Color Me Confused On STV
The only thing compelling me to vote in the BC Election next month is a referendum on changing the voting system to the “BC Single Transferable Vote“… and because of the reasons they are using to promote this new system, I am just a little suspicious.
For example:
The Green Party of BC is backing the chance to change the way the province elects its MLAs, from the current ‘first past the post’ system – in which voters have just one vote to elect one MLA and may see a party taking a majority of seats without a majority of the vote – to the BC Single Transferable Vote (BC-STV) system, in which voters can rank their support for candidates in order of preference to make sure their ballot always counts.
In other countries, STV has enabled more women and minority candidates to be elected to government because it more accurately translates votes into seats.
Ok, so more women and minorities will get in.. noble.
So how does it work?
From the BC-STV Site – which is the official advocate site of the issue…
In 2005, 58% of voters preferred STV to the current, flawed system. How could we continue to elect government using a system that a clear majority of voters did not want? The government decided to resolve the issue with another referendum.
What is STV and where is it used?
Single Transferable Vote is a modern, well-established voting system, and the longest-established form of proportional representation. Countries that use STV include Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Northern Ireland, and Scotland. It has been proposed for use in Wales. BC-STV has been tailored by the Citizens’ Assembly to fit British Columbia. It is compatible with our parliamentary system, gives political parties a balanced role and strengthens the relationship between MLAs and the voters. Its design ensures voters have effective voices in government.
Then there’s the No-STV site
Adoption of BC-STV would merge the 85 single-MLA constituencies that will be used in the 2009 election into 20 multiple-MLA electoral areas with populations of 200,000 to over 300,000. With STV’s electoral areas it is possible to elect all the candidates for an area from one community, leaving others with no effective representation.
So, as with most issues in BC, the truth lies somewhere in between… I am worried that if we go with STV, the sheer number of parties we have here will confuse the results even more.
When you have parties such as; Communist Party of BC, People’s Front, Platinum Party of Employers Who Think and Act to Increase Awareness, Work Less Party of British Columbia, Your Political Party of BC, and yes, even the Sex Party (which makes more sense than most of these)….
You can see why we should look at this issue carefully before voting.
April 17th, 2009 at 11:46 am
Don’t we need constitutional reform to permit this and if not why not.
April 17th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
So in the example “Durian” was elected almost exclusively from 2nd and 3rd choice votes. What’s better, FPTP or electing someone that almost no one thought was the best candidate?
Not only that, this seems like it would turn into a total clusterf&*k if no one got “past the post” in the first round (in the example they needed 25% of the vote to get in, but there were 5 candidates, so it was possible to have no winner in the first round). When this happens (and there will likely be even more than five candidates in a real riding), what do they do? They eliminate the lowest vote getter, ie the most “fringe” candidate, and distribute that person’s votes. Well guess what? If I voted for the most “fringe” candidate who do you think my 2nd choice would be? Maybe the second most “fringe” candidate? In this way, the STV system inflates the votes of the crazy parties – which is exactly why the Greens et al love it.
And what happens if more than one candidate “passes the post” in the first round?
I say no thanks. I’ll stick with the FPTP system that has worked well for hundreds of years and usually ends up electing a “big tent” party rather than balkanizing the parliament into a mash of incompatible single-issue fringe parties.
By the way, women and minorities are increasing their representation naturally anyway, which is inevitable as society becomes more comfortable with it. To use that as the overall goal of the switch is a smokescreen for giving more power to the fringe parties since this “integration” is happening orgaincally anyway.
And another thing. Will there be a per riding limit to the number of candidates affiliated with each party or can one party “blitz” the riding with a huge number of candidates and essentially ensure a sweep?
Actually, following from that thought, sweeps seem very likely if more than one candidate is allowed from any party. As long as one of them makes it “past the post”, who do you think the 2nd choice will be in this partisan atmosphere? Then begins the domino sweep. If they were going to operate within this framework it would be more fair to simply take the top 3 #1 vote getters. At least then all of the people chosen would have been the first choice of someone. Of course that method doesn’t overinflate the fringes (and isn’t really that much different from FPTP) so you won’t hear much clamoring from the crazies about that idea.
Anyways, sorry to ramble, but there are some thoughts on STV from me.
April 17th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
This is some kind of bizzaro world socialist form of democracy. I will vote against this. Shudder….
April 17th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Thanks, but no thanks from me.
It would be like herding cats trying to get anything passed.
April 17th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
As stated above, this system would be a disaster for us. Why would we want to emulate European states where eco-freaks, conspiracy theorists and porn stars form coalitions that hold the entire Parliament hostage? Who in BC really wants the Work Less Party, the Sex Party or the Hemp Party to be creating government policy?
To me, the absolute best system would be this: over 50% gets you elected, otherwise drop everyone but the *top two* candidates and have a ‘runoff’ election. Simple and very democratic. I wonder why no one considered this when they were working out what system to propose?
April 18th, 2009 at 12:00 am
FredFromBC said “To me, the absolute best system would be this: over 50% gets you elected, otherwise drop everyone but the *top two* candidates and have a ‘runoff’ election. Simple and very democratic. I wonder why no one considered this when they were working out what system to propose?”
Actually that wouldn’t be best but they did consider, its called runoff voting. But you still waste the votes of anyone who didn’t vote for the top two candidates? And then you force a false choice between the two winners.
FPTP forces voters to vote strategically to have their voice heard by considering who is likely to win and voting to defeat their most feared choice. In BC-STV, you simply specify a full set of preferences and they will use as much of your vote as possible to elect your prefferred candidate in order.
As for “fringe” parties, the Greens are not fringe, 10% is a real point of view and it should be represented. What about the BC Conservative party, are they going to win any seats this election? Maybe, but its hard to fight that ‘don’t waste your vote argument’. Under BC-STV third parties like Green and Conservative can win. The thresholds needed to win a seat ensure that real fringe parties won’t get enough high ranked votes to win and will be eliminated to elect other. Take a look at trystv.ca to test out the vote and see what the results might look like this year if we were using it.
Just try to keep an open mind, a lot of people have thought long and hard about this and it hasn’t been chosen for some partisan, conspiricy reason. People are just fed up with wasting their votes in a system that doesn’t listen to them.
April 18th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
Wow! Lots of false comments here!
BC-STV is not a socialist conspiracy. It’s the work for ordinary citizens chosen at random amongst British Columbians. An initiative of a right-wing Premier.
BC-STV would not elect any fringe parties. A party would need about 7-8% support to ever think of maybe getting ONE seat. Currently, only the Green Party would have a realistic chance of getting a few MLAs. No Work Less, Communist or Marijuana will get seats under STV (unless they seriously increase their vote, which is unlikely). Malta uses STV and they have an extremely solid two-party system.
Attila, I have no idea where you get the “blitz” concept from? It’s not done under STV. You talk of balkanization and sweep in the same electoral system. These are two mutually incompatible concepts. Either an electoral system favour majority (sweep) or favour minority (balkanization), Not both!
STV is a good balance between these two extreme concept.
Read more about the referendum at stv.ca and nostv.org.
April 19th, 2009 at 10:57 am
[...] Of course there are some concerns: So, as with most issues in BC, the truth lies somewhere in between… I am worried that if we go with STV, the sheer number of parties we have here will confuse the results even more. [...]
April 20th, 2009 at 4:23 am
Sorry, but the Greens are still a ‘fringe’ party to me (as are *all* single-issue parties), and their supporters can have their point of view represented when they have gained enough support to be elected, the same way the Reform Party did. As for “forcing a false choice between two winners”, are we in elementary school again? We have to give everyone a gold star whether they earn it or not so as not to hurt anyone’s feelings? Not a chance. And don’t even get me started on the possibility of *perpetual* minority governments, which would be just as much of an economic and political disaster here as it has been everywhere else.
For the record, I’ll be voting BC Conservative this time around because I can’t vote for Campbell thanks to all the left-wing crap he’s been embracing for the last couple of years (whay happened to the practical, pragmatic manager-type guy we used to have running the province?), and I also can’t stomach the thought of voting for the NDP so they can take us back to the poorhouse again. I know that my vote won’t elect anyone (this time) but it will send a message, and that’s good enough for me.
May 1st, 2009 at 2:55 pm
The countries of Australia, New Zealand, northern Ireland and Scotland do NOT use STV. The Republic of Ireland does but evidently are not happy with it.
Scotland uses a 2 vote system for electing MP’s no matter the number of MP’s required in any particlar riding. Some ridings need up to 7 but the voters only get 2 votes.
Tasmania, which is a state of Australia, uses STV and a modified form of STV is used to elect Senators to the Australian parliament. This is a good idea for senate election because Senators are not elected by riding in a parliamentary system.
New Zealand uses a 2 vote, 2 tier system similar to Scotland.
Malta also uses STV as we know it.
April 18th, 2010 at 11:21 am
[...] Of course there are some concerns: So, as with most issues in BC, the truth lies somewhere in between… I am worried that if we go with STV, the sheer number of parties we have here will confuse the results even more. [...]