Other Forms of Proportional Representation

Charge: I agree with proportional representation but mixed-member parliament (MMP) is better than BC-STV. If you prefer another form of electoral reform than you should not support BC-STV.

None of the electoral systems are perfect, but any of the proportional representation (PR) choices are better than FPTP so we should support whatever alternative that is put forward over FPTP. The vote is for electoral reform or staying with the current system, BC-STV or FPTP. Those are the only choices and BC-STV would be a big improvement over what we have now. Even if you prefer another system such as MMP, voting for electoral reform now could still help to bring you one step closer to your preferred choice of PR.

I think it would have been much easier for the Citizen’s Assembly (CA) to go along with the more commonly known MMP so the arguments supporting STV must have been very compelling to convince the majority of the CA that STV was the better system for BC.

STV gives more power to the voter rather than the party as in MMP. Under STV the candidates within the same party have to compete against each other to win the votes of the constituents. Conversely, under closed-list MMP the parties have the power since they determine the ranking of candidates to be elected. This MMP system could result in a candidate being elected that constituents did not vote for but that followed the party line well. If you play the game of party politics well and are thus ranked high on the list then you don’t need to listen to your constituents and the voters lose accountability and representation. In my opinion, the advantages of STV far outweigh the slight improvement in proportionality offered by MMP.

Let’s not let those benefiting from FPTP succeed in dividing reformers…

And now for the many comments:

Tony (1)

If I supported an alternative electoral system that’s not on the ballot (eg, MMP), I would likely decide to work very hard to get STV passed to show that electoral reformers are united and change is possible, and then work further to refine it towards what I considered to be the ideal system.

Far better for all reform supporters to work together to get STV passed and then keep the discussion about future improvements open.

Wilf Day (2)

If you prefer MMP, fine, but this is no reason to vote for FPTP. If BC-STV loses, electoral reform is off the agenda in BC for a long time.

Dan Grice (3)

The B.C. Citizens' Assembly had no material gain for choosing STV, but were biased towards a system that favored candidates instead of political parties.

Mark Greenan (4)

In my view, Canada retains its first-past-the-post voting system - the worst voting system, one that hardly deserves the term democratic - because of overwhelming support among business, media and political elites. It is crucial that STV come to BC to support further reform in other provinces and at the federal level. A victory for BC-STV would provide momentum to the citizen-based movement for reform. As someone heavily involved in that movement, it is fair to say its defeat would be major setback for electoral reform in Canada.

Finally, in my view, it would be much easier for an STV-elected legislature to be reformed to a form of MMP. Indeed, the BC New Democrats might want to commit to a referendum to that effect after a few elections under STV. But they, to be true to the second initial in the party name, should be heartily supporting STV.

D.Huntley and M.Wortis (5)

STV is not the only way to achieve proportional representation, but we believe that it is the best way. Strict proportional systems are often based on ranked lists prepared by the political parties. Such systems do not naturally provide local representation and tend to make representatives more responsive to the party hierarchy than to the general voter. Mixed systems, like the Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) system advocated by some, elect some members by the present FPTP system but supplement these by party-based seats to achieve proportionality. This provides for some local representation but retains the unsatisfactory features of FPTP, and fails to offer the voter choice that is a feature of STV. Nor does it provide the increased opportunity for the election of independent and community-based candidates found with STV.

Every voting system has advantages and disadvantages; no system will produce results that everyone will consider satisfactory in all circumstances. So, in considering alternatives, it is important always to keep the big picture in mind. The FPTP system now in use is seriously unrepresentative, routinely producing false majorities and sometimes even producing wrong winners. Anyone considering STV may find something to criticize, and many people have done so, but these criticisms are minor compared to those leveled at FPTP.

We believe that STV would be a significant improvement, maintaining and improving local representation, improving citizen representation and providing more voter choice.

Antony Hodgson (6),

…all STV districts are relatively compact, whereas the list region in MMP systems are generally considerably larger (in Ontario, it's provincewide)

I would expect that if the referendum does not achieve enough support, politicians will be all too happy to wash their hands of the issue once and for all and that they'd take no action on electoral reform for another generation.

To my mind, though, the best way to achieve a different reform is to pass STV and then use your increased influence with your MLAs to push for further improvements.

(1) Single Option Not CA's Decision; Reformers Should Work Together by Tony, http://thetyee.ca/News/2008/02/22/STVFunding/#comment

(2) G West is Right by Wilf Day, http://thetyee.ca/News/2009/01/09/STV2009/

(3) FPTP is the Enemy by dangrice.com, http://thetyee.ca/News/2009/01/09/STV2009/

(4) Comments from MichelleMungall’s blog entry “Longing for a Proper Election” by Mark Greenan, http://michellemungall.blogspot.com/2008/10/longing-for-proper-election.html

(5) Proportional Representation, Local Representation and More Voter Choice by David Huntley and Michael Wortis, http://www.stv.ca/download/BCSTV_Huntley_Wortis.pdf

(6) Comments in ‘KNOW STV says BC Electoral Boundaries Commission ridings map for Single

Transferable Vote System shows why voters should vote NO in 2009 referendum –

STV unrepresentative and unaccountable’ by Antony Hodson, http://billtieleman.blogspot.com/2007/08/know-stv-says-new-bc-electoral.html

Wasted Votes

Charge: STV does not mean an end to so-called wasted votes and would actually make some votes worth less. Some voters would have their vote dead-ended; their vote stopping with their first preference so not counting towards getting anyone elected nor being transferred to another candidate. Other voters would help to elect more than one MLA as their vote was fractionally transferred to several candidates.

It is impossible to guarantee that every single vote contributes to helping a candidate get elected but the vast majority of voters will end up with an MLA they voted for under STV, in contrast to roughly half us now under FPTP. All votes are equally important as everybody gets one vote and it is never worth more or less than one vote.

If your first choice is holding a candidate in contention right up until the end then your further preferences would not be available to be transferred to another candidate. Your vote is already being used and it is serving a worthy purpose of holding your candidate in contention. The other voter who helps to elect more than one MLA is still doing that with just one vote. The keyword is ‘fractionally’… their contributions to the different MLAs that get elected does not mathematically exceed one. Half of your vote may go to your first choice, enough for them to get elected, then a quarter may go to your second choice, helping them get elected, and finally the last quarter may go to your third choice… but in the end, it is just one vote just like everyone else’s.

Furthermore, significantly more votes are considered with STV than with FPTP. Under FPTP all votes going to somebody other than who was elected are completely disregarded and this is frequently over 50 %. Consider the Delta South Riding from the 2005 election as an example, the liberal candidate won with 37.48 % of the votes. Thus, 62.52 % of the votes were disregarded entirely or wasted under FPTP which is very high. In this riding, 62.52 % of voters supported candidates that were not elected. With STV, at least some of those 62.52 % of votes would be considered for second or third choices. The consequence is far less wasted votes under STV.

Comment by David Huntley (1),

“… each voter has exactly one vote, and it remains as exactly one vote at all stages of the counting. Nobody's vote counts for any more or any less than anyone else's.”

D. Huntley and M. Wortis wrote (2),

"Under FPTP, it is usually the case that less than 50 % of the votes are for the candidate who is elected. By contrast, under STV about 90% of the votes in a six-member riding will have contributed to the election of at least one MLA. Thus a far higher number of voters will feel they are represented in the legislature, and this should contribute to increased voter participation and satisfaction."

(1) The Citizens’ Assembly got it right by David Huntley, http://thetyee.ca/News/2009/01/09/STV2009/?utm_source=mondayheadlines&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=120109

(2)Proportional Representation, Local Representation and More Voter Choice by David Huntley and Michael Wortis, http://www.stv.ca/download/BCSTV_Huntley_Wortis.pdf

Accountability

Charge: Multi-member districts sever the link between MLAs and their constituents. Since there is more than one MLA , each MLA can shift blame onto the others which will reduce accountability.

Under the current system there is very little accountability in many of the ridings because they have ‘safe seats’ and the MLAs do not need to worry about losing an individual’s vote but rather just keeping their party happy to secure their own nomination in future elections. Under STV there will be much greater competition between candidates, even within a party. This added competition provides more incentive for the MLAs to work that much harder to do a good job in representing their constituents in each district to ensure that they get the votes needed in the next election. Even the smaller districts, with only 2 or 3 MLAs, will be very competitive in determining which party will win the final seat. An MLA that shifts the blame onto another will not likely be re-elected and most MLAs would avoid doing that in recognition of the ramifications. This increased competition improves accountability. All of the MLAs will be more accountable because if they individually lose support of their constituents then they won’t be re-elected, support may shift to another candidate within the same party or to a candidate of a different party.

Detailed comments from Antony Hodgson (1),

… how much more accountable can an MLA be than under STV? With FPTP, the NDP voters have zero power to remove a Liberal MLA from office - they have to rely on that MLA losing support from a large portion of their own Liberal supporters before that will happen. With STV, they would have chosen their own MLA and would have the power to remove that MLA from office if they were unhappy with them. Even better, they could replace the MLA with another NDP candidate - they wouldn't have to go over to the other side to show their displeasure.

… STV seems to me to provide real representation - I can help elect the MLA who seems most suitable to me, and those with different political views can't do anything about it. The best they can do is choose the MLA they like best, and then our two representatives will discuss the issues in the legislature and other public forums, where such discussion belongs.

(1) Re: BC-STV Follow-up Comments by Antony Hodgson, Oct 7^th, 2008, http://theleftcoast.ca/blog/_archives/2008/8/27/3858137.html#1174626

the North

Charge: BC-STV won’t work in the North.

It is the current system, FPTP, that doesn’t work in the North.

From Fort St. John's online news source, energeticcity.ca (1),

The Peace River North Constituency is now officially without an MLA, as the resignation of newly appointed Senator, Richard Neufeld, went to the speaker of the provincial legislature this morning. Speaking this morning on Issues and Answers, Mr. Neufeld confirmed, from now until the provincial election this spring, Peace River South MLA Blair Lekstrom, will be the only Northeast BC elected official, in the legislature...

Under the current system, we have zero MLAs to represent the Peace River North constituency. There are approximately 37,000 people without a representative.

In the Alaska Highway News, Tessa Holloway wrote (2),

“However, there will be no by-election due to the close proximity to the provincial election date, scheduled for May 12, meaning the North Peace will be left without a representative.”

In that same article, Blair Lekstrom, MLA for Peace River South, is quoted as saying,

“…tell the people up there to give our office in Dawson Creek a call and we’ll do what we can to help. As MLA for the South Peace, really we share a lot of the same issues.”

Although the residents of the North Peace can turn to the South Peace MLA to some extent in the interim, we cannot expect as much from him as his own constituents would as we are not his constituents and we don’t count as potential votes.

Currently there is only one MLA in the whole Northeast district and his only real obligation is to the constituents of the South Peace Riding. Under STV there would be two MLAs and they would both be accountable to all constituents of the Northeast equally. If one of the two MLAs were to resign than the district would still be left with representation by the other MLA. You would never get 37,000 people without representation under STV. Mr. Lekstrom has acknowledged that ‘we share a lot of the same issues’ making the combined ridings quite feasible. BC-STV would be much better than what we currently have now.

(1) Peace River North is officially without an MLA, January 19^th, 2009, http://www.energeticcity.ca/news/01/19/09/peace-river-north-officially-without-mla

(2) Lekstrom will be interim MLA by Tessa Holloway, p. A1, Alaska Highway News, January 15^th, 2009.

Not Commonly Used

Charge: It doesn’t make sense to change to a system that is not commonly used. STV was designed for smaller constituencies which is the reason it is used by only two countries nationally (Ireland and Malta). It is unproven in a similar situation to ours.

It is used successfully at a national level in Ireland, Malta, and for the Australian Senate and regionally in many countries. In fact, the Irish government has held two referendums to try to remove it but the people want to keep it and voted for it to stay both times. STV is used in the Australian senate with even larger constituencies than ours. They have a fairly similar population/area ratio as BC yet fewer candidates to elect.

Now for the details…

Quoted from D.Huntley and M.Wortis (1) :

“…the voting public should like STV because it will give the people more say in

government. STV has been used in Ireland for over 80 years; the politicians have twice tried to get rid of it in two separate referendums, but the voters voted to keep it.

If politicians are left to decide on a voting system, they usually do not choose STV, which is why it is not found in common use. Besides Ireland, it is used in Malta, for the Australian Senate, the Upper Houses of all the Australian States, the Lower House of Tasmania, and the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly. Northern Ireland uses STV, and STV is used in local elections in several places.”

Quoted from Antony Hodgson (2) :

“It is used nationally in Australia, which has a population of 20M and an area of 8M sqkm, while BC has 4M in 1M sqkm, so they're roughly comparable on a population/area basis. In fact, they elect 76 senators while BC elects 85 MLAs, so each Ozzie senator represents 250,000 people, about 5X as many as a BC MLA. There's really no link between constituency size and whether or not a voting system works.

Also, Canada is the last major industrialized country in the world to have no proportional representation system within its borders - Great Britain has PR in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and for the European Parliament and even the US uses PR in several US cities (Cambridge, Minneapolis, etc). Are we really that much smarter than all other industrialized countries, or have they maybe figured out some democratic innovations that it's high time we adopted?”

(1) Proportional Representation, Local Representation and More Voter Choice by David Huntley and Michael Wortis, http://www.stv.ca/download/BCSTV_Huntley_Wortis.pdf

(2) Scott Yee's Comments (Part 2) by Antony Hodgson, http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/BC-Politics/2008/11/26/SilencedSpring/#comment

Larger, Spread-out Rural Districts

Charge: The larger, spread-out districts under STV will distance MLAs from their constituents. This remoteness could make it very hard to visit the office of their MLA.

The Northeast and Northwest ridings clearly involve the largest potential distances people have to travel to reach their MLAs. For a person living just on the BC side of the Yukon border, travel time to reach an MLA under FPTP is about nine and a half hours for both the Peace River North and Skeena-Stikine ridings. This distance does not change under STV so the time it takes to reach the closest MLA remains unchanged. The difference with STV is that there would be an additional MLA which would likely be in the next most populated town. To see the other MLA would mean an extra hour drive between major centers for the Northeast and an extra hour and a half drive in the Northwest. This extra travel time is not that substantial when you consider how much we have to travel up here already and also when you weigh in the benefits of getting an additional MLA to turn to.

Local Representation and Spread-out Rural Districts

Charge: STV will result in less representation for the more spread-out rural districts.

This is the first of multiple entries regarding the more spread-out districts and rural concerns. This issue hits very close to home with me as I live in the riding with the second largest area and just 2 MLAs.

As a rural resident, I strongly support BC-STV. I live in the proposed Northeast district which has the second largest area with only 2 MLAs yet I feel my voice will be significantly stronger under STV which means better representation. My proposed district combines the ridings of Peace River South and Peace River North together and would have two MLAs. It will still result in the same number of MLA’s per person and the same number of MLAs per area. That remains unchanged. The difference lies in the fact that I will now have two MLAs to turn to rather than just one which increases the chances of my voice being heard. I would welcome STV and another MLA in a larger riding even if it means an extra hour to drive to see them. Even though it is another political strong-hold, at least the candidate that has traditionally won the other part of our potential riding is much better than what we are faced with here. To me it means another MLA that has to listen to you even if it’s not the party of your choosing, as you are their constituent, even if it means a bit more driving. Obviously a 2 MLA riding will have less proportionality than the ridings with more MLAs but I still welcome more choice and more options than what I have now under FPTP.

Detailed response from Antony Hodgson (1) :

…there are two main reasons why I think STV will enhance rural representation relative to our current FPTP system:

1. It will increase the independence and responsiveness of MLAs. Since MLAs will be more dependent on votes from individual voters under STV, they won't be able to assume that they have safe seats and they will have to actively seek the votes available in smaller towns, so they will have a stronger incentive to spend more time outside the larger population centres. This will enhance the connection voters feel to their MLAs. In general, MLAs will tend to represent their riding to Victoria rather than the other way around.

2. STV ensures that swing ridings will exist everywhere in the province. Right now, there are many safe seats in rural areas, particularly in the north. As a consequence, the parties tend to ignore the issues those areas face. The candidates for premier tend to spend most of their time in the swing ridings, so all the media attention is focussed on those areas, which tend to be in the urban centres. By bringing seats in every region of the province into play (eg, in a three seat district, the NDP and the Liberals may each feel relatively confident about winning one seat, but the third one will be up for grabs), STV will ensure increased media attention to the rural ridings. In fact, because the average STV district size will be smaller in the rural areas, there will be an increased ratio of swing seats to population in rural areas, which will further raise the visibility of rural concerns.

So overall I see significant benefits for rural voters to support STV - a stronger connection to their MLA through increased incentives for them to spend time outside the larger population centres and increased attention to the rural regions by making more seats in these areas into swing seats where the outcome strongly affects the parties' overall electoral fortunes.

(1) Why STV Will Improve Rural Representation by Antony Hodgson, http://thetyee.ca/News/2008/02/07/ReturnOfSTV/

Minority Governments

Charge: STV would lead to more minority governments that are weak and less stable.

Majority governments will become less frequent under STV but a minority government does not mean that the government will be weak and less stable. D.Huntley and M. Wortis (1) wrote :

“Some people find minority governments undesirable because they are perceived to be unstable. In fact, the history of proportional and FPTP systems shows that both can lead to stable governments and both can lead to unstable ones. Some people prefer minority governments because they are usually unable to pass legislation that the majority of the people do not want and because they are more likely to find common ground through compromise and accommodation. Minority governments in Canada have been responsible for some of our most progressive legislation, including Medicare and the Canada Pension Plan.”

Governments formed under STV would not necessarily have less stability as there would be less incentive to call an early election as explained below by Antony Hodgson.

Detailed response regarding the stability of governments formed under STV

by Antony Hodgson (2) :

This presumption is based on an unjustified application of Canada's federal experience with minority governments to an STV system where the incentives to call an election are very different.

The Republic of Ireland is the main example of a Westminster parliamentary system which uses STV. Between 1948 and 2007, there have been 17 elections, with an average interval of 3.7 years between elections. The last three governments have all lasted a full five years. In Canada, we've had 21 elections between 1945 and 2008, with an average interval of 3.15 years. In BC, we've had 19 elections between 1945 and 2009, with an average interval of 3.55 years. We can therefore see that Ireland actually has fewer elections under STV than either Canada or BC has had under our First Past the Post system.

Why is that? The main reason is a difference in incentive to call an election. With our FPTP system, small shifts in the popular vote can drastically swing the number of seats won and the leading party typically wins a bonus that can give them a majority government. We just saw this dynamic federally, where the Conservatives won an extra 1.4% of the vote in the 2008 election and went from 124 to 143 seats - a 6.2% gain, or over 4X more seats than their change in popular support warranted (not to mention the bonus they had for being the largest party - they won 46.4% of the seats on 37.7% of the vote). When small changes in voter sentiment can give you a strong chance at a majority government even when your popular support is still under 40%, why not roll the dice on an election?

In contrast, with STV the results will be far more proportional. There is no strong winner's bonus (historically in Ireland, the winner's bonus is on the order of 3%) and no disproportionate increase in the number of seats relative to a change in a party's popular vote, so there is no significant incentive either to trigger or to call an early election - the expected result is that the voters will return you in about the same proportions that you currently enjoy. This means that parties bide their time and work to make lasting changes in their level of popular support.

(1) Proportional Representation, Local Representation and More Voter Choice by David Huntley and Michael Wortis, http://www.stv.ca/download/BCSTV_Huntley_Wortis.pdf

(2) Myth: STV Will Produce Unstable and Short-Lived Governments by Antony Hodgson, http://stv.ca/node/569