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/