and Tieleman would have supported MMP
Had British Columbians voted on MMP instead of STV, I don't think either Shreck or Tieleman would have supported MMP. I think they are satisfied with the existing First-Past-the-Post voting system.
Could BC ever go for something like the single member district Alternative Vote? It could. However, AV is not a proportional voting system. I wouldn't give one cent or my vote for AV. I wouldn't bother to vote at all. Heck, I won't vote in any FPTP, AV, or at-large election.
dangrice.com
10-07-2009
Ah Bill..
Bill, if polling indicates voters thought the system was confusing or they thought it was obscure, that does not demonstrate the "more they know, the less they liked it" but quite the opposite.
In fact, as we read the opposing letters to the editor, it was quite clear that many of those campaigning against STV including former premiers and cabinet ministers, had their facts completely wrong and knew very little about the system. It is no wonder that voters were confused, as people they trusted were intentionally or mistakenly attributing wrong factors to it.
You and Schreck published very misleading arguments, such as running advertisements in rural areas that they would have "up to 7 MLAs" or having exploding votes and claiming people "may never know where their vote went." Yes, technically Victoria had 7 MLAs, and if people never checked the election site they "may never know" as jurisdictions publish detail results showing how votes were transferred after each surplus or elimination.
Yet, with all of our frustrations with your campaign, it was clear from the results that we can't blame you for the loss.
That over 60% of NDP and Greens supported STV, while only 20% of Liberals shows that the objections were deeper than the campaign of confusion you ran or the objections raised publicly.
Do NDP and Greens like big ridings more than Liberals? Are Liberal supporters much more easily confused and mistaken? (granted..)