# Single Transferable Vote in BC?



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Well our Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform has finally made a decision, but it isn't making too many people happy (this could be a good sign, if no particular group gets everything they want). They have chosen to recommend the Single Transferable Voting system (STV) of proportional representation. This will be offered as the alternative choice against the current First Past the Post system (FPP), in our electoral reform referendum in next March's provincial election.

Campbell's (Neo-con) Liberals are saying, effectively, no comment, as are the NDP. The Green Party leader, Adriane Carr, broke down in tears and has threatened to start a "No" campaign against this choice.

She has put in many years of work into pushing electoral reform and advocating a Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) system. A standard MMP system would have made the Greens in BC quite a powerful fringe party, able to influence the inevitable minority governments that come from Proportional Representation (PR). The reason she's upset is that she believes STV is less proportional and many have said it gives less power to the parties and more to the individual MLA's. Green Party MLA's would likely be elected under an STV system, but it has been surmised that they would have less clout. Giving less power to the parties may be a good thing.

Although the news is reporting that the Green Party has come out against STV, so far it is only Carr's personal opinion. Many Greens Party members have already gone on record as saying that even though it wasn't their preferred result, they will support it, because it's still a vast improvement on the unfair FPP. It remains to be seen whether Carr can force the leaders of the party to go along with her.

The problem with STV, as I see it, is that it is really difficult to understand the vote counting procedure. I think I'm reasonably intelligent and even though I've read a number of articles on it, some with lots of math equations, in the last 2 days, I can't say with much confidence that I understand it. This complexity may doom it's chances in the referendum, which requires a 60% vote to pass.

MMP, although different from our current system, was a pretty easy concept to explain. STV is definitely much harder. 

The voting process isn't significantly more difficult under STV. The Citizen's Assembly is advertising it as "easy as 1,2,3". From the Citizen's Assembly news release:


> The voter using STV would see two key changes from the current system:
> 
> First, instead of writing on the ballot a single "X" for a single candidate, the voter would be able to rank candidates (1, 2, 3, and so on) according to the voter’s personal preferences.
> 
> ...


This part is easy to grasp, but the procedure for allocating the votes is a mass of equations and jargon. Computers will definitely be required to tabulate the voting, if it's to be done in a reasonable amount of time, since it's more than simply adding up totals.

Like other PR systems, STV will give some level of proportionality, some say not as much as a variant of MMP.

I found a BBC site that illustrates how STV is done in Northern Ireland. This was the clearest explanation I could find because it involved some pictures. Single Transferable Vote demonstrated

Although it's important for BC residents to understand this, I think it's also important for other Canadians to know what is happening here too. With BC being first out of the gate in moving towards PR, it may influence how it gets adopted, or if it does get adopted in other provinces and potentially, federally.

(Pardon the long post - it wasn't easy to reduce this info to a few words)


----------



## We'reGonnaWin (Oct 8, 2004)

Holy crap. Solving polynomial equations would be easier.

Got any info on MMR?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

What's MMR?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

While this sort of electoral reform looks rather good on paper...it often ends up in unworkable coalition governments that are made up of a dozen or more parties, all pulling in completely different directions.

Israel is a fine example. They seem to have elections every two years or so. Each time that enough of the disparate political groups that make up the ruling coalition feel signifigantly slighted, they pull out. And a new election is then called.

Very little of real substance is ever accomplished by one of these balkanised governments. Anywhere!

BC is badly enough split between the whacko Greens and the dysfunctional union-driven NDP and the so-called "Liberals" (who are very right wing, actually...but who dare not officially use that term, lest they piss off the adherents to the Whacko greens or the union-driven NDP, and thereby render themselves totally unelectable).

I think that we might all be finally ready for some form of direct democracy in another two decades or so. A forrm of Government that no longer relies upon parties or charismatic leaders or all too infrequent elections.

Rather...we would ALL cast our votes online, a couple of times a month, on all of the major issues that are before us.

But we aren't really ready for that, just yet.

Nor are we ready for porportional representation. Or the many headaches that it would bring.

Heck...out here in BC we are only now just pulling out of the economic hole that the former NDP sunk us into.

We'd STILL be in the doldrums if the NDP hadn't been soundly crushed at the polls three years ago. If they still had a loud voice at the table, then we'd ALL be still in the very same mess right now.   

Thank goodness THAT horrible chapter in BC history is now over!

Porportional represantation might just bring it back. While giving the whacko Greens a small, but loud, voice, as well.

This scares me. It should scare any thinking human being who lives here. No sh*t!


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Interesting. I have to wonder why they chose to go with such a convoluted system, though. Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) accomplishes much the same thing but is far, far easier to count.

Then again, it *is* hard to apply that kind of voting system to a proportional representation system.

Personally, the way that BC has been governed the last 15 years or so, I'll be glad to see power taken away from the parties and given to the individual members.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macnutt,

Before making any kneejerk comments about PR it might be valuable to educate yourself just a wee bit on the subject. One place to start is here the UK Electoral Reform Society.

Using Israel as an example ignores all the other democracies around the world that use PR. which is just about all of them besides Canada, England, and the USA. Israel is an anomaly and its dysfunctional governments have more to do with the particular stresses their society is under than on their system of electing politicians.

Many of the democracies that use a PR system have stable and effective governments that last, whether it's a coalition or not. A common misconception is that coalition or minority governments under PR systems are the same as under FPP. Under our system, the minority only lasts as long as none of the parties feels they can abandon it and run again to get a majority. 

In our current situation federally, once the parties feel they can financially afford another election and once one of them gets some polling telling them they have a shot at doing better than they have at present, the government will be allowed to fall and we'll be back at the polls. Under PR, the same incentive isn't there because majority governments are the exception, so another expensive election may put them right back where they were. This forces the parties to work together and to not take extreme positions that alienate the other parties, because they need to work with them. Our current system exacerbates much of the extremism. It looks to me like STV might be the antidote to some of that. Minority and coalition governments are nothing to fear.

From the Electoral Reform Society section on STV:


> *Arguments used in favour:*
> 
> STV does more than other systems to guarantee that everyone gets their views represented in parliament and that they have a say in what is done by their elected representatives. STV is the best option for:
> 
> ...


Actually the more I read about STV, the more I like it, especially the last line about it being disliked by politicians and eliminating "safe" seats. Anytime politicians are nervous, I'm happy. I'm afraid that the issue of its complexity may well doom it at the referendum.

BTW, I'm not hostile to the notion of direct democracy. It requires a populace that is very well informed on the issues and has the ability to think critically and news media that are very responsible in presenting those issues fairly and without the spin. Otherwise you get nothing better than those with the most money to throw at an issue winning out, which is the opposite of democracy.


----------



## We'reGonnaWin (Oct 8, 2004)

^that's all good. Government needs to fear the public.

How about the Athenian system? Pull a few random people from a constituency, pay them twice their normal wage and force them into office. It's treated like jury duty that you DO want to participate in for good reason$$.

Plus they get a swell pension. But this way you get better representation than lawyers, business execs and union bosses.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

The Greens in BC are so far out of the curve that I seriously doubt that they will ever get more than one or two seats in the Legislative Assembly.

IF they're that lucky!


----------



## We'reGonnaWin (Oct 8, 2004)

They had 12& of the vote in the last B.C. election and the legislature has 79 seats. Do the math.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

I'd support this electoral reform. It's not perfect but I think we could use a change.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

In the last BC election everyone expected the Greens to win almost a dozen seats, based on their percieved popularity...and on the poll results. (and based on the full flight AWAY from the hated and failed NDP by the voting public)

The Greens didn't elect a single seat. Not even one.

In the upcoming byelection the Greens could get their very first seat ever!

But I bet they won't.

Not by a large margin. Does this tell you something?

It should.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

I just found a really good primer on the proportional representation system and the single transferable vote specifically. Ken Carty, the Citizens Assembly director of research, was interviewed on CKNW last night and the audio is available on their web site.

BC citizens will be hearing lots about this subject for the months leading up to the next provincial election, and the electoral reform referendum, next spring. The interview is a great way to learn about the basics of PR.

You'll need Windows Media Player (boo) to play the stream. The show can be found here. Then you have to set the date for Monday Oct. 25 and the time at 8pm and the portion of the show with the interview will play. The first 7 minutes or so are news and commercials and after about 16 minutes they start taking calls from the public. At the 45 minute mark, the host starts talking about the US election.

Interestingly, Adrian Carr phones into the show and has an impromptu debate with Carty. I think she was completely off base and I don't understand her reasons for opposing the Citizens Assembly decision, I've lost a lot of respect for her. Fortunately, it looks like most of the Green Party is not agreeing with her.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

*In the last BC election everyone expected the Greens to win almost a dozen seats, based on their percieved popularity...and on the poll results.*

C'mon Macnutt, you're seriously posting this statement on a thread on proportional representation? Do you understand the differences between first past the post and proportional representation? Did you listen to the CKNW interview, it might answer a few questions for you, maybe clear up some of your muddled thoughts. Surely CKNW (a right leaning Vancouver talk radio station) is an acceptable source for you.

The Greens got over 12% of the overall BC popular vote in the last election and got no seats. The Unity party got over 3% of the vote - no seats. The NDP got over 21% of the vote - 2 seats. Campbell's Liberals with 57.6% of the vote and got 77 of the 79 seats in the Legislature. This is the first past the post system you are defending.

Surely, you couldn't have been defending it in the previous election, when Campbell's Liberals got a slight majority of the popular vote, but didn't win the majority of seats and had to sit in opposition, watching Glen Clark, for 5 years.

Proportional representation is not a left-right issue. There are many on the right who are in support of it, such as the aforementioned Unity party and the federal Conservatives and many on the left who are against it, such as former NDPer Moe Sihota, who I saw on TV denouncing it.

The Citizens Assembly was put in place by Campbells Liberals and I applaud them for at least living up to one of their campaign promises. I think that they know that for now they may be the beneficiaries of first past the post, but it won't remain so forever. They don't want to end up like their predecessors, the Social Credit, wiped off the face of BC's political map, because they lost massively under Van der Zalm. One day they may need proportional representation to assure that they get their fair share of seats. And then people like Macnutt will be glad it exists.

So Macnutt, I implore you again, please make *informed* comments, OK?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

To expand upon my contention that proportional representation is not a left/right thing, but instead, about fairness, I found a link, which is an interview with Nick Loenen, former Richmond city councillor, Social Credit MLA, and Reform candidate. 

Loenen is definitely a right-winger, but he is also the founder of Fair Voting BC. In that organization he has worked with NDPers and Greens, along the lines of the national Fair Vote Canada which includes members of all the political parties. He's one of the guys who pushed Campbell's Liberals to adopt the Citizen's Assembly process, having some access with these guys that most people wouldn't have. Richmond Review article

Another story in Tuesday's Vancouver Sun fills in some details about the STV system

This isn't just an issue for BC citizens. What happens with this in the next 6 months in BC, will likely determine how the fight for proportional representation goes in the other provinces that are considering it and eventually nationally. If it fails here, I think that would likely doom the other efforts across the country. 

This is our big chance to get a voting system that really reflects the wishes of population.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Hi GA,

I would certainly favour the introduction of the STV within our current riding system. While the results wouldn't necessarily be more proportional, it would end the necessity of strategic voting and allow you to vote the person you like best, rather than against the person you like least. The STV is also quite simple to understand... the example you linked to was made complicated by the fact that six people were being elected.

Going beyond that, the only concern I have is that some proposed PR systems are so Byzantine that they are hard to understand and possible open to manipulation. I would like to move towards it in the future, but there is no reason we can't have the STV right now. Pity that Jack and the NDP seem to have forgotten about it...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Hi FN,

Regarding the STV system not being more proportional than first past the post, everything I have read tells me it would be much more so than FPP. STV is considered to be slightly less proportional than MMP or purely proportional systems like Single Member Proportional. Purely proportional systems like SMP have the downside of giving the parties much more power in the process, which is the reason why the CA went with STV. STV is considered a proportional representation system and is being referred to as PR-STV by some. (I know, I know, insane amount of acronyms.)

The voting in STV is easy to understand, it's just trying to understand the potential results, that is difficult for most of us. I also like the fact that STV takes strategic voting pretty much out of the picture. Pollsters are going to hate this system as well as party hacks who want to play the angles. At first I was concerned about STV, because I hadn't really looked into it, but the more I learn about it the more I like it.

I agree that the vote calculations seem byzantine and any system using STV would have to incorporate arms length and impartial bodies administering it. I think Elections Canada is such an organization, but possibly some tweaking to their structure might have to be implemented to make sure their procedures are transparent, especially regarding computer calculation of the results. And paper ballots could still be used, so there is the ultimate backup for resolving disputes. Fortunately we are already far ahead in this regard compared to the completely dysfunctional system in place in the USA.

Nationally, the push for PR, seems to have moved to a rather wishy-washy spot with the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs recommending "a process that engages citizens and parliamentarians in an examination of our electoral system with a review of all options". Not too exciting, but a step forward. I would have preferred a national Citizens Assembly, rather than leaving it up to the party hacks to decide.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Hi GA,

The STV is only proportional when it's combined with a new system of electoral areas. If we use the STV but maintain the current riding system, a party could still get 50% +1 of the vote and win every riding.

Usually the STV is combined with a system where ridings are combined into electoral areas. The parties then run a slate of candidates in, say, Toronto, and you vote for them using the STV. Once a person is elected, then the votes that person didn't need go to the second choice on the ballot and so on. Through this, a much more proportional selection of candidates get in. 

There are negatives though:
-The link between a riding and its MP is lost.
-The system can be very complicated.
-The deciding of these new 'electoral areas' is a political process and open to manipulation, gerrymandering etc.

For that reason I would like to see a gradual evolution, starting with an STV but maintaining our riding system. I can think of no good reason not to at least make this start.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Yes, the STV system is only proportional when it's combined with new larger electoral areas. The larger the area, the more proportionality. It would be extremely proportional under one large riding, but then the downside that you mention, of the link between the riding and MP becomes lost. The BC CA's choice took these factors into account in BC and are recommending larger multi-MLA electoral districts, with 5-7 MLA's in urban areas and 3 in some of the more far flung areas, such as northern BC.

Regarding your concern about gerrymandering the new ridings, I agree that it is something to be worried about. But it is always something to be worried about, under FPP as well. I'm not sure of the federal procedure, but in BC the ridings have to be redrawn after every 2nd election. After our next election the ridings will be redrawn anyway, so then would be the time to make the new STV ridings. I don't think the fact that gerrymandering can occur is an argument against STV, since that kind of rigging can occur under any electoral system. Citizens need to ensure that the process is fair and transparent.

One of the positive side effects of PR-STV that I just heard spoken about today, is the likelihood of less confrontational, more consensual politics. An interview, that I came across on CBC Vancouver radio, with the mayor of Cambridge Mass., which has used an STV system since 1941, points this out.


> The conflicts during the election process are less, because you don't want to tick somebody else's supporters off, because you may be looking for that second or third spot on their ballot. So it's a sort of nicer, gentler aspects of elections -- you just don't get the attack politics you get in a normal election here.


You can listen to the CBC interview here. It's a Real Audio file and you'll need RealPlayer to listen to it, unfortunately.

A great quote from another forum, discussing the STV decision, has really convinced me why I will be voting for it next May in our referendum, and why I think everyone should:


> This is exactly why the Citizens' Assembly picked STV over MMP. STV is designed to empower voters to be heard directly, rather than pushing them towards the secondary arena of their favourite political party where they will only face the same struggle to be heard. Ironically, many political parties and groups use tools similar to STV for internal elections to help empower their members. Why not just cut to the chase?


Taking some of the power away from the parties and handing it to the citizen's is the best argument of STV over MMP, and most certainly over FPP.

For the next 6 months there will be 2 choices in BC. The Single Transferable Vote system of Proportional Representation or the status quo. If it fails here, than I think any chance for anything besides the status quo will be severely hindered in other provinces and ultimately, nationally. From rumours that I hear, the BC NDP will get behind it and the Greens will force Adriane Carr to backpedal and support it too. Don't know about the BC Liberals, it probably makes some of them nervous, but some are prominently behind it. 

Wish us luck.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I am in a unique position in that I know both my MLA and my MP personally. I did not, by the way, until they were elected, but then I made a point to get to know them. 

(I even know our premier personally, but that is yet another story.)

I suspect I am in the minority of Canadians who enjoy that kind of relationship.



> There are negatives though:
> -The link between a riding and its MP is lost.


I think not.

For the record, how many ehMacers know their MLA or their MP for that matter?

Be honest now.

Hands up.

Oh, not many I see.

So what is lost?

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Macnutt proclaimed
"_Very little of real substance is ever accomplished by one of these balkanised governments. Anywhere!_"

Tell that to Germany which has never had a majority gov since WWII  

•••••

Sinc I DO know my MP tho not my MPP BUT I don't know Hazel but I vote for what she does for my living area so I think you are incorrect in saying people do not associate the candidate and the region closely.
That's my discomfort with PR - I think close regional ties are important, going outside that allows "taxation without representation" to arise too easily.
If a political career is staked on a region rather than a party popularity then those in the region have a specific voice.

••••
Wired this month has a very good survey and explanation of the various voting systems, their pluses and minuses. Tho these do not cover a PR system - only the best way to represent the wishes of various constituencies ( it has specific examples from real life where the systems are applied ).

Bottom of the list in terms of effectiveness......the electoral college system









I'll see if I can find it on line - it's a good issue anyway so if you are interested in better voting methods grab it - has some free tunes with it too....a whole other thread


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> If a political career is staked on a region rather than a party popularity then those in the region have a specific voice.


The only problem with that, is the winner is not likely to be supported by the majority (as in popular vote), rather a minority.

In other words, more people voted against than for, his or her representation.

Would not STV as I understand it so far, alter that?

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

First past the post does not produce a majority all that often when there are 3 + candidates - it's most often a plurality.

Other systems - instant run off or second choice or ranking will end with a candidate most tolerable to the greatest number.
This effectively ends split voting results ( the governor Jesse ??? - the wrestling guy would not likely have been the second choice for Dems or Republicans but he got 37% of the popular vote so got in when the traditional parties split the rest.
But alternate systems have strengths and weaknesses.

Pick up Wired - it's excellent analysis and examples. Als a terrific set of gadgets this month.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I will look for a copy when I am out and about today.

Cheers


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Although I am still learning about the details of STV myself, I believe that one thing we would not have to worry about is a bigger disconnect between the MP, MLA or MPP and the citizens of the riding.

Under an STV system, like the one's the CA has designed, ridings become expanded to become large multi-member ridings. In urban areas, possibly 5-7 members and in rural areas, possibly 3. Under the rules that the CA worked under, it was stipulated that they could not recommend a system that increased the number of MLA's, in this case 79. Possibly a larger MLA to citizen ratio would help, in the cause of proportionality, but these are the rules they worked under. Federally, one solution might be to abolish the senate and increase the number of MP's by say 50%, thereby reducing the amount of total legislators getting paycheques, but increasing representation by MP's.

Currently I have an MP, Conservative Gary Lunn, who I have communicated with on 3 occasions. Generally I hope that he will listen to my views even though they are quite different from his own stated political views and the policies of his party. But I don't harbour any illusions about him actually considering my input if it conflicts with his party's policies. Under FPP, he can safely ignore people like me as long as he has a strong enough base to give him the 34% or so of the votes that he needed to be the first past the post. So myself and the other 2/3 of this riding who didn't vote for him are SOL.

Under a federal STV system, I would be part of a larger riding that would likely have some Conservative MP's, and maybe a Liberal, an NDPer or two and possibly a Green party member, maybe even an independent. I could choose to communicate with whichever one of the MP's who I thought might represent my views on a particular issue and there would likely be one who would be more sympathetic. Result - more representation for everyone.

An added benefit of STV is the ranking system that is employed. When you vote under STV, instead of putting an X down for a single candidate you rank them 1, 2, 3, in order of your preference. Or you can simply put down one number or vote the party line, it's up to you. Gary Lunn, now couldn't afford to ignore the other two-thirds of his constituents, because, while they may not rank him 1, he may pick up some support if they rank him 3rd, 4th or even 10th. It forces the politicians to play to more than their base and makes them more responsible when in power, more likely to compromise and it doesn't allow a government in power to act like a dictatorship until the next election.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GA, the more you explain STV, the better I like it.

This could very well change the face of Canadian politics.

And THAT would "be a good thing". (I am free to us that phrase now. The originator seems to be tied up for a few months!)

Cheers


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Thanks for your endorsement, Sinc.









The more I learn about STV the more I like it, too. I think that the BC Citizen's Assembly made a good and wise choice. 

I'm already looking for the Yes campaign to start, for the referendum, 6 months from now.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> I'm already looking for the Yes campaign to start, for the referendum, 6 months from now.


I will be watching with interest GA.

Keep us posted, please?

Cheers


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

I found some excellent flow chart diagrams, showing how the vote counting is done under STV. They say a picture is worth a thousand words and I know that I've read at least 5000 words on the subject, that these diagrams summed up quite easily.









Web site









Web site

Also, since I hadn't posted it before here is a link to the BC Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform web site.

On their site today I found an article reprinted by Rafe Mair, famous crusty, independent thinking, right-wing loudmouth arsehole broadcaster. (I say that with the greatest of affection  ) Rafe explains why he supports STV.

Great lines from his article:

"… the establishment will fight the proposed changes tooth and nail.

Let’s look at why.

Labour and management both fear that their influence will be seriously eroded if they don’t have friends in a disciplined majority government or at least can look forward to that prospect."

"If you like dictatorships held together by ironclad discipline, then first past the post is your bag. 

If you believe, notwithstanding such calamities as BCRIC and the fast ferries that majority governments make better decisions than ones reached by real debate, again you will want no change."

Rafe Mair editorial


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

*12 days to go!*

With 12 days to go before the election and the referendum on electoral reform, I thought it might be a good idea to resurrect this thread for the benefit of BC ehMaccer's who might not know anything about the proposed BC-STV system of proportional representation.

There's a wealth of information on the Single Transferable Vote contained on the linked web pages in this thread. Obviously, my viewpoint is clear, but I urge those who don't yet understand STV to find out about it and go to the polls informed. Don't rely on the opinions of media pundits who have presented a lot misleading and factually incorrect info and may have an agenda. 

The web page in my signature is a good place to start. If you agree with it, don't keep it to yourselves, tell your family and friends that it's a good idea.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

That's excellent info tho it DOES sorta imply a computerized tabulation


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Computerized tabulation is likely under STV, although not necessary. STV in Ireland was done by hand count since the 1920s.

The important point here is that using STV involves a paper trail, but adding up the votes using a computer will save time. Elections BC and Elections Canada currently use computers to tabulate the votes now, also to save time. This is not a situation like the US elections, where people enter their votes into a black box machine and hope the software recorded what they punched in.

Computers might be installed in polling places, as ballot readers, but ballots would still be on paper. The voter ranks the candidates 1,2,3, etc., in order of their preference, on paper with a pencil.

If an election were conducted under STV during a week-long, province-wide, power outage, it might take a week to tabulate the result by hand.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Lucky BC for getting a shot at this! When will Ontario get the chance? Canada?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yeah - I'd like to see right across Canada - change the poltical landscape for sure and give the smaller parties a voice. :clap:
Hmmm ....make it a "must be" platform.....but how???


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

After deliberation and reading, I am willing to give it a try. If only the bullsh*t was as easy to wade through with respect to those representing the political parties. All I can say about that part is that the two big parties will not be getting my vote.


----------



## duosonic (Jan 7, 2004)

STV is difficult to understand - complicated mathematical operations are not my cup of tea - BUT ~ FPP sucks, both provincially & federally, & does not provide any kind of representation for the multiplicity of views that exist. We have gotten so used to FPP & the way our FPP system forces polarity & simplification of issues that we can't even imagine political parties/politicians trying to work together to solve a problem or to come up with a policy that addresses multiple perspectives & the needs of an extremely diverse population. I've gotten used to the idea of STV, and am willing to live with its complexities. I hope the majority vote is YES, & look forward to seeing how this changes the face of politics in BC.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Duo - did you view the Flash presentation of STV - makes it very easy to understand.

On here I think http://www.bc-stv.ca/

The interesting issue is the change in riding size but the concept is well presented on the flash animation.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

duosonic said:


> STV is difficult to understand - complicated mathematical operations are not my cup of tea - BUT ~ FPP sucks, ...


Duo - I think that many presenters of the STV option are focusing too much on the math formulas for determining how the ranked votes are translated into seats. I personally think this is unnecessary. People just need to know that they can rank the candidates, from first to last, and the formula will work to represent those choices that the voters have made. It’s completely transparent and auditable for anyone who wants to question the result.

On that level, compared to our present system it’s actually easier. Right now, when you go to the polls to have to consider strategic factors, such as, if I vote for the candidate I really like will it split the vote and cause the guy I don’t like to get in? Will that matter just in my riding or overall? What are the polls saying?

Under STV, you can vote for who you believe in, even across party lines, or for independents, if you choose, and the totals will be represented proportionally. Strategic voting and backroom political hacks gaming the system are very difficult, which is why it’s mostly the party powermongers, from all parties, who are afraid of this. Chances are that someone you voted for will get in and unless you are completely backing total fringe candidates, you will have some representation for your point of view.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Important note for BCer’s who support the STV option:

The hurdle for this to be implemented is big, in order for the referendum to pass, there needs to be 60% voter support throughout the province as well as majority support (over 50%) in 48 of the 79 (60%) of the province's ridings.

Because of this, if you want it to pass, don't keep quiet about this. Tell your friends, family and co-workers that it’s a good idea. Since the issue has support across party lines, you will be in no danger of offending your right-wing uncle in Kamloops or looney left-wing sister on Commercial Drive. 

In polls in the past it was shown that 70% of British Columbians were in favour of some kind of proportional representation. This is our chance.


----------



## duosonic (Jan 7, 2004)

well, yes – I got my understanding down to the point that I know under STV I can vote for the CANDIDATE of my choice, ranked, & have more than snowball's chance in hell at actually being represented in the legislature, & I also really like the focus on candidates rather than parties. So, I'll accept the math (you gotta understand I have MAJOR math block), & indeed I have been spreading the word to individuals & associations, cause this FPP system is SO dysfunctional – having attended an all-cadidates forum last night, especially, I can see clearly the change it would make in how I vote, so bring it on!


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Duo - did you view the Flash presentation of STV - makes it very easy to understand.
> 
> On here I think http://www.bc-stv.ca/
> 
> The interesting issue is the change in riding size but the concept is well presented on the flash animation.


I'm sure people that live in the remote ridings are going to love that change.  

All of a sudden, your riding is the entirety of Northern BC. Imagine you live in a town of 4000 people. Currently, ten of your towns make one MLA. With FPP, it's already hard for your MLA to keep up to date on the issues your town faces. With STV they will have a riding that is three to four times larger. I can see people in small towns losing representation.

VOTE NO BC!!!!!!!


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> I'm sure people that live in the remote ridings are going to love that change.
> 
> All of a sudden, your riding is the entirety of Northern BC. Imagine you live in a town of 4000 people. Currently, ten of your towns make one MLA. With FPP, it's already hard for your MLA to keep up to date on the issues your town faces. With STV they will have a riding that is three to four times larger. I can see people in small towns losing representation.


Just to correct any possible misunderstanding here, the proportion of MLA's to population will not change under STV. Currently, off the top of my head the ratio is around 1 MLA to 35,000 population, (correct me if I'm wrong).

The mandate that the Citizen's Assembly was given that they could not recommend a change in the amount of seats in the Legislature. It would probably be an improvement if STV is implemented to lower the MLA to population ratio, to allow for greater proportionality in rural areas. Maybe we would have 100 MLAs instead of 79 in BC. This wasn't within the Citizen's Assembly's mandate, but would be a great tweak for the future.

The new, larger ridings under STV would be multi-member ridings. This is to guarantee the proportionality results of the new system. For more sparsely populated areas this would result in large 3 member ridings. So instead of 3 ridings with 3 MLA's totalling 100,500, you would have one multi-member riding with the same population with 3 MLA's.

*How would this guarantee better representation?*

Let's picture one of these rural ridings, let's say a fictional one in the interior that has switched back and forth from right to left wing MLA's. In that fictional riding let's say the NDP won it with 40% of the vote, while the Liberals got 30%, the Unity party (right wing) got 15% and the Greens got 15%. Under this scenario 60% of the voters have wasted their vote and are not happy with the result.

In the next election, the Libs say get 45%, the NDP get 25% and the Unity and the Greens stay constant at 15% each. You still have a majority in the riding receiving no representation for their choices. Even if the Libs get 60% of the votes, there is still a sizable minority that has no political voice in Victoria. 

If the elected MLA is a backbench drone, voting as his party whip tells him to, he or she doesn't even have the option of voting to stand up for his own riding, against the wishes of his government if they conflict with the interests of his own riding. This happened in Delta, when Liberal Val Roddick, came close to losing her own seat there in a recall vote, where a significant amount of the people in her riding were enraged that she stuck with her party and backed the downsizing of the local hospital. It also happened under the last NDP government, where those in ferry dependant ridings had to listen to their local NDP MLA's tell them that the whole fast ferry idea was a good one, even though we all knew it was politically motivated, ill-considered nonsense, that was not going to help the ferry travelling public one bit.

Under STV, in this fictitious riding, electing 3 MLA's in a larger multi-member riding, the proportionality would guarantee that those 3 were not all from one party. This would mean that at least some in the minority, right or left, would have someone in their riding who might share their view, unless their vote fell to the fringes.

This would also mean that an MLA, who chooses party loyalty over the interests of his riding's voters, would do so at his own risk. He or she might have an opposing party MLA working in the riding who would hold them to account for their abandonment of their voters interests. In practice STV weakens some of the bonds of strict party discipline, and opens the way to better voter representation. Under STV a few strong independents will get elected too, which is extremely rare under FPP.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

I didn't see this recently. I guess it got buried in the lack of media coverage on STV.


> According to the lastest Ipsos-Reid Poll conducted April 23-26, 2005, two-thirds of British Columbians still know little (39%) or nothing (25%) about the proposed BC-STV propsoal on electoral reform. Only about one-third (36%) say that they know "a fair amount" about BC-STV, and just a tiny 4% know "a great deal" about BC-STV. The "Yes" side currently has a narrow 4-point lead over the "No" side in terms of voter support: 42% of BC residents intend to vote "Yes" to the referendum question, and 38% intend to vote "No". 18% of BC residents remain undecided, and 2% do not intend to vote a all on the referendum question. Support for the "Yes" side is highest among Green Party supporters (62%) and Vancouver Island residents (51%). Support for the "Yes" side also increases with knowledge of BC-STV.


Only 18% undecided, eh? That's quite remarkable with two-thirds claiming that they know little of nothing about STV. And Yes support increases with knowledge about the option. Best for the anti-STVers to stay quiet. The media sure is doing their part. 

So, talk it up in the next week, if you like STV.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

So you want to learn about STV, eh? (or maybe you don't)

Here's a page, sponsored by the Nelson (BC) Daily News, that presents a 5 part debate between a YES advocate and a NO advocate. Lots of info here, decide fer yerself! 

http://community.netidea.com/ccbc/STV_debate.htm


----------



## Gerbill (Jul 1, 2003)

> Vote YES for BC-STV on May 17th! Vote for REAL democracy!


Too late - I already voted NO! (advance poll).

I don't think people in BC are stupid enough to vote for something nobody understands. But, I've been wrong before - they were stupid enough to vote the Campbell Libs in.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

I'm sorry to hear that Gerbill.

You're an NDP supporter, right?

You know that the only way that NDP ever forms government in BC is when the right-wing is fractured, as happened when Harcourt won, and way back when Barrett won. Or when a right wing government screws up so bad, that the right wing media actually can't avoid reporting on it. Or through a distortion inherent in the first past the post system, like in '96, where they squeaked in, even thought the Liberals party had more votes.

Under STV, or any proportional system, the NDP could partner with other progressive parties, or independents and get in. Of course, backroom power-mongers like, Bill Tielman, Moe Sihota and Barrett are against it, because they care more about power than than policy or democracy. STV goes against the power of political parties and proportional systems go against the power of dictatorial majority governments. They think they know what's best for the plebes, and are waiting for 2009, when Campbell's boys with have worn out their welcome and their party can sweep to ultimate dictatorial power again, ... maybe.

As far as being difficult to understand, I heard a defender of our current system on the radio this morning, trying to explain how a system that can give 97% of the seats to a party than won 57% of the vote can be called democratic. *That* was difficult to understand.


----------



## Gerbill (Jul 1, 2003)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I'm sorry to hear that Gerbill.
> 
> As far as being difficult to understand, I heard a defender of our current system on the radio this morning, trying to explain how a system that can give 97% of the seats to a party than won 57% of the vote can be called democratic. *That* was difficult to understand.


I agree that proportional systems are better - but how did they come up with this turkey? There are many proportional systems in the world that are more widely used and simpler to understand and implement.


----------



## jicon (Jan 12, 2005)

I'm voting No.

If seats were truly represented by percentages in given ridings, I'd assume (maybe wrongly?) that more often than not, we have a minority government.

Current political agendas in Ottawa at the moment indicate to me that minorities are bad for residents.

I'm more than sure that this would involve nothing but a bureaucratic mess in B.C., given the scandals, infighting, and fights with unions.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Gerbill said:


> I agree that proportional systems are better - but how did they come up with this turkey? There are many proportional systems in the world that are more widely used and simpler to understand and implement.


I think it's a red herring put forward the opponents to STV that it is difficult to understand. A poll in April showed that for those who have taken the time to understand it, those in favour of it are 2 to 1.

For the voter, it's simply a matter of ranking the candidates in order of preference, first to last, 1, 2, 3, etc. Everyone can do that. The mathematical formulas used are designed to translate the total rankings by every voter into a true sampling of who most people chose 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. It's really not necessary to understand the math - it works, delivers proportionality, is auditable, verifiable and has a paper trail.

If you want to understand the math, there are hundreds of sites on the 'net that can give you every type of presentation, from simple flash presentations that a kid in Grade 5 could follow, to detailed breakdowns and analysis of the math.

If it was so difficult to understand, then I don't think it would have lasted in Ireland since the 1920s and survived 2 votes to replace it with another system. The Irish are no brighter as a whole than BC citizens and they've managed fine with it.

How the Citizens Assembly came up with this and why they rejected some of the other systems is that they felt that most handed too much control over to political parties, since under MMP, for instance, they get to choose the party list that become a percentage of MLA's if the party gets enough votes.

Under STV, a party might submit 4 or 5 candidates in a multi-member riding for election. It's the voters who get to choose which one's will be elected. Maybe the party's star candidate who got air-dropped into the riding doesn't pass the smell test for most voters and instead they choose the guy who has been slogging it out in the trenches in the riding for years. That's a big advantage in my eyes.

It was bound to be a tough sell because this system is a big departure from what people are used to. Unfortunately there was only a small pittance of the Citizen's Assembly's total budget that was available for education.

Most of the explanation of this has been done by people like me, through word of mouth, email, online, etc. I even made my own lawn sign to promote the option and stuck it on a prominent intersection on my island.

One positive is that the poll I saw, done in late April, gave it a slight majority in votes, even though almost 60% claimed to have little understanding of it. They just knew that the status quo was broken. By now that percentage of people understanding it has increased. Could be that a little more word of mouth, might put it over the edge.

It's the vested interests and those who thrive on controlling political power in this province, both left-wing and right, who have the most to fear from STV. It's those who fear democratic choice that are in the NO campaign. They are the one's who are spreading the misinformation about it.

Send them a message.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Jicon, read back in this thread.


Me said:


> A common misconception is that coalition or minority governments under PR systems are the same as under FPP. Under our system, the minority only lasts as long as none of the parties feels they can abandon it and run again to get a majority.
> From post #6 in this thread


Proportional Representational systems around the world produce no more instability than First Past the Post systems. Minority governments under FPP systems are inherently unstable, as we can see in Ottawa. FPP systems are designed only to ensure majorities which of course equals virtual dictatorship while one party holds a majority.

Coalition governments under PR systems can work and be effective, as has been proven around the world. Don't confuse the crap that's going on in Ottawa with that.

Click on the link in my signature and please find out about it, before you condemn it.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Jicon, a couple of Q and A's from that site:


> Q: Won't this new system lead to unstable minority or coalition governments?
> 
> A: BC-STV can produce majority or minority governments - depending on the will of the voters. The Assembly believes that minority and coalition governments can, in practice, be a strength because they encourage MLAs to work together. Germany , one of the more successful democracies in the world, has had only one single-party majority government since 1949.
> 
> ...


----------



## jicon (Jan 12, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Coalition governments under PR systems can work and be effective, as has been proven around the world. Don't confuse the crap that's going on in Ottawa with that.


I guess my only thought process was despite however bad it was going in Ottawa , BC MLAs would easily be able to slow legislation to a crawl. Too much fighting between, and in the parties here in my opinion.

Maybe I'll read up a bit more, seeing we'll have rain all weekend.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Hi GA-could you list the some of the countries that use this system?
I've been googling for a list, but not having much luck


This is what I've found so far....

Places that use STV for governmental elections include:

Australia, for the Senate [2] and for one or other of the state houses.
Republic of Ireland, for all elections [3]. (However, presidential elections and most by-elections elect only one candidate and so reduce to the Alternative Vote.)
Malta, for all elections [4]
New Zealand [5], where STV was used for the first time for district health board and some local authority elections in October 2004
Northern Ireland, for local, Assembly and European elections
The United States, where the only official governing bodies that use STV to elect representatives are the City Council and School Committee of Cambridge, Massachusetts.
All local governments in Scotland will be using STV to elect their councillors. The Local Governance (Scotland) Bill [6] passed on June 23, 2004.

STV enjoyed some popularity in the United States in the first half of the 20th Century. The community school boards of the City of New York [7] used STV until they were abolished in 2002.

This method used for electing the Legislative Assemblies of Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory and the elections in the province of Alberta, Canada from 1926 to 1955.

British Columbia will decide by referendum on May 17, 2005 whether to adopt STV to replace its current First Past the Post electoral system, after a recommendation of STV [8] by the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform.

Some non-governmental organisations also use STV. For instance, all National Union of Students of the United Kingdom elections and those of their constituent members are under the system.
http://www.answers.com/topic/single-transferable-vote


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Hi, Ottawaman, - that looks like a pretty complete list, as far as I can tell.

The most long-standing example, I think, is Ireland. When it was brought in there, political parties had not risen to prominence at that point, and it was believed to be a fairer system. It has survived 2 votes since the 1920s on proposals to replace it.

STV is not in use by a huge number of places presently, because it threatens the stranglehold of political parties on the system. If turkey's were in charge, you can bet Thanksgiving would never be implemented. 

And you can see that in the current move to bring it in here, many on the NO side who are against it, represent the political elite, right and left, who have tasted the near dictatorial power that first past the post can deliver. You've got far right former BC Premier Bill Bennett and NDP former Premier Dave Barrett, both agreeing that it would be a bad thing.

In my mind, if the representatives of the status quo, that have delivered nothing but polarization hate it, there must be something good about it.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Gerbill said:


> Too late - I already voted NO! (advance poll).
> 
> I don't think people in BC are stupid enough to vote for something nobody understands. But, I've been wrong before - they were stupid enough to vote the Campbell Libs in.


I voted no as well, but I voted for the BC Liberals.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

For anyone wanting a better understanding of how PR-STV works, and who is using it in what forms, take a gander at the Wikipedia article. It's quite good.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Transferable_Vote


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

I was just reading in the Vancouver Sun that Ipsos did a poll recently that shows support for STV is up pretty much everywhere. So much so that they said it might even pass.

I think the biggest problem it's had/does have is that no one bloody knows about it. :/


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Yes PB, the polls are trending that way. Here's some numbers from Angus Reid

.....................May 11.........Apr. 28........Apr. 6
_______________________________________________
Yes.................37%...............32%.............26%
_______________________________________________
No...................22%..............16%.............17%
_______________________________________________
Don’t know 
/ Undecided.....41%...............52%.............57%

This shows that more have decided and that the while the NO vote isn't increasing the YES must be taking a lot of that. I wonder also if those who are undecided in this poll would represent the bulk of the folks who won't vote at all. You would think that if you answered Yes or No that means you intend to vote. If that is the case and even half of the undecided folks say Yes, it could even break over the 60%.

But alas, this is just all polling and it may not mean anything much. For the referendum to pass is has to jump some high hurdles. 60% overall and at least 50% in a minimum of 47 of the 79 ridings. That's a high bar.

But even if the Yes vote doesn't make that bar, but puts in a strong showing, even winning an overall 50% vote, it will mean proportional representation won't be a dead issue. If the YES votes are low, I don't think you'll see PR as an option for a generation, at least. This would also harm the PR movement across Canada.

This might be my last kick at this before tomorrow, so here's my simple answer for why you should vote for BC-STV.

If you believe that a party's seats won should reflect the percentage of the population that voted for them, you agree with Proportional Representation. If you believe that a minority of votes shouldn't elect a majority government then you also believe in PR.

Different systems of PR have a flaw in that they give a lot of power to the parties to decide who will be on their "party list" that helps to guarantee proportionality. STV doesn't use party lists and gives more control to the voters, who get to rank the candidates in their riding from 1st to last, in order of their preference. This gives less party control and more voter choice than any other PR system.

This is why the Citizen's Assembly chose it, over all the other systems that they painstakingly reviewed. It was the best fit for BC. It is fair, proportional and offers choice.

This is why those who want to retain or grab power, both from the left and right, fear STV. They don't care what you want to choose, they want to dictate to you what you'll get. And they've been very busy lying all over the media about STV.

I think I've answered all the various red herrings brought up against it in thread. There's a ton of info on the web about it. Click on the link in my signature.

I think that STV is a vast improvement on the creaky outmoded First Past the Post system that we have now. If you're sick of FPP's distortions and disenfranchisement, please vote YES!


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> This might be my last kick at this before tomorrow, so here's my simple answer for why you should vote for BC-STV.


Here's my last kick at this issue as well. I say vote NO!

Before voting Yes, consider the following:

1. Do you want to have to keep track of 3 or 4 MLA's along with their opposition opponents in your own riding? Right now it's hard for many people to keep track of 1 MLA.
2. Do you want our smaller communities to be amalgamated into larger voting districts? Many small communities could lose their voice in the legislature.
3. Do you want our province to be run by minority governments perpetually? Do you think this is good for our economic stability?
4. Do you want one issue parties to control the agenda (or their agenda) by holding the balance of power in a minority situation?

I don't think these issues have been effectively addressed by STV. I say vote no for now and give people more time to understand what is being proposed. I think the Citizens Assembly should address these concerns and be allowed another kick at the can in the next election.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Sorry Dave, I saw your post and I couldn't let these points pass, unchallenged. Now I'm going to be getting to bed later, because of you, dammit! 



> 1. Do you want to have to keep track of 3 or 4 MLA's along with their opposition opponents in your own riding? Right now it's hard for many people to keep track of 1 MLA.


You don't have to, if you don't want to. STV allows you to just place one vote if that's all you want to deal with. If you want to rank a dozen candidates that's also your choice. But if we really want putting a government in place to be dead simple we could just opt for a one-party state. A one-party state is what we often get under First Past the Post, anyway. One party gets a lock on power and through the distortions inherent in that system can't be effectively challenged, even if they don't command an actual majority of votes.


> 2. Do you want our smaller communities to be amalgamated into larger voting districts? Many small communities could lose their voice in the legislature.


Not true. The ratio of MLAs to voters will not change. People in more rural areas will find themselves in bigger ridings with 3 or 5 MLAs to choose from. If you live in a rural riding on Vancouver Island that usually goes NDP by a 55% majority and you're a right winger, you might be unhappy a lot of the time. Under STV the larger riding that you're a part of might elect at least one BC Liberal, so you get someone to call who might think more like you do. And the same would happen for lonely NDPers in BC's interior. In my mind that's more voice.


> 3. Do you want our province to be run by minority governments perpetually? Do you think this is good for our economic stability?


Another favourite red herring of the NO side. As I've explained in this thread just recently, minority government under PR systems is not the same as under FPP. Under FPP minorities are inherently unstable since the system is only designed to elect majorities. Minority governments are usually messy and short-lived under our current system, with the partners throwing it away the first chance they think they have to get themselves a majority and the unfettered power that gives. Under PR systems, minorities are no more unstable than the majorities we elect. Many European countries do just fine with minorities. Germany has had only one majority government since 1949.

But majorities are not impossible either under STV, more so than in other PR systems.


> 4. Do you want one issue parties to control the agenda (or their agenda) by holding the balance of power in a minority situation?


Again, not true. Any larger party in a coalition, letting a tiny fringe group that gets themselves into power have the ability to control the agenda, will get punished. If a coalition forms, the larger group gets to control the agenda. They may let a smaller group get in on a horse trade with them for support, but it would be supremely stupid to let them take over.

This happens already under our current system, with one big difference. Under our system it happens at party conventions and the horse trading is done by un-elected riding associations and power brokers within the party. 

The brand new Conservatives are a perfect example of just that. They are a coalition of religious right and western social conservatives who made up a lot of the old Reform component and fiscal conservatives and more moderate red Tories from the old PCs. When they had their policy convention, they gave gay marriage to the religious right, but wouldn't give them abortion, with the proviso that they better keep their more extreme buddies mouths clamped shut. They know that if they ever want a shot at government, they've got to keep their extremists at bay, but they also need them, especially in parts of the west.

Now if the Conservative were to ever get a majority, we could see some real hijacking going on. I can't really see that happening without Quebec, but for the sake of argument, let's just say it could. So at the next policy convention after they get their majority, the religious right sees the chance they've always wanted and comes out better organized, with more un-elected delegates and forces many of their policies through. Now we could have a government, effectively hijacked by a rump of their own party. It's happened before.

Under PR systems, coalitions and alliances are right out there for everyone to see. In lots of places that use PR systems the partners in coalitions even make public declarations and manifestos of exactly what they've traded with each other. It's much clearer to the public who exactly they're voting for.


> I think the Citizens Assembly should address these concerns and be allowed another kick at the can in the next election.


That is not on the agenda. If STV fails, we won't see it, or PR, or any discussion of electoral reform in BC, for a long time. And this is exactly what the NO side wants.

It looks to me, Dave, like you have more of a problem with the concept of PR, than with STV specifically. I, on the other hand have a serious beef with FPP. 

While STV may not be perfect, and may require a bit of jigging down the line, it is a million times better than what we have now. It's like saying, "I only want to be let out of jail if I can have a house, a car and boat." How about we just get our asses out of jail and work on the other stuff. Even if STV needs tweaking, which it may, because I'm sure that the Citizen's Assembly didn't imagine every contingency, what we got now is jail. Don't stay in there.


----------



## mbaldwin (Jan 20, 2003)

Vandave said:


> 1. Do you want to have to keep track of 3 or 4 MLA's along with their opposition opponents in your own riding? Right now it's hard for many people to keep track of 1 MLA.
> 2. Do you want our smaller communities to be amalgamated into larger voting districts? Many small communities could lose their voice in the legislature.
> 3. Do you want our province to be run by minority governments perpetually? Do you think this is good for our economic stability?
> 4. Do you want one issue parties to control the agenda (or their agenda) by holding the balance of power in a minority situation?
> ...


1) By "keep track", I assume you mean understand their positions. Yes, I suppose STV requires that a person dig a little deeper. But I think that a majority of the population votes for the party over the person. And if there is a particular person in the party that has lost your trust, then you can vote for others within the party instead. Sounds empowering to me.

2) I consider this argument to be conjecture. Don't most community decisions get made at the local level of government anyway?

3) Of course, this is moot if the official opposition does not vote against the party in power simply for the sake of being contrarian (the thing I currently despise about Canadian politics).

4) See 3. If the two major parties can compromise and actually come up with a good plan that suits both their needs, then the one issue parties have little power.

No form of PR will address your #3 & 4 issues.

I didn't like BC-STV when I first saw it, but I like it more every time I look at it.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

How is the voting going in BC? It seems to have been lost in all the news about Belinda Stronach's switch.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Dr. G., the polls close in about an hour, at 8pm Pacific Time.

I think that usually most of the seats get called by the TV folks, within a few hours. Elections BC has said that their first priority will be counting the riding votes, they may not have any definitive results on the STV referendum until midnight or later, - around the time you get up tomorrow. 

Voter turnout in the advance polls and from reports today has been high. They were far busier than usual at my little island polling place. Big youth turnout, I was told, (good for the left), although my riding will almost certainly go to the BC Liberals, (contrary to the name, they're right-wing neo-cons).

The Green Party will have a very strong showing on my island, as well as the other Gulf Islands, including Salt Spring, but we are joined to Saanich, on Vancouver Island, which is very conservative and has far greater numbers than all the islands combined.


----------



## Kami (Jul 29, 2002)

One thing that I found interesting was that both the MLA ballot and the STV ballot went into the same ballot box. I wonder why they didn't have 2 separate boxes. With a heavy turnout at my voting centre, it means that the first thing that has to be done is sorting the ballots into 2 piles and that could take some time


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The news reports are calling Liberal majority but reduced a bit. Don't shoot the messenger.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Yes, a reduced majority. STV is only sitting at 55% right now and we need 60. Interviews at polling stations have many informed voters voting YES and those that are living in blissful ingnorance voting NO. Oh well.

Greens are as marginalized as ever. Sitting at 9% of the popular vote vs. 13% last time. NDP is looking to gather many more seats than I predicted.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

will be about 
45 lib
33 NDP
1 Ind.

but popular vote is only 5-6% apart

death of Green Party
leader loses 3rd time in a row and party support down from 12% to 9%


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Uh, Macdoc, our liberals are not your liberals. They basically created the catchy name to blend in.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Carex said:


> Uh, Macdoc, our liberals are not your liberals. They basically created the catchy name to blend in.


I guess "Libertines" would of been too catchy, uh?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Oh I'm quite aware of that Carex, I was merely reporting the projected results - I had and have no druthers beyond hoping that the STV would be voted in thinking it might be a model for the rest of Canada.
Colour me neutral as to the outcome......I don't know enough to make any judgement in the matter and in politics a rose is not........


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Crap, STV reached as high as 57.2% but did not pass. I demand a recount. Dinosaurs. The people have spoken.


----------



## mbaldwin (Jan 20, 2003)

Frankly, I'm shocked that STV did as good as it did. And there seems to be a case for still passing it (or so I just read). Voting is about 75% counted and the Yes vote has a majority in almost all ridings. I don't believe the 60% figure has any legal requirement - it was just an arbitrary number to signify a considerable majority.

Of course, I could be very wrong about that...


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

My understanding was (GApplesauce could clarify) was that it needed to pass in a majority of ridings (40/79) and that it needed 60% of the total of those voting for it to be considered. It may pass the first test but not the second. 

Reporters were interviewing people coming out of the polls and the typical response of Yes voters was that they had read about it and become informed. The typical response of No voters was that they didn't know anything or enough about it to vote yes. Another example of uninformed voting I suppose.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Carex said:


> My understanding was (GApplesauce could clarify) was that it needed to pass in a majority of ridings (40/79) and that it needed 60% of the total of those voting for it to be considered. It may pass the first test but not the second.
> 
> Reporters were interviewing people coming out of the polls and the typical response of Yes voters was that they had read about it and become informed. The typical response of No voters was that they didn't know anything or enough about it to vote yes. Another example of uninformed voting I suppose.


You can't assume that the people a reporter interviews are representative in any way of the electorate and their thoughts on STV. How many people did they show? 3 or 4? 

I have my own anecdotes that some 'yes' voters only did so because they aren't satisifed with our current system. These people are just as uninformed as the 'no' people you discuss.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Vandave, I concur with your observation about the representativeness. However, it is easier for me to feel bitter about the results if I can point to the other side as being uninformed idiots


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

:clap:


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

I am interested in mbalwin's info that says 75% of the votes have been counted.

I haven't seen that, the only figures that I could find this morning show that the counting was suspended at around midnight last night with only 30% counted. At that point the YES side stood at 56.7%.

I was up until almost 3 am last night, scouring the web for info, until I found out from the MacLean's magazine web site, (of all places) that Elections BC suspended counting at midnight.

I haven't heard much on CKNW or CBC about it. CKNW is still reporting last night's numbers. They seem to think it was an afterthought and don't go into details about the numbers or what riding they came from.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Carex, for the referendum to pass, it was required to have an overall 60% majority. It also needed a 50% majority in 48 of the 79 ridings (60%) of the ridings.

From the preliminary results, it passed the second bar massively, I think I saw somewhere that 80% of the ridings had at least 50%. Where it seems to have fallen down is on the overall 60% super-majority that was, I believe quite arbitrarily, required.

If the numbers are accurate, and I wish I knew if they were or not, as many people voted YES as voted for Campbell last election, where he got 77 of 79 seats, then called an unprecedented landslide.

More people voted for STV yesterday than voted for any other alternative in this election.

Campbell claims he got a mandate, with 46% of the votes, yet somehow STV didn't, with 57%. Campbell has the majority power to do whatever he and his corporate backers decide for 4 years. Almost 60% of the people in this province voted against the system that gives him this fake mandate, yet their wishes are not heard. 

That's what passes for democracy here.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

" ... Where it seems to have fallen down is on the overall 60% super-majority that was, I believe quite arbitrarily, required. ... Campbell claims he got a mandate, with 46% of the votes, yet somehow STV didn't, with 57%.

Campbell has the majority power to do whatever he and his corporate backers decide for 4 years. Almost 60% of the people in this province voted against the system that gives him this fake mandate, yet their wishes are not heard. ..."

The FPP system is designed to give strong mandates to the "best" choice, whatever that threshold might be; he could have 30% of the vote and still have a majority if no-one else gets more than 20%. Fair or unfair, it does insure stable government, for the next 4 years (5 if he waits as long as possible) but no longer. That is not the same thing as changing the way we are governed forever.

When we are talking about changing the very rules of government, a super-majority is essential in order to prevent the "abuse of the majority" which can and does lead to some rather undesirable changes.

Hitler needed a simple 50% majority to change the way that country was governed, for example. There are many other examples of such abuse in the last 4 centuries worldwide. I cannot agree that a 50% majority is sufficient, in fact I believe it is inherently dangerous and will, not might, lead to abuse and repression.

In my opinion, 60% was a huge compromise from the standard (historically speaking) level of 67% (2/3rds) for such fundamental changes. In light of that, anything below 60% in my opinion should not be "stretched" to mean something other than a decisive defeat.

If the people of BC truly want such changes, they will get the 60% (apparently what they consider adequate in BC to qualify as a super-majority ) sooner or later. That's why we have it in the first place; it insures that eventually the will of the people will prevail while preventing the abuse of a one-time vote that changes your world forever, and with a very real ability to change it for the worse.

When we say "it couldn't happen here" that is nothing more than sentiment, and is easily overcome by the right kind of lies told at the right time. We also need rules that make it more difficult for abuse to happen in the first place.

A change like that should be much more difficult to achieve, so that we can insure at a minimum that we are quite sure the change, which should be permanent, is really what we want.

Keep in mind you are voting to change the very way votes are counted and members are elected. Whatever threshold you set for such a change is the one that could be used legally and with precedent in the future to take your vote away completely. It only has to pass once. Do you still think 57% is enough?


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Gordguide pretty much sums up my thoughts.

Changing the voting system is tantamount to changing a constitution. A plurality or even a simple majority just doesn't cut it.

If STV doesn't quite make it, surely it's worth the effort to review the proposal and try again.

BC voters are setting a road map that other provinces may follow. Getting it right is important.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I guess a two term implementation with a second vote to secure it would be too awkward but in my mind that would be a preferable approach to all or nothing.
A sunset clause might mitigate long term harm so that a second vote would be required to maintain it.

Two elections I would think would be enough to see it operate but I guess it's got some fundamental aspects that make it hard to change back.
Easily envisioned, hard to execute. Maybe a smaller province needs to tackle it but then the three parties may be missing.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Yes, I've heard the super-majority argument before and I'm not entirely in disagreement with it. Maybe with all the potential damage they can do, we should demand that politicians must win by a super-majority too. 

It is very arbitrarily applied though, it seems. I don't think the Charlottetown Accord required this, and certainly not the sovereignty referendums in Quebec. I was reading that the BC Referendum Act, which I assume is the legislation which governs the Citizen sponsored Initiatives that are almost impossible to implement, only requires a simple majority.

That being said the bar that was set was very high. It not only required the 60% majority, but it also required that 60% of all the ridings pass it by a simple majority. It met and exceeded the second bar massively, 77 out of 79 ridings gave it a majority. 2 ridings gave it 49%.

I was reading a further clarification of the rules this morning. If the bars were met, the Legislature would be required to pass it, as recommended by the Citizen's Assembly. Although it didn't meet only one of the bars, by the thinnest of margins, 2.6% short, it has got to be seen by the government as a massive mandate for change.

I don't think that our elected officials can say, as I heard a pundit from the NO camp say, that the vote shows that BC citizen's just didn't like STV. And I don't think they can sweep the issue under the rug, with the support it received.

I am asking everyone I know, that voted for it, to send an email, or better still write a letter, to their MLA, once they get new addresses etc. People need to ask them "A large majority of your constituents voted for STV and against FPP. How exactly are you planning on representing that mandate to the government? Please reply in detail."

It might be useful to contrast their winning percentage with the YES percentage. In my riding, Saanich North and the Islands, STV got almost 61%. The winner, Murray Coell, got 43%. He better have a good explanation for not pressing his government to do something about electoral reform.

The referendum vote totals, broken down by riding, can be found here.

The riding-by-riding election results can be found here.

In many ridings STV much higher percentages than the MLA who won. If they consider their win a mandate from the citizens, they can't say that the will to change the system can be ignored. But they will ignore it if they can.

I would like to see another referendum, this time with adequate money spent on educating the public on the issue. I am completely confident that if more people knew more about STV, surpassing that second bar would not be a problem. It was really only the NO side that relied on putting out misinformation about it to dissuade people from voting for it.

With no money, just basically word of mouth, a few web sites and a lot of hours spent meeting and talking with citizens, the YES side got this amazing result. Imagine if they had even a few hundred thousand bucks to spend.

Whatever happens, action is now required. The status quo is no longer an option. 

Get ready Ontarians, electoral reform will be visiting you too, quite soon. You're getting your own Citizen's Assembly with a referendum possibly by 2007. 

From the Toronto Star

When do we get something nationally?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Interesting note from the Citizen's Assembly FAQ


> *Isn’t the 60/60 double majority too high?*
> The intention of this referendum requirement is to be sure that all parts of the province support this important change.* Also, there is nothing stopping the government from introducing legislation that would enable the new system to go into effect even if support for the Assembly’s recommendation does not quite pass the 60% threshold.


Upon further reflection on this issue, I don't agree with a super-majority on this issue.

First, the super-majority is completely arbitrary in this instance, as I have mentioned above. It was a decision made by the Gordon Campbell BC Liberal Government, itself elected with a smaller vote than the percentage that voted for STV.

They chose that 60% figure for political reasons, with no precedent or clear rules stating that this was necessary. The change in how we count our votes is not a constitutional change. It's a change in the mechanics of our electoral system, but it does not change the nature of our democracy. We are still a parliamentary democracy where the majority rules, something the opponents of PR don't seem to be very concerned with.

I have written my MLA, Murray Coell, Saanich North and the Islands, today, requesting that he tell me just exactly what he plans to do about the STV vote. In this riding he received 44% of the votes and under our system he and his government can sell our public assets out from under us and make all sorts of irreversible changes to our health and the environment, with this kind of minority support. The vote for STV in this riding was almost 61%. I figure he's got a lot of 'splainin' to do if he plans to ignore this definite and clear mandate from his constituents.

In every riding in BC, but 2, STV received a clear mandate from the voters. There are only 2 ridings out of 79, where the vote for STV was not at least 50%. In those 2 it was not less than 49%. If STV had been a political party, it would have won every seat in the legislature.

Many of the politicians, both Liberal and NDP will attempt to ignore this clear mandate. Myself and many others don't plan on letting them. Please write your MLA.


----------



## LGBaker (Apr 15, 2002)

*on the hook*



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Many of the politicians, both Liberal and NDP will attempt to ignore this clear mandate. Myself and many others don't plan on letting them. Please write your MLA.


Done.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Upon further reflection on this issue, I don't agree with a super-majority on this issue.


I think 50% is too low to make a major change to our electoral system.

After thinking about this for a week, I think the result was a statement against the previous balance of power in the legislature (77 seats to 2). However, now that the NDP have a large chunk of seats, the public perception of our system will change. In four years, more people are going to think we have a balanced system. 

I don't agree with your earlier thoughts that the 'yes' side was more informed than the 'no' side. There is no evidence to support this. I think the level of support for the 'yes' side was mostly a vote for change. I think less than 30% of voters were somewhat informed about the issue (supported by polling). If I gave the 'yes' side the entire 30%, it's still only half of the yes voters and is less than a majority of people for the total vote. I don't think that's a good way to make decisions for our democracy. I would like to see the level of informed people be much higher.

I think this issue definately must be explored further because you can't ignore the percentage of 'yes' voters. Let's see where the issue goes. I look forward to learning more about it.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> I think 50% is too low to make a major change to our electoral system.


Dave, I do not. So does it matter what you or I think? Is there a precedent that you can cite that says 50% is too low or that 57.4% is not high enough?

This is not a constitutional change, it is a change to the mechanics of how we vote. Why is a normal majority not enough? As I said earlier 57% was enough of a mandate for the Liberals to declare all kinds of things, including establishing the Citizen's Assembly in the first place and also implementing fixed election dates. They also decided that one-third of BC Hydro could be sold, BC Ferries could be privatized and BC Rail could be sold (pardon me, leased for 990 years). Those are major changes, no?


Vandave said:


> After thinking about this for a week, I think the result was a statement against the previous balance of power in the legislature (77 seats to 2). However, now that the NDP have a large chunk of seats, the public perception of our system will change. In four years, more people are going to think we have a balanced system.


You or I or a boatload of pundits may think that the reasons people voted YES or NO were for a whole list of reasons, but the only thing we know for certain is that 57.4% voted YES for the BC-STV package. If we attempt to say the vote was invalid because we are of the opinion that some percentage was misinformed or really meant some kind of protest by voting YES, we are indulging in idle speculation.

I personally think anyone who voted for the BC Liberals who isn't part of the wealthier percentages of the population is misinformed because they are voting against their own interests, but that means nothing. If a majority votes for them I have to accept the government they voted for because I live in a democracy. I do not have the right or the power to simply ignore their choice because I happen to think it is misinformed.

You can say, as many on the NO side are currently saying, that the huge YES vote really meant something other than a landslide vote to accept STV, but that would be just speculation.

As for a more informed population in another vote, I'm all for it. I feel confident, both from the results of polls that show that of those who characterized themselves as very informed on the subject tended to agree with STV more and from the experience of CA members I met and my own personal observations, that if more had been informed on May 17th, we would have passed the 60% threshold easily.

I'm am very interested in seeing where this issue will go, too. If 77 of 79 MLA's feel comfortable ignoring the express wishes of majorities in their ridings, it will be interesting to see how they choose to justify this. Especially since most, if not all of them, received less votes to win their seats than what the STV option received.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

I don't really want to wade too deep into this one, but it's worth pointing out that last time they held a referendum Quebec said they'd leave Confederation if they got 50% + 1 vote.

Is that not a major change? Why were they allowed to get away without a super majority? Why are we unable to make a change without one?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

PosterBoy said:


> I don't really want to wade too deep into this one, but it's worth pointing out that last time they held a referendum Quebec said they'd leave Confederation if they got 50% + 1 vote.
> 
> Is that not a major change? Why were they allowed to get away without a super majority? Why are we unable to make a change without one?


No real reason I guess. It just seems that 50+1 can cause spur of the moment decisions to take place. I think major change should have significant support.

I think Quebec should need more than 50% to leave. Alternatively two votes in a row of 50%+1 would make me happy as long as they are a few years apart.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> No real reason I guess.


That was my point - what is the reason and where is the precedent? If Quebec can alter Confederation with 50%, then it's just the completely arbitrary judgement of someone that a change to the vote counting system requires 60%. It's a nice round number and it sounds good.

It was the wording of the CA's mandate that 60% would be required to make the choice of STV completely automatic. From the CA's web site:


> ... there is nothing stopping the government from introducing legislation that would enable the new system to go into effect, even if support for the Assembly's recommendation does not quite pass the 60% threshold.





Vandave said:


> I think major change should have significant support.


I agree, Dave.

57.4% voting for STV is significant. 77 of 79 ridings with a majority voting for STV is significant. The BC Liberals will make major change with 46% of the vote. How on earth do they argue that these numbers aren't significant?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> 57.4% voting for STV is significant. 77 of 79 ridings with a majority voting for STV is significant. The BC Liberals will make major change with 46% of the vote. How on earth do they argue that these numbers aren't significant?


I never heard anybody from the Liberals say the numbers weren't significant. Do you have any quotes?


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

For the record, I think that Quebec should have to show (or should have to have shown) a much more significant majority in order to actually leave confederation. Something in the order of 75%.

What I think we need is some sort of precedent set down to govern this type of thing. Personally, I agree with the idea of a super majority in cases like this where it's a big change that does affect everyone. I also think, though, is that there should be a clause that says something along the lines of "if it comes really close, bring it up again soon/next time/whatever."


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

> For the record, I think that Quebec should have to show (or should have to have shown) a much more significant majority in order to actually leave confederation.


But why, it's their choice really. If they decide that 25% is enough ahead of time and the majority agrees, that will be up to them. 
The sad thing about the Quebec separation debate/vote, is that they will just keep voting until they get the numbers to win. Then of course, there will be no more voting to go back the other way. It is an inevitability.


----------

