STV for BC - Vote Yes!

STV Referendum Post (not-so) Mortem

2005-05-21T16:10:00.000-07:00

Note: cross-posted to Crawl Across the Ocean

----

Where do we go from here?
The battle's done,
And we kind of won
So we sound our victory cheer

Where do we go from here?
Why is the path unclear?¹

After thinking it over for a couple of days, I have to say I'm pretty positive about the outcome of the referendum on Tuesday. True, STV getting 60% and passing would have been ideal, but I think when you consider that 60% is a pretty high bar to begin with, it was always going to be tough to reach that level, especially when trying to explain a complicated system like STV to the entire population - especially with no real budget for educating the voters and in competition with an election going on simultaneously.

Another complicating factor was that the process was designed so that elections BC would design the electoral boundaries only after the referendum. This allowed people to rightfully ask how they could vote on an electoral system when they wouldn't even know how it would affect the riding they would vote in.

A final factor was that, undeniably, some of the people who argued and voted against STV did so not because they preferred the current system to STV but because they wanted to have a chance to vote for a third system, the Mixed Member Proportional system, which was the second choice of the Citizen's Assembly. One of the reasons the Citizen's Assembly did not choose STV was that they were constrained by their mandate to not increase the number of MLA's elected in B.C., an arbitrary and unnecessary restriction.

So the real question now is, what next? The rule of 60%, while I think it is overly high², was set before hand so it would not be right for the government to take the 57.39% Yes vote and treat it as close enough and go ahead with STV. But on the other hand, given the 57-43 vote in favour, as well as the fact that a majority voted in favour of STV in 77 of the province's 79 ridings, clearly the population of B.C. has an interest in reforming the electoral system.

Under the circumstances, the course I recommend to the B.C. government would be as follows.

1) The Assembly should be reconvened, freed from the no new MLA's restriction and allowed to present two complete systems.
2) Elections BC should be directed to draw up suitable electoral boundaries and voting rules for each of the proposed systems so that voters would know exactly what they are voting on.
3) There should be a second referendum which would allow voters a choice between the 2 systems recommended.
4) This referendum should be held on its own without being linked to another election going on simultaneously.
5) Funding should be provided to mount a campaign for both options presented as well as a 'No' campaign.
6) The ballot should ask voters two questions: The first would be: 'Which of the two electoral options presented do you prefer?' ('Neither' would be an option here). The second would be 'Do you believe B.C. should change it's electoral system to whichever of the options in question 1 gets the most votes? Possible answers would be, "No", "Yes", "Yes, but only if the preferred system is option 1", and "Yes but only if the preferred system is option 2"

Then whichever system got more votes in question 1 would have to get 50% Yes (or at most 55%) on question 2 (adding up the unconditional 'yes' votes and the 'yes' votes conditional on that system being chosen).

There's probably a simpler way to accomplish this (I'm no political scientist), but you get my point. Given the expressed desire for change among B.C. voters, they should be given a second chance to vote for electoral change, in a properly funded referendum, one which gives citizens a choice between the two systems which have a strong base of support in the province.
-----------

Note: Rafe Mair articulately makes some similar points to mine over at the Tyee.

-----------
¹ From the song "Where Do We Go From Here", from the musical episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. (Season 6, Episode 7).

² See Wikipedia for some interesting history on referendums. Following from there to the article on Canadian referendums it seems we've only ever had 3 (at the federal level): One on prohibition, one on conscription and one for the Charlottetown Accord. So in the history of the federal government only 3 questions have been deemed to be of enough significance to warrant having a referendum at all. And *no* question was ever been deemed important enough to require a super-majority from a referendum vote, not even the government forcing the nation's youth to fight and possibly die in a foreign country or changing the nation's constitution.

----
Similar commentary from a "Yes" campaign press release:

No other province, or country we know of requires such a high threshold for approving a referendum on electoral reform.

PEI's referendum on electoral reform requires a simple majority.

New Zealands referendum on electoral reform passed with 54%.

The two Irish referendums to replace STV with First Past the Post used a simple majority

The BC Referendum Act stipulates a simple majority for any other referendum.

The recent BC Referendums on Aboriginal Issues, and on Initiative and Recall all passed based on a simple majority of votes

No former BC referendum has ever required more than a simple majority.

The two referendums on Quebec separation required a simple majority

The Charlottetown Accord referendum concerned very significant constitutional issues, yet required no more than a simple majority.

Nearly all governments in British Columbia are themselves elected with considerably less than 50% support.

Archive Note / Signing Off (for the most part anyway)

2005-05-21T15:55:00.000-07:00

My next post here (the Post not-so Mortem) could well be my last one on this blog (depending on how things go) - I will of course keep blogging about politics in general and electoral reform in particular over at Crawl Across the Ocean.

I'm leaving this site online as an archive and resource for people looking for links on electoral reform and wondering what bloggers had to say about the referendum. Speaking of archiving, Dean from 'dean rushes the vote' has a good list of election/referendum related links (from his usual left-leaning, MMP preferring perspective) on his own archive post here ~~(it's in the May 20 post, he uses that Blogger template where I never know how to find the permalink)~~.

Anyway, I appreciate everyone who visited and commented and especially those who linked here. I remain optimistic that by the time the next referendum rolls around, all B.C. residents will have discovered the magic of google and will simply do a quick online search for information instead of complaining about being uninformed by the mainstream media. The mainstream media isn't going to change between now and then, but the world of blogs and independent informational sites is getting stronger by leaps and bounds with each passing day and month.

Final (almost ) results

2005-05-18T17:20:00.000-07:00

With the vast majority of the votes counted, the 'Yes' vote is sitting at 57.38%, 2.62% or about 40,000 votes short of the required 60%. 77 of the 79 ridings in the province voted in favour (with the 2 Kamloops ridings being the exceptions).

I expect to get irritated with newspaper stories about how voters "turned down" electoral reform in the next few days, hopefully the media will prove my cynicism wrong.

Referendum Results Update

2005-05-17T23:42:00.000-07:00

Well it's 11:45 pm, I'm watching the STV results on the Vancouver Sun (Canada.com)'s election tracker (link via here). So far the 'Yes' side is at 56.7% although that figure has been slowly climbing over the last half hour so maybe there is (slim) hope yet.

Either way, it sure looks like a strong vote for change and a strong vote against the status quo. It will be kind of amusing if STV gets the same level of support (57%) that the Liberals got in 2001. I guess 57% is good enough to give a party 77 out of 79 seats in the legislature which runs the province for 4 years but it's not enough to change the electoral system. I'll say this, as long as our archaic First-Past-the-Post system clings to life, I'll keep pushing for us to leave it in the past where it belongs and I hope you'll do the same.

Last Word Before the Referendum...

2005-05-16T22:19:00.000-07:00

Yes!

How to Use This Site

2005-05-13T10:12:00.000-07:00

In case you are here for the first time, I thought I would explain the layout of this blog.

The main column down the centre includes all my various thoughts (posts) about STV over the last few months. It includes links to useful sites, interesting essays, various stuff which has occurred to me, rebuttals of some 'no' arguments and so on. Posts are listed in reverse chronological order (most recent first and then going back in time). Older posts can be accessed by the monthly archive links down near the bottom of the siebar on the right. You can also search the blog using the search field in the upper left corner.

The sidebar on the right contains a lot of links. The first 4 under 'The Basics' explain in my own words how we've come to this point, what STV is and why I am going to vote 'Yes'. Under 'Essential Links' I picked a few sites which I feel have the most information to offer (most of these, with the exception of 'Understanding STV' are tilted in favour of a 'Yes' vote).

Below that I have a list of links to any blog posts I found which discuss STV in B.C. They vary from one line assessments to thorough and eloquent analyses. Click and see for yourself.

Anyway you get the picture, continuing on down I have links to some FAQ's on STV as well as some links to lists of links on STV (there's just too many links to put them all in the sidebar).

The aim is to help people make an informed decision and also to explain why I support a 'Yes' vote. Hope it helps!

---
Note: I will be out of town for the weekend so if you email me and I don't get back to you until Sunday night, that's why. Have a good weekend all.

The Blogs Have Spoken

2005-05-13T09:09:00.000-07:00

The way I figure, one factor to consider in making a decision on whether to vote yes or not is to consider what decision other, ordinary people have come to after thinking about the problem. Of course one such group of people was the Citizen's Assembly itself, a group of 160 randomly selected B.C. residents who studied electoral systems for over a year and at the end of their work held 3 votes:

October 23, 2004: Which of the two alternatives would best serve British Columbia?
MMP - 31, STV - 123.

October 24, 2004: Do we recommend retaining the current First-Past-the-Post electoral system in British Columbia?
YES - 11, NO 142.

October 24, 2004: Do we recommend the STV (BC-STV) system to the people in a referendum on May 17, 2005
YES 146, NO 7.

Another group of people who probably pay a little more attention to politics than the average citizen are bloggers. I've been keeping a running count of blogs in favour / neutral / opposed (as you can see on the sidebar on the right). I've just added links for any blogs I came across or saw linked anywhere, supplemented by regular google searches for 'STV' + 'blog' and so on as well as technorati searches for 'STV' and 'Single Transferable Vote'. As far as I know, there wasn't any inherent bias in my method, at least not a significant one.

Anyway, as you can tell by my sidebar, bloggers are overwhelmingly in favour of a 'yes' vote with 49 in favour, 13 opposed and 13 neutral (the neutral includes some group blogs which can't really be said to have a position one way or the other since members of the blog may disagree).

Just one more piece of evidence that when you sit down and think about the alternatives, STV - with fairer results and more choice for voters - just makes a lot more sense than keeping the old First Past the Post system.

Support for STV from Sea to Shining Sea...

2005-05-12T22:41:00.000-07:00

...metaphorically that is. Here's a recent quote from Jamie Lee Hamilton, East side activist and author of the 'Downtown Eastside' blog,

"if we elect to change our system to Single Transferable Vote (STV) our vote will have greater impact and provides for greater representation.

How so you ask?

Well for starters, it will make our candidates more responsive to our needs as citizens of this province. In short, it returns Democracy to the People.

STV will ensure broader democracy and greater representation for the people. More women and minorities will be elected. Smaller parties will have a better chance of electing their candidates. Independent minded citizens can run and actually have a chance of winning seats in STV elections. Citizens will be heard and politicians will have no choice but to be accountable to us, the people. Make no mistake Representation Makes a Difference."

and here's a quote from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) (via Joel Johannesen on 'ConservativeGroundswell.com'),

"Since 1997 your CTF has been pushing for a referendum on voting change. This came in the wake of the 1996 election where the party receiving the most votes actually lost the election! A BC supporter survey in 2003 revealed 56% of you wanted the CTF to make voting reform our number one democratic reform issue.

After helping found the Electoral Change Coalition of BC in 1997 the CTF presented to the Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform in May 2004. In April 2005, director Troy Lanigan embarked on an Interior speaking and media tour in support of a YES vote for the Single Transferable Vote (STV) on May 17th. (Click here for video on STV).

The CTF argues a change in the voting system will provide greater government accountability, provide more choice, strengthen local representation and weaken party discipline."

My (obvious) point is that support for STV stretches pretty broadly across the entire political spectrum. It also stretches across borders: the following is an editorial from former Nirvana bassist, turned activist Krist Novoselic:

"On May 17th, British Columbians will vote on a matter of resounding importance.

Your province will decide whether to upgrade its electoral system by adopting the Single Transferable Vote method.

A yes vote is important for the province. Its important for Canada. And as a citizen of the USA, I want to tell you how important it is for all of North America.

The United States House of Representatives is an important institution. But if we judge it by competitive races, media coverage and voter participation, the US House falls off the radar. Out of 435 House races, less than 20 were competitive in 2004. The position of House Speaker and majority party were a done deal before any votes were cast and the resulting lack of media coverage confirmed this. In 2002, a scant 37% of Americans turned out for uncompetitive House races. And 2006 doesnt fare much better

The root of this problem is the single member riding (or district, as its called here) with the first-past-the-post electoral system.

The actions of Tom Delay, our controversial Republican House majority leader, are one example of why so many races are uncompetitive. He led the effort to redistrict his home state of Texas to the benefit of his party. (He basically undid the craft of Democrats who tilted things in their favor when they enjoyed the majority.) Using sophisticated demographics, he drew political boundaries that made most Texas Republican voters winners. As a result, many Texas Democrats do not have any representation in their Federal government. And lets not forget Independents, Greens, Libertarians and others handicapped by skewed single member districts.

The US House is lead by the ethic of pay to play politics where special interests buy access to the levers of power. Never mind the democratic principals of fairness and inclusion, redistricting in Texas was nothing less than keeping a tight grip on the lucrative reigns of majority status.

Its no surprise to say politics and power can breed corruption. STV is not some kind of cure-all but it clearly provides more benefits than the current system used in the USA and Canada.

Because a voter ranks candidates in order of preference, STV provides more real choices, thus increasing competition. Multi-member districts are inclusive inviting new people and ideas to the table. The lower threshold for election makes better opportunities for grass roots organizing. Multi-member districts temper the problems of drawing political boundaries because its harder to exclude people when seats are allotted to reflect the politics of a diverse electorate.

Upgrading to a proportional system like STV takes the power of sophisticated technologies out of the hands of politician demographers and puts it where it rightly belongs with the voters.

By voting yes on STV, British Columbia will fire the shot heard across the continent. And the sound will carry across North America to Ottawa, Washington DC and all provincial and state capitols in between.

The message will be clear politics as usual are over.

British Columbia can make history by voting yes on STV. Please lead our continent with the vision of a more inclusive, competitive and 21st century democracy."

-----

And yes, maybe it's true that I've run out of (new) things to say about STV so I'm resorting to quoting others :) Good thing the vote is coming soon - this Tuesday Vote Yes!

Understanding STV

2005-05-11T12:55:00.000-07:00

Just a quick note to (highly) recommend this site: Understanding STV which does an excellent job providing a non-partisan (not to mention colourful!) explanation of how STV will work in B.C. Great work!

Last Week!

2005-05-09T23:00:00.000-07:00

So there's only one week left until the referendum. I think I've said pretty much all I have to say about the proposed Single Transferable Vote system. As a voter you get more choice, a much better chance of having representation and a legislature whose members actually reflect the votes cast in the election. In return you have to put up with a more complicated counting procedure - that's pretty much all it comes down to.

So with one week left I encourage everyone to tell their friends, family and so on to get informed and if people are getting scared by all the 'no'-side's fear-mongering just point out that they've been using this system in Ireland and Australia for the better part of a century and not only are they doing fine, they wouldn't switch back to our system if you asked them. In fact, the Irish were asked a couple of times but they kept saying no, we wannt to keep STV, so eventually the politicians gave up and learned to live with a system which puts more power in the hands of voters and less in the hands of parties.

A Depressing Thought

2005-05-05T11:33:00.000-07:00

I was just thinking about the possibility of the 'yes' vote coming in between 50% and 60% and it occurred to me how (darkly) fitting it would be for the first-past-the-post to win an absolute victory despite getting fewer votes than its opposition...

STV: More Links

2005-05-03T08:34:00.000-07:00

With the referendum approaching, there's lots of activity on the web regarding STV. Here is some of what I found most interesting:

Via Lotusland, I hear that: "the ubc mechanical engineering prof behind the lovely online stv simulation at bc.demochoice.org is now trying to organize a simulated election to be held on the streets of vancouver with names of real candidates on the ballots to raise stv awareness.

he requires volunteers: the idea would be to set up 7-20 polls around vancouver either next weekend (about may 7) or the following week - say may 11. the group would then tabulate the votes and pass the results to the media for publication.

if you'd like to help out or learn more, please feel free to join the webgroup:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/trythevote."

-----

A new improved demonstration ballot can be found here It gives you a chance to try an STV ballot as it might look in your particular riding.

-----

Here is a good site devoted specifically to STV in the Kamloops area including a sample (Kamloops) election and an explanation of how STV works.

-----

This is a well written column which covers off all the really important things you need to know about why a 'yes' vote on May 17th is one of the most important votes you will have the chance to cat as a B.C. resident.

-----

If you know of any other good sites, let everyone know in the comments or send me an email.

2 weeks left, time to start twisting arms - uh, I mean making good sensible arguments - to convince your friends, neighbours and acquaintances to vote yes!

Changing Systems

2005-04-26T15:39:00.000-07:00

British Columbia isn't the only place having an election these days, British, uh, Britain is having one as well. Britain's current state of affairs is somewhat similar to B.C. in that they have two main parties (the somewhat to the right wing Conservative party and the somewhat to the left Labour party) and a smaller more leftist third party known as the Liberal Democrats (plus the usual collection of really small parties).

That's just some background to this interesting article by Richard Dawkins that appeared in The Independent, the other day. Says Dawkins in explaining why he supports the campaign of Reg Keys (an anti-war independent candidate running against Blair in the Sedgefield riding):

"But the most important thing the centre-left coalition might achieve is proportional representation. This would kill, once and for all, the idea that a vote for anybody other than Labour or Conservative is "wasted". Votes are wasted in this sense only because of the flagrantly undemocratic first-past-the-post system. With the single transferable PR system, no vote is wasted. You vote your preference - and no silly scares about big bad Tories.
Under the first-past-the-post system, your vote is wasted unless you happen to live in a marginal constituency. We saw this in America, with the grotesque concentration of electioneering firepower and money in a few key states such as Ohio and Florida. The only people who like first-past-the-post are politicians whom it puts into power. The Liberal Democrats have long been committed to PR. My greatest hope is that a hung parliament might enable them to implement it. This would benefit the long-term future of our democracy: a boon that would long outlive the short-term promises of any party."

Sound familiar?

I thought this article was interesting since one of the reasons 'No' supporters offer for sticking with our current system is that is an important part of our British system of government which we shouldn't risk messing with. So it would be kind of ironic if Britain ends up switching to STV (or some other form of PR) leaving us and the Americans as the last two Western countries still using just First Past the Post.

In a way, this situation kind of reminds me of the debate between the Imperial system of measurement and the Metric system. For most of the world, the decision to switch to metric was a relatively easy one since it was clearly a superior system. In England, Canada and the U.S. however, the decision was drawn out and controversial because of our love for tradition and resistance to change. Canada eventually made the switch to Metric on our own while the English got dragged into it by the Europeans. The Americans still won't switch.

Similarly, England, Canada and the U.S. are also lagging the world in changing to a proportional electoral system. England has already switched to a form of PR for its European elections as well as for regional elections in Scotland, Wales and Nothern Ireland. Canada is taking steps towards PR as well, and of course, in the U.S. progress is barely even on the radar screen.

So on May 17th you have a choice between our old, good for its time but its time has passed Imperial, First-Past-the-Post electoral system, or the new, superior, metric, Single Transferable Vote system. And while switching to metric was controversial at the time - do you think many people would want to go back?

STV Round-Up: How Does STV Work?

2005-04-22T12:00:00.000-07:00

Another poll in today's globe showing that around half the population has no idea what the referendum is about and that (unsurprisingly) a similar percentage are undecided about whether to vote yes or no. It's encouraging that, among decided voters, support for a 'Yes' vote continues to run above 60% (27% for, 15% against), but clearly more work needs to be done to get people educated.

With that in mind, here's a few links:

Matt at liquid thoughts does a good job of making STV as easy as pie via the magic of analogy.

Meanwhile, Andrew at Not Sugar Coated tries to fit BC-STV into a nutshell.

Of course part of understanding STV well (at least in my mind) is not being taken in by some of the 'No' side's arguments.

To that end, this post from the Ogre's Den does a nice concise job of explaining the system and answering some of the 'No' side arguments.

And over at the Tyee, Rafe Mair echoes some of the Ogre's points in explaining why he supports STV.

Meanwhile the North Shore news has some good coverage of STV including this 'Vote Yes' editorial.

Finally, it's on the topic of Proportional Representation rather than STV in B.C. per say, but this post From Another Perspective, is worth a read if you're interested in electoral reform in general, specifically how proportional representation could work in practice.

Update: Via Tannock.Net I found this excellent STV resource from the CBC. If you want to vote in their ice cream election (which compares FPTP and STV side by side), you have until 9 (pm?) on Monday. What is it with STV and food anyway?

Voice of Reason

2005-04-19T11:01:00.000-07:00

This is just a quick note to recommend Ian King's latest post, "A plea: Slag STV honestly" in which he calmly and thoroughly debunks a couple of the more misguided 'No' side arguments such as worries about electronic voting or that the Assembly was hijacked by people with an ideological agenda. As Ian says,

"Opponents of STV do their own cause a great disservice when they try to smear STV by bringing in these strawman arguments that are at most tagential (sic) to the system."

The 'No' arguments I've seen so far have tended to more resemble the unrefined results of a long brain-storming session than a coherent critique of the system. I get the feeling (in general) that 'No' people are just throwing up any possible excuse to vote 'No' rather than just stating and elaborating on their core reasons for opposing STV. More on this another day.

STV Poll: Less than one-fifth of British Columbians think B.C. should keep its First Past the Post electoral system

2005-04-16T17:33:00.000-07:00

See here for the results of a poll on STV done by Nordic Research group (hat tip Burkean Canuck). The results show that 26% of people surveyed would vote 'yes' and 17% would vote no. Clearly, that leaves a large undecided block (57%). If the undecided block were to vote the same as the decided block, the end result would be 60.5% 'yes' and 39.5% 'no' and STV would pass.

I don't know much about the Nordic Research folks but it's clear they were hoping for a bigger 'No' vote based on how hard they try to spin the results. Their lead is "Less than one-third of British Columbians think that BC should adopt the BC-STV electoral system according to a poll conducted by Nordic Research Group." Of course, that statement is equally valid with my title to this post, and both are an absurd way to objectively characterize the results. In fact, bs like this makes one think that there should be some kind of professional standards one has to meet to be allowed to do poll write-ups.

Anyway, what the poll shows (besides there being more than 3 'yes' voters for every 2 'no' voters), consistent with an earlier Ipsos-Reid poll, is that there's a long way to go in building awareness of the proposed new system, of course if you're here reading this you're likely not one of those uninformed people. But if you are, please visit the links along the right hand side. Or feel free to send me an email. It may be a long time before we get another chance to improve our electoral system.

More Choice Under STV - Another Perspective

2005-04-10T14:32:00.000-07:00

There was an interesting article in Monday magazine (thanks to a reader for the tip) with the reporter (Andrew MacLeod) talking to Australian Senator Bob Brown, a Green Party representative who was elected under STV.

Some quotes from Brown,

"It's so thoroughly democratic because it's the system that most has the Parliament reflect the wishes of the voters," he says in a phone interview from his home. "The old single member electorates are thoroughly undemocratic . . . [STV] has meant there's been independent or small party representation in the Tasmanian government, and the ACT and the Australian senate."

and later,

"The system's worked well. It's been very productive." In Tasmania in years when the Greens held the balance of power, the government made an apology to local aboriginal people, advanced gay rights, passed freedom of information legislation and imporved [sic] labour laws, he adds. And, he says, the STV system provides for wider representation and "makes for a much better debate in the Parliament."

But the part which caught my attention most was this:

"...most Australians (including Brown) oppose the industrial-scale logging that continues in Tasmanian forests. During the last election, Brown says, a poll showed 85 percent of Australians wanted the logging to stop, yet neither of the country's main parties would oppose it. But since STV meant voters had realistic choices other than the two main parties, he says, the issue became huge in the last week before the election. "Without the STV system it simply would not have been on the agenda."

One of my 2 main reasons for supporting STV is that it will give voters more choice at the ballot box- because they will be able to choose between different representatives of the same party and also to vote for smaller parties without fear of needing to vote 'strategically' or of wasting their vote. One thing I hadn't considered was that under the current system, if the two main parties take the same position on an issue, voters have little recourse and so that topic will cease to become an election issue. But with third (and fourth and so on) parties having a legitimate shot at winning seats, they will be able to force issues which are important to the public onto the agenda. Just another way that STV puts more power in the hands of the voters and less in the hands of the two big parties.

Want to Blog About the Referendum - Register with the Government First

2005-04-08T08:46:00.000-07:00

note: cross-posted at the e-group

I recently received a comment which suggested that I might be breaking the law by writing this blog without first registering with the government. In response, I emailed elections BC to see if this was indeed the case.

I (foolishly, as it turns out) expected to get a reply indicating that no, the law on referendum advertising was not intended to apply to people who were just expressing their personal opinion on the internet without funding from anyone, but in fact I received this reply:

"Thank you for your inquiry. According to the Election Act, anyone promoting or opposing a particular response in voting in the upcoming referendum must register as a referendum advertising sponsor. The referendum campaign period began on March 1, 2005 and continues until 8:00 p.m. Pacific time, May 17, 2005. As your Web page has been accessible to the public during this period, it is imperative that you register with Elections BC as soon as possible."

There was a little more back and forth in which I explained why I thought that they should consider the matter further (which they did after asking me to forward the url for my site) and which ended with this explanation from elections BC:

"Thank you for sending me the link to your Web site. I have taken a close look at the site, and I feel that it constitutes referendum advertising. While there are links to various "No" sites, I feel that overall, the Web site clearly promotes a certain response to voting in the referendum. Regarding your individual blogs and postings on other Web sites, I feel that given their editorial nature, they do not constitute referendum advertising and do not require authorization statements.

Rapidly evolving technologies and the internet create challenges in determining political commentary vs. political advertising. However, Web sites created for promoting, directly or indirectly, a specific response in voting in the referendum do, in Elections BC's view, clearly constitute referendum advertising. Persons or organizations who create these sites must register as referendum advertising sponsors if the sites are accessible during the referendum campaign period. This approach is consistent with political party and candidate sites, which are a form of election
advertising during an election campaign period.

We fully recognize that not all Web sites that express an opinion on the referendum are engaged in referendum advertising. Individuals' blogs, that were not established or created for the purpose of conducting referendum advertising or promoting a specific response in voting, would not generally be considered referendum advertising. However, with rapidly emerging technologies each situation must be reviewed and determined on its own merit, and a blog could, conceivably, be created as an effective advertising method."

A similar back and forth exchange as well as some good analysis of the legalities can be found at David Schreck's site. A google search for 'Vote no STV' will bring up Schreck's site as one of the first hits, but he is not required to register his site because it existed before the referendum campaign and it is not devoted solely to encouraging people to vote against STV (he also encourages people to vote NDP).

Anyway, I have been debating whether or not to comply with elections BC's request. As one person who I asked succinctly said,

"It all depends on whether you're fighting the good fight against an unjust law that egregiously curtails your rights or if you're just childishly bucking the bureaucrats."

On the one hand, registration is free and while I would prefer not to have my name, phone number and address prominently posted on the internet, it is not a huge infringement on me. Still, for those who supported the right of bloggers to remain anonymous in recent discussion on the e-group, it's worth noting that under this type of legislation your anonymity would be threatened. For example, if the federal legislation were amended to follow BC's example, anyone classifying themselves as a 'blogging Tory' might have to register with the government (while other sites which were just as partisan but not as clearly identified as such would presumably be exempt).

It seems odd to me that someone can spend their day preaching in the park about voting yes, writing letters to the paper on why to vote yes, writing a vote-yes editorial in the paper and appearing on the radio and on television explaining why to vote yes but only when they get home and decide to start a blog/website explaining why people should vote yes are they forced to register. Especially when they could post all the same stuff on their existing blog and not have to register!

Finally, while elections BC is (currently) interpreting the law to only apply to blogs specifically created to argue one side of the referendum, I see nothing in the law itself which really supports this distinction. Which in turn means that this interpretation could (theoretically) change at any time and anyone who posts a comment anywhere on the internet for or against the referendum would suddenly be in violation of the law. The elections BC advertising 'Q&A' specifically states that even material published before the referendum period starts is considered advertising if it is 'available' (i.e. online) during the referendum period.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that, while I am flattered that elections BC would consider the completely unfunded expression of my opinion to be so influential that the public interest requires that I register with the government before expressing it, it feels like an unreasonable intrusion into my right to freedom of speech.

Notwithstanding this, I have decided I don't feel strongly enough about it to pick this battle and accordingly I have placed my site 'under the sponsorship of' the yes campaign for whatever that's worth, but I'm still torn over the wisdom of this decision.

Is this an unjust law worth fighting? Is it a threat to bloggers in general and their anonymity in particular? Is it one step on a road to ever tighter government control over the internet? Am I making a big deal over nothing?

Condescension

2005-04-06T09:54:00.000-07:00

One of the things I've noticed in a few anti-STV posts recently is the argument that STV is too complicated - not for the person who is writing the post but for other imaginary people such as 'joe sixpack', the 'layman' or the 'average voter'.

I can only speak for myself but few things would irritate me more than to know that someone (who understands STV themselves) is telling people to vote against it because they think it is too confusing for my little brain. If people find STV too complicated for themselves to support then fine, but saying it's too complicated for the 'little people' strikes me as terribly condescending.

Demonstration Vote

2005-03-25T18:19:00.000-08:00

I've probably linked to this before, but it's lot more interesting now that there have been more votes cast. It's a demonstration ballot which allows you to 'vote' as if you were in a five member STV riding. After you vote you can follow how STV decides which 5 people are elected round by round.

As it stands right now, nobody gets enough votes (1/6 of the total in a 5 member riding) to get elected right off the beginning and the first few rounds are just the lowest ranked candidates getting eliminated and having their votes transferred (the site shows you how many votes get transferred to each other candidate). After a while people start to get enough votes to get elected (Campbell was the first to meet the quota when I tried it) so you can see how those candidates' surplus votes are transferred as well.

It's hard for me to say because I'm so involved in the whole mechanics of STV, but it seems pretty clear how it works to me. Anyway, give it a shot.

Fair and Balanced

2005-03-25T17:50:00.000-08:00

Just so you know I'm not trying to snow you, and that I want you to make an informed decision - here are links to three STV opposing sites:

Know STV
No2stv.ca
Single Transferable Vote in B.C.

Update (April 6): This post originally contained a complaint that the third site listed above didn't clearly express its 'No' position on the referendum, but the site has since been modified so I have adjusted this post (to remove my complaint)accordingly.

Double-Whammy

2005-03-24T10:01:00.000-08:00

Sacha over at Double Blind continues to be a great source for thoughts on the upcoming referendum. Here are a couple of links to his most recent two posts in which he takes on David Scheck's concern that we won't have a fully written piece of legislation to vote on and, more substantively, explains why party control of MP's is reduced under STV vs. under the old (current) system.

Good stuff.

Keen Eyes

2005-03-22T12:04:00.000-08:00

I sometimes get a bit (over?) excited writing about STV, so here are a couple of good examples of people who stay calm and lay out a pretty convincing case for STV.

Vote Know?

2005-03-20T17:20:00.000-08:00

A website has been setup for a Vote No campaign against STV. The url and the title on the site read 'Know STV'. I guess 'know' is the obvious pun to go with for a vote no campaign, but I find it a bit odd since, in my opinion, the biggest hope of 'no' supporters is that people won't 'know' much about STV.

Consider what happens when people 'know' a lot: The members of the Citizens Assembly studied electoral systems for over a year and at the end, they voted 146-7 that STV is better than the current system. The Law Commission of Canada did a study and concluded that just about anything was better than First Past the Post (the current system) including STV (they recommended MMP as the best choice).

The truth is that pretty much any time any group has seriously studied electoral systems they have concluded that both STV and MMP are better than First Past the Post.

So maybe it's not surprising that, on a site whose avowed mission is to help people 'know' about STV, there is no section which actually explains what STV is, nor is there a link to any of the many animations which are probably the best online resource for understanding how STV works (I like the Australian one the best) - but they do have almost 1000 words in their section on the biographies of the Know STV backers. Seems like they want you to know 'know STV' more than they want you to know STV, if you know what I mean.

Now, it's true, the site does have a long Q&A section but this is more of a forum for them to give answers to softball questions than it is a place to get clear answers to help you 'know' what STV is.

For example, the first question is, "What is the Single-Transferable Vote (STV) proposed by the Citizens Assembly as BC's new electoral system?" - which sounds promising right?

But the answer given is, "The Single-Transferable Vote (STV) is an alternative to the First Past The Post electoral system"

Wow, that really clears it up, thanks! The rest of the answer is devoted to a comparison of the usage rates of STV and First Past the Post around the world which is interesting, but not what was asked (I always find it annoying when someone is asked something and they hijack the question - but when it's their own friggin' question you really have to wonder).

They do go into more detail about how STV works in their next question, "How does the Single-Transferable Vote (STV) differ from our current electoral system?" but rather than explain it clearly they make a few misleading statements and send the reader off to the Citizen's Assembly website for a full explanation.

Since I brought it up, here are some of the misleading statements:

"BC currently has 79 different constituencies but under STV there could be as few as18 constituencies or less. Each larger constituency would have from two or three members in rural areas to as many as seven MLAs in larger urban areas."

Aside from the confusing, bad writing, ('as few as18 or less'?) this paragraph could give the impression that there will be fewer MLA's elected under STV when in fact the number of MLA's elected (79) will remain the same.

The next line is, "Voters would rank all candidates in that larger constituency by their personal preference" which is simply not true. Voters could rank just one candidate or they could rank as many as they want. There is little point for most voters in ranking more than a few candidates and it is highly likely that the number of voters who decide to rank *all* the candidates would be extremely small. I know I have no plans to.

At any rate, I invite anyone to spend some time here on my blog and try to learn more about STV, (hint: click on the 'What the heck is STV' link) and then go to the Know STV site and see which one helps you learn more about how STV works.

----

All right, enough about how the Know STV folks don't really want you to know all that much about STV or electoral systems in general, let's take a more detailed look at their Q&A and correct some of the areas where it lacks a little in the 'fair and balanced' department.

First question: "What is the Single-Transferable Vote (STV) proposed by the Citizens Assembly as BC's new electoral system?"

I already talked about how they don't answer the question, but let's look at the question they did answer which is, "Which jurisdictions use STV and which ones use First Past the Post?"

Their answer, which is that first past the post is used in a lot more places than STV, is accurate but it misses an important aspect which is the trend. And the trend is that countries are abandoning our First Past the Post system in favour of more proportional systems. In New Zealand, they adopted the Mixed Member Proportional System. In Australia, we are seeing the gradual spread of STV (most recently adopted in the State of Victoria.

The European parliament has members elected from countries all across Europe. If you take a look at the linked map, you can see that while only 2 European countries use STV to elect their members, that is greater than the number (0) which use First Past the Post. Even England, the country which spread First Past the Post to so much of the world, no longer uses it for the European Parliament elections. Similarly, none of the recently set-up parliaments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland use First Past the Post (Scotland and Wales use MMP and Northern Ireland uses STV).

The fact that so many more countries use First Past the Post than STV is more of a historical artifact than a ringing endorsement of First Past the Post.

Q: "So how does our current First Past the Post electoral system work by comparison?"

A: "Under First Past the Post, each voter chooses one candidate to represent their constituency and the candidate who wins more votes than any other is elected.

Each FPTP constituency has one MLA who is personally accountable to those voters and the constituencies are much smaller both geographically and in terms of the number of voters in each one."

So after reading this answer would you get the impression that there is exactly the same number of voters per MLA under STV as there is under the current system? If not, then you've been misled. Another good question to ask voters might be how personally accountable they feel their MLA is currently. Especially when in many cases over half the voters voted against that MLA (which wouldn't be the case under STV). And when most of the people who did vote for the MLA were probably voting for the Party the MLA represented and if they wanted to support their party they only had one choice of who to vote for (unlike under STV).

OK, next question.

Q: "Isn't STV a lot more complicated than FPTP?"

AKA, 'How often does STV beat its wife?'

A: "Yes. One of FPTP's biggest advantages is the simplicity and ease of understanding it brings to all voters. In recent New Zealand local elections using STV for the first time 11% of all votes were disqualified, more than 14 times the number rejected in the previous election."

Of course, if they had done their homework, they may have run across this quote from the Citizen's Assembly website:

"Does changing the voting system lead to more spoiled ballots?
A change in voting system or ballot form does not have a large impact on spoiled ballots. For example, when elections for the parliament of Tasmania switched from First Past The Post (FPTP - our current electoral system) to STV (the recommended system) the rate of spoiled ballots was 1.2% in 1906 (under FPTP) and 2.9% in 1909 (under STV). Another example of this marginal impact is when the House of Representatives in Australia went from marking crosses on the ballot to listing numbers, the rate of spoiled ballots changed 1.2%.

You may have heard that New Zealand had a problem with counting STV votes in its Fall 2004 municipal elections. That was a problem with its computers, not with the STV system. The Assembly has designed BC-STV so the count can be done either by hand or by computer."

oops.

Anyway, the answer continues:

"Voters may also be faced with a very large ballot and dozens of candidates in larger ridings, making it hard to rank the candidates knowledgeably."

OK, imagine someone said this to you,

"Shoppers may be faced with a lot of different cereals making it hard to choose a cereal knowledgeably"

Let's face it, any trip to the store involves choosing between a multitude of various models of just about everything, and I think if people can manage this they can manage to pick out their favourite candidate (or someone from their favourite party) out of a long list. And if the success of big-box stores is any guide people prefer more choices not fewer. Shocking, I know.

The answer gets better,

"Voters will also be confused by a mathematical quota called the Weighted Inclusive Gregory System which determines how and where exactly their vote will be 'transferred' to, by having to rank a large number of candidates in each constituency and by the need to trust computers to get the results right."

You hear that voters, you *will* be confused (whether you like it or not!). Of course, if you let the 'know STV' folks get to you with their scary sounding mathematical formula I guess it's possible. But someone who really wanted you to 'know' STV might take this opportunity to explain just how your vote will be transferred (it's not that scary):

If the person you put #1 gets more votes than what they need to get elected, part of your vote gets transferred to your #2. How big a part? Well if your #1 got so many votes he/she only needed half of them to get elected, then they only get half your vote and the other half is transferred to #2. If they got so many votes they only needed 1/3 of their votes than they only get 1/3 of your vote and 2/3 is transferred to your #2 choice.

The other way your vote can get transferred is if nobody has enough votes to get elected, in which case they eliminate the poor sap who has the fewest #1 votes. If that poor sap was your #1 choice, then your vote (rather than being wasted like under the current system) is transferred to your #2 choice.

The same rules apply to your #2 choice as well so it's possible part or all of your vote could end up getting transferred to your #3 choice as well. (e.g. You vote for an independent with your #1, but they get eliminated and your vote is transferred to your #2 who is from the Green Party, but they get eliminated as well, so your vote is transferred to your #3 choice, and helps an NDP candidate edge out a Liberal candidate.)

OK, where was I, right, next question:

Q: "Will STV increase or reduce local representation and accountability?"

Before I get to the answer, I should mention the extensive section of (7!) links that the 'know STV' site has. One of these 7 lucky links is the "The Single Transferable Vote in practice", a report undertaken on behalf of the Scottish government (before they adopted STV for use in local elections).

Here's a quote from criticisms of how STV works in practice in Ireland:

"the heavy emphasis on constituency casework, faction-fighting between candidates from the same party, a focus on constituency, localist matters in election campaigns and parliamentary work, 'friends and neighbours' voting, are all seen as resulting - at least in large part - from the candidate-centred, preference voting of STV"

Yes, a frequent criticism of STV is that because candidates have to compete with members of their own party for seats, they focus too much on local issues and local representation at the expense of 'big-picture' thinking.

The Scottish report eventually concludes that it is hard to tell whether the intense focus on local issues is a function of the electoral system or just some quirk of the Irish in general (or possibly due to the fact that they only have national government with no provincial or local governments).

Anyway, what do the 'Know STV' folks say about STV and local representation?

"There will be less local representation and accountability because STV will mean much larger constituencies and MLAs will be representing far more people over a wider geographic area."

Once again, may I point out that the number of voters per MLA will be the same under STV as it is now. So MLA's will be representing the same number of people as before. It's just that instead of having (for example) 4 ridings each with it's own MLA, you would now have them combined into one riding with 4 MLA's. So maybe the MLA's will have to figure out how to divide up the riding between them - an insurmountable challenge? I doubt it. Personally I'd rather have four MLA's to potentially go to with a problem - including one that I voted for, vs. having only one choice and that being someone I voted against because I couldn't stand them, but that's just me.

They continue, "In large rural constituencies that contain a major town, it’s possible that all MLAs elected will come from that town because that’s where the most voters are, reducing accountability for other parts of the constituency."

Let me see if I can explain this. If an area was large enough to be a riding under the current system, then that means it has enough population to elect someone to represent them that is from their area - if that's what they want (and if they make the effort to get off the couch and go vote). This might be a good time to point out how under the current system parties can bring in candidates who don't even live in the riding at all (the recent election of John Tory in a by-election in Ontario is a good example of this) and people have no choice if they want to support their party. Under STV people could choose the representative from their party from their local area. Here's another quote from the Scottish report:

"Moreover studies of Irish voting patterns also indicate that candidates from a local area will receive more votes from that part of the constituency in which they live (Farrell 2001). Accordingly Irish political parties have developed sophisticated vote management and election strategies. These tend to involve ensuring that:
candidates are picked from different corners of the constituency and voters in each locale are actively encouraged to vary the ordering of their preferences so as to maximize the efficiency of the party vote. The basic idea is that the more equal the spread of first preferences across the different party candidates, the greater chance that more will be elected (Farrell 2001, p.146)."

But wait, Ireland and B.C. aren't the same, next question:

Q: "STV supporters say local representation is very good in Ireland under STV. What's the difference with BC?"

A: "BC and Ireland are quite different geographically, with BC many times larger. However Ireland's population is very close to BC's 4 million people and they have 166 representatives in their parliament, called the Dail, while in BC we have just 79 MLAs in the B.C. Legislature."

This is of course true, but it's just as true under our current system as it would be under STV. If we need more MLA's to represent us, we should have more MLA's. If we're short on MLA's that doesn't have much bearing on a comparison between two systems, both of which have the same number of MLA's.

They continue,

"Inevitably with huge ridings and few MLAs parts of BC would likely lose local representation. In some areas it is possible that no local candidate would be elected as an MLA, removing local representation completely."

'huge ridings and few MLAs?' Did I mention that there will be the same number of MLA's under STV, yeah I think I did.

Let's face it, this whole long list of concerns about local representation comes down to a worry that MLA's may be distributed slightly more unevenly around the province than they are now. Even though this will be left pretty much entirely in the hands of voters to decide for themselves. And there is no mention of how the fact that MLA's will have to worry about being defeated by members of their own party will force them to be more attentive to local needs. Or how the absence of safe Liberal or NDP seats like under the current system will mean that people will have to get elected based on their personal reputation for getting things done vs. which party they are running for.

OK, next question.

Q: "Does STV give proportional results? That is, if a party gets 10% of the popular vote in B.C. would it win 10% of the seats?

A: "No. STV supporters say it is more proportional than FPTP but there is no guarantee that seats won will correspond with popular vote. Proportional representation electoral systems such as List PR are designed to ensure such proportionality, not STV.

If a party got 10% of the vote under STV it would be unlikely to win a seat in any constituency in BC. Look again at the example of a constituency of 100,000 voters electing three members: the number of votes needed to win is 25,001, which means that a party would need at least 25% support to win one seat of the three."

Never mind for a moment that the Green party got 12% of the vote in the last election under First Past the Post, got 0 seats, and in all likelihood *would* have elected members under STV, instead how about we ask a different question:

Q: Is STV far more proportional than our current system and has this been clearly proven time after time in elections around the world and is the proportionality of STV much closer to being perfectly proportional than it is to matching our current system?

A: Yes. OK, let's move on.

Q: "Are MLAs elected with equal levels of support under STV?"

A: "No. Proponents say because STV it is more proportional "overall" if is a fairer system. But a candidate in a two-member riding in northern BC can get elected with 33% public support while a Vancouver or other large urban centre candidate can get elected with just 13% of the votes cast.

This means some MLAs have had to win far more support than others to be elected to the BC Legislature."

OK, Time for a math lesson. The candidate in the rural riding is getting a larger percentage of a riding with fewer voters. The candidate in the urban riding is getting a smaller percentage of votes in a riding with more voters. Can we see how these factors balance each other out so the two candidates need roughly the same number of total votes to get elected.

Now it's true that there is a slight difference. Say we assume 10,000 voters per riding then in a 2 member rural riding, a candidate would need 1/3 of 20,000 (10,000 each for the 2 members) votes = 6,700 votes to get elected. In a 7 member urban riding, a candidate would need, 1/8 of 70,000 = 8,750 votes. Of course a quick look at the last election results will show that the riding of Victoria-Hillside was won with 7,878 votes while the riding of Fort Langley Aldergrove was won with 16,527 votes. And this kind of disparity, far larger than the biggest possible difference under STV, is par for the course for First Past the Post (sorry about the mixed sporting metaphors).

I'm not even really sure what this question is getting at, but if MLA's getting elected with an equal number of voters actually is important, than we should point out that STV is far superior to our current system once again in this area.

Are you starting to notice a pattern yet? When the Know-STV folks feel that First-Past-the-Post has an advantage, they go for a direct comparison of the two systems. But when they think ('know') that STV is superior, they compare STV to some ideal standard like perfect proportionality or MLA's being elected with exactly the same number of votes each. Also note how rarely they are willing to take on a direct comparison - what does that tell you?

OK, next question.

Q: "Does STV allow independent candidates to win seats?"

A: "Not necessarily. Malta has used STV since 1921 but since 1950 not a single independent candidate has been elected. Any candidate requires significant funding to win election and with STV the constituencies will be much bigger, forcing candidates to raise even more money. In a seven-member constituency as proposed for Vancouver, major parties will likely spend $1 million or more in that constituency campaign alone — an amount no independent candidate could possibly raise."

First off, this answer is simply factually inaccurate. Yes, STV *necessarily* *allows* independent candidates to win seats. Even our old First Past the Post system *allows* independents to win seats. More substantively, the Know-STV folks yet again seem to be confused about STV. A 7 member constituency would indeed be much bigger, but there are 7 seats, so an independent only needs to get 1/7 of the votes (technically 1/8th since only 7 people can get more than 1/8 of a total). The parties aren't going to spend any more money *per MLA* than they do right now and an independent won't have to either.

Let me explain why STV is better for independents, something which pretty much everybody (even most STV opponents acknowledge) but which the 'Know-STV' people apparently don't want you to, you know, know.

Under the old system, the only way for an independent candidate to get elected is to win a plurality (get more votes than anyone else) in a specific riding. Under STV, an independent candidate who gets that many votes in one riding will still (with a very high probability) get elected. But in addition, an independent candidate can get a smaller level of support, spread over a wider area. For example, an independent candidate who gets an average of 15% support across one of the big Vancouver ridings would be able to get elected under STV, but would have been shut out under the old system (much like the Green Party was in the last election).

Furthermore, under the old system, many people don't vote for independents because they know the independent has no chance of being elected so they are wasting their vote (or worse by not strategically voting for their favourite party, they may help that party's opponent to get elected). But under STV, voters can vote for an independent knowing that if that candidate gets eliminated, then their vote will be transferred to their second choice, so they don't have to worry about wasted votes and strategic votes.

Next question.

Q: "Would smaller third parties be elected under an STV system?"

A: "Not necessarily. In Malta, which has had STV since 1921, there are only two parties with elected officials. In recent elections the largest third party has won less than 2% of the vote and no seats. In Ireland small parties have won seats but so have smaller parties in BC under First Past The Post, as recently as in 1996."

OK, this is getting tiresome. How about:

Q: Are smaller parties far more likely to be elected under STV than under our current system? A: Yes.

Seriously, if these folks really want you to make an informed choice why are they trying to deny even facts which are blindingly obvious to anyone who takes some time to think about how the two systems work (not to mention clearly documented by almost 100 years of electoral history). First Past the Post is so hostile to small parties that political scientists have formed a 'law', (Duvergers Law) which postulates that First Past the Post naturally leads to a two-party system.

It's simple, STV is more proportional so you need a smaller percentage of the vote to get elected plus it eliminates strategic voting - thus more small parties can be elected and this has been shown pretty clearly in practice. It's true that in Malta small parties don't get elected - because people don't vote for them - and this is a problem because?? OK, moving on.

Q: "Are women elected in larger numbers under STV?"

A: "No. In Malta women make up just 9.2% of the country's legislators, with only 6 women elected out of 65 representatives. In Ireland just 13.3% of elected officials are women."

I've already discuss this at length here, so I won't belabour it any further, but I'll just ask one more time, why, if the 'Know-STV' people want you to truly know STV, would they fail to mention that in the STV-using jurisdiction most similar to Canada (Australia), more women are elected than in B.C. Wouldn't that information be helpful to someone trying to make an informed decision?

Q: "Does STV mean an end to so-called 'wasted votes'"

All right, I'm just warning you, the 'Know-STV' folks really jumped the shark on this one, so this may get lengthy.

A: "If no vote were to be 'wasted' that would mean every voter's candidate of choice would have to win election - it's not possible or sensible."

Actually, it is entirely sensible and possible - in fact that's what proportional representation means. According to the Citizen's Assembly site:

"STV virtually eliminates 'wasted' votes. For example, in a three seat riding, even if a voter's #1 preferred candidate is not elected, there is a good chance her ballot will help her #2 and #3 preferred candidates win a seat. About 16% of ballots don't contribute to electing a candidate."

So STV doesn't eliminate wasted votes entirely like a pure proportional system would, but it reduces the % of wasted votes (from around 40-50% in a typical First Past the Post election) down to 16% - which is pretty good since it means one in four voters who would have someone in the legislature that they voted for under STV where they would have had noone under First-Past-the-Post.

They continue: "Elections are to select which candidate in each constituency has the most support"
Actually that's a definition of the First-Past-the-Post system not 'elections', but it's instructive to see that the Know-STV people think that the First-Past-the-Post method is equivalent to 'elections'.

"...and then which parties across the province have enough support from elected members to form a government.

STV supporters say that by ranking your choice of candidates, the odds are one of your choices will win a seat. But that's a little like saying if you bet on every horse in a horserace, one of your picks will be a winner."

Actually, it's not like that at all. Voters are expressing a preference between who they want to help win the race vs. who they want to lose, not trying to profit from every possible outcome - that's why the ranking is crucial. If you really want an analogy, it's more like saying that if your friends vote down your choice of a pizza with anchovies, egg and corn, you can still have a say in the decision between the vegetarian option and the pepperoni pizza rather than being shut out of the crucial decision because you wanted to be able to express your true preference first.

"And because of the complicated transfer system, you will never know where your vote actually went in electing the MLAs for your constituency."

Wrong again. If your first choice didn't get elected, it's a good bet that your vote got transferred to your second choice, unless the person you voted for was the last one to get eliminated. If your person was the last to get eliminated then your vote didn't get transferred at all. That's tough but console yourself by remembering that if we still used FPTP your vote would *never* get transferred.

Now, if your first choice did get elected, either they were the last one elected in your riding (in which case they got all of your vote and none was transferred) or they weren't the last one elected and they got part of your vote (enough to get elected) and the rest was transferred to your next choice. You can check the result to see how many votes your candidate got compared to how many they needed. The same calculation as before applies. If your candidate got twice as many votes as they needed then they got half your vote and half was transferred to your #2.

So the truth is, if you care to know, it will be easy enough to track where your vote went. It takes a bit more effort than under the current system where - unless you voted for the person who won - you might as well have put your ballot in the trash can as in the voting box, for all the effect it had on the election.

"Under First Past The Post, your vote goes to one candidate and is counted clearly. Regardless of your choice, that's not a wasted vote."

Seriously, why are they even bothering with this nonsense? If my vote had 0 impact on who get elected, it's a wasted vote, end of story. True, you could argue that no vote is wasted because it's important on principle to vote, but the 'know-stv' folks know as well as you and I do that that isn't what we're talking about when we talk about wasted votes. Sheesh.

Q: "What would happen to nominating meetings under an STV system?"

A: "Because STV combines the smaller single member constituencies of our current system into large multi-member constituencies, the likelihood is that special interest groups would dominate the nomination process of political parties even more than today."

Umm, why is that exactly - I'm not following. Wouldn't bigger ridings make it harder for special interests to dominate a nomination meeting. Isn't that logical - the smaller something is, the easier it is for a special interest to dominate it? I'm just asking.

OK, almost finished, I promise:

Q: "What is the short version of what's wrong with STV? Why should I vote no?"

A: "STV is complicated, confusing, prone to errors and delay, it reduces local accountability, increases the size of ridings, allows MLAs to avoid direct accountability for their decisions, increases party control and allows special interests to dominate party nominations."

So here's the big finish. STV is too complicated and confusing (translation BC voters aren't as smart as voters in Malta and Ireland and Tasmania who have been using STV since before the invention of commercial air travel, the automobile or television.)

It's prone to errors and delay (translation: Elections BC is incompetent and can't manage elections as well as the Irish or the Maltans)

It reduces local accountability (never mind that one of the most common criticisms of STV is that it makes MLA's focus too much on local concerns)

It increases the size of ridings (but not the number of voters per MLA - if this is such a big concern we could always just add more MLA's anyway)

It allows MLA's to avoid direct accountability for their decisions (how exactly? - and don't you think that MLA's are more accountable when voters know they can dump the MLA without voting for a different party?)

It increases party control (Actually, no. How much control parties want to have over their MLA's is up to the parties. - If anything, MLA's who go against the party have a better chance of surviving as independents under STV than they would under the old system).

and it allows special interests to dominate nomination meetings (not that there is any evidence of this ever happening anywhere, but the 'know STV' crew have decided that it's true so there you go. Personally I think logic suggests that larger meetings will be less corrupt but that's just me.)

So that's it. It's quite a long list of questions, but somehow they missed the obvious ones. Which system is more proportional? Which system doesn't require strategic voting? What % of Citizen's Assembly members thought STV was superior to First Past the Post? What happened in the two referendums where Irish voters were asked if they wanted to switch away from STV? Which system gives voters more choice? Yeah, I wonder why they didn't ask any of those questions.

Maybe because they didn't want you to 'know' the answers.

STV Events

2005-03-17T22:45:00.000-08:00

Via the Yes Campaign website, there a few STV events coming up in the next few days:

Sun, Mar 20th, 2005, @7:00pm- 8:00pm
Vancouver: Britannia Community Forum on BC-STV

Mon, Mar 21st, 2005, @7:00pm- 9:00pm
Victoria: To STV or not to STV? Open Forum

Thu, Mar 24th, 2005, @8:00pm- 11:00pm
Vancouver: Blarney Stone Meetup & Fundraiser

The way I figure, the more people know about STV, the more they'll like it so I encourage people to go find out as much as they can about why the Citizen's Assembly picked STV as their recommended choice for B.C.