STV and B.C. Electoral Reform? What? (click here)
Posted by Roland BallounMay 1st, 2009
Tasmania, Malta, and Ireland have one thing in common.
These countries use a voting system referred to as STV (Single Transferrable Vote). For the second time in less than a decade, the proponents of STV here in British Columbia have been successful in getting a Referendum on the ballot. There are less than 11 days remaining before the polls close on the issue and we find out how STV did the second time around. By the way, advance voting for the 39th Provincial Election begins on May 6th. The voters of B.C. will decide again whether to keep the current one vote person per candidate system or change it (I did not say “improve” it) to a system called STV. I know how impressed all of the readers will be with STV simply by noting the impressive list of locations in which STV is currently used. I’m just 
saying–whatever electoral system Malta is using is reason enough for many people to believe a “reform” is overdue. What is really interesting here is that the push for STV to become the law of the land in B.C. did not first originate in California! We have all grown accustomed to the fact that the really great new reform ideas come from California. I’m thinking that if STV is successful here in B.C.; maybe we can export it to the U.S.! Might be some tariffs attached though. Okay, enough with the tongue and cheek stuff, let’s talk about STV and FPTP (First Past The Post). However, I have to say this. I’m a little disappointed, if not peaved, about the fact that the Government website, which is supposed to be neutral with respect to the referendum, uses the word “REFORM” at the top of the page designed to inform the B.C. citizens of what is going on. The simple definition of reform is to “make changes in something in order to improve it.” Does the Government’s use of the word “reform” in and of itself present a clear case of bias? Who says that by going to STV, the current system will be improved? The answer is the proponents of STV say so but our Government should not be validating the referendum by calling it a 2009 Referendum on Electoral Reform. What say you?
What is STV?
It’s sort of simple, but sort of complicated. The idea is this. Rather than have a one vote per person going only to one candidate, you could have your vote split up and help elect other candidates whom were not your first choice. In effect, your one “transferrable” vote could help elect a second, third, fourth, and so on, choice. The whole concept is designed to minimize, if not eliminate, the principle of “majority rule.” Proponents of STV would like say, “Why should someone who obtains a majority of the vote in an election district (called “ridings” in B.C.) be the single elected representative for that district? My only answer to that question is self-evident; “Because he or she received the majority of the votes, duh!” However, the STV people will counter and say, “Yes, but what about the 49% of the folks that did not vote for the majority candidate? They receive no representation at all.” Their solution is this. Let’s expand the geographical size of the election district and increase the number of people to be elected (to at least a minimum of two) and then we can have two people elected to more proportionately represent the district. One reply I have to that argument is this. Why not simply allow the folks in the enlarged geographical area to elect their own candidate by a majority vote in the first place. In that situation (using the current FPTP voting system), the person elected in that geographical area becomes the representative for the folks that the STV people were trying to merge into the a different district. See what I mean. It’s simple but sort of complicated. Let me confuse you more. Here’s how the transfer of your vote system works. Let’s say there are 10,000 “valid votes” cast in a district. The legal formula promulgates that this number is divided by the number of “positions” to be elected plus one. Three positions to be filled would require that the 10,000 valid votes be divided by 4. Add one vote to the result of that division and the sum is the magic number a candidate is striving for. This first mathematical exercise is necessary to determine the “quota” of votes necessary for a candidate to be elected. In other words, any candidate that receives 2501 in our example would be elected. Say one person received at least 2501 “first choice” votes. All of the votes the winning candidate received above the quota are deemed to be “surplus” votes. A whole new mathematical formula now kicks in to find out who the second elected candidate is. After that, we do more math to determine who the third elected candidate is. Here’s the link to see how this other math is crunched. Or, alternatively if you would rather just see a simple example in pdf format, click here.
After you study both sides of the issue, you will be confronted with an important question. If the referendum passes, the number of electoral geographical districts in B.C. will be reduced from 85 ridings to 20. The total number of elected officials will remain the same at 85. Here’s good example of how that might impact the folks. Let’s say STV is the system used in the U.S. The electoral district that now includes New Mexico for Congressional representation is now merged with Texas. The total number of elected representatives will stay the same but the process to determine who wins the election is STV. Let’s say there are 32 representatives in the House of Representatives from Texas (which is correct). Let’s also say New Mexico has 3 representatives in the House of Representatives (which is correct). Based upon STV, all 35 representatives could come from Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, El Paso, Austin, Fort Worth, Wichita Falls and so on. The folks in Santa Fe, or Clovis, New Mexico now have no representation. You think that wouldn’t happen; you’re wrong. Just because the folks in New Mexico cast their vote in order of choice, i.e., first choice, second choice and so on does not mean that any of the candidates located in the heretofore New Mexico geographical area received enough votes to meet the quota nor does it mean that after all the “transfer math” is done a candidate from that geographical area will be elected. Study the examples provided by the B.C. Government or go to NOSTV.org to see exactly how this type of elected representation can, and likely will happen in B.C. If you live in an area outside of Vancouver, you could likely end up with a representative or group of representatives all from within the greater Vancouver area. How many more MLA’s do you think the Vancouver area needs? There are now several from Surrey, several from Vancouver, a couple from North Vancouver, seven MLA’s from Langley, three from Richmond, a few from Delta, White Rock and so on.
An STV Prediction — Who has the better marketing plan?
No doubt about it. The pro-STV people have the better marketing plan this time; hands down. If you go to both websites you will see what I mean. Here’s the Pro STV site enlarged. OR Here’s the No to STV site enlarged. Everyone knows that when it gets down to the nitty gritty it’s the marketing of an issue or candidate that makes the difference, not necessarily the facts. I’m just saying; look at the Senate race in Minnesota for crying out loud! Marketing, text-messaging and donations is where it’s at. You can’t expect to just present facts and expect to win. I’m really disappointed in Norman Grdina, the financial contact with the No BC-STV Campaign Society. Unfortunately, Mr. Grdina is a forensic accountant—not a marketing expert. It is kinda cool that he is a Notre Dame alum but he should have studied marketing instead of accounting. In the event you missed it when you were at the B.C. Elections Government website, the taxpayers contributed $1,000,000 to the funding of the marketing campaigns. I have no idea why yet, but according to the website, B.C. Elections was required by law to give each organization $500,000 in cool cash to get the word out. In these tough economic times, doesn’t that piss you off? Does me. Heck, if we were going to throw some money away; we could have simply gave it to GM or Chrysler. In any event, we’ve paid for much of the marketing hype on the Pro STV vs. No STV campaigns. Unfortunately, I believe the Pro STV got a much bigger bang for their buck and will likely win. I’m clearly against changing the current FPTP (First Past The Post) system we are using but I do believe Jamie Deith and STV folks have done a much better job of marketing their “non-message.” It reminds me a lot of the “Change you can believe in” slogan that was so very successful for obama.
We’ll all decide here in a few days. I just hope the folks that have a inkling for change will do some research before they cast their vote to STV. Please vote No on the STV referendum. Please leave me a comment, a Digg, a Kudo, or a Technorati vote even if you disagree with my position. Thanks for coming by.
Tags: BC Elections, FPTP, Ireland Elections, Malta Elections, NoSTV, STV, STV Join, Tasmania elections
Single Transferable Vote is crazy. First of all, it is too complex for the average voter to understand, which means it is easily manipulated and abused. Second, because of that, it is almost certain to drive participation down in the electoral process. Third, yes, it is almost a guarantee that smaller locales formerly in their own districts will see their representation co-opted by neighboring ridings/districts.
Rank Choice Voting seems like a much better “reform.” In RCV, one votes for the candidate of choice (in his own district - no funny business with on-the-fly gerrymandering) and specifies a second and possibly a third or fourth favorite electoral option. This would encourage people to vote for less-popular, the so-called less “electable” candidates, or at least encourage them not to vote for a candidate just because he’s more likely to win. It, in a way, undercuts the virtuous cycle of “electability” and allows voters to focus more on the candidate the represents them best. And most importantly, it allows for - pragmatically encourages - more than two candidates (especially important in a non-Parliamentary system like ours in America).
Let’s say I rank my voting choices:
1. Kelly
2. Shannon
3. Jody
If Kelly receives the least votes of anyone (assuming, then my vote for Kelly transfers to Shannon and Kelly is out of the race. If Shannon is still not one of the top two vote-getters, then my vote is transferred to Jody. In a classic example, maybe Jody was the most electable / party “favorite.” She may still win the aggregate party vote. But let’s say Shannon was also favored by some voters across the aisle even though the party favorite was Habib. They may Rank-choice-vote for Shannon first too but list Habib as their backup (much like Jody is on the other side). It’s possible that the third-party candidate, Shannon, could have enough votes to crowd out one of the other party favorites, making the election a closer representation of what the voters want.
I prefer A, but if A is the least-vote-getter, then B, but if not B, then C . . .
I haven’t researched it yet but wonder where RCV is being used. My initial reaction is that it makes sense. Which makes me wonder why RCV was not the choice here in B.C. for “reform.” What’s the down side if you aware of any? Thank you very much for the comment. It is such a breath of fresh air to receive intelligent comments.
What have Tasmania, Malta and Ireland in common?
The same thing, in Britain, that the Computer Society, the Statistical
Society and the London Mathematical society have in common. Indeed that
the National Health Service, the National Union of Teachers and the National Union of Students have in common, or any number of professional bodies in English Speaking countries. Wikipedia gives some other examples.
A quibble about the word reform used by the government is not a balanced argument when you consider the double 60% threshold imposed against electoral reform, the traditional term.
The claim that STV is designed to minimise majority rule is wrong. FPTP gives false majorities of seats for minorities of votes, or huge majorities of seats for majorities of votes, that can almost reduce the legislature to a one-party state. Both these things happened in BC recently.
The STV form of proportional representation allows voters to prefer candidates across party lines and thus democraticly establish a prefered coalition, if necessary, to establish the real majority.
STV uses multi-member constituencies because it is not possible to have equal or proportional representation in a single member constituency,
only a monopoly. To elect means to choose, not to localise. There are
levels of government to adjust the areas of representation desired.
With STV, it is the voters who decide whether the locality, or any other attribute, of the candidate is an important enough reason to prefer her, to reach a quota or proportion of the vote in a multi-member constituency.
Most of the BC-STV constituencies would have 4 or 5 representatives.
There would be only one 2 member and one 7 member constituency to match
the sparsest and densest populated communities.
FPTP routinely shreds communities with its shifting constituency boundaries, yet still leaves a partisan bias, as if it were
gerrymandered.
STV would keep communities stable, just changing the number of seats
per constituency occasionly to keep up with population shifts.
Richard Lung.
Democracy Science.
Although your blog is usually thought-provoking, this time you didn’t do your homework.
You start out by appealing to prejudice against small places like Ireland, Malta, and Tasmania as if there were actually some correlation between good ideas and the size of the places where they are first implemented.
STV may not be perfect, but it’s far better than the system currently used in US Federal elections which nearly guarantees a win for the one pro-government party that masquerades as a two-party system.
Your example of New Mexico and Texas is irrelevant to what is actually being decided in BC and is misleading. If the US implemented STV, even they would be smart enough to keep the states in separate electoral districts. And the proportional representation would ensure that more of the voters would actually have someone who represents their views elected to office.
Except for the links to the two informational websites, you should delete your article and try again after you understand what BC is actually voting on.
If there is real a reason to vote against STV, lets hear it.
Ok, Ron. Thank you for your provocative comment. Nice challenging jabs. So, here’s the deal. Of course the reference to Ireland, Malta, and Tasmania were tongue n cheek jabs of my own. I purposely made the article transparent so as to leave no doubt of where I stood on the issue from the get-go. Of course the Texas/New Mexico is not the perfect example (because of the “state lines”) but the contrast between metro Texas and rural New Mexico does what it is intended to do–show an otherwise accurate example of what can happen. But together you and Richard above have said enough to prompt me to say more. I will give you a real reason to vote against STV while at the same time responding to some of Mr. Lung’s comments as well. I appreciate your comment even though it was dare say not entirely polite–but that’s okay. May be May 6th before I get to it so please be patient. Thanks again Ron.
Ron: A few practical thoughts as to why people should vote no on the “reform.” The advocacy for STV is based in part, quite foolishly, on an unspoken assumption that voters are informed, non-apethic, and not loyal to their party affiliations or pre-dispositions. Here’s an example that will clarify that which I speak. Say we have four positions available with the following composite of candidates running. The riding has 4 NDP, 4 Liberal, 4 Conservatives, and 2 Green, party candidates. (Each party may have a number of candidates equal the number of seats available) So under STV, a Vicki Voter could actually list her first through fourteenth choices for her single vote distribution. To argue their position the proponents of STV like to say that as if Vicki Voter would actually have “intelligent preferences” beyond maybe two or three. Moreover, what is really trekky is to advocate a change to STV based upon the hypothetical that Vicki Voter would be so informed on/about each candidate and their positions to the extent that she would have any confidence herself in denoting preferences. Give me a break. Let me take this one step further. You will notice that the examples offered to market STV rarely if ever mention party affiliation as a part of the presentation. Therefore, if this example was being presented by STV advocates, they would never advise us that Vicki Voter is a member of the NDP. Why, you ask. Because how believable is it to think (and advocate) that Vicki will make choices at all beyond the 4 NDP candidates. Duh, remember that every ballot alternative will still group a single party’s candidates together separated from the other party candidates. So, when Vicki goes to the poll to vote we can not realistically believe that Vicki will make a selection of choices beyond the 4 NDP candidates. How often do voters cross party lines in a FPTP system?–not very often and doubtful any change would occur under STV. Also remember, if Vicki is indeed going to vote intelligently, we must conclude that she has done her issue/position/background research on 14 different candidates. Please locate me a few voters in B.C. that have the time, (will take the time) and interest level necessary to do so.
The realistic result of STV will likely be that Vicki votes for 4 NDP candidates at most and leaves the polling station. There are all kinds of scary hypothetical (but possible) outcomes from that scenario. I actually sat down thinking about a couple of arguments against STV to present you and something a little different for Mr. Lung above but I am running into some time constraints. We’ll see. By the way, how do you like the changes to the appearance. Have a talented person doing this (not me) so hopefully you and others will view the changes as a solid reform.
Ok. Vicki votes on party lines because she is an NDP member. How is that worse than what Vicki does under the current system? She still only gets one vote with STV, but she can rank the four NDP candidates according to her preference instead of just voting for the one assigned to her district by the NDP. She actually has a chance to change the face of her party by influencing which flavour of NDP candidate gets to sit in the legislature.
In the current election my electoral district has no conservative candidate running, but there are conservative candidates running in nearby districts that I could vote for under STV because the electoral districts would be larger.
I vote Green in every election - municipal, provincial, federal - because I am an idealist and although I know they’re not going to win, I sure would like to see them get at least a seat or two, and be a environmental thorn in the government’s side. I’ve voted Green every year since my 19th birthday. And I’ve seen their percentage of the popular vote rise every single year. And yet they still can’t get a seat. In some ridings they lose by only a few votes. And I swear it is because of the FPTP system, because it’s rigged to support non-change. For instance, the double 60% factor, the last time we voted on this we lost by, what, 2.5%? something like that, I’m sure you’ll correct me on it…
I’m in favour of the STV because it is my understanding that it is going to give smaller parties like the Green more of a chance. I know Green’s not going to win the election, and honestly, at this point, that’s good, because they’re not ready to lead the country, or the province, or even the city yet. All I want is for them to have a bit of a say, to be able to stand up and challenge the main parties from within the system itself, provide another voice. Hopefully, with the STV, Green will be able to get a little political experience under their belt. Then, maybe in my lifetime, maybe in my kids’, we might see some real, positive change in government.
Thank you Melanie for your comment. I can feel your concern for environmental issues and the motivation you apparently have for change in that regard. In other words, you want the government to be more responsive to environmental issues. Your thinking is that somehow a STV system might improve the chances that a Green Party candidate becomes elected. I’m a little concerned that simply because you’ve been voting for Green Party candidates for a couple of years (since you were 19?), and because your candidate(s) have not won an election, you’re ready to “change” the way votes are counted by throwing FPTP out.
Please read my May 5th comment to “Ron” above concerning the example of Vicki Voter. Most people do not understand how the STV system will impact their district’s representation. Some will vote for STV simply because of the marketing effort of the STV proponents. There are people who will instinctively vote for change without truly understanding the referendum. Change for the sake of change. In any event, in the example above lets say that you know Vicki, a member of the NDP. You’re suggesting that you want to change to a STV system because Vicki might cast a voting choice (say for example, her sixth or seventh) to a Green Party Candidate. Because Vicki might do that and her vote will equal a surplus if it were not needed so to speak by one of her other candidates to meet the minimum threashold to be elected. Because Vicki’s vote is a surplus vote, it could therefore spill over and help your Green party candidate become elected. I understand. You and others are thinking the same way. However, I believe most STV proponents do not realize that the likelihood of that scenario happening is so far-fetched it is hardly worth discussing. When you actually look at how the (so called unused) votes are mathematically caried over the odds of that type of scenario actually happening are diminimus, if possible at all. I say “if at all” because I simply have not expended the mental calculus necessary to determine if it is possible at all. However with that said, the hypothetical would be a great math problem for some pre-algebra student to work through and share with both of us. STV proponents also forget to share or discuss the fact that the geographical size of most, if not all districts, will increase under STV and the number of MLA districts will reduce from 85 to 20. Under FPTP there are 85 ridings from which a Green Party MLA candidate could become elected. Under STV there will be 20 ridings. Surely getting one Green MLA elected in 1 of 85 ridings is a better system than trying to convince the population to “designate a Green party candidate on the ballot as one of your choices, regardless of how far down the list of choices he or she is.” It does not logically compute that Vicki will likely designate a Green party candidate as one of her choices if she is a member of a competing political party. In order to place any hope in that scenario you must believe that Vicki would be saying to herself; if non of my NDP choices can get elected, then I will then designate any unused portion of my vote to go for a Green party candidate. There is one type of scenario that I can possibly see whereby that might happen, but I do find it disturbing in application no matter what party a voter belongs to. Let’s suppose Vicki only cares that none of the Liberal or Conservative candidates are elected if none of her NDP candidtes are elected. In that scenario, Vicki might then be negatively motivated to put one or more Green party candidates in her list of choices albiet after all of her NDP choices. So, what that does is foster and promote a electoral system of “anyone but a __________ .” That is not representative government in action. However, it is an argument that STV proponents are making in order to convince the general public that “any change = reform.”
The real bottom line is this. People who ardently argue for STV are not always the most informed although they might be. A vote for change to STV is, in effect; (whether desired or not) a vote for “concensus government” as opposed to democratic majority government. Sounds good to some but mind you, this is a very deep and slippery slope to go down.
Thank you for your comment and for your intelligent thought.
Roland,
Because of the proportional representation aspect of BC-STV, there is actually a much greater chance of electing a Green party candidate (or other small-party candidate) than the present system, EVEN if ALL voters continue to vote essentially along party lines as they do now (like Vicki in your example). Electing small-party candidates does not depend on convincing people to mark a small-party candidate as their second, third, or subsequent choice.
There are two reasons that BC-STV enhances the chances of small-party candidates.
First, under the current system only the candidate with the most votes gets elected in each district, while under the BC-STV a number of the runners-up also get elected in each district, depending on how many MLA’s the district has. A party whose candidates always places 3rd in provincial elections with 20% of the vote will never get an MLA elected under the current system. But under BC-STV a party whose candidate gets 20% of the vote will be elected as an MLA in any district that has 5 or more MLA’s.
More importantly, people will be free to vote first for a small party that they prefer, without having to worry that they might be throwing their vote away. Because they can mark one of the major-party candidates as their second choice, they can know that their vote will still count against whatever major party they want to keep out of office, even if their first choice fails to win. Voters will have less tendency to vote strategically for the lesser-of-two-evils, but can instead vote for the best choice first.
Is Tasmania pushing for independence? Last I checked it was an Australian state, not a country.
BTW, I don’t think STV will achieve anything except make elections more complicated, because to some extent voters(parties) will still attempt to organize their voting power to maximize their representation by ensuring multiple attractive candidates are in the race to draw votes from their constiuency to win the number of available election slots.
You should really grab the free $25 bonus at Saturn Casino. It’s a great place to play.
I don’t really agree, but regardless a very well written post. I’ll link back from my NJ Birthday Party site, when I get time
Found your site on another blog post, great content, but the site looks awkward in Chrome, but works fine in IE. Go figure.
Assessing the cash flow is another essential element within the company technique format, so as to sustain a normal cash flow to meet the important capital requirements. Probability of monetary crisis and also the ways of crisis management must be pointed out in the structure. The business technique must consist from the marketing plans and strategy leading to the expansion in the organization.