Electoral Reforms

[johnjimbc]

Just because I don't drown myself - or others - in phantom fears of socialist nightmares or conservative reichs doesn't entitle some flagellating jerk to peg me as a fun-boy.

One word: Australia.

Why don't you drag yourself to a library and do your own research from now on? I wasn't the one making wild assertions about the apocalyptic collapse of provincial government if electoral reform is implemented. I simply pointed out how extreme and simplistic those arguments were. But if we're going to play the tossing around demands game, how about some proof - note "opinion" is not "proof" - that BC will dissolve into anarchy with STV.

I don't have time for imbeciles like yourself, and I'm certainly not the errand boy to resolve your ignorance about the world we occupy. It would be a full time job, and I already have one.

Buh bye!

[Kodii]

I swear I have seen more STV signs around Abbotsford than signs for candidates. Makes me wonder whether people would vote Yes without fully understanding it.

I found this (the first anti-STV article I have seen):

STV: An opposing view of the single transferable vote

Changing how we vote for MLAs won’t change politics for the better and it might make it worse.

BC-STV is a version of the rarely used Single Transferable Vote, invented by a mathematician and lawyer in the 1850s.

BC-STV replaces local representation with regional representation on a huge scale. It would merge the 85 local constituencies used in the May 12 election into 20 giant constituencies which would each elect from two to seven MLAs, but voters would just get a single vote.

For example, the Capital Region would include Port Renfrew, Victoria and Galiano Island; with seven MLAs that’s the largest riding in terms of population but not largest in terms of geography.

North Island-South Coast, with four MLAs, would be as large as Ireland. It would include Bamfield, Port Alberni, Sechelt, Powell River and Port Hardy; that’s right – the Sunshine Coast gets merged with the northwest coast of Vancouver Island.

Cariboo-Thompson would be twice as large as Ireland. It would include everything from Quesnel to the U.S. border with Kamloops in between.

Large multiple-MLA ridings reduce accountability.

Proponents assert that there are no safe seats with STV, but the truth is the opposite.

Ireland, Malta and Tasmania are the only places that use STV to elect representatives to the lower house of their parliaments. In Tasmania’s last election, 23 incumbents sought re-election and every one of them won.

In Ireland and Malta 80 per cent or more of the incumbents are regularly re-elected. That’s a higher retention rate than anything B.C. has seen with our current voting system.

Ballots are marked with numbers, but the numbers are not separate votes; they are preferences which are used differently for different voters depending on how the count goes. STV elects candidates who get a minimum percentage (12.5 per cent to 33.3 per cent, increasing as the number to be elected decreases).

The counting system is so complex that it takes weeks to count the votes. It might be possible to computerize the complex count, but it is not so easy to design a computer system that is subject to verification and that allows recounts while protecting voter secrecy.

Ireland tried an experiment with machines in three of its 43 electoral areas in 2002 and since then the machines have been in storage.

Political parties would be more powerful with BC-STV because it is expensive to campaign in its giant electoral areas. Independents and small parties would find it difficult to raise the $300,000 or more that the large parties would spend in most electoral areas.

The party nomination process in multiple-MLA regions would further concentrate power in the hands of a few. Candidates seeking nominations would face big financial hurdles communicating with supporters in large regions.

In Ireland, the central party machines limit the number of candidates who are allowed to run on their behalf in any area, for example, in Dublin South, Fianna Fail ran only three candidates even though there were five positions (TDs) up for election. That is all part of how parties set election strategies in the complicated STV system.

Supporters of BC-STV say it works in Ireland, so it should work here, but they would also have you believe that all our political problems would be solved if we adopt it.

Check out politics in Ireland. They are in a crisis; they blame their prime minister for centralizing power and wrecking the economy and they are on the verge of a non-confidence vote. It’s politics as usual.

Changing the voting system doesn’t change politics. Don’t be taken in by BC-STV. It requires enormous electoral areas that make politicians even less accountable than they are now and makes political parties even more powerful.

David Schreck is secretary-treasurer of the No BC-STV Campaign Society. He was NDP MLA for North Vancouver Lonsdale from 1991-96.

Source: BC Local News -- http://www.bclocalnews.com/fraser_va.../44199037.html

[metroXpress]

Well, for now, it is a tie on SSP Vancouver

[DKaz]

I don't want to be represented by several MLAs, I want to be represented by one. FPTP for me. I agree it's not the best system but it's a system I'm comfortable with. If they could get a modified STV system where a region is still represented by one MLA who will be accountable for his/her constituents, I'd be down with that.

[windscar]

Originally Posted by DKaz

If they could get a modified STV system where a region is still represented by one MLA who will be accountable for his/her constituents, I'd be down with that.

Otherwise known as First-Past-the-post

[Spork]

Originally Posted by windscar

Otherwise known as First-Past-the-post

Well, you could always do an STV where the voting ridings are large, but the candidate is required to have their constituency office in a certain area and represent a certain area's interests.

[DKaz]

What do we have right now then? It's not FPTP? The one I described is FPTP? lol.

[dreambrother808]

one of the best posts i've read on here in a long time. rally against the wave of one-sided ranters and childish, unrealistic complainers!

Originally Posted by johnjimbc

BC Will not become Italy if STV passes. I think there are more than a few centuries of culture in the politics there, including a large stint where the Pope essentially ran the country. And then there was that whole empire thing prior to then.

There exists other countries with STV other than Italy who manage to produce stable, productive governments. Why aren't they being used as examples in this discussion? (hint - it's because they work better than Italy and are thus not seen as worthy of mention).

I think there are plenty of merits to argue either side of the debate, but I have to chuckle at the "OMG! We'll be Italy" meme.

This is one area where, despite the obvious potshots that can be tossed in recent years, the US system has a lot to commend it. States routinely have representatives from one party and an executive from another party - particularly if the state is undergoing some change or the recent majority party has gotten a little too snug in its position. The current BC election strikes me as an election that would ideally yield an NDP majority in representation with Campbell remaining as Premier, but the current system can't produce that result.

As Canada won't be giving up Parliamentary procedure itself (nor should it, in my opinion) and a viable third party doesn't seem to be in the cards for BC at this point (apologies to the Greens and the Conservatives), I think some form of Proportional Representation is a way of lessening the "all or nothing" leadership that seems to breed an environment ripe for insider corruption or heavy-handed legislation.

How both the NDP and BC Libs have managed to have leaders that are so uninspiring to the bulk of the Province is the one mystery I'll never understand. Perhaps someone can enlighten me on what about the current system led to that situation?

For the record, I'm not sure how I feel about STV so this wasn't meant as an advocating of it. I just really don't like when the "extreme argument" is being peddled as the ultimate natural outcome of any political decision. That's how I view the Italy comments so I was responding to that specifically.

Now I'm going to go look at pretty pictures of the skyline. It's the real reason I like this site, I absorb enough politics from the news . Cheers!

[Mike K.]

Here's one reason why STV is not receiving the support it should.

STV is using the NDP's colour pallete on its printed materials and signs! I don't know who STV's creative minds are, but their accidental (or purposeful?) choice of colours is inappropriate. Liberal/Conservative/Green supporters could very well be turned off because they feel STV is affiliated with the NDP. There are millions of colours under the sun, but STV chose a palette virtually identical to one party's brand, and they're scratching their heads over fewer supporters?

And another thing that doesn't help is placing STV signs, coloured and branded almost identically like NDP signs, next to each other on medians!

The most common STV boulevard sign design:


Common NDP candidate signs, oftentimes placed directly beside STV signs


Link to VibrantVictoria.ca's blog entry on this issue.

[mr.x]

^ truth is, NDP supporters tend to favour STV.

I wouldn't be surprised if an NDP-er was responsible for this massive STV campaign.

[fever]

STV isn't a partisan issue except that partisans don't like it.

People who don't trust politicians or like politics in BC as they are tend to be more open to it.

[paradigm4]

Originally Posted by mr.x

^ truth is, NDP supporters tend to favour STV.

I wouldn't be surprised if an NDP-er was responsible for this massive STV campaign.

Haha how partisan. This is in fact quite far from the truth. Anybody who is in a position of power, whether it be the Libs or the NDP - they don't support electoral reform. It doesn't serve their interests, they would both lose seats under STV.

Just so you know, Bill Tieleman and David Schreck, the two guys behind the No-STV side are long time party puppeteers with the NDP and were highly involved during the 90's. And the crap that they are spilling out is absolutely nothing but misinformation.

Btw, for those who lament a "local MLA rep", STV was chosen precisely because ridings would still exist, albeit larger. And may I kindly ask, how many people #1 talk to their MLA ever, and #2 feel like their "local MLA" does anything of substance for their area. I know I sure don't. The current system is broken.

[usog]

Originally Posted by Mike K.

Common NDP candidate signs, oftentimes placed directly beside STV signs


Link to VibrantVictoria.ca's blog entry on this issue.

Offtopic but I swear that has to be the worst possible camera angle. Her head looks huuuuuuuuuuuuge!

[lezard]

Could it be that the STV campaign is simply using the BC colour scheme of blue and orange introduced by the current government?

Personally, I favour STV as it brings much needed representation in the chamber to those who did not favour the leading party's program. I prefer to see all interests getting a hearing during the legislative period rather than having to wait every four or five years to express an opinion, when it is often already too late.

FPTP does generally guarantee a government with a sufficient lead in the house to get most of its legislative program approved. But the stability achieved by this system does not necessarily outlive the government's tenure, unless it is returned at the next election. If the new government is drawn from the ranks of the former opposition, they will push their own program through without any guarantee that policies needing long term investment of time and money are maintained.

STV, as a from of proportional representation, will tend to reduce the chances of any one party of achieving a sufficient majority to form a government on its own. Alliances and coalitions become the norm in countries with these systems of counting the votes. It may be that coalition governments can become more unstable and, I believe, mainly in countries where politics are heavily polarized, lead to very weak governments and even very short lived governments such as those Italy has known for much of its post war history. It should be noted that Italy had pure proportionate representation up until 1993 and than a mixed form of majority and proportional till 2005.

But coalition governments may also bring long term stability. Having some or all the major parties represented in the government forces the parties to seek compromises with their partners. These compromises can have the effect of moderating otherwise extreme swings in government policy with each change of the party in power. When coalitions are successful they can return governments for many years and insure a long term effort in terms of policy. Germany is an example of a country run by coalition governments that has known not only long term political stability, but also very successful government policy. Switzerland has also had a coalition government since before the first world war, and has one of the most stable governments in the world.

Proportionate representation does not equate with "Italian" style politics, and coalitions are not synonymous with instability. Just my two cents worth.

[David]

Originally Posted by mr.x

^ truth is, NDP supporters tend to favour STV.

I wouldn't be surprised if an NDP-er was responsible for this massive STV campaign.

Do you even know how the Citizen's Assembly worked?

[phesto]

How ineffective has the STV campaign been? They’ve had 4 years to generate a few percentage points of support to get this thing across the goal line and the vast majority of British Columbians are likely still either unfamiliar with this issue, or don’t understand it to the extent that they feel compelled to vote one way or another.

And whatever the basis was for the decision for the colour scheme – it just added another level of confusion to an already poor ad campaign. If this campaign goes another round, time to get some new decision makers in place.

I don’t feel strongly about this issue either way, but it's painful to watch this thing die as a result of poor decisions and implementation.

Needless to say I'll be surprised if STV gets the support it requires.

[Lover Fighter]

Originally Posted by mr.x

^ truth is, NDP supporters tend to favour STV.

I wouldn't be surprised if an NDP-er was responsible for this massive STV campaign.

Are you serious? Even with the 2001 election fiasco on their minds, the NDP are still the least likely to vote STV. Independents and the Green Party want it the most (since it will mean some of them will finally be elected) and most moderate Liberals support it since the BC Liberals consistently get the the most of the popular vote. The NDP know they can't form a government without FPTP, or at least, haven't in the past.

[NetMapel]

As far as I can tell, STV will lead to more MLAs in total, which we do not need. I wanted less MPs and less MLAs in total all across in Canada. On that basis, I cannot support STV...

[Lover Fighter]

Originally Posted by NetMapel

As far as I can tell, STV will lead to more MLAs in total, which we do not need. I wanted less MPs and less MLAs in total all across in Canada. On that basis, I cannot support STV...

FPTP = 85 MLAs
STV = 85 MLAs

What are you talking about?

[NetMapel]

Originally Posted by Lover Fighter

FPTP = 85 MLAs
STV = 85 MLAs

What are you talking about?

Really ? I thought, somehow, FPTP gives us something like 61 MLAs. Forgot where I read that from though. If that's the case, I guess I was wrong about that point.