BC-STV Referendum 2009 (Part 3)
Best line from the last thread was from Stuart Parker:
I would love to hear from STV opponents how FPTP is a better system thatn STV because the superiority of systems that will not be appearing on anyone's ballot are a complete irrelevancy. Voting for FPTP because STV is insufficiently proportional is like voting for the Conservative Party of Canada because the Communist Party has failed to nominate a candidate in your riding.
There are four districts on the BC-STV map that are smaller (= less proportional) than one would like, although they were unavoidable:
The Northeast (Peace River) has two MLAs. That's no problem for the NDP: it's almost certain to win one of the two.
The Northwest has three MLAs. The NDP won two of those seats in 2005, and has to be the favourite to win two of the three under STV as well.
North Central (Prince George) has three MLAs. Currently all Liberals. The NDP is certain to win one of the three under STV.
Okanagan-Boundary has three MLAs. That's NDP federally. Does anyone have the numbers for the 2005 vote transposed into the new seats of Boundary-Similkameen, Penticton,and Westside-Kelowna? West Kootenay - Boundary was so heavily NDP that I wonder if the NDP could win Boundary-Similkameen, and Penticton was far from hopeless. Anyway, the NDP is sure to win at least one of those three seats under STV.
Looks reasonably proportional to me.
Comments
David Wrote;
We agree! I doubt whether you will see anything from the pro-STV side in the campaign that says FPTP is a fair system. Fortunately it is on tape from the Assembly. Listen to the tape again if you don't think there was pressure for everyone to sing from the same songsheet and not criticize the recommendation in public.
Sorry David,
Listened to the tapes, was in the Wosk Centre, don't get where the pressure was coming from and to what purpose. Did you think that Carty wanted us to say the FPTP was unfair? If we had let it slide through, it would have been great ammo for you guys.
AT
As you say the NDP would do better in the small DM ridings in the North. As for the portion of West Kootenay - Boundary that was transferred to Boundary - Similkameen you would need to look at the individual polling numbers. I suspect though that the most NDP part of that riding is the Castlegar-Trail corridor that remains in what is now called Kootenay West. Nevertheless the NDP should pick 1 up in the South Okanagan under STV (not much hope under the current system though).
Another factor to consider in the small DM ridings is the effect of Green transfers. I expect most of the Green vote will transfer to the NDP. Although the Green vote is fairly small in the North, it could tip the scales to help elect a dipper there.
The Green vote is fairly strong in the Okanagan and Kootenays, so Green transfers will definately benefit the NDP there.
__________________________________
One struggle, many fronts.
And not just in those four small DM districts.
Suppose the Green Party might win a seat in five of the 20 districts. That means Green Party transfers will be a factor in 15 districts, not just four. There may be some districts where the Green transfers would benefit the Liberals, but I'm not sure which ones. I suspect Green transfers would most often favour the NDP.
Electoral reform should not be a partisan project. The effect of any electoral reform on any proportional model is to give more power to the voter, make every vote count, and give the voter more choice. An STV model with mostly four- and five-seat districts does not favour splintering the legislature into a pizza parliament. I can't say if it will give BC three parties, four, five or six. But as between the two major parties, I see no reason for any New Democrat not to vote for BC-STV. Unless they enjoy seeing majority Liberal governments elected with the support of a minority of voters. But of course Liberal voters who don't want to see the 1996 election replayed will happily vote for BC-STV too.
Wow!!! A graph!!! BC-STV must be too complicated.....
Graph results look pretty proportional to me!!! I remember looking at similar computer graphs and charts of over 30,000 possible election results for BC using BC-STV and the results looked similar to the above chart.
Without going back to my notes in the vault, I believe that the variance was less than 2% difference between the MMP model we designed and the BC-STV model. The MMP model was slightly more proportional, but the tradeoff came at the expense of party lists.
The Assembly also liked the types of choices BC-STV offered verses the choices offered by MMP.
Our recommendation for change from FPTP came easily when you consider that FPTP offers very little choice and no proportionality. Local representation disappears with the invention of the party Whip.
AT
Electoral Reform is an eventuality!!!
Former Member of the Citizens Assembly of BC on Electoral Reform
I have a problem with the line in the graph. I usually see the line in such a graph as a best fit to the data.
What does the line represent? It clearly is not the usual best fit.
Yah, and it missed the "wrong winners" of 81,87,96,and08 to mention a few and those pesky "safe seats" from all over the map that STV proponents don't want to talk about. cool colors though.
http://nxtwave.tripod.com/gaiatech/voting.html has 2 graphs by james Gilmore that show the represented versus unrepresented from a bc and an irish election. Basically unrepresented are those whose votes did not help elect anyone. Mr Gilmore also send me charts for other BC elections too. What they clarly show is that STV is more reliable and more repeatable than first past the post. Most people here talk down to the voters and think that they are thick. I think many voters will understand these charts and if anyone knows how to insert them in this thread, go for it. Gilmore gave me full permission to use them as I please.
Brian
Brian, the line represents the ideal where the percentage of seats a party gets equals the percentage of votes the party got. The line is determined by the x and y axis, not the points.
The same graph for FPTP shows small parties getting no seats, or fewer seats than they deserve, and the exaggerated majorities for other parties, with few of these points near the ideal line.
Ranger, the graph doesn't show right or wrong winners. It doesn't show winners at all. If you had paid attention during the Assembly process, you would know that.
Do you really think that the 95% of the randomly selected Assembly members, who supported the Assembly's recommendation, were involved in a massive conspiracy, that only you are clever enough to see?
Do you really think that you were the most intelligent person in the room and the rest of us were that stupid?
It's fine to prefer FPTP, or in your case MMP-lite, but it isn't OK to call into question the integrity of the rest of the Assembly members. Because then, you call into question the integrity of all voters.
If there's an electoral system you want, perhaps you can try to make the case for it here. If you don't want BC-STV, what do you want?
Seriously, have you got anything to offer other than throwing stones?
As Assembly members, we took on the responsibility of making a recommendation to the voters, a responsibility most of us took seriously.
What would you have recommended and why?
Supporting the recommendation of the BC Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform Make Your Vote Count - Support BC-STV - 12th May 2009
You assume alot Craig, If I paid attention? who's throwing stones?
As far as what I recommended? you answered it in the middle of your post if you didn't notice, and it doesn't matter (if you didn't notice) because it's not on the ballot! You sound scared, like you don't trust that all voters will sort all this out themselves? People look at issues differently, I thought with all your expertise you would know that, you look at a contrary view as a bad thing but it's a good thing Craig, it's called "democracy", in the end do you want people to vote for this because of inaccurate slogans? or do some digging into the positves and negatives? I think I know the answer but we shouldn't assume should we?
Here are those graphs Brian:
Mr gilmore also did a chart for another 1 or 2 BC elections. They are in my single transferable vote group on yahoo.com but I do not know how to get them out and show them.
The wasted vote count and deviation vary a lot from one election to the next in first past the post. An interesting thing about the 2001 BC election was that although it gave a truely horrible result, the wasted vote count was lower than in some other bc provincial elections!
Scott, nice graphs.
Ranger, you played an important role in the Assembly process. And I thank you for that. In your arguments for MMP, you showed how flawed the system was, and how much better STV was by comparison. By the end of the process, 95% of the Assembly disagreed with you.
Yes, the debate this time is between FPTP and BC-STV. Do you really think that FPTP is better than BC-STV? If you don't want BC-STV, then you should be able to find some convincing arguments for FPTP. Why don't you try to make them here, and see how they stand up?
At some point in time, as an MMP supporter, you must have understood the importance of proportionality. BC-STV is a proportional system. FPTP is not.
You go on and on about local representation, but Scott's graphs above show clearly that local representation is much better with BC-STV, which gives many more voters a representative that they voted for. If you don't get a local rep you voted for, you won't have a local MLA who represents your point of view. This is what you clearly missed with MMP.
MMP districts would have even worse local representation than FPTP because the districts would be larger. The graph for MMP's single member districts would be very similar to the FPTP graph, but a little worse.
And these are numbers for 2001 when the Liberals got 58% of the vote. In more competitive elections, the number of unrepresented voters is much worse. Also, the Irish comparison has a district magnitude of about 3.75 and the BC-STV average DM is 4.25. BC-STV would give even more voters a local representative who they like then in Ireland.
Obviously, BC-STV has much more voter choice than FPTP and therefore much better accountability.
So what exactly is it about FPTP that you like so much?
Supporting the recommendation of the BC Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform
Make Your Vote Count - Support BC-STV - 12th May 2009
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/single_transferable_vote and James gilmour has pdf files (with the graphs for 2 earlier bc elections). An interesting thing about these elections is that although the results were more proportional the unrepresented vote count was higher (over 50%!) in both cases.
Note when comparing the stv and first past the post graphs, that bcstv is designed to be more proportional than Irish stv. (So the unrepresented voters should be below 20%).
What???
Ranger you need a graph or a slippery slope to explain your last statement......
I personally speak from the truth backed from an education that was taken seriously.
The CA wants everyone to dig in and research for themselves and make an educated decision.
As the last referendum proved, those that did, voted in favor of BC-STV at a rate well over 70%.
Maybe you would like to explain your thoughts on why this rate improves as voters gain "the facts" as you so dispute??? I know I would love to hear your answer........
Then maybe you could explain to everyone, why you continue to stay in the minority of the 25%-30% of voters who understand STV but don't support it? Notice that I am giving you the credit to actually belong to the group that understands BC-STV.
The wrong winners that you talk about with STV, you are very aware of the facts that we put steps and measures into BC-STV to reduce these possibilities. You are also well aware that these situations are happening in a different variation of STV, in a culture that has dramatically different voting patterns than that of BC. You know all of this stuff, but you forget to explain it. So yes there has been wrong winners in STV, but as an assembly did we not research this and make changes to our proposed BC-STV system to correct and avoid some of the pitfalls of early models? You don't think that these are important details that maybe you should mention to people??? "Who is hiding information or hiding behind inaccurate slogans?" Are half truths really a lie when you knowingly hold back information to the contrary of your argument?
We are not scared, we are not hiding? We don't need to be. When people know the facts they are more prone to support BC-STV. We explain the facts, provide information in a truthful way and we win support. I'm sure that must scare you and the no-side of this referendum. But it also really clearly lays out what strategy the no side must work with as well.
It might just come down to Integrity when all is said and done. I like our position in this debate when it comes to integrity, The "no-side" needs to hide or distort the facts, create fear to change, etc. I know when all is done, Referendum pass or fail, I will sleep well knowing that I maintained my integrity and so did the Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform.
Lonely Ranger you know you can't win any debate based on facts. I remind everyone else to challenge Ranger to make his facts clear!!! Integrity was the primary value shared by the CA, unfortunately Ranger has forgotten this, or has abandoned this principal.
AT
Electoral Reform is an eventuality!!!
Former Member of the Citizens Assembly of BC on Electoral Reform
I have no problem actually answering your questions Craig, many have been answered in previous posts but you must have missed them, If the CA process actually mirrored our voting public as you say then I guess 95% will vote for it in a province wide referendum right? I value an "identifiable" local representative, that is guaranteed under FPTP not under STV this is a "fact" if you don't want to see that it's totally up to you. My STV riding is over 80,00sq. kms and there will be 4 representatives, Ireland is about the same size, they have 166 representatives do you dispute this as well? If my MLA needs to be sent a message on voting day FPTP is the best sytem to send one, you can argue that as well, but I'll have to get Farrel himself to tell you that, then you may "believe" If we use your own logic about larger ridings equalling "worse" local representation, that's true for sure,MMP distrcts would not have to be four times their current size and you know it If you think for example 4 MLA's in the North Island South Coast can adequetly cover this area your kidding yourself, this is one example, there are worse, I don't like discrepencies from 13% to 33% in one province, we haven't even talked about those who get elected without reaching quota, this is like having two different systems without coming out and saying it. Choice is a good buzz word but very misleading, a ballot with dozens of names on it doesn't really mean "choice" it means confusion for average voters, that's why Austrailians choose to pass on STV and vote "above the line" of course you know this as well but don't like to talk about it, understandibly,I'm sure you'll try to explain how I'm making all of this up and I look forward to an entertaining read. I'll let AT explain to you why proportionality itself is not the be-all,end-all in electoral systems. Always nice chatting with you.
I don't agree with Ranger's conclusions at all, but I do respect the fact that he was acting as a decent representative of his riding, likely the worst riding in BC to sell STV to. Curiously, they did already vote for it last time, but Ranger would have had good reason to think they might not.
I keep expecting Ranger to point out that, if there are five candidates on the ballot on the final count, yes, the odds are that one of them will be from Powell River - Sunshine Coast. And then there's a 20% chance that the Powell River - Sunshine Coast person will be fifth on the final count, not elected. The graphs above correctly note that 20% of votes won't elect someone, which is a whole lot better than the 52% in the last federal election. But it would be nice to see AT achnowledge that, if you live in Powell River - Sunshine Coast, 100% odds on having a local MLA may look better than 80%. Of course, that's 100% odds on having a local MLA that, more likely than not, you didn't vote for, as compared with excellent odds on having an MLA whose party you voted for, even if he/she is from Courtenay. There are trade-offs, as always. Those trade-offs are a bit more stark in Powell River, perhaps.
Then again, perhaps AT would argue that most people vote by party, so what really matters most is having an MLA from your party, even if he or she does live in Courtenay? I know, that's an MMP argument. But I keep telling you folks that the arguments for STV and MMP are quite similar.
But it would be nice to see AT achnowledge that, if you live in Powell River - Sunshine Coast, 100% odds on having a local MLA may look better than 80%. Of course, that's 100% odds on having a local MLA that, more likely than not, you didn't vote for, as compared with excellent odds on having an MLA whose party you voted for, even if he/she is from Courtenay. There are trade-offs, as always. Those trade-offs are a bit more stark in Powell River, perhaps.
Then again, perhaps AT would argue that most people vote by party, so what really matters most is having an MLA from your party, even if he or she does live in Courtenay? I know, that's an MMP argument. But I keep telling you folks that the arguments for STV and MMP are quite similar.
Wilf,
Ok, I will be nice and acknowledge that the Sunshine Coast is one of the most difficult areas of the Province to design an electoral system for. FPTP, MMP, and BC-STV all share difficult issues in this area. But again, maybe this change would move away from Ranger's personal preferences for local representation. But we are suppose to represent all voters in our ridings as CA members. You are correct that the Sunshine Coast riding did support BC-STV with above average support in 2005. Craig post, clearly explains the differences in the options for Local Representation.
But I tend to look at the big picture moving forward, and see Local Representation as a value in decline with the advance of technology. I think that it is important the the MLA be from the area and understand the values, issues, and culture of the area. But I'm not convinced that geography and all its challenges cannot be solved by technology. Look at the distance covering this conversation, it is a pretty good example of how the world of communication has shrunk.
I don't totally agree with the argument that most vote via the party so we should consider the next best solution to Loc. Rep as being that of having a rep from the same party.
I see it a bit bigger than that too. Yes this is probably a good solution for a good majority of voters presently, but what choice do they really have right now. Remember we are working under FPTP.
That is where the greater and diverse choice offered from BC-STV really holds value for me. Free up everyone's vote so that they can cast it what ever way they choose. By Party, geography, specific Issue, ethnic background, etc. etc. That vote is also more difficult to sweep up and claim by a power base as support. How can a party whip or the Premier's office control a vote that is clearly brought by an MLA based clearly on Geographical or even Ethnic choice? Within or from outside their party?
Meaningful choice = Meaningful representation.
AT
Former Member of the Citizens Assembly of BC on Electoral Reform
Nice to see that four years later the same characters are making the same old points here about the same complicated, confusing, obscure electoral system -STV - that takes away the local accountability and responsibility that voters deserve.
I can't wait for more debates about the Droop Quota, District Magnitude, Wasted Votes or all the nifty charts, graphs and voting models that "explain" STV!
Bill Tieleman
President NO STV
www.nostv.org
The Gilmour images for previous elections are as follows. If first past the post was an industrial process, it would have to be thrown out because it has no repeatability or reliability. feel free to download any of the James Gilmour charts and post them in your local coffee shop, or workplace.
I know he would be very pleased if you did this.
Are you here representing the official NDP view, Bill?
I am curious as to why the NDP position defaults to yours when there is any scummy or dubious positions to be taken?
STV could never have given Campbell 77 of 79 seats and you know it.
And still you argue in favour of that system!
Why should your vote for Fptp be worth 1.5 times my vote for STV in the referendum?
I do not see how you can call yourself a socalist or a democrat if you do not believe in one person one vote.
Do prominent BC Lib backers support your nostv campaign much?
Why do you guys get half the money when you only need 40 out of every hundred votes to win?
Actually STV gives more local accountability.
If the NDP nominated a hack like Tielman in a safe NDP seat, I could give my first preference to the other ndp nominee in that riding and get rid of Tieleman.
Such unbridled joy!
In fptp, I would have to gag and vote for Tieleman.
Actually, the charts show that FPTP is the shitters. There is no need to explain STV. All we have to do is show that it is better than FPTP.
The charts show that it represents voter choice much better each and every time. A picture is worth a thousand words. In an arguement when you will be using FUD and half truths, it is worth a million words.
Nice to see that four years later the same characters are making the same old points here about the same complicated, confusing, obscure electoral system -STV - that takes away the local accountability and responsibility that voters deserve.
I can't wait for more debates about the Droop Quota, District Magnitude, Wasted Votes or all the nifty charts, graphs and voting models that "explain" STV!
Bill Tieleman
President NO STV
www.nostv.org
What are you talking about? Wrong winners?
There are no safe "personal" seats in stv. In first past the post, you get a nomination to a safe party seat and you automatically win. In STV, you can get beaten by a party collegue on election day. No automatic wins. No safe seats.
There is no need to explain STV. All we have to do is show that it is better than FPTP.
Those advocating change usually carry the burden of proof and changing from the most common voting system in the world to one barely used is a big change.
In tight races the bias STV gives large parties can be enough to help them form government. In the last election in Tasmania, the ALP won 49.3% of the vote but took 56% of the seats. In Ireland’s last election, Fianna Fail, won 41.6% of the vote and elected 78 TDs (47.0%). In that case the Greens (Fianna Fail’s new coalition partner) won 4.7% of the vote and got 6 seats, while Sein Fein won 6.9% and got only 4 seats. One thing is true in Ireland, Tasmania and Malta, the incumbents get re-elected and are safe.
The only thing worse than the enormous multiple-member constituencies that STV would give B.C., is the constant barrage of unsupportable claims made by its backers. Listen to the audio of the Citizen’s Assembly’s meeting on November 27, 2004, and hear the pressure put on members not to break ranks and to spin the message whether it is true or not. There is a particularly revealing discussion of proportionality and what is fair 23 minutes into the tape (that is after a year of meetings and on the eve of releasing the report). Listen at http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/resources/av/MP3s/CAER_11-27-04_Pt2.mp3
STV can’t deliver what its proponents promise, but it would make elections less understandable and MLAs less accountable. Follow politics in Ireland, Malta or Tasmania and see if any of the problems attributed to FPTP are any less. Adopting a complex voting system doesn’t change politics.
David Schreck
See http://www.strategicthoughts.com
Unless you want a system like the Netherlands with no threshold and perfect proportionality, which no one I know wants -- the federal NDP convention voted for the German 5% threshold -- that's normal. In the German state of Rhineland-Palatinate, in the last election in 2006 the SPD got 45.6% but won a clear majority because the Greens and the Left Party both fell below the threshold, so a total of 13.6% of the votes were wasted. Same in Saarland where the CDU got an absolute majority with 47.5%, and Thuringia where the CDU got an absolute majority with 43.0%. Berlin was similar, where there are so many splinter parties that the SPD and the Left Party formed a majority coalition government with only 44.2% of the vote between them.
Now there, although I'm an MMP fan, I have to admit STV has the advantage. The Greens get more second preferences than Sinn Fein. No party will form a government relying on Sinn Fein, who are pariahs. (They held the balance of power after the last election, preventing either the centre-left or the right from forming a majority coalition, so the Greens had to swallow their principles and join with conservative Fianna Fail.) So it makes sense that Sinn Fein get few second preferences, and get fewer seats than their first preference vote share. Are you seriously complaining that Sinn Fein should have gotten more seats?
Nonsense. Do your research as you usually do. In the 2007 Irish election 30 incumbent TDs lost their seats, compared to 116 incumbents re-elected. In Northern Ireland 12 MLAs were defeated in 2007 compared with 84 incumbents re-elected. I haven't been watching Tasmania enough to find counter-examples easily.
In the 2007 Irish election 30 incumbent TDs lost their seats, compared to 116 incumbents re-elected. In Northern Ireland 12 MLAs were defeated in 2007 compared with 84 incumbents re-elected. I haven't been watching Tasmania enough to find counter-examples easily.
Actually it was 28 incumbents TDs who lost their seats (see http://www.electionsireland.org/results/general/30thdail/resultssummary.cfm), but one way or the other that is relative to 166 TDS in total (covering the same population for which BC will have 85 MLAs). That’s a loss of 28/166 or 16.9%. Compare that to the 2005 election in B.C. where 30 New Democrats defeated Liberals in a legislature then sized at 79, or a loss ratio of 38%. The 2001 and 1991 elections had similar high turnover in B.C., much higher than in Ireland.
For Malta see http://www.maltadata.com/survive.htm which shows that in 2008 out of 65 seats only 7 incumbents lost.
For Tasmania which has 25 seats, see http://www.politicalowl.com/Stories/Mar06/290306tasfinalresult.htm, which points out that 23 incumbents sought re-election; they all won.
There is a reason proponents of BC-STV like to use hypothetical examples. Pointing to the few places where STV is in effect doesn’t support the fictions that are used in an attempt to sell it to British Columbians.
As for the books which supposedly claim how different things are in jurisdictions that use STV, if you don’t want to read the political news in Ireland, Malta and Tasmania, check out the YouTube video at http://www.youtube.com/v/_wZX_Jfvm_Y&hl=en&fs=1 How’s that for being really different!
David Schreck
See http://www.strategicthoughts.com
Wow!!! The big guns from NO-STV!!!
Must be a slow night everywhere......
Bill,
Hope you've got better than too complicated!!! Voters didn't buy that argument last time. Kids are running demos on Youtube for STV and they are not having too many problems with how the system works.
As the president of Nostv, I also notice that you present no facts to back your claims. Is Ranger your research advisor?
Are you saying that BC voters are not intelligent enough to understand something slightly more basic than FPTP???
Are you suggesting that BC doesn't need change??? Research shows that BC voters feel differently about this - how do you respond?
David,
I listened to the Assembly segment you suggest and I find nothing obscure about the conversation. In our discussion we are debating whether saying "Fair election results" rather than "proportional" implies that FPTP is not fair. We voted in large numbers to change the document to adjust the wording so that both systems are considered to be "fair" electoral systems. The CA had nothing against FPTP, we just believe that BC-STV is better at generating "fair election results through Proportionality." FPTP is a fair system, it just isn't proportional.
Notice how quickly the group found consensus on the issue. Also notice that the CA was questioning everything put before them to ensure it represented our views. The original wording was not created by the CA members themselves.
Where is the pressure coming from?
David you Say:
"STV can’t deliver what its proponents promise, but it would make elections less understandable and MLAs less accountable. Follow politics in Ireland, Malta or Tasmania and see if any of the problems attributed to FPTP are any less. Adopting a complex voting system doesn’t change politics."
Like Ranger, and Bill before you, can you substantiate your claims with fact? Less Accountable? Elections that are less understandable? Take the time and explain the last three elections in BC to us!!! FPTP is easy to vote, but hard to justify the results in the minds of many BC voters. I look forward to you explaining some of your claims.....
The countries you list do not at all complain about the complexity of the system. Ireland has voted twice to keep STV over the years. Election engagement in Ireland is very high on election days. They follow the results.
As far as proportionality in tight races, again, only a pure PR list system will create perfect proportionality. The examples that you give, demonstrate on average about a 6% variance in a worst case situation as you have selected.
You are fully aware the 40/60/100 term. 40% of the vote, gets you 60% of the seats, and 100% of the power on a regular basis in FPTP. The variance in FPTP can often range in the 15% to 25% range, as demonstrated in BC on several occasions. The most famous being the 57% of the vote to get 97% of the seats in 2001. A shameful 40% variance to the vote count. I believe the variance in 1996 was 11% and produced a wrong winner result as described by political scientists.
Reducing the variance by 50% to 75% and making electoral results that much more reflective is clearly a correction and an improvement.
So as I see it, going by your argument, using your facts and worst cases, it is still highly beneficial to make the change to BC-STV just to reduce the variance as you point out and make our elections 2 to 5 times more representative than the elections we have now!!!
Can you explain why the variances are so high in FPTP?
AT
Electoral Reform is an eventuality!!!
Former Member of the Citizens Assembly of BC on Electoral Reform
Hi, David, I will direct your attention to the charts that Mr Gilmour sent me. As you can see, first past the post gives widely differing results with no great link between cause and effect.
From the figures for represented/unrepresented you might conclude that first past the post did well in 2005.
58% of the voters got their vote to elect someone. Hurah? And then we realize that that is the year that the most unproportional results ever happened! Campbell got 77 of 79 seats.
And now we take a look at Irish stv, (Which isn't even that good). Each and every election, the represented vote stays around 79%. (That 79% is the people who cast votes that helped elect winners).
We NEVER get 79% of votes electing people in fptp.
In Irish STV it happens EVERY time. In BC STV which is more proportional, the percentage will be over 80!
You have the cheek to talk about bias to large partys!
Much of the ff bias comes from lower preference votes of losing independent ff candidates and losing sinn fein candidates. How do you explain the large party bias in fptp?.
ONLY the large partys get seats in fptp. WHY?
If the greens get 8% of the vote, shouldn't they get a seat or 5?
Your turn to explain your system. And check the charts before you do please.
And please explain to the NDP people here why you favour a system that can give Gordo 77 of 79 seats and could do so again.
You think it was OK for the NDP to lose official party status on over 20% of the vote?
You do realize that they can fall back to 2 mla's or less even if they get over 30% of the vote in fptp?
Your turn David,
I am betting that you will cut your losses and run away like Norman Spector did when I put similar questions to him. (During the last referendum campaign).
There is no need to explain STV. All we have to do is show that it is better than FPTP.
Those advocating change usually carry the burden of proof and changing from the most common voting system in the world to one barely used is a big change.
In tight races the bias STV gives large parties can be enough to help them form government. In the last election in Tasmania, the ALP won 49.3% of the vote but took 56% of the seats. In Ireland’s last election, Fianna Fail, won 41.6% of the vote and elected 78 TDs (47.0%). In that case the Greens (Fianna Fail’s new coalition partner) won 4.7% of the vote and got 6 seats, while Sein Fein won 6.9% and got only 4 seats. One thing is true in Ireland, Tasmania and Malta, the incumbents get re-elected and are safe.
The only thing worse than the enormous multiple-member constituencies that STV would give B.C., is the constant barrage of unsupportable claims made by its backers. Listen to the audio of the Citizen’s Assembly’s meeting on November 27, 2004, and hear the pressure put on members not to break ranks and to spin the message whether it is true or not. There is a particularly revealing discussion of proportionality and what is fair 23 minutes into the tape (that is after a year of meetings and on the eve of releasing the report). Listen at http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/resources/av/MP3s/CAER_11-27-04_Pt2.mp3
STV can’t deliver what its proponents promise, but it would make elections less understandable and MLAs less accountable. Follow politics in Ireland, Malta or Tasmania and see if any of the problems attributed to FPTP are any less. Adopting a complex voting system doesn’t change politics.
David Schreck
See http://www.strategicthoughts.com
You think it was OK for the NDP to lose official party status on over 20% of the vote?
It is amazing the NDP wasn’t completely wiped out in 2001. On talk shows I did in the months following the election I thought the callers were going to come through the line to get me. I haven’t spoken to any New Democrats who would argue that we didn’t get what we deserved. What is amazing is how quickly the system returned to balance in 2005, no doubt due to the outstanding work done by Joy MacPhail and Jenny Kwan.
Your comment on party status reflects the kind of confusion we frequently see from proponents of STV. The government with its majority sets the rules in the Standing Orders that determines how many seats a party must have in order to obtain certain privileges, including recognition as the official opposition. That is not a function of which voting system is used (a government or coaliiton has the power to do what Campbell did). Campbell’s refusal to grant recognition probably helped in the rebound in 2005.
If you follow politics in Ireland, it looks like their coalition could fall before our vote on May 12th. The almost eternally ruling party, Fianna Fail, has dropped to 14% support. Following what happens there might help put some realism in the B.C. referendum debate, or do STV proponents prefer to restrict their examples to the hypothetical?
David Schreck
See http://www.strategicthoughts.com
The CA had nothing against FPTP, we just believe that BC-STV is better at generating "fair election results through Proportionality." FPTP is a fair system, it just isn't proportional.
We agree! I doubt whether you will see anything from the pro-STV side in the campaign that says FPTP is a fair system. Fortunately it is on tape from the Assembly. Listen to the tape again if you don't think there was pressure for everyone to sing from the same songsheet and not criticize the recommendation in public.
David Schreck
See http://www.strategicthoughts.com
Hey David, You misquoted me. But whatever. Yeah, tell me about the much higher turnover of incumbents in 2001? That was a good thing?
GO ON, tell me more!
So you think it is good that a party can get more than one fifth of the vote and end up with 2 seats? Government one minute 2 seats the next! Great for continuity. Start over every decade with a whole new team?
Have you heard of the shock doctrine?
Is first past the post part of it? Imagine that every 4 years, 50 or more percent of the doctors got fired because they were reading the wrong medical journal.
You think medical care will be better?
Same with politics. A large part of the reason we have such god awful politicians is because there is no security to the job in first past the post.
The reason incumbants get re-elected in STV is that after a few years as a politician, some get better at it. The better ones get re-elected.
But with first past the post, being good at your job will not stop you getting fired in a freak election. Because every election is a freak.
Seems you prefer astoroids to evolution.
In the 2007 Irish election 30 incumbent TDs lost their seats, compared to 116 incumbents re-elected. In Northern Ireland 12 MLAs were defeated in 2007 compared with 84 incumbents re-elected. I haven't been watching Tasmania enough to find counter-examples easily.
Actually it was 28 incumbents TDs who lost their seats (see http://www.electionsireland.org/results/general/30thdail/resultssummary.cfm), but one way or the other that is relative to 166 TDS in total (covering the same population for which BC will have 85 MLAs). That’s a loss of 28/166 or 16.9%. Compare that to the 2005 election in B.C. where 30 New Democrats defeated Liberals in a legislature then sized at 79, or a loss ratio of 38%. The 2001 and 1991 elections had similar high turnover in B.C., much higher than in Ireland.
For Malta see http://www.maltadata.com/survive.htm which shows that in 2008 out of 65 seats only 7 incumbents lost.
For Tasmania which has 25 seats, see http://www.politicalowl.com/Stories/Mar06/290306tasfinalresult.htm, which points out that 23 incumbents sought re-election; they all won.
There is a reason proponents of BC-STV like to use hypothetical examples. Pointing to the few places where STV is in effect doesn’t support the fictions that are used in an attempt to sell it to British Columbians.
As for the books which supposedly claim how different things are in jurisdictions that use STV, if you don’t want to read the political news in Ireland, Malta and Tasmania, check out the YouTube video at http://www.youtube.com/v/_wZX_Jfvm_Y&hl=en&fs=1 How’s that for being really different!
David Schreck
See http://www.strategicthoughts.com
Ok henry, Can you explain how the NDP got 2 seats on over 20% of the vote in 2001?
Probably it was nothing to do with the ndp that the callerswere coming through the line to get you.
And "It is amazing how quickly the system returned to balance". Yeah, I remember the single moms getting their daycare money cut off at 2 weeks notice and the people who lost their jobs when gordo tore up their contracts. When it was out of balance. Perhaps it is better if it never goes out of balance in the first place? Just a thought.
And I have spoken to lots of new democrats who think they got a lot worse than they deserved. But hey, I am just common folk. And then you explain that the government "with its majority" sets the rules governing party status.
Well, if the ndp got their 20% of seats and the greens 10% that year, (their votes mandated about that), do you think just maybe, the government "with its majority" might have not been such Bastards?
You think it was OK for the NDP to lose official party status on over 20% of the vote?
It is amazing the NDP wasn’t completely wiped out in 2001. On talk shows I did in the months following the election I thought the callers were going to come through the line to get me. I haven’t spoken to any New Democrats who would argue that we didn’t get what we deserved. What is amazing is how quickly the system returned to balance in 2005, no doubt due to the outstanding work done by Joy MacPhail and Jenny Kwan.
Your comment on party status reflects the kind of confusion we frequently see from proponents of STV. The government with its majority sets the rules in the Standing Orders that determines how many seats a party must have in order to obtain certain privileges, including recognition as the official opposition. That is not a function of which voting system is used (a government or coaliiton has the power to do what Campbell did). Campbell’s refusal to grant recognition probably helped in the rebound in 2005.
If you follow politics in Ireland, it looks like their coalition could fall before our vote on May 12th. The almost eternally ruling party, Fianna Fail, has dropped to 14% support. Following what happens there might help put some realism in the B.C. referendum debate, or do STV proponents prefer to restrict their examples to the hypothetical?
David Schreck
See http://www.strategicthoughts.com
A large part of the reason we have such god awful politicians is because there is no security to the job in first past the post.
The reason incumbants get re-elected in STV is that after a few years as a politician, some get better at it. The better ones get re-elected.
Sorry for the previous misquote, I clicked above rather than below your note.
In some places they believe we have awful politicians because they are in the job too long, hence they support term limits. It would be interesting to hear proponents campaign for STV with the argument that it would reduce turnover of politicians. I suspect length of term with STV isn't related to performance as much as it is to other political factors. In Ireland the central party sometimes has to stop senior TDs from recruiting sure losers that will help keep the incumbent on top.
As for the thread on Campbell's cuts in 2002 and onwards, that has nothing to do with the electoral system. He had the power to do that, and probably would have done that, whether the opposiiton had 39 seats or 2 seats. Much that proponents attribute to how MLAs are elected has nothing at all to do with electoral systems.
David Schreck
See http://www.strategicthoughts.com
Assembly Talker - you're right - it is a slow night!
But you somehow seem to think that you won the last referendum - sorry to say but you lost - and complicated, confusing and removing local accountability and responsibility are all winning arguments against STV.
You must also have to grudgingly, sadly admit that despite polling you claim shows that people want electoral change, every referendum in Canada has failed.
I'm sure you and others will whine about the referendum rules but the fact is that changing an electoral system is a huge deal with longstanding repercussions - that's why a double super majority was written into the rules right from the beginning.
Brian - I never represent the official NDP view - you would know that if you saw some of my columns!
Being insulting will get you no where either, BTW.
I'm proud to be in a group of people who include Green Party, NDP, Social Credit, BC Liberal supporters and the non-aligned - sort of like the YES STV side I suspect. What's wrong with that? Isn't Bruce Hallsor head of Fair Voting BC?
Remember on May 12 - Don't Waste Your Vote - Vote NO to STV!
Bill Tieleman
http://billtieleman.blogspot.com/
Bill, I actually kind of agree with you on STV. I think it is just about the worst form of PR there is. But I have to say that I think that a simple majority Yes vote should be enough to pass it. Its not as if we ever voted to have FPTP in the first place.
Are you still fighting the last referendum? This time the question is:
“Which electoral system should British Columbia use to elect members
to the provincial Legislative Assembly?
So tell us why you like first-past-the-post so much?
Except, of course, for Bernard Lord, who promised a referendum on electoral reform in New Brunswick with 50% needed to win -- "the normal way we decide things in a democracy" he said, didn't he? And then he never got a chance to do it when he lost power -- in a wrong-winner election. So since you like FPTP so much, I take it you believe he was rightly defeated, and wrong to believe in majority rule?
Which still makes it better than FPTP. But I think you're forgetting Turkey with its 10% threshold, bad enough to keep it out of Europe. And how do you compare STV-3 (all three-seaters, as Ireland elects its 12 Euro MPs, a pretty poor model) with STV-6 (all six-seaters in Northern Ireland), which gives excellent results in terms of proportionality? I find it hard to say anything about STV in the abstract: it depends entirely on the District Magnitude.
Yeah, Bill, she lost, 43% beats 57% in BC but what monkeys arse believes that is ok in a democracy?
You can keep saying it just like in the fable (the king has no clothes) but us little boys will keep pointing out your nakedness.
We all know in our hearts that each vote should count equally.
You gladly accept that your vote should be worth 1.5 times my vote in the referendum.
Would you so happily accept it if the positions were reversed?
i do not accept your illogic.
If you were a character on animal farm, you would be just starting to stand up on 2 legs for the first time.
One person one vote. Eh Bill?
It only works if my vote is equal to yours.
If your vote is worth more it is because your side (you and campbell and james ) are cheating.
Assembly Talker - you're right - it is a slow night!
But you somehow seem to think that you won the last referendum - sorry to say but you lost - and complicated, confusing and removing local accountability and responsibility are all winning arguments against STV.
You must also have to grudgingly, sadly admit that despite polling you claim shows that people want electoral change, every referendum in Canada has failed.
I'm sure you and others will whine about the referendum rules but the fact is that changing an electoral system is a huge deal with longstanding repercussions - that's why a double super majority was written into the rules right from the beginning.
Brian - I never represent the official NDP view - you would know that if you saw some of my columns!
Being insulting will get you no where either, BTW.
I'm proud to be in a group of people who include Green Party, NDP, Social Credit, BC Liberal supporters and the non-aligned - sort of like the YES STV side I suspect. What's wrong with that? Isn't Bruce Hallsor head of Fair Voting BC?
Remember on May 12 - Don't Waste Your Vote - Vote NO to STV!
Bill Tieleman
http://billtieleman.blogspot.com/
There is a reason proponents of BC-STV like to use hypothetical examples. Pointing to the few places where STV is in effect doesn’t support the fictions that are used in an attempt to sell it to British Columbians.
Then I'll give you a real example from Ireland: how Beverley Flynn first won her seat in 1997. The five-seat Mayo district saw a battle between six incumbent MPs after redistribution merged two three-seater districts into one five-seater. Fianna Fail's Tom Moffatt, 57, and Patrick Morley, 66, had each won in 1992 in three-seater Mayo East, while Fianna Fail's Seamus Hughes, 45, had won in three-seater Mayo West. Fine Gael similarly had three incumbents seeking re-election. Both big parties also had one new candidate, so each party ran four candidates. As it turned out, Fine Gael won three of the new five seats, Fianna Fail only two. Yet Beverley Flynn, only 31, beat two Fianna Fail incumbents to win one of those two seats. Her father's name helped her, but still she beat two incumbents.
That couldn't happen in your beloved First-Past-The-Post, could it?
Ok, I will be nice and acknowledge that the Sunshine Coast is one of the most difficult areas of the Province to design an electoral system for. FPTP, MMP, and BC-STV all share difficult issues in this area.
Thank you.
Ranger . . . Notice that I am giving you the credit to actually belong to the group that understands BC-STV.
Lonely Ranger you know you can't win any debate based on facts.
Insulting Ranger is very tempting, isn't it? But on the other hand, I recall watching the video of your CA session when you designed your excellent MMP model (before you voted 80% in favour of your excellent STV model).
You were about to vote on open list or closed list for the 40% "top-up" MLAs. Someone asked "what if we want to vote for flexible list?" Ken Carty said something like "Flexible list is more like closed, call it closed for now, and then we can have a second decision on which kind of closed." Ranger spoke up and argued that flexible list was a type of open list. One of your women members (who was she?) spoke up too and backed up Ranger's point. At that point Ken Carty reversed himself and said "fine, we'll call it a kind of open list then." You then voted for some kind of open list. As it turned out, you ran out of time before the last few MMP design decisions, so we'll never know whether it would have been open or flexible, or what quotient would have been needed to break the slate in flexible. But Ranger seemed to understand what you were doing rather well.
Then I'll give you a real example from Ireland: how Beverley Flynn first won her seat in 1997. The five-seat Mayo district saw a battle between six incumbent MPs after redistribution merged two three-seater districts into one five-seater. Fianna Fail's Tom Moffatt, 57, and Patrick Morley, 66, had each won in 1992 in three-seater Mayo East, while Fianna Fail's Seamus Hughes, 45, had won in three-seater Mayo West. Fine Gael similarly had three incumbents seeking re-election. Both big parties also had one new candidate, so each party ran four candidates. As it turned out, Fine Gael won three of the new five seats, Fianna Fail only two. Yet Beverley Flynn, only 31, beat two Fianna Fail incumbents to win one of those two seats. Her father's name helped her, but still she beat two incumbents.
You are right that we usually don’t hand down seats in B.C. as if they are family heirlooms, but it is so common in Ireland that ElectionsIreland.org notes family connections as part of its routine reporting. If pointing to another weakness is the best you can do to refute the power of incumbency, STV is worse than even I thought.
David Schreck
See http://www.strategicthoughts.com
But you could, with single-member districts, and you have sometimes done so.
In Ireland, despite the weight of family connections, they have no single-member district seats to bequeath. If the voters think you're worthy of your father's name, they'll elect you, in competition with other candidates of your own party, as Beverley Flynn was elected.
W.A.C. Bennett resigned his seat as member for South Okanagan in June 1973. His son, Bill Bennett, was acclaimed as his successor, and won the South Okanagan by-election in September.
Ernie Winch became president of the Vancouver Trade and Labour Council in 1918. He was an MLA from 1933 until his death in 1957. His son Harold was elected with him in 1933, and remained an MLA or MP until he retired from the House of Commons in 1972. A great team.
Davie Fulton didn't directly succeed his father when he was elected as a Member of Parliament for Kamloops in 1945, but his father having been the MP was, shall we say, an asset.
Grace MacInnis, daughter of J. S. Woodsworth, was an MLA from 1941 to 1945 and an MP from 1965 to 1974.
I bet you know more.
Not much to debate on this front Wilf, you yourself stated in the past that "no more safe seats" was a dumb thing to say in regards to STV, the more layers you peel off this subject as David says, it doesn't get any better,it gets worse, but keep trying to stop the bleeding if you wish.
There are safe seats for parties in STV. There are no safe seats for individuals, as Beverley Flynn's friends found out, and as 28 MPs found out in the last election.
In BC, if a party is gaining seats in an election, it's incumbents will be pretty safe, under FPTP. Same under STV, perhaps, but not necessarily. If someone keeps running after his best-before date, the voters can easily retire him. If the NDP makes the mistake of running only three incumbents in a five-seater where they expect to win no more than three seats, they risk seeing a young Green retire their veteran for them. I'm not going to quote examples right now but I've been watching elections in Northern Ireland for quite a few years and I've seen it happen quite a bit.
Surely this couldn't be why the odd veteran New Democrat doesn't like BC-STV?
Hey david,
when are you going to answer my questions?
In fairness, you did not run like spector, but you did not answer either.
I hope it is not a class thing with you. Me being just a pleebe and all, perhaps you think I do not deserve answers?
Then I'll give you a real example from Ireland: how Beverley Flynn first won her seat in 1997. The five-seat Mayo district saw a battle between six incumbent MPs after redistribution merged two three-seater districts into one five-seater. Fianna Fail's Tom Moffatt, 57, and Patrick Morley, 66, had each won in 1992 in three-seater Mayo East, while Fianna Fail's Seamus Hughes, 45, had won in three-seater Mayo West. Fine Gael similarly had three incumbents seeking re-election. Both big parties also had one new candidate, so each party ran four candidates. As it turned out, Fine Gael won three of the new five seats, Fianna Fail only two. Yet Beverley Flynn, only 31, beat two Fianna Fail incumbents to win one of those two seats. Her father's name helped her, but still she beat two incumbents.
You are right that we usually don’t hand down seats in B.C. as if they are family heirlooms, but it is so common in Ireland that ElectionsIreland.org notes family connections as part of its routine reporting. If pointing to another weakness is the best you can do to refute the power of incumbency, STV is worse than even I thought.
David Schreck
See http://www.strategicthoughts.com
Hey david, when are you going to answer my questions?
Pardon me, but I thought I had. Covering over 50 years you came up with 4 cases where family members were elected MLA in B.C. In Ireland that's standard practice in large numbers in every election.
Let me ask a skill testing question. If Ireland kept its multiple-member electoral areas and decared the winner on the basis of plurality rules rather than STV's multiple round counts and transfers, what difference would it have made in 2007? Answer: 14 TDs, by party the Greens gained 3 by those rules, FF lost 3. It made no difference as even under plurality rules there would be a coaltion government propped up by the Greens. (It now stands at 14% popularity in the opinion polls.)
I doubt whether many British Columbians will want to risk changing to a hard to understand system that can't deliver substantial change.
David Schreck
See http://www.strategicthoughts.com