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