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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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, 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.

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.

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.

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.