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
