MLAs From Same Town

Charge: STV will result in less local representation since all MLAs will come from the same town.

The election results from countries that have BC-STV show that the candidates do not all come from the same town… that this does not tend to occur. The candidates tend to be well distributed as shown by the results in the Irish rural districts, http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?msa=0&ll=52.822683,-8.162842&spn=2.987736,7.075195&z=7&msid=100686598902148055059.0004637343be49550140b .

It is not likely that all MLAs would come from the same town as you are combining ridings that have roughly equal populations so one riding should not be able to dominate over another. Under the current system of FPTP the urban areas of a riding tend to dominate over the rural areas such that the rural areas often feel overshadowed by the bigger population centers. Under BC-STV this would be lessened, if anything, since there would be considerably more competition and the candidates would be more actively seeking the rural votes in addition to the urban votes. In the proposed Northeast district, there would be two MLAs elected and likely one would come from Peace River North and one from Peace River South but of course there is not guarantee of this. Personally, I would prefer a better quality candidate an extra hour’s drive away than a closer local candidate who does not represent me well. However, if having a closer local candidate is more important to others then they would have to make sure that they got out to vote. People who think it is important to not have an extra hour’s drive to see their MLA should be asking all the candidates if they are willing to set up an office in both of the major centers. If that is important to the majority of people than the candidate who shows a willingness to have this greater presence will be the one that gets elected.

Small Parties and Independents

Charge: It would be harder for independents and small parties to win seats under BC-STV. Also, from the other end of the spectrum, proportional representation systems such as BC-STV help extremist parties get into power.

People would likely vote differently under BC-STV. Currently there is a lot of strategic voting taking place where people vote against a party by voting for the next most likely candidate to have a chance rather than voting for the candidate and party of their choosing. Many don’t vote for the smaller parties as they are concerned that their vote won’t count… that it would be a wasted vote. With BC-STV this would no longer be a concern as their vote would not be wasted but rather transferred to their next preference if their first choice had already been elected or eliminated.

It is easier for popular independents or candidates from small parties to get elected under BC-STV. For example, in a district with 7 MLAs it would take just 12.5% of the vote to be elected. This can be achieved through first choice votes in addition to transfers if they run good candidates that can appeal to supporters of other parties as well. The result would be a Legislative House that better reflects the demographics of BC.

Since the districts are multi-member, voters in all of the regions will usually get a representative from the both the government and the opposition as well as occasionally a third party or independent. This would result in a more balanced government. Specifically, in the Peace area where 2 MLAs would be elected, the Liberal support is strong enough to ensure that one seat will definitely go to the Liberals. However, the big change from the current system will lie in the second seat. Under BC-STV there would be a real competition for that second seat. This competition would likely be between the second Liberal candidate and the NDP and would result in much greater accountability. There will be fewer ‘safe’ seats and we all benefit from this increased competition, regardless of what party you support.

On the other hand, Fringe parties will still have difficulty getting elected unless they receive enough votes. Under BC-STV, candidates will need to get roughly 20,000 votes in a district to get elected. If they can get that many votes then those 20,000+ should have representation and they deserve to get a seat.

Dave Huntley and Michael Wortis regarding the advantages of STV (1),

• reasonably proportional representation of parties; the number of MLAs of each party will be in close proportion to its fraction of the popular vote, resulting in a broader representation of public opinion in the Provincial legislature

• increased opportunity for independent popular local candidates to be elected

Voters with a strong preference for an independent candidate or one from a smaller party can give their first choice votes to such candidates without fear of “wasting” their ballots. If such candidates receive relatively few votes, the votes are transferred to the voters’ second preferences, and possibly third preferences, etc., during the counting process.

Response by Antony Hodgson (2),

There will be the same number of MLAs as with FPTP, there will be regional teams of MLAs … and voters will be much more likely to vote in independents and Greens …. One of the advantages of STV, in my mind, is that by having regional districts throughout the province, there will almost always be both government and opposition MLAs in each district (virtually certain when there are 3 or more MLAs), so the government won't be able to punish a particular district for voting 'incorrectly' without also hurting their own candidate. I expect that the result will be more sensitive and balanced policies.

Independents have a much easier time getting elected under STV (Ireland typically elects 5-10% independents).

Tony wrote (3),

I agree that there are some strong ethnic divides in BC, particularly in the Lower Mainland, but I think that STV is part of the solution, not something that will exacerbate things.

I can understand the frustration of many of the ethnic groups here in BC when they don't find themselves represented in the faces of their MLAs (not to mention the male/female imbalance). … With STV, I fully expect to see an increase in the number of East Asians and South Asians in the legislature. Their communities will then feel that they have a real voice in government and will likely become more committed to seeking common solutions to our common problems through political processes.

I'm not worried about small splinter groups forming under STV. This is far more likely under a purely proportional system with a low province-wide threshold. With STV, given its higher threshold of 10-15%, I think you'll find that ethnic groups will put forward candidates from the major parties so that they can have both representation (ie, an MLA from their community) and access to power (by working within the party structures that help forge policy platforms).

Tony again (4),

“…I don't think it's anywhere near as easy for single interest groups to get elected under STV as [one may] think. Even in the largest 7-seat districts (if we get any of them), you'll still need to attract in the range of 10-12% of the voters to get elected. This seems like a relatively large threshold to me, so I suspect that only serious candidates will be able to cross it. It's one of the things I like most about STV - it seems to me to strike a fine balance between making my vote count (giving me further meaningful choices if my top preference doesn't have enough support to be elected) and being mindlessly 'proportional', the way Israel and Italy are always (in my mind rightly) being criticized for.

And if someone convinces 20k voters to elect them, then that MLA has a very strong claim to be their representative and has every right to make their voices heard. Realistically, I expect that in BC, we'll elect half a dozen or so Greens, and maybe one or two other independents or representatives of smaller parties in areas where they have particular strength. I think the Greens' voice will be widely welcomed (at least amongst the voters, if not amongst the other politicians) and may well provoke the major parties to shift their policies greenward. That doesn't seem like a waste of time to me.

Response by Dgrant (5),

I don't see the problem with narrow-issue or racially defined parties. … If they can garner enough votes to get a seat in legislature via PR they deserve a seat. …I don't think we should keep the status quo just so we can keep these fringe parties out of the legislature. The current system is unfair.

(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) Antony Hodgson said… , http://billtieleman.blogspot.com/2007/08/know-stv-says-new-bc-electoral.html

(3) ‘It’s All About Representation’ by Tony, http://thetyee.ca/News/2008/02/22/STVFunding/#comment

(4) ‘Resistance to Special Interest Groups’ by Tony, http://thetyee.ca/News/2008/02/07/ReturnOfSTV/

(5) ‘G West, I don’t see the’ by DGrant, http://thetyee.ca/News/2008/02/22/STVFunding/#comment

Campaign Costs

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 Antony Hodgson (1),

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. Ireland shows that it's certainly possible for independents to be successful with this kind of strategy.

(1) Antony Hodgson said…, http://billtieleman.blogspot.com/2007/08/know-stv-says-new-bc-electoral.html

Proportionality

Charge: BC-STV is not ‘truly’ proportional.

BC-STV is a proportional type of electoral reform. If we make a comparison to the current system of FPTP, any type of proportional representation system is a significant improvement. All one has to do is look to the skewed results of past provincial elections to see how disproportional the current system is. In 1996, the NDP won a majority government despite having less % popular vote than the Liberals (NDP received 39% support and Liberals received 42% support). In 2001, the Liberals received 57% popular vote but won 97% of the seats in the House. Since a picture says a thousand words, the improvement in proportionality under BC-STV can be easily seen graphically by looking at the following link: Proportionality and the Single Transferable Vote .

It is true that BC-STV is not 100% proportional but it is far more proportional than the current system of FPTP. I see it as a balance between local representation and proportionality. You could make the districts very large… the larger you go the more proportional the results. If we had one district that was the whole of BC, similar to the provincial list region for Ontario’s MMP model, it would be 100% proportional but that would be undesirable as you would not get local representation at all. Districts with 5 or more MLAs are very nearly proportional while the smaller ones are less so but still significantly more proportional than what we have now. From the largely populated areas feedback to the Citizens’ Assembly suggested that proportionality was the most important factor. Under BC-STV, with the proposed electoral boundaries, these urban areas get near proportionality with districts having a greater number of MLAs. In the more spread-out rural ridings feedback suggested that local representation was the most important factor and we get that under BC-STV with districts of fewer MLAs. In the rural areas, we could get better proportionality by combining more ridings together but we would lose too much in terms of local representation as the districts would be far too spread out. Personally, I would not want to combine the Northeast and Northwest in order to have a 4 MLA district and thus more proportionality. The cost in terms of loss of local representation would be far too high. The proposed electoral boundaries under BC-STV give the best balance between local representation and proportionality for both urban and rural regions, giving very nearly proportional results for urban areas and leaning more towards local representation for rural areas… we all get what we want.

With proportional results the House would more accurately reflect the diversity of BC as it should.

Response by Wilf Day (1),

With STV, the higher the district magnitude, the more proportional the results. The district magnitude of BC-STV is higher than in Ireland, lower than in Northern Ireland or Tasmania. In both Ireland and Northern Ireland it is called PR-STV, or "PR" for short. They understand very well that it is more proportional with larger districts; Northern Ireland was not satisfied with five-seaters and changed to six-seaters. Yet they still considered the five-seater model as "proportional representation" -- because it is, although six-seaters are even better.

Detailed response by Antony Hodgson (2),

On proportionality, for example, there is no doubt that STV is far more proportional than FPTP. Using Gallagher's Disproportionality Index, for example, Northern Ireland dropped from about 15% to about 4% when they adopted STV (Canada's outcomes on this scale have ranged over the past 30 years from ~9-21% and the UK from 12-18%). The two countries using STV to elect their legislatures are Malta (0.3-3%) and Ireland (2-7%). Malta and Ireland are both in the top 10 most proportional countries in the world, whereas none of the FPTP countries (Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand pre-MMP, etc) are. These values for STV are comparable to all the various list PR and MMP countries often held up as examples of proportionality - Finland (2-5%), Germany (0.5-5%), New Zealand (1-3.4%, down from 9-18% under FPTP), so there's no historical evidence for arguing… that "STV is nowhere near as proportional as other electoral systems being considered in places like Ontario or already used elsewhere in the world.” On a provincewide scale, STV will likely be just as proportional as the MMP system Ontario is considering.

(1) Chris H. by Wilf Day, http://thetyee.ca/News/2009/01/09/STV2009/#comment

(2) Antony Hodgson said…, http://billtieleman.blogspot.com/2007/08/know-stv-says-new-bc-electoral.html

Ballot Counting

Charge: The counting of the ballots under BC-STV would entirely rely on computers and it is too difficult to calculate without computers.

The counting of the ballots does not require a computer but it is recommended and much quicker with computers. There would be paper ballots that would be scanned and they can be recounted later if needed. Also, election officials will publish a list of results afterwards showing which votes or portions of votes were transferred.

Response by Antony Hodgson (1),

STV will use paper ballots that are just as secure as our current ones. Just like in the Vancouver city elections, scanners will probably be used to speed up the count, but the integrity of the election won't be threatened.

(1) Antony Hodgson said…, http://billtieleman.blogspot.com/2007/08/know-stv-says-new-bc-electoral.html

Complicated

Charge: BC-STV is too complicated

I think BC-STV can be as easy or as complicated as one wants it to be. I don’t believe everybody needs to understand every little hypothetical situation that could arise in order to be a responsible voter under BC-STV. Watching the simple animation at http://stv.ca/watch gives sufficient information for a basic understanding of how it works which is all that is really necessary. For those who want to go beyond the basics and complicate things, I can totally understand this desire for the details as I myself am a detail oriented person which is why I began this blog in the first place… to put the details together in one spot.

For those who just want to keep it simple…

In the simplest form, voters only need to learn about the one candidate they are interested in and put a ‘1’ beside their name rather than an ‘X’. However, it is better to learn about more of the candidates in their multi-member district and rank their choices of candidates with a ‘1’, ‘2’, ‘3’, etc. It is also good to know that if your first choice has more than enough votes to be elected then your vote will be partially transferred to your second choice as your first choice doesn’t need all of it. Also, if your first choice has been eliminated, as they do not have enough votes to be elected, then your vote will be fully transferred to your second choice. This means that there will be less wasted votes (since they are transferred) and will give near proportional results (a close match between popular vote and number of seats in the house) and will reduce the problem of vote splitting (ex. where two parties on the ‘left’ split the ‘left’ vote making it an easy win for the one party on the ‘right’ often resulting in ‘safe’ seats and less accountability as under FPTP)

Response by dgrant (1),

“…you don't have to rank all candidates on the ballot in BC-STV … so it doesn't have to be that complicated. For some it can be as simple as ranking all Liberal candidates 1,2 and that's it with no other choices. I don't think simplicity/complexity should be an issue. People are required by law (if you owe taxes at least) to submit tax returns which are far more complicated. It's unfortunate that some things in life are complicated but for something as important as choosing our elected representatives every 4-5 years I'll take complicated over FPTP.”

Response by Antony Hodgson (2),

“It sounds to me as though you're concerned about voters understanding the system. I think it's really easy, and have taught my 11 year old son how to do an STV count. Most people are simply unfamiliar with how STV works, but I find that I can usually get across the idea in 30 seconds or so. I have faith that BC voters are every bit as smart as the Irish, Australians, New Zealanders, Scottish, and Americans who all use STV.”

Response by Dan Grice (3),

“[An opponent to BC-STV] probably knows he cannot convince other voters that British Columbia is best served by a two party electoral system. So instead, he is trying to convince voters that they must understand every single statistical possibility under BC-STV before they support it. He likes to focus on things like the droop formula (Votes/Seats+1). The droop formula may require some voters to blow the dust off their grade 8 Algebra textbooks to remember what a fraction looks like, but it is hardly some "complicated" formula as [an opponent] describes it. The droop formula works to make sure as many votes count as can be realistic in an area. If there was one seat, a candidate would have to get elected by 1/2 the votes plus one. If there are three seats, a candidate would require 1/4 or 25% of the votes plus one.

[An opponent] probably realized that droop is the fairest way of allocating seats in districts with 2-7 candidates, but he doesn't support any sort of fair distribution of seats so he hopes to confuse people into having second doubts.”

(1) ‘G West, I don't see the’ by dgrant, http://thetyee.ca/News/2008/02/22/STVFunding/#comment

(2) Antony Hodgson said… , http://billtieleman.blogspot.com/2007/08/know-stv-says-new-bc-electoral.html

(3) David Schreck's strange opposition to BC-STV by Dan Grice, http://www.dangrice.com/?q=node/224

2005 Referendum Question

Charge: The referendum question was biased in favour of STV.

By Antony Hodgson (1)

The referendum question was designed by the BC Citizens' Assembly members themselves (without partisan political interference) to ensure that it contained the key information they felt British Columbians needed to make an informed decision. The question was:

"Should British Columbia change to the BC-STV electoral system as recommended by the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform?"

In the view of the assembly members, it was important for British Columbians to understand both what the proposal was (STV) and where it came from (ie, from ordinary citizens looking out for the best interests of the province as a whole, rather than for any special or partisan interests). [Some] opponent[s] [say] that it "was worded like a confidence vote in the process that proposed the new system" and impl[y] that this produced a disproportionately high result.

However, a similarly worded question in Prince Edward Island,

"Should Prince Edward Island change to the Mixed Member Proportional System as presented by the Commission of PEI's Electoral Future?",

was supported by only 36% of the voters. Voters there clearly did not feel comfortable with the proposal itself, and the additional information about the source of proposal did not have a decisive impact on the result.

In any case, the central question here is surely whether or not the information is relevant. The BC Citizens' Assembly process is historically significant because it was the first time that a government had willingly given control of the electoral process directly to citizens. The assembly members felt that it would be a disservice to voters not to make them aware of this and that's why they phrased the question the way they did.

Indeed, BC voters understand and appreciate this information. According to detailed polling studies by Prof. Fred Cutler (UBC Political Science), over 70% of voters who were familiar both with the process and the proposal voted 'Yes'. We have faith in the wisdom and sense of civic responsibility of our fellow citizens who were called to this task of public service.

We therefore believe that the referendum question is perfectly justified as it highlights the two major characteristics of the process that voters need and deserve to be made aware of in order to make an informed decision.

(1) Charge: The referendum question was biased in favour of STV by Antony Hodgson, https://stv.ca/node/155

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/