Charge: Campaign costs would be considerably more under BC-STV.
Many of the substantial costs that a political party faces, such as media advertisements and air-time, are provincial in scope and thus would be unaffected by the introduction of BC-STV. These media related costs are usually not limited to certain ridings but rather are done on a party-wide basis. Parties who run candidates in all of the ridings within a potential district will not likely have any increased cost for campaigning. Within a district, candidates from the same party would issue joint literature and signage to keep the costs the same and as long as they work together it doesn’t mean additional canvassing is necessary although they may still chose to do so. It could even result in a better working relationship between candidates in the same party as they will benefit from the enhanced cooperation. Independents will have to come up with more innovative strategies to keep the costs down as their overall cost could go up a bit but many of their contributing costs such as media coverage would also remain unchanged.
Detailed response from
I don't think that running under STV will necessarily cost much more than under FPTP. In other jurisdictions, candidates from the same party issue joint literature - that is, pamphlets listing all the candidates from a given party. Newspapers, radios and TVs are not limited in coverage to provincial ridings, so FPTP candidates typically have to buy airtime or adspace that covers ridings other than their own (eg, an ad in the Vancouver Sun will be seen provincewide; even the Vancouver Courier, which has westside and eastside editions, covers 5 or 6 ridings with each edition), so there are no increases in cost under STV - in fact, by pooling their resources, they can increase the visibility of their candidates quite substantially. It's true that an individual candidate will be less able to knock on all the doors in an expanded riding, but, assuming the same density of party volunteers, each party will still be able to knock on just as many doors - the volunteers simply have to seek support for their party's candidates. If a voter expresses a preference for one candidate on the list and a volunteer prefers another candidate, they can thank the voter for supporting the party and ask if the voter would consider giving their second preference to the volunteer's preferred candidate. In San Francisco, which adopted Instant Runoff Voting some years back (a single member version of STV), they've found a remarkable increase in civility between candidates, even those of different parties (if as a candidate you get too negative about another candidate, you won't attract a second preference vote from that candidate's supporters, but if you acknowledge their strengths and any similarities, you might get that second preference). Independents will have to be smarter about how they seek their support - they will more likely have to target their intended constituency by meeting with certain kinds of groups (eg, environmentalists) rather than going door to door throughout the expanded region.
(1) Antony Hodgson said…, http://billtieleman.blogspot.com/2007/08/know-stv-says-new-bc-electoral.html
Since San Francisco has implemented IRV, politics has been just as nasty as ever. Talk to people in SF (who aren't IRV promoters) and they will tell you that no candidates are endorsing others. They aren't encouraging people to rank choices, in fact in Nov 2007, the incumbent mayor encouraged voters to NOT rank choices. From what I have learned about IRV - it doesn't elevate third parties, it won't prevent the spoiler effect if the third party candidate is strong, and it usually produces the same result as a plurality election. Worse, I hope Canada isn't persuaded to give up their hand counted paper ballots as was Scotland.
ReplyDeleteIRV seems like a backdoor for computerized voting, something Canada should avoid. Look at the US and our rigged elections in 2000 and 2004.
According to the NY Times (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A04E4D81538F933A0575AC0A9629C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1):
ReplyDelete" New Runoff System in San Francisco Has the Rival Candidates Cooperating
By DEAN E. MURPHY
Published: September 30, 2004
Eugene C. Wong is running for an office that typically does not draw the national spotlight. Yet Mr. Wong and the 64 others seeking seats on the County Board of Supervisors here are being closely watched by advocates for election reform around the country.
In Mr. Wong's case, the reason was evident on Wednesday, at one of his first big fund-raisers in the third district, an ethnically mixed area that straddles North Beach and Chinatown. The evening was unconventional, to say the least, with Mr. Wong sharing top billing with two principal rivals in the race, Sal Busalacchi and Brian Murphy O'Flynn.
''We are going to have more joint fund-raisers,'' Mr. Wong said. ''I am not opposed to saying that if I don't win, then I hope one of these other guys wins.''
The cooperation is in response to a new election system, instant-runoff voting."
[...]
"An early effect has been to introduce a new civility among the candidates, something many San Franciscans have wholeheartedly embraced. Because the winner in each district might be determined by voters' second and third choices, candidates have quickly learned that it is best to be on friendly terms so as not to alienate their opponents' supporters.
''Even if you come in second among the first-choice votes, you still have a shot at winning, so long as you can reach out to be the No. 2 choice to the rest of the people,'' said Mr. Wong, an immigration lawyer.
In District 5, Supervisor Matt Gonzalez, a big backer of instant runoffs in 2002, is not seeking re-election, creating the biggest free-for-all of the season. Many of the 22 candidates vying for his post participate in a so-called Candidates Collaborative, meeting publicly every few weeks to discuss district problems. The setting is decidedly congenial.
One candidate, Michael O'Connor, a nightclub owner, said the consensus among most candidates was that opting out of the collaborative would be political suicide in the new get-along environment. Last month, Mr. O'Connor also held a joint fund-raiser with a rival, Robert Haaland.
''The way I see how it works,'' Mr. O'Connor said, ''win or lose, you may as well get along with people.'' "
Another minor point - it's not so much that candidates encourage voters to rank other candidates, but that they ask voters who support other candidates to also rank them. To be plausible in making this request, the candidates have to show what they have in common with their rivals, which promotes discussion and consensus.
I agree with you about retaining paper ballots - that's why the BC Citizens' Assembly recommended precisely this. Even in places such as the city of Vancouver where electronic counting has been adopted, it's been based on optical scanning of paper ballots so there's a secure, auditable trail.
It's natural to try to ferret out evidence for or against the recommended new BC-STV voting system by looking at the experience of other jurisdictions. NC Voter makes disparaging remarks about IRV voting in San Francisco, commenting that politics there is still as nasty as ever, a comment disagreed with by Antony Hodgson who said there has been a noticeable increase in their election civility.
ReplyDeleteIt's important that the San Francisco voting involves single member constituencies, rather than the multi-member constituencies of BC-STV. The multi-member constituencies of BC-STV mean that a candidate has a relatively greater incentive to debate politely with their fellow candidates in hopes of picking up their supporters' second and subsequent rankings. A candidate doesn't have to destroy every other candidate to win; 2 to 7 of the best candidates will be elected. Therefore, politics will still be tough but will include more genuine debate and less dirt throwing and name calling, under BC-STV.
Interestingly, polls indicate voters strongly prefer the San Franciso ranked ballots over the old First-Past-the-Post ones that only allow a voter to mark one candidate after going to all the trouble to vote. The ranked voting in BC-STV will be equally liked.
I remember some candidates endorsing each other in the Vision mayoral nomination meeting (which used runoff voting). It's not like IRV (Or STV) magically removes all negativity from politics, but it can encourage more positive campaigns.
ReplyDelete