Are you an MMP Holdout?
Are you going to vote against BC-STV because it's not MMP? Are you convinced that if BC-STV misses the arbitrary 60% threshold, they'll put MMP on the next ballot? Well, think again. There is no guarantee that MMP will be on the ballot next time - or ever.
And if MMP beats the odds and makes it on to the next ballot? Well, why don't you look at the Ontario no campaign website to see what the reception might be. Many of the same arguments that people are using to slam STV were also used in Ontario against MMP.
- It's too complicated
- The ridings are bigger
- The parties have too much power
- The "fringe" parties will have too much power
- Only a few countries use it
- The system will be at the mercy of backroom deals
Oh, and my personal favorite
- Lots of people want electoral change but this isn't the right system for us
Don't forget MMP got soundly thumped in Ontario and PEI. There is no reason to believe it's going to be welcomed with open arms here.
If you believe in proportional representation, it's on the ballot and it's called BC-STV. Don't risk our democratic future on what might happen next time.
Keep putting guns to peoples heads, this has become an unexpected welcome, as it tends to just piss people off, and in turn I've heard many say they will vote NO to STV just for the fact they've heard this song before and smell a rat.
Oh and Reef? STV was "thumped" in PEI and Ontario FYI and didn't even make it to the dance.
Keep putting guns to peoples heads, this has become an unexpected welcome, as it tends to just piss people off, and in turn I've heard many say they will vote NO to STV just for the fact they've heard this song before and smell a rat.
Oh and Reef? STV was "thumped" in PEI and Ontario FYI and didn't even make it to the dance.
Oh, Ranger. I am sorry if I've I hit a nerve.
I'm not putting a gun to anyone's head. I'm simply countering the oft-repeated argument that BC-STV should be rejected because there's something better out there by pointing out that the same argument was used in Ontario. Probably in PEI too.
If (and I repeat if) MMP is on the ballot someday, you can bet your ass that a whole lot of your compadres on the no side are going to use exactly the same arguments on MMP. And they're going to have some new ammunition such as these claims:
- MMP creates two classes of MLA's
- MMP creates unaccountable, appointed MLA's
- MMP increases the workload of elected MLA's or increases the size of government or both
Now, you and I could argue forever whether STV is better or MMP is better. That's a subjective debate and not the point. The point is that you and Mr. Schreck and Mr. Tieleman and Ms. James and others are misleading people by implying that MMP is going to do better than STV. There is no evidence of that and plenty of reasons to think it will do worse. There are a lot of anti-government types in BC and telling them that we're going to increase the number of MLA's and have parties choose some of them is going to go over like a lead fart.
Oh and Reef? STV was "thumped" in PEI and Ontario FYI and didn't even make it to the dance.
I could flip that around and say the reverse is true for BC. But here's the difference:
MMP was rejected by the voters in Ontario and PEI. STV was accepted by the voters in BC.
And a question for Wilf, who will probably show up soon. Why did the Ontario CA choose these as "preferred objectives?"
1. Each geographic area of the province should have at least one representative.
2. The number of seats each party wins should more closely reflect its share of the vote.
3. Voters should be able to indicate both their preferred party and their preferred candidate.
#3 effectively rules out both STV and some list party options. It almost seems like they decided before they started deliberation.
If nobody minds I'll use this as an opportunity to promote a couple of things I've written previously (they are completely on topic).
If anybody wants to check my submission to the Citizen's Commission on Electoral Reform, you can google my name and "Citizen's Commission on Electoral Reform" I devised a method of MMP wherein the voters get to decide the party list candidates, not the parties. I'm sure my proposal can be bashed pretty badly, but I thought it was a pretty good idea at the time. (I'm very dissapointed MMP lost so badly in Ontario, I believe it was because most of the high profile Ontario Liberals came out against it, but I could be wrong on that.)
In response to the criticisms of MMP I wrote this a few days ago: There are two different aspects to STV, the whole way the voting system itself works, and the proportionality of the system. I have mixed feelings on the way the system works, but on proportionality...
The evidence shows that all of the anti proportional representation arguments are either inaccurate, or at best completely overblown (coalitions take forever to form, the coalitions occur after the election in backrooms, the coalitions are unstable, many new parties will form...) There are three major areas I'm familiar with where MMP has been used: Germany/Austria, New Zealand and the Scandanavian countries. (Correction: the Scandanavian countries have straight proportional representation and have no local MPs)
1.In both Germany and Austria only two new major parties have come about since MMP was implemented. In Germany, on the left, two parties ran in a coalition (The Greens and the SDP in the so called red-green coalition) against the Christian Democrats and their rural partners. The Free Democrats are the free floating third party that often joins with the right. Since then, the new Left Party has emerged and the Greens/SDP finding this party an unacceptable coalition partner have been unable to win enough votes to maintain their coalition and the so-called Grand Coalition of the SDP and the Christian Democrats has governed instead. Many think the Christian Democrats will form a majority coalition with the Free Democrats following the next election.
In Austria, a similar situation occured except with a far right party emerging and the Social Democrats and the Christian Democrats being forced into a coalition to keep them out of power.
2.In New Zealand, no new parties have emerged. In fact, the smaller parties have shrunk in size, with Jim Anderton's Progressives and the social conservative United Future New Zealand losing seats as their incumbents retire. The attempted coalitions again are essentially the same as in Germany, the Greens and Labor on the left and the National Party on its own on the right. For whatever reason in these countries, the right hasn't split. The one difference there is that the Maoris have seats set aside for them in parliament. In terms of those who say that proportional representation allows voters a greater chance to correct their mistakes, we saw New Zealand as an example where that occurred. The leader of the left leaning Maori party, Winston Peters, faced a number of corruption allegations, and the Maori voters threw Peters and all the other members of his party out of power. The more right leaning Maori party won the guaranteed seats and formed a coalition with the National Party which, as it happens, nearly won a majority all by itself.
3.Only in the Scandanavian countries have new parties formed, to the point where there are about 6-7 major parties in each. However, contrary to those who say that coalitions take two weeks to form after the election and that the haggling for the spoils of power occurs after the election (the coalition rangling did take a few days in New Zealand, but everybody knew the National Party would take power), in the Scandanavian countries the parties on the left (the red/green again) and the parties on the right (the liberals, the conservatives and the centrists - how like B.C!) essentially run together as coalition partners during the election with each putting out unified platforms . What happens is that the voters decide the strength of the parties in the coalition by their votes. A shift in the size of each of the members of the governing coalition no doubt causes a reemphasis on the platform items.
So, the practice of proportional representation (unlike in Israel and previously in Italy where the threshold to get elected wasn't high enough) has shown that little has changed for the voters themselves so far, but
1.the coalition government does receive a genuine mandate of over 50% support.
2.Parties with major new concerns like the environment do win seats.
3.In the case of Scandanavia, where politicians have decided to start new parties helping ensure a bit that they don't have to choose as much between their principles and practicality when deciding which party to join. As we know here in B.C, environmentalists are often torn between supporting the NDP and the Greens. The tradeoff of starting a new party is between those principles on the one side and the risk of getting under the threshold needed to win seats and taking away all those votes from the erstwhile coalition partners on the other. This has produced a natural check from seeing too many parties form.
Finally, again unlike the fears of 'unstable coalition partners' and frequent elections, all of the red/green and Scandanavian conservative/liberal/centrist coalitions have been stable, they've all lasted the entire length of their terms and the concern that the small parties would have too much power has not materialized. Only in Austria/Germany where the Socialists and the Conservatives have been forced into 'grand coalitions' have the coalitions been reported to be unstable. However, in both countries they still seemed to have passed some positive legislation and they've both look like they will last to the end of their terms.
So, the power in the coalitions has either passed to the leaders of the coalition parties in the case of Germany/Austria and New Zealand or to the voters (somewhat) in the case of the Scandanavian countries.
Like I said, I can see the concern over the loss of the single MLA with STV. I personally preferred a regional MMP system with an open primary vote (like in the U.S) that allowed the voters to choose who would be on the 'list' ballot. However, I think the gains with STV clearly outweigh the losses.
A great site for aggregated polling results around the world is the Angus Reid Global Moniter: http://www.angus-reid.com/polls
A good site for aggregated national election results around the world is the Wikipedia election website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_calendar
Why those objectives?
Basically, the Assembly was given a list of objectives and they chose those. There really wasn't a lot of choice.
The best source to see what happened at the OCA is to go to the horses mouth
http://www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca/
and read the proceedings.
Many people felt that the fix was in -- it might have been.
And the "new" arguments you suggest... they were prominent too. There was a lot of discussion about "appointed" members (off the lists) in the media.
Adam:
The choice of electoral system depends on what you are trying to achieve in elections and with your democracy.
In most of the debates about MMP vrs. STV it's clear that the underlying goals of the proponents are somewhat different and opaque to the other side. This makes for interesting discussions if ones that seem to have no resolution... ever.
Do you have links to your submission, please? Googling didn't work for me.
I don't think any 'fix' was in. A variant of my proposal (a regional MMP system) and STV made the final citizen's assembly ballot and STV sadly won (and by a big margin).
There are some who have argued (as I have) that the people in the citizen's assembly became such experts on electoral process that they were essentially no longer 'common citizens' and became 'too educated' in some of the things that people supposedly find 'too confusing'.
I personally not only don't have a problem with the counting method, I find it rather positive that a system devised by mathematicians is employed. This isn't the United States where an entire political party runs on how anti intellectual it is. No surprise they ended up with a president named Dumbya.
Finally, I'm not sure what 'new' arguments I'm suggesting. I didn't hear anybody else propose using a primary system to elect the 'list' members.
Ok, here is the link. I was a bit leary because I didn't want to just post my name unless people were willing to work for it. It's not like it's difficult to find, I've posted on some boards as Adam T and people have responded to me with my full name.
http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/public/get_involved/submission/T/TONDO...
My first reply was to reefer of course and about the OCA not the BC CA.
You do touch on one of the issues about democracy and voting.
Why discrimanate against people who have developed knowledge? The CAs developed knowledge and chose. I believe that process was hampered and compromised in Ontario. I believe BC was a little bit lucky.
In the best scenarios the general electorates should be voting by being "informed", no?
Perhaps it boils down to what you as a voter believe you contribute by casting a ballot?
wrt to outing you... I took you at your word and googled "Citizen's Commission on Electoral Reform "Adam T"" which came up blank. I figured it was something new and different.
Sorry.
Oh, sorry on the first point.
No, I agree with the idea about people who have knowledge. I said as much by saying that using a voting system developed by mathematicians pleased me.
What I meant in regards to the B.C Citizen's Assembly is that they became such experts that they perhaps forgot a selling job was required as well and that most of the people who would vote on their chosen proposal would not be the experts they had become. Therefore, they left themselves open to the argument that their proposal was too complex.
Oh, sorry on the first point.
No, I agree with the idea about people who have knowledge. I said as much by saying that using a voting system developed by mathematicians pleased me.
What I meant in regards to the B.C Citizen's Assembly is that they became such experts that they perhaps forgot a selling job was required as well and that most of the people who would vote on their chosen proposal would not be the experts they had become. Therefore, they left themselves open to the argument that their proposal was too complex.
Now you're into a discussion of how to run an education programme and referendum. That's a can of worms. The BC Assembly generally and many of the alumni particularly were anxious to tell their story and explain how and why they reached their conclusion. This should have been the foundation of an adequate referendum process -- telling everyone the story and stepping them through the logic iof the deliberation and the decision. In no referendum so far -- particularly the spectacular failure in Ontario -- has this been done adequately. This wasn't the fault of the assemblies.
Why those objectives?
Basically, the Assembly was given a list of objectives and they chose those. There really wasn't a lot of choice.
The best source to see what happened at the OCA is to go to the horses mouth
http://www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca/
and read the proceedings.
Many people felt that the fix was in -- it might have been.
And the "new" arguments you suggest... they were prominent too. There was a lot of discussion about "appointed" members (off the lists) in the media.
Thanks. I did scan one of the reports and I read other comments that suggested it was fixed. It just seemed to me that when you accept those as the dominant objectives, you really don't have much choice besides MMP. I was looking for Wilf's input because I thought he would have been watching the OCA closely.
If nobody minds I'll use this as an opportunity to promote a couple of things I've written previously (they are completely on topic).
If anybody wants to check my submission to the Citizen's Commission on Electoral Reform, you can google my name and "Citizen's Commission on Electoral Reform" I devised a method of MMP wherein the voters get to decide the party list candidates, not the parties. I'm sure my proposal can be bashed pretty badly, but I thought it was a pretty good idea at the time. (I'm very dissapointed MMP lost so badly in Ontario, I believe it was because most of the high profile Ontario Liberals came out against it, but I could be wrong on that.)
Adam, there is no such thing as a perfect system. We could argue forever about details of one or another. If you want an in depth discussion on the finer points, it might be better to open a separate thread.
The point is that no matter what you come up with, it's going to be attacked. And the group that attacks your idea is going to be made up of 3 consituencies
This isn't going to change because STV is replaced by MMP. In fact, I think it will be worse with MMP.
If the forces for proportional representation hadn't allowed themselves to be split, we would have a PR system for this election and the political landscape would be quite different. If the situation were reversed, I would take MMP in 2013 over maybe having STV some day.
And the "new" arguments you suggest... they were prominent too. There was a lot of discussion about "appointed" members (off the lists) in the media.
Agreed. I meant they would ne new in BC because they don't apply to STV.
I was looking for Wilf's input because I thought he would have been watching the OCA closely.
Wilf watched on line.
I was there in the room pretty much the whole time.
We disagree on what happened but... that's part of the fun.
And the "new" arguments you suggest... they were prominent too. There was a lot of discussion about "appointed" members (off the lists) in the media.
Agreed. I meant they would ne new in BC because they don't apply to STV.
Yes, I figured that out (eventually). I meant that the additional arguments occupied a lot of the bandwidth over and above the general "agin" arguments that apply to anything other than FPTP.
:Reefer Madness, re 'there is no perfect plan'. I am aware of that, as I think this line in my original post showed:
"I think the gains with STV clearly outweigh the losses."
I was looking for Wilf's input because I thought he would have been watching the OCA closely.
Wilf watched on line.
I was there in the room pretty much the whole time.
We disagree on what happened but... that's part of the fun.
Oh, OK. Sorry if it sounded like I was dissing you.
Then who wrote the objectives? They almost look like they were written with specific systems in mind. Once they picked the objectives, they were almost locked in to a choice.
And what does Wilf think happened?
Ranger is trying to make a big deal out of OCA picking MMP. If their process was rigged or even flawed, it sort of deflates the argument, doesn't it.
I can think of a couple of reasons to vote stv this time (for mmp supporters) .
The biggest one is that if the NDP win an election they will NOT bring in mmp without the theatrics of another referendum.
Now, another referendum BUT how to make the new MMP system? If the ndp insiders (shreck and teilmann) make it, they will later take the NOmmp money and campaign against it! Because those guys, big insiders with lots of access to James ears are dead set against any Pro Rep system.
As are the unions. My x went down to her union to try to get them to support it last time and they nearly kicked her out the door! They choose the candidates not the bluddy voters!
Or perhaps James will just make it fair and design a horrible system that the voters will reject.
The leadership of the provincial NDP does not want Pro Rep.
Lets say stv wins the referendum but does not perform well in bc.
Then a groundswell may devellop for mmp.
So you can introduce it without any of the bs. You can campaign on it.
I do not trust James. If she was truely supportive of MMP she would not have introduced legislation to have fptp, stv AND mmp in this referendum.
Remember that? Thats TOTAL divide and conquor (for fptp). And she made no mention of removing the 60% threshold for either!
So if the liberals had wanted to kill electoral reform totally, they could have taken the James "hanged drawn and halved option"!
But they are betting men and think that hanged and drawn is good enough to kill it.
Remember that james voted no to electoral reform and I have no doubt that she will do so again.
She does not listen to the voters, she listens to her heart. Her riding gave stv the biggest yes and the next day she stood up and said that stv had failed. What a disconnect!
Now she is "read between the lines" saying that if stv "fails" she will offer mmp in a referendum. But you gotta multiply the if's. STV has to "fail" AND get over 50% before she gives the mmp option. If STV gets less than 50% then MMP is toast. And if stv gets less than 60% and campbell wins, mmp is toast anyway.
The thing is campbell is likely to win anywar so anything less than 60% for stv and electoral reform is dead in canada. If James wins, she can offer a god awful version of MMP , a 60% threshold, and destroy electoral reform. Because James does not want electoral reform.
Sorry that it rambles.
it certainly does.
I have followed this and other debates quite closely. In my mind the proposed STV is flawed and there is little sense replacing one flawed system with another. I doubt STV will be approved for this reason.
All voting systems are flawed. But in bc stv over 80% of the votes help elect someone. In fptp, it is 45% to 55%
What that type of voter chooses the latter?
The reason stv is unlikely to be approved is because yes votes will be counted at 2/3 of their real value.
(That type of cheating is illegal in some countrys).
But 40 no = 60 yes in Canada eh?
Nobody reads george orwell here except the political elite on both sides, aparently.
Would the UN call foul if this happened in Africa?
Probably.
I have followed this and other debates quite closely. In my mind the proposed STV is flawed and there is little sense replacing one flawed system with another. I doubt STV will be approved for this reason.
I have followed this and other debates quite closely. In my mind the proposed STV is flawed and there is little sense replacing one flawed system with another. I doubt STV will be approved for this reason.
Perhaps, but BC-STV is not nearly as flawed as either of FPTP or even MMP. It's also a variant of an electoral system used in other countries and jurisdictions, and, and, and - it was decided upon by a deliberative body of citizens rather than a pack of professional politicians.
For anyone interested in electoral reform (or even just replacing FPTP) to vote no in this referendum is nothing short of criminal.
Just to confirm your point -- I disagree. The underlying goals of fans of regional open-list MMP and large-DM STV (like Northern Ireland's six-seaters, Tasmania's former seven-seaters, and Cambridge's nine-seater) are very similar if not identical. See the relevant chapter in Dennis Pilon's book for further discussion of this point.
Somehow, I don't find that suggesting voting no to STV is a criminal act to be a compelling argument.
That's quite unfair. Scheck and Tieleman are not saying the same things as Carole James.
it certainly does.
But I agree with pretty much all of it, rambling and all.
LMAO
Just to confirm your point -- I disagree. The underlying goals of fans of regional open-list MMP and large-DM STV (like Northern Ireland's six-seaters, Tasmania's former seven-seaters, and Cambridge's nine-seater) are very similar if not identical. See the relevant chapter in Dennis Pilon's book for further discussion of this point.
Well, Wilf, you and I will probably always disagree, I fear. Where you see convergence of thought I see people missing the point -- even Dennis. Thanks for disagreeing.
As I mentioned above, a lot depends on what people are trying to achieve when they cast their ballot -- what their intent is and what they expect to happen afterwards. Remember the first principles and the yardstick?
I would predict that ranger, for one, has very different notions about voters, voting, representation, parties, parliament and democracy than you do.
I was looking for Wilf's input because I thought he would have been watching the OCA closely.
Wilf watched on line.
I was there in the room pretty much the whole time.
We disagree on what happened but... that's part of the fun.
Oh, OK. Sorry if it sounded like I was dissing you.
Then who wrote the objectives? They almost look like they were written with specific systems in mind. Once they picked the objectives, they were almost locked in to a choice.
And what does Wilf think happened?
Ranger is trying to make a big deal out of OCA picking MMP. If their process was rigged or even flawed, it sort of deflates the argument, doesn't it.
No apology necessary.
The appearance of the list of objectives was, for me, the most blatent failure of a flawed process. The Assembly was presented with a set of "objectives", an event noted in the record thus:
The advance package for the members included a list of possible objectives with which to begin their discussions:
1. Our electoral system should produce a legislature with more women and other under-represented groups.
2. Each MPP should be elected by a majority.
3. Each MPP should represent a geographic area of the province.
4. The number of seats a party wins should closely reflect its vote share.
5. Voters should be able to indicate their preferred party and candidate.
6. Voters should be able to rank their preferences.
7. Our electoral system should produce majority governments.
8. Our electoral system should produce coalition governments.
9. Ontario's legislature should be made up of a few large parties.
10. More small parties should win seats in Ontario's Legislature.
They were then asked to go off and discuss these and pick their favourites. This list is very strange don't you think? And its provenance was never explained satisfactorily though it seems clear that it was generated by the Secretariat of the OCA... the admin/academic staff.
To my mind this was the point at which a now-knowledgeable assembly should themselves have generated a comprehensive set of objectives to describe their ideal electoral system - a yardstick against which to measure candidate systems to see how they measured up -- based on the first principles of Canadian democracy. This didn't happen.
My impression now and at the time was that this list and the handling of it by the Assembly was the key deal breaker.
No apology necessary.
The appearance of the list of objectives was, for me, the most blatent failure of a flawed process. The Assembly was presented with a set of "objectives", an event noted in the record thus:
The advance package for the members included a list of possible objectives with which to begin their discussions:
1. Our electoral system should produce a legislature with more women and other under-represented groups.
2. Each MPP should be elected by a majority.
3. Each MPP should represent a geographic area of the province.
4. The number of seats a party wins should closely reflect its vote share.
5. Voters should be able to indicate their preferred party and candidate.
6. Voters should be able to rank their preferences.
7. Our electoral system should produce majority governments.
8. Our electoral system should produce coalition governments.
9. Ontario's legislature should be made up of a few large parties.
10. More small parties should win seats in Ontario's Legislature.
They were then asked to go off and discuss these and pick their favourites. This list is very strange don't you think? And its provenance was never explained satisfactorily though it seems clear that it was generated by the Secretariat of the OCA... the admin/academic staff.
To my mind this was the point at which a now-knowledgeable assembly should themselves have generated a comprehensive set of objectives to describe their ideal electoral system - a yardstick against which to measure candidate systems to see how they measured up -- based on the first principles of Canadian democracy. This didn't happen.
My impression now and at the time was that this list and the handling of it by the Assembly was the key deal breaker.
I agree. As a yardstick, the list looks bizarre to me. It almost looks like one side of a matching quiz. Match the system that best suits this objective. Having said that, I don't have enough background to write a better list myself. I'm not sure where you're going with this - do you believe there was interference from the parties or other interest groups?
Just to confirm your point -- I disagree. The underlying goals of fans of regional open-list MMP and large-DM STV (like Northern Ireland's six-seaters, Tasmania's former seven-seaters, and Cambridge's nine-seater) are very similar if not identical. See the relevant chapter in Dennis Pilon's book for further discussion of this point.
Well, Wilf, you and I will probably always disagree, I fear. Where you see convergence of thought I see people missing the point -- even Dennis. Thanks for disagreeing.
As I mentioned above, a lot depends on what people are trying to achieve when they cast their ballot -- what their intent is and what they expect to happen afterwards. Remember the first principles and the yardstick?
I would predict that ranger, for one, has very different notions about voters, voting, representation, parties, parliament and democracy than you do.
skeiseid, I hope Wilf knows what you're getting at because you seem to be talking in riddles. But I think I might agree with both of you.
If I may generalize, I think the biggest difference between hardcore STV supporters and ardent MMP supporters is the role of the party. Ardent STV supporters are more likely to think of the power of parties as having way too much power already while strong MMP supporters are more likely to look at parties as legitimate, strong defenders of their values. So I agree that supporters of the two systems may be holding different sets of objectives and values.
But what According to Dennis Pilon (and I defer to his knowledge on this), STV does not undermine the power of parties to the extent that people hope/fear. And what Wilf says about open list MMP and STV not being that different in practise makes sense to me.
The bottom line, though, is that if the factions keep shooting at each other, electoral reform is going nowhere in Canada. I'm sure the people who's interests are served by the status quo are quite happy to play the sides off against each other.
So, if you want proportional representation in BC, you have the chance to vote for it on May 12.
The OCA and OCA-MMP is really old news.
I was discussing this stuff during the assembly and the referendum.
Bridge
Water
Except that it's truly bizarre that anyone is using the OCA to argue for MMP or even electoral reform... which was the question raised here.
MMP is truly a non-starter red herring at this point in time (I believe it never was a valid contender). Discussing MMP in the context of this referendum is a waste of time.
The name of the current game is BC-STV. And it actually does stand up quite well to several yardstick measures... which is nice. Listen to the presentations now being given around the province by some of the BC CA alumni.
Reefer:
Wilf and I have been agreeing to disagree for years. Ours is an old dialogue. It does tend to intrude into the general discussion sometimes and for that I apologize.
You're right to observe that the role of parties -- and the relationship between them, the voters and the electoral system is at the root of the issue revolving around MMP and STV.
MMP labours under the acceptance of a kind of party paternalism. It assumes that the goal is for elections to be fair to parties and trust that that will result in fairness and efficacy for voters.
STV makes no such assumptions and works first and foremost to be fair for, to and amongst voters and at the same time empowering them to craft stronger. more articulate mandates to their representatives and through them to the parties and government. Proportional representation is but a component of that and not the end goal the way it is for MMP. In the end analysis, PR is not enough.
I don't remember how Dennis expresses it but my expectation is that in a representative democracy a strong, specific and articulate mandate from the people should result in a stronger party and more responsible and accountable government. This is one of the intents of STV.
Also, MMP is classified as a "corrective" system -- most reform designs leave untouched a large proportion of the electoral system we're unhappy with. In our case the problems that remain are deal breakers. Plurality elections provide a poor and insufficient foundation for majority votes in the house. Our multi-party democracy is made weaker and less accountable with every sitting member who represents a mere plurality of his constituents.
Lets get a single transferable vote in BC and we can discuss the best federal system later.
For provincial politics, STV offers the best balance between proportionality, choice, and regional balance in government. Individual accountability is very important and multi-riding representation ensures MLAs represent the broadest cross section of the district.
For a federal system, you are voting more for an ideology than for a local representative anyways, so list PR and others are less disruptive.
MPs, for instance are supposed to make decisions that are applied evenly across the country, where as provincial politicians are accountable to their regional service base. (such as hospitals, universities, and highways). STVs ridings in most cases group together common ridings. Even a riding like North Island/Sunshine coast basically includes in all of the coastal resource communities, so many of the concerns are common.
Getting STV in BC will be a big opening for PR systems in North America. Other jurisdictions, much like Europe, may try other variations.
Political Science needs experiments. We know STV functions elsewhere, lets try it here.
BTW: Check out the new video at http://www.stv.ca/thechoice
Wish Farley Mowat a happy 88th birthday by voting yes to BC-STV.
Yet, an electoral system, like STV, that features local (regional) proportionality would help make Parliament less regionally partisan. You would get Liberals from the West and Conservatives from the GTA elected to more accurately represent those regions -- all regions -- and soften the regional hard lines that the present system erects and exacerbates.
It is essential to have the diversity across regions effectively represented, to have all voices heard potentially.
Geography is people and places and people in places. It matters that our political system respects the who and the where together.
Our current electoral system has us at each others throats disproportionately and unnecessarily.
Amen to that.
But what According to Dennis Pilon (and I defer to his knowledge on this), STV does not undermine the power of parties to the extent that people hope/fear. And what Wilf says about open list MMP and STV not being that different in practise makes sense to me.
I have not seen STV undermine the power of parties in Tasmania or the Australian Capital Territory or the Scottish local councils.
I have seen it undermine the power of central parties in Ireland -- although the largest, Fianna Fail, has fought that tendency for decades without losing popularity on that account (I think their current low standing in the polls has other causes). It certainly undermined David Trimble's shaky control of his party in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Yet in a similar situation, the large Belfast City Council, there is very little intra-party competition. I think one can safely say that STV lets voters undermine the power of central parties if they wish to, but does not in itself do so.
I expect you're right about the provenance. As to it being strange, my impression at the time was that it was designed as a classroom exercise, an introduction to the process, not actually intended to result in useful decisions.
My impression now and at the time was that this list and the handling of it by the Assembly was the key deal breaker.
I'd be interested in seeing what those who have studied the OCA comprehensively say on this point. You may be right. It was handled a bit more casually than some of the later decisions. If some OCA members took that list of objectives too literally, it may have led them astray.
You may be right. Certainly I know of only a tiny handful of MMP fans who sincerely believe BC-STV is worse than FPTP. That may be because of different goals. But he's hardly a typical MMP fan.
An odd point to make in support of STV.
Come on Wilf. What a case of selective amnesia!
That list was the one they used to deliberate and decide. It was anything but a classroom exercise. It's the list from which your discussion here (above) was derived. The moment that list appeared was the cusp of the assembly.
You don't need an academic to study this. It's obvious. It's one of the things I ranted about back in the "first principles" "yardstick" days. Remember? Sorry. Of course you don't... amnesia.
Not everything is about STV. The point about plurality is, for me, one of the reasons MMP -- OCA-MMP really -- is a non-starter. Tell me. If you forget what you think I believe about STV, don't you think I'm right about plurality elections?
On the other hand I wouldn't say STV had anything to do with plurality. It's not that kind of vote. And all things considered I don't think STV is the be-all-end-all. It's a very good first approximation and probably sufficient going forward for a good long while. It's worth voting for.
My understanding is that neither Bill Tieleman nor David Schreck are presently NDP insiders.
The only current NDP insider I know of is Gerry Scott.
Question for pedants: is the correct grammar in the sentence 'neither are present' or 'neither are presently'?
I would go with presently. Because if neither are present NDP insiders, then Tieleman and Schreck could be NDP insiders who are not present.
Question for pedants: is the correct grammar in the sentence 'neither are present' or 'neither are presently'?
"neither Bill Tieleman nor David Schreck are, presently, NDP insiders" is a slightly different shade of meaning from "neither Bill Tieleman nor David Schreck are current NDP insiders" but both are grammatical.
RM:
"If (and I repeat if) MMP is on the ballot someday, you can bet your ass that a whole lot of your compadres on the no side are going to use exactly the same arguments on MMP. And they're going to have some new ammunition such as these claims:
- MMP creates two classes of MLA's
- MMP creates unaccountable, appointed MLA's
- MMP increases the workload of elected MLA's or increases the size of government or both"
Ah yes, BC-STV, nice to see the same old arguments again. Until I figure out how to use the new reply function I'll have to rely on quotes. First: there's no doubt some anti-STVers are also anti-PR, but so what? If the public had been allowed a choice on all the options in the first place, instead of this arbitrary resiction placed on it by political operatives a Second time, then the whole debate would be more forthright all around and the decision more widely accepted. Second: MMP doesn't create two classes of MLAs, one group can do pretty much the same things others can with about the same amount of personal discretion, except perhaps represent a more manageable constituency, I still haven't heard how it would work otherwise in large provinces like ours. Mostly because, three: They are not unaccountable. There is such a thing called "open lists" and other known mechanism to free that "second class" of candidates from control by the terrible party mandarins. Last point listed: this "second class of MLA's" would be there exactly to help them on committees, meetings, whatever. With BC-STV however Soprry but after more consideration I've had to come out against it again, not because of MMP but because as a alternative electoral system I think it sucks. Not that it matters much now.
And on more important matters, presently I think looks better ya. Hey Fidel, how's the revolution coming?
And on more important matters, presently I think looks better ya. Hey Fidel, how's the revolution coming?
I agree, thanks for that.
I think I've been writing quite well both grammatically and stylelistically (sp) lately, but I notice I'm having trouble deciding what the proper connecting words are, as well as deciding on tense endings like that.
Anyway, sorry to hijack the thread with my personal issues.
No prob Adam T, I was coincidently looking over some old STv threads awhile back and I noticed I talked right past you several times times without even noticing. Forgotten history of no import but i noticed I did that alot, so no snub intended, just my scattered brain. Ooh I found the edit function, I really am back in business.
RM:
"If (and I repeat if) MMP is on the ballot someday, you can bet your ass that a whole lot of your compadres on the no side are going to use exactly the same arguments on MMP. And they're going to have some new ammunition such as these claims:
- MMP creates two classes of MLA's
- MMP creates unaccountable, appointed MLA's
- MMP increases the workload of elected MLA's or increases the size of government or both"
Ah yes, BC-STV, nice to see the same old arguments again. Until I figure out how to use the new reply function I'll have to rely on quotes. First: there's no doubt some anti-STVers are also anti-PR, but so what?
It goes beyond that. There's been several times during this debate where I've heard anti-STVers make arguments against STV that would apply to any proportional system and follow up by speaking in favour of MMP. Some of the MMP talk (and I'll admit I don't know how much) is a smokescreen to defeat STV.
If the public had been allowed a choice on all the options in the first place, instead of this arbitrary resiction placed on it by political operatives a Second time, then the whole debate would be more forthright all around and the decision more widely accepted.
That's very debatable. Putting both options on the table would have helped to smoke out the people who are pretending to be MMP supporters. However, it would provide a lot more opportunity for anti-PR forces to muddy the waters. Many if not most people are misinformed on STV as it is. It you put MMP in the mix, people would get even more confused and throw up their hands.
I'm aware of all of this. I'm not making those arguments, I'm only repeating arguments that were made on the no website in Ontario. They would certainly be made here as well. They're easy to make and tough to counter.
The bottom line is I've seen no reason to believe that MMP would do better than it did in Ontario and PEI.
Don't apologize. You're honest about it and I'm not sure that I could say the same thing for everyone here in BC.
But you haven't said why you don't like it.
There are apples and there are oranges.
One needs to be careful to make it clear when one is talking about the class of electoral systems and when one is arguing for (or against) a particular design implementation.
One could easily maintain a grudge match between different designs of MMP.
OCA-MMP, for instance, is a very different animal than the flavour of MMP Wilf promotes (although in another thread he's admitted that his real preference is Irish STV... who knew?) One could see debate lasting years... no, wait, we have... here on Babble.
The "class" argument, though, is against the class MMP. It's not just what the MP can do in the Parliament, it how he/she got there.
I think equality is an essential attribute -- a tenet -- of any democracy. At least in the ideal. MPs should arrive in the House on an equal basis by an equal process and represent their constituents on an equal basis so that they can speak for them on an equal basis. STV does this well -- MMP not very.
During the Ontario Assembly consultation I saw a number of presenters make their case for MMP by listing reasons one would naturally use to chose STV over MMP. I never witnessed that kind of confusion the other way around.
SO I'd be interested in the reasons, too.
Actually there are several good flavours of MMP. One of my favourites is the one conservatives tend to prefer -- "near-winner" MMP, as used in the German province of Baden-Wurttemberg, where the regional MLAs (they use four regions) are the candidates of the under-represented party who came nearest to winning local ridings, that is, got the highest percent. No regional list, open or closed. No regional nominations. All candidates are local. No fear of the regional MLAs being from the larger centres with more than one riding, since the highest percent near-winner may just as likely be from a single-district community. It's only possible defect is that the "top-up" MLAs are elected thanks to regional voters but officially represent only one riding, and furthermore, are the secondary MLA from that riding, although that's not much of a defect. So, yes, I prefer regional-open-list MPP. But there are different flavours of that too. The flavour in use in Bavaria is not really the best. The best would be how a Swede would design MMP while keeping all the best features of Swedish regional-pure-list.
That was Northern Irish STV, please. Six MLAs for each federal riding, far better than Irish STV. Still, Irish STV is far better than FPTP.
Not that old debate again? Haven't you read Massicotte yet?
"The view that the West German system produces two 'classes' of representatives is based on an illusion. That apparent division is of no importance - especially not for the general public: voters do not usually know whether a Bundestag member was directly or indirectly elected."
The same author adds, "The assumption, that the two-vote system produces two kinds of MP, the constituency MP and the Landesliste MP, is empirically refutable. Contrary to widespread opinions, it is of absolutely no importance whether a mandate is obtained through the constituency and the Landesliste. Double candidatures are the rule. The voters do not perceive the difference at all."
As Massicotte shows, many MPs have gone back and forth from one category to the other.
It has been nice to see x politicians coming out and saying that fptp was good for them but is not good for canadians in general. It is sad to see unions and employers organizations coming out against stv but what do you expect. It is not really about us for them. It is about winning the class war between workers and the people they work for. (Which is like winning the war on terror). In a good democracy, I speak, and my tiny voice contributes politically.
Here, some union or employer guy rushes in and translates my words into war speak and then transmits this to the front line where the ndp liberal war is being carried out. Economics is not supposed to be war. It is supposed to be co operative partnership.
I think STV can get us back on track. If we bring in stv here, it will increase the pressure on politicians to bring in electoral reform elsewhere.
Remember, that democracy delayed is democracy denied. Nobody needs a referendum to bring in stv or mmp. It was a distraction.
It would have been a lot more productive to either just bring it in, or have the ca recommendations binding on parliament. I do not think stv will get over 60% but it it does, the other provinces and canada itself should not have to face this disasterous roadblock.
Brian
Well, Wilf, what you said -- in the context it was made -- was that you preferred Irish (Northern or whatever) STV overall above anything. I was only reading what you wrote. If you don't say what you mean...
Massicote can say what he likes, but in terms of fairness and equality to and for and between voters it matters that every voice in a Parliament is there on an equal footing. It matters to the relationship between the representative and their constituents and their constituencies and for the fairness of opportunity to speak, be heard, provide supportable mandates, conduct votes and for accountability. Just because the average voter isn't aware doesn't mean it's alright to do. That attitude is tantamount to betraying a trust.
What rubbish.
Okay, I'll be more long-winded.
I would prefer, in Ontario, to contemplate the thought of Northern Irish STV here. It would mean 636 or so Ontario MLAs. Even my own Northumberland would have its own NDP MLA, if not two. A cynic would say that the secret of the Northern Irish peace deal was to make everyone an MLA, and they would not be entirely wrong. Lots of representation through lots of representatives.
I did not advocate this to the OCA because I'm not that silly.
Okay, I'll be more long-winded.
I would prefer, in Ontario, to contemplate the thought of Northern Irish STV here. It would mean 636 or so Ontario MLAs. Even my own Northumberland would have its own NDP MLA, if not two. A cynic would say that the secret of the Northern Irish peace deal was to make everyone an MLA, and they would not be entirely wrong. Lots of representation through lots of representatives.
I did not advocate this to the OCA because I'm not that silly.
It's hard to know what you're saying when you pull quotes out of the context of their conversations. However, in response my pointing out that you preferred MMP you replied:
That's why I'm here, to demonstrate that MMP fans can be very happy with BC-STV.
Although what I really would prefer is Northern Irish STV, six MLAs for each federal riding. That's representation. Too bad BC doesn't want 216 MLAs.
It's hard to understand what your answer above has to do with this comment, which was all about BC.
It's quite easy to understand actually,and it's a big mistake the Wilf Days of the country are making right now, When the Fair Vote organizations across the country ever come to the realization that all PR is NOT created equal (that people such as the late Doris Anderson and others like minded could see clear as day) and recommend a system that is practical for our provinces and country (such as the Law Commission recommended) we will actually see a change, because throwing the baby out with the bathwater is the last thing we need to do. Is STV spreading like wildfire around the world? It's on the decline! (spare me the school board examples) Mixed systems are popping up all over the world because they work and work well, fire away and tell me I'm making it up but you will make change or improvemnet much more difficult in Canada by splitting this argument in ten different directions.
Ahh...
Another Babbler who misses the point(s) by a country mile. And this is a big country.
And I thought Wilf was lonely there, still. Not with the Lonely Ranger by his side!
Hmmm... does that make Wilf a faithful "Tonto" surrogate?
Sounds like the Odd Couple to me!!!
AT