Is BC election overshadowing the referendum?
Is the BC election overshadowing the referendum on electoral reform?
Perhaps not among BC-STV enthusiasts, but maybe among the BC electorate at large? Can any left coasters comment?
The so-called "national" paper (G&M) gives little attention to the BC-STV referendum, which could have repercussions across the country.
I've always been of the opinion that an issue as important as changing the electoral system should be voted on in a referendum for that sole purpose. Candidates would be more free to campaign on the referendum question also. Deeper democracy would be worth the cost.
Comments
I realize this is just anecdotal evidence, but here it is anyways. I was at a party on Friday evening and if the conversations at that party were any indication, STV is going to go down again because people simply do not understand it. The crowd at the party I was at was mostly professional, highly-educated (many people had two degrees), and relatively politically engaged. Naturally we spent a lot of time talking about the election (one of the attendees is actually a candidate) and when the talk rolled around to the referendum, there was a lot of "huh? oh yeah that...umm, I have no idea how I'm going to vote". One of my friends tried her best to explain it to someone else, but it quickly became obvious that she was describing an MMP system (like New Zealand) so I jumped in and tried to clarify. Most people's eyes started glazing over as I explained the system, and they started asking questions I couldn't really answer ("so how do they decide which votes are "surplus" and get redistributed? Is it just the last ones to be counted? How do they weight them?"). Quite a few were not enamoured with the idea of multi-member ridings (although I pointed out the Vancouver at-large system is really no different) - I heard a lot of complaints that living in "Vancouver West" meant you'd have a bunch of Liberal MLAs from Kerrisdale and Dunbar representing Kits and the West End.
Bottom line is, these are the kind of people who usually get excited about and interested in electoral reform, but who by and large are not really representative of the mainstream. If STV has an uphill battle among this demographic, I am hard pressed to see how it will succeed.
ghoris, you've illustrated the problem beautifully. Most people don't even understand our own electoral system and Elections BC hasn't done near enough to educate people. So, the yes side has a dual problem of educating and convincing people. Oh, and we have to get 1.5 votes for every vote by the no side. The no side only has to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt.
All of which pretty much sums up the debate so far.
Trying to explain how to count STV ballots at a party is a little like trying to explain long division at a party. It isn't complex but there are a number of steps and people get confused. Personally, I describe it at a high level and refer people to the website if they want details.
The main reason that party list and MMP are more widely used is that the parties prefer them and put the resources into educating and selling people.
Your friends may be well educated but if they can't see the importance of electoral reform, I have to wonder how politically engaged they really are.
Picked this story up over at the Fair Vote UBC blog. It was relayed by Mark Crowley, who attended the STV Rocks rally on Friday in Vancouver, at which Nirvana's Krist Novoselic, who is also head of Fair Vote USA, was guest.
Me (with placard): “We’re going to switch to a more proportional voting system. So instead of just picking one candidate you get to rank all of them or as many as you like. Then they’ll use your vote in order down the list. If your first choice gets eliminated, they go to your second choice. If your first choice wins and gets twice as many votes as they need, half your vote goes to your second choice. And instead of just one person for your riding you’ll have 4 or 5 so there is more than one voice represented. That’s it.”
Her (waiting at red light) : “Oh, that’s it? That sounds good. So it's going to pass right?”
Me : “We hope so, but we need to get 60% to pass it, so its not easy.”
Her : (with furled brow) “Well, that not fair”
Then the light changed to green and she took a flyer.
Sounds like a great way to explain the referendum and BC-STV to someone who has never heard of either. (How can people be so oblivious?!)
I don't pretend to understand proportional voting systems - but doesn't this bit quoted above mean that some people's votes (those who pick a big winner) count more than other people's votes?
yep, it does, but people want to over look that, plus a myriad of other things.
No, people who vote for big winners don't get more votes.
In the case cited, half the vote stays with the big winner, the other half transfers. Your second choice gets half a vote (as did your first, because that's all they needed). So, yes, there are fractional votes. The lower limit is if your first choice gets exactly one quota, in that case there is no fractional vote transfer.
What is it with fractional votes anyways? I've been following this for a few years now and this is the first time I've heard it as a problem. It wouldn't be the no side is flailing around looking for more fear, uncertainty, and doubt, now would it?
I don't pretend to understand proportional voting systems - but doesn't this bit quoted above mean that some people's votes (those who pick a big winner) count more than other people's votes?
Do all votes count equally under first past the post?
In 2001, the Liberals elected 1 MLA for every 12,000 votes. The NDP elected 1 MLA for every 170,000 votes. The Green Party's 197,000 votes elected nobody. Does that sound like everyone's votes are equal?
In contrast, BC-STV tries to maximize the power of your vote. If your first vote is for someone who doesn't need a vote because s/he has too many, part of it will be transferred elsewhere. The reason that a fraction of the vote is transferred is that it's fairer to transfer a fraction of all of the votes than 100% of some of the votes. OTOH, if you really like an unpopular candidate, you can still vote for that candidate and chances are your vote will be transferred to another candidate, perhaps a winning one.
In the final analysis, everyone still has one vote. The system may fractionalize your vote in order to maximize its potential impact but you still have one vote.
I don't pretend to understand proportional voting systems - but doesn't this bit quoted above mean that some people's votes (those who pick a big winner) count more than other people's votes?
You have only one vote, but if you pick a big winner you will help elect more than one MLA, by casting half a vote for one and half a vote for a second.
That's almost what happened in one district in Ireland's last election: Prime Minister Bertie Ahern's riding. A lovely example.
There were 34,639 voters in four-seater Dublin Central, an inner-city riding with a wide range of income levels. That means the quota for election was 6,928 votes; 13 candidates ran. On the first count, the results (in percents of a quota) were:
Bertie Ahern (Fianna Fail, conservative) 184%
Tony Gregory (Left Independent) 67%
Joe Costello (Labour) 63%
Paschal Donohoe (Fine Gale, centrist) 48%
Mary Lou McDonald (Sinn Fein) 46%
Patricia McKenna (Green) 29%
Mary Fitzpatrick (FF) 25%
Cyprian Brady (FF) 14%
Cieran Perry (Working Class Action) 14%
Paul O'Loughlin (Christian Solidarity) 4%
Pat Talbot (Immigration Control) 3%
Jerry Hannon (PD - libertarian conservative) 3%
Alan Beirne (Fathers' Rights) 2%
Tony Gregory (who died about three months ago) was a citizen-group-based inner-Dublin MP, who had been elected and re-elected every election since 1982. In the 2007 election, despite his popular record, he was no shoo-in: on the first count he had only 67% of a quota.
The governing conservative Fianna Fail had 2.22 quotas on the first count, thanks to the huge personal vote for Prime Minister Bertie Ahern. But many of his votes were personal respect, and did not transfer to his running-mates: on the second count FF had only 1.928 quotas. Still, you'd think they would end up with the second seat, as they eventually did.
When the dust clears on the third count, Tony Gregory is in second place with 81% of a quota, and Labour's Joe Costello is in third with 70% of a quota. Next to drop is Cieran Perry of "Working Class Action" whose votes go 39% to Gregory, 20% to Sinn Fein, 14% to Labour, and so on. Next the Green Party woman's votes transfer 34% Labour, 32% Gregory. Finally, when Sinn Fein drops, we see both Gregory and the Labour man elected.
A funny thing happened to the Fianna Fail vote.
His election became the subject of a public controversy, covered in national newspapers and on the radio news programme Drivetime and on the weekly Documentary on One which had been covering the campaigns of the three female candidates in the constituency.
Mary Fitzpatrick, who was the third Fianna Fáil candidate in the 4-seat constituency, had received 1,725 first-preference votes, but whereas Brady 2,403 of Ahern's surplus votes were transferred to Brady, only 1,362 went to Fitzpatrick. On the night before polling day, 24 May 2007, Fitzpatrick distributed leaflets to households asking people to vote for her as their first preference. In the early hours of the following morning, a letter had been hand-delivered from Ahern's office to 30,000 voters in the constituency, urging them give their first preference to the Taoiseach and their second to Brady.
Since Ahern was expected to be elected with a large surplus, and the overall Fianna Fáil vote was likely to be large enough to elect two candidates, the destination of the Taoiseach's transfers would determine whether Brady or Fitzpatrick won the second Fianna Fáil seat in Dublin Central.
After Ahern's transfers secured Brady's election, Fitzpatrick complained that "I didn't think they'd go out to completely undermine me and shaft me."
Ahern's election agent Chris Wall blamed Fitzpatrick, saying "She was asked not to do this sort of thing. Having then done it, she therefore effectively set in train a motion she wasn't going to be able to stop."
I don't pretend to understand proportional voting systems - but doesn't this bit quoted above mean that some people's votes (those who pick a big winner) count more than other people's votes?
No. In the old-fashioned (e.g. Irish) type of PR-STV system, the bigger the winner you vote for, the less the chance that your whole vote rests with her, and the greater the chance that your whole vote transfers to your next choice. Your vote doesn't count for more.
In the more refined (Tasmania, BC-STV) type of PR-STV using the Gregory count, the bigger the winner that you vote for, the smaller the fraction of your vote that rests with her, and the bigger the fraction that transfers to your next choice. The fractions add up to 1 vote. Again, your vote doesn't count for more.
What matters is, does your vote contribute to someone's election? In FPTP, on average about half the votes do. In BC-STV, 80% or more of votes contribute to someone's election.
In BC-STV, even if your first choice doesn't get elected, you can still transfer your vote to another candidate and contribute to someone's election. Only if your vote ends up with the last loser, or your ballot becomes exhausted because you haven't ranked enough choices, does it not contribute to anyone's election.
With BC-STV, you are (probably) like Popeye the Sailor, in at the finish. BC-STV is the magic can of spinach that gives you power.
I am of the mind that the STV vote is far more important than the actual vote. I'm not terribly fond of James, and we know Gordo is garbage ... either way, the province will get the same old party lines. STV gives us voters an actual chance to rid ourselves of the putrid, nonsensical first-past-the-post system we've been stuck with for far too long.
That said, the STV issue is just not 'sexy' for the media. STV, while not complicated, does take some time to explain fully. The media likes to report simple stories that are catchy and sink in quickly. Talking about STV actually takes time and effort, and we know the big papers and stations don't want to pay either of those prices.
Both sides were given some money, but not all that much. It's hard for either side to get much air time with the funds they have ... so advertising has been scarce. It also doesn't help that the parties in power aren't really warm to STV... I know they both hope it fails, so they'll keep as quiet as possible about it and pretend like they care what people want.
Hmmm... I saw commercials yesterday on TV for both, and got a huge flyer in the mail yesterday too.
Having said that, the sell off of our rivers and lakes, and Gordo's war on the poor, are more important to me than STV, as such the election is more important to me.
Was the flyer the one with the two maps? I voted by mail and got one in the package. I was wondering if any STV info was being mailed out this time.
I agree with you that the environment and the drop in living standards of the poor are vitally important issues, but given the disappointing lack of difference between the major parties, I think that the pro-rep referendum is actually more important this time, and I don't think I am alone.
What Golbez said. Media analysts and columnists who should be taking on the role of helping explain STV to the public are horribly misinformed and are trivializing the debate.
I've heard a lot of people say that they are fed up with Campbell but find James an uninspiring alternative. I think STV is the most important thing on the ballot but it's tough to get people engaged in electoral reform.
Both sides will be doing a major push over the final two weeks but I'm not sure that it will be enough to properly inform voters.
BS scott, there is a huge differenece between the BCNDP and Gordo, and people who are going to be losing their homes, living with out hydro, and the 10's of thousands of others affected by 600-900 rivers being privatized and the resulting environmental destruction from that, are going to give 2 shits about electoral reform issues.
Campbell's Liberals are waging a US-style mudslinging campaign after two terms of handing BC's environment and economic sovereignty to US and Canadian industrialists. US-style smear campaigns are proven to work when done properly. Focussing on real issues would only hurt the Liberals re-election chances, so they want to stay as far away from debating their record in power as possible. Campbell is hoping the Greens split the NDP vote so that he can continue his agenda for selling off BC's natural wealth to salivating corporate jackals waiting in the wings, and more than likely some tidy commissions, kick-back and graft on the side for him and top party members. Liberal fat-cats are hoping the smear campaigns, which the NDP is trying desperately not to engage in, will chase ~40% of the electorate away from the polls like last time
Ya, I know gordo is yelling lies noew about the BCNDP's platform means 60k worth of jobs lossess. Which is a blatent lie, but yet he apparently feels his 140k worth of job losses, and more down the road, are nothing.
Campbell is hoping the Greens split the NDP vote so that he can continue his agenda for selling off BC's natural wealth to salivating corporate jackals waiting in the wings, and more than likely some tidy commissions, kick-back and graft on the side for him and top party members. Liberal fat-cats are hoping the smear campaigns, which the NDP is trying desperately not to engage in, will chase ~40% of the electorate away from the polls like last time
Wouldn't it be great if we had an electoral system where the results weren't so easy to manipulate through vote splitting? One thing that would help that happen is if certain NDP insiders would stop portraying STV as some kind of plot.
Who said that with STV vote splitting would not be easy? If anything I see it as being easier.
Who said that with STV vote splitting would not be easy? If anything I see it as being easier.
Maybe I didn't say that quite right.
Fidel said that "Campbell is hoping the Greens split the NDP vote". (A minor quibble here - the Greens could split the progressive vote but they can't split the NDP vote). If you accept that the Greens are splitting the progressive vote, you have to accept that Green voters are predominantly prgressive and not, as some have suggested, neoconservatives who like clean air.
Currently, progressives who are inclined to vote Green can either vote the way they want and watch their votes go up in smoke or sell out their conscience and vote "strategically" (I hate that euphemism). Personally, I have always refrained from voting strategically. If everyone voted strategically, the argument would be we don't need PR because everyone is happy with two parties.
Anyway, with STV, the progressive vote is not split. These voters can transfer their vote to their next choice.
Of course it is, just as it is now, the transference means nothing actually. It can be just as split for the second choice as for the first.
LOL.
How does it leave 15-17 districts? And why would they do that? Hardly freaking likely IMV.
When there will be 40+ people running in any given district, the votes will be split, may it be 1st or 2nd choice, simple as that.
yep, and I know how BC politics works.
I have had 12 candidates sitting on the stage for ACF's, in FPTP, in order to have maximum voting splitting, and that is for 1 seat, it will be a huge slate with 5 seat districts.
yep, and I know how BC politics works.
I have had 12 candidates sitting on the stage for ACF's, in FPTP, in order to have maximum voting splitting, and that is for 1 seat, it will be a huge slate with 5 seat districts.
Remind,
Maybe you need to lay out who or where all these candidates are going to come from??? I agree with the rest, where is 40 candidates going to come from?
AT
I think that the reason the election is overshadowing the referendum is because, to the extent that they follow politics, most people are more concerned with who will be the next government than they are with how that will be decided next time.
I have to agree with people posting here who seem to indicate the BC Liberals are manipulative. And, I think that the rest of Canada needs to see that the "BC Liberals" are not the Liberal party, not by any stretch of the imagination. The referendum itself has been severly manipulated by the "BC Liberal" party...
1. BC already voted in a referendum in 1996 to bring about electoral reform. So having First Past the Post on the referendum only makes sense to someone wanting to sneakily reverse the result of the 1996 referendum. Gordo says that the Citizens Assembly is a good thing, especially if it's been stacked with "mentors" from right-wing think tanks who wanted to see STV instead of MMP. Ask someone from the Citizens Assembly why they didn't vote for MMP when MMP had so much support from people who bothered to write in back in 2004.
2. Single Transferable Vote is not Proportional Representation. Single Transferable Vote is a complicated ranking system which is obviously going to be more proportional than First Past the Post, but I've looked into how STV votes are counted and it doesn't make my vote count. For the 55% of people who don't vote for the "BC Liberals" and don't vote for the NDP, their vote will largely be ignored using BC-STV.
Electoral Reform was already decided upon in a referendum in 1996. I think that the choices of MMP and STV need to be on a referendum to move forward with electoral reform. http://www.rabble.ca/babble/introductions/bc-stv-if-my-vote-really-counted
"BC-STV is unquestionably better than First-Past-The-Post." agreed.
this is very important: "their second and subsequent preferences will count." - has this been explained properly in BC?
the tallying of all the preferences is what helps get us beyond the 'strategic vote' dilemma we face every election.
and, as Wilf notes, using the system opens the door to the possibility of further changes later, to deal with the #seats issue.
yep, and I know how BC politics works.
I have had 12 candidates sitting on the stage for ACF's, in FPTP, in order to have maximum voting splitting, and that is for 1 seat, it will be a huge slate with 5 seat districts.
You seem to be assuming that every small party candidate or independent is a tool of one of the big parties, trying only to make life difficult for the other big party. I am not that cynical. I think that most of them really want to speak for a point of view which they think will not otherwise be represented. There is no particular reason for the Libertarians, Christian Heritage or BC Conservatives, or Communists or Marxist--Leninists, to run more than one candidate in a five-seat riding unless it is to share the burdens of campaigning in a large riding. In many cases it will probably be more financially efficient to spend more money on the transportation expenses of one or two candidates rather than to run five. That will also make the job of finding quality candidates (relatively speaking) much easier. Money spent on campaign literature will be spent more efficiently if there are fewer candidates.
In Ireland the Green Party almost always runs only one candidate per riding whether it has 3, 4, or 5 seats.
BC-STV will almost certainly result in fewer candidates running overall. The very small parties may not run fewer candidates, or many fewer, but will be able to cover all or almost all the ridings instead of only say a fifth or a third of them. I think there will also be fewer independents per seat.
I have to agree with people posting here who seem to indicate the BC Liberals are manipulative. And, I think that the rest of Canada needs to see that the "BC Liberals" are not the Liberal party, not by any stretch of the imagination. The referendum itself has been severly manipulated by the "BC Liberal" party...
1. BC already voted in a referendum in 1996 to bring about electoral reform. So having First Past the Post on the referendum only makes sense to someone wanting to sneakily reverse the result of the 1996 referendum. Gordo says that the Citizens Assembly is a good thing, especially if it's been stacked with "mentors" from right-wing think tanks who wanted to see STV instead of MMP. Ask someone from the Citizens Assembly why they didn't vote for MMP when MMP had so much support from people who bothered to write in back in 2004.
2. Single Transferable Vote is not Proportional Representation. Single Transferable Vote is a complicated ranking system which is obviously going to be more proportional than First Past the Post, but I've looked into how STV votes are counted and it doesn't make my vote count. For the 55% of people who don't vote for the "BC Liberals" and don't vote for the NDP, their vote will largely be ignored using BC-STV.
Electoral Reform was already decided upon in a referendum in 1996. I think that the choices of MMP and STV need to be on a referendum to move forward with electoral reform. http://www.rabble.ca/babble/introductions/bc-stv-if-my-vote-really-counted
MMphosis,
You need to substantiate your accusations with proof!!!
Plus the facts that you do present are far from accurate.
The facts are that BC-STV has scored significantly better than MMP in the three referendums held in Canada.
Where is this support for MMP at referendum time?
AT
BC electoral reform seems to have been brought forward by Gordon Campbell in 1996 because the "BC Liberals" lost to the NDP, even though the "BC Liberals" got more votes. Maybe, BC needs a referendum on whether or not a majority of people actually want to change the way that we vote. If a majority of people want change then another referendum could be held to decide which type of system we want to have: STV or MMP.
I agree with you that BC-STV is unquestionably better than First-Past-The-Post. Mixed Member Proportional Representation may be leaps bounds better than BC-STV, but we have not been given the choice of MMP. Gordon Campbell's Citizens Assembly has decided on BC-STV for us but they won't say why they chose STV over MMP.
You need to substantiate your accusations with proof!!!
Plus the facts that you do present are far from accurate.
The facts are that BC-STV has scored significantly better than MMP in the three referendums held in Canada.
How has "BC-STV" a system unique to BC's Citizens Assembly scored significantly better? Better than what? And, better where? I read here that two provinces, PEI and Ontario voted on MMP vs FPP and chose to stick with FPP.
Where is this support for MMP at referendum time?
Let's have a referendum on MMP vs STV and find out.
My question to the Former Member of the Citizens Assembly of BC on Electoral Reform:
Why didn't you vote for MMP when MMP had so much support from people who bothered to write in back in 2004?
Go to this page, scroll down to October 23 parts 59 and 60, click on the video or audio link, and see for yourself.
It is not cynical at all, it is being aware of actualities on the ground. It is not my problem that you refuse to see the planned manipulation that has gone here and that will continue to go on.
If there are 5 seats, the BC Liberals will run 5 candidates. Thus so will the NDP, and so will the Green Party if they can find them. So that is 15 already. And in areas where the new Conservative party are competative we will see minimum 2 candidates running for them too. So we are getting close to 20 candidates already.
Then we have all the other fringe parties, running at least 1, most likely 2, which can number anywhere from 5-10 in any given riding. And then there will be the created independants from local areas who would be there to draw only local votes to them, thus leaving the urban centres to dominate. Now we are close to, or at 40, candidates running per super riding
As I noted, I have ran All Candidates Forums that have had 12 candidates running for 1 seat in FPTP, this number will increase exponentially with more seats per huge riding. If they can find that many to run in FPTP, they can find more for STV. And the huge ridings with a urban centre, are another quibble with me anyway.
No, I disagree, it will not result in fewer candidates running overall, common sense dictates there is no way it can possibly do so, not with 5 spots per riding available.
Are you confusing STV with the at-large municipal council system?
In a five-seater STV district, for one party to win all five seats they would have to have 84% of the vote. It's a proportional system.
While the Liberals would be free to run five, there is no advantage to them doing so in an urban seat. Possibly they might do so in Cariboo-Thompson in order to run a candidate from each area.
The normal practice for the two largest parties in Ireland is to run the number they hope to elect, plus one spare. There are exceptions. Fianna Fail has been known to run only the number it expects to elect, deliberately depriving voters of choice, a somewhat high-risk tactic which can backfire. On the other hand, both main parties have been known to run too many candidates simply to avoid a nasty nomination battle; but this sometimes just widens the nastiness into an election day showdown by which time the competing candidates and their carried-away supporters are so mad at each other that they give their preferences to another party rather than to their "team-mate" competitors. So it's wiser to adopt a Goldilocks strategy: just enough competition, not too much or too little.
As for the Greens, in Ireland they virtually always run only one candidate. But if I were a BC Green strategist I would run two in each district, one man and one woman. Never five, though.
My question to the Former Member of the Citizens Assembly of BC on Electoral Reform:
Why didn't you vote for MMP when MMP had so much support from people who bothered to write in back in 2004?
Again,
In my view there was only a small pocket of support for MMP. Not wide spread support as suggested. The referendum results in PEI and Ontario show that this is the case in those provinces, I believe it to be the same here as well. BC-STV's strong results in BC also shows that the CA recommendation touched the values of far more voters than just those that support MMP. We needed to represent the views of all BC voters not just one group. It has been 5 years since our decision was made and no one has been able to prove this wide spread support for MMP, nor has this large group stood up and made their presence known. I don't believe it exists. The conspiracy theory that the CA was influenced is just nonsense and no smoking gun has been found. Remember, CA members were pretty aware of this possibility and would not have put up with it.
To design a good MMP system you need open regional lists, you have to expand the ridings (just like STV), so many of us started to see a system that was even more complicated than BC-STV. Ontario stayed away from regional lists for much of the same reason, they recommended a closed list system, which voters quickly dismissed and rightly so.
BC Assembly members liked the types of choices that BC-STV presented to the public. MMP offers more choices than FPTP, but all are contained in the party mindset. It was also believed by many to be a system that entrenched more power with the parties and did not add power to the voter. The CA believed that BC-STV will do a better job of moving power away from Party control and move influence back to the voter.
Our MMP system did a better job of proportionality (not by much), as far as local representation I didn't see any advantage of one system over the other. Both changed things up, but both systems face the trade off between local representation and proportionality. The CA like the multi-member districts over the larger plurality ridings and regional lists.
One other conclusion that I also saw, was that Voter Choice was the top value of the CA in exit polls after the CA was finished. Proportionality finished third in the ranking. Combine this with the objective of trying to put more influence into the voters ballot, and I think that you can see why BC-STV moved forward and MMP did not get moved forward.
Hope this answers your question.
AT