BC-STV and women - help me find arguments against?
I was thinking about putting this in "babblers helping babblers" or in "feminism", but decided to just put it here since it's about BC. :)
Does anyone know of any arguments AGAINST STV, from the point of view that it will NOT elect more women? Even comparisons of STV and other proportional systems would be fine (e.g. I know people who prefer MMP to STV when it comes to electing women).
In case you think I've gone nuts, I haven't - I support STV over FPTP. But I am researching both sides of the argument, and as you can imagine, I'm not finding much in the way of arguments from the point of view that it will NOT elect more women, except for one web site where the writer was saying that Ireland is a case in point of an STV system that does not elect more women.
I'd have posted this in RANGER's thread, but I thought the specific issue of women would get lost, and I really need to focus on women. So I hope you'll humour me with this thread!
Any and all pro-STV "debunking" that is specifically about women would be fine too, especially if it spells out the anti-STV side before debunking it!
For acronym haters like me: STV means Single Transferable Vote (of course, I know you knew it!...)
My apologies! I should have made that more clear. I'm assuming that people who know the arguments for and against would also know what the acronym means, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't spell it out for those who might be reading along or new to the subject. Thanks, Martin!
Wilf Day had a post on the subject in this thread.
http://rabble.ca/babble/western-provinces/all-family-stv-style
There is an event on Friday, April 17 in Vancouver hosted by Judy Rebick, Citizens Assembly alumnus Shoni Field, and Scottish MP Tricia Marwick. It is entitled "A Vote for STV is a Vote for Women". Link Here.
I'm thinking they'll have the best arguments available on the yes side. Mabye somebody who posts to babble will be in attendance??
If you want "no" arguments, see Bill Tieleman's website.
Personally, I haven't seen any convincing evidence that there would be a dramatic shift in the number of women elected under STV.
In most ridings, each of the big partys can probably put up mixed gender candidates. And the NDP can mandate it. (at least one woman per riding) Then it is up to the voters. And there are more female voters than male voters. (Or there should be).
I have always wondered why women do not fix the gender inequality with their votes (in stv anyway). In theory, (because there are more women of voting age), it should have been fixed ages ago! I suspect that many women do not like voting for females. (perhaps rabble could have a survey?)
Has anyone checked stv elections to see if females candidates fail in proportion in their partys? If there is 30% female candidates, will they have 30% success rate or more or less? I suspect this might vary from party to party. In Ireland there were lots of strong women politicians in the FF party (which was the most anti feminist of the partys in ireland) but perhaps they were the exception?
(Voters cannot fix it in fptp because you get 1 candidate and it is usually male.)
http://andreareimer.typepad.com/in_the_news/2007/03/globe_mail_stv_.html
BC-STV comparatives: Ireland 13% women Malta 9% women Tasmania moved to mid 20's after "afermative action" (sorry top of my head) I can see why the pro stv side is looking to school boards and local councils that have women on them, but it's an absolute crock to say that will translate into more representation for women in B.C. where bloodsport politics are nearly as bad as Ireland and Malta.If Malta and Ireland are not electing women it is because they are not being nominated annd they are note being voted for, not because of the electoral system. Women would have a better chance of being elected in any multiple member system because the reasons that they are not being nominated now - incumbent male candidates and precieved winnability - would be removed. How many parties would dare to nominate only men in a multiple member riding?
Here is a link to Andrea Reimer's blog on Doris Anderson's G&M article that Ranger linked to above with the comments included:
Happy International Womens Day?
Nowhere in this discussion is there a mechanism presented explaining how STV would be worse for women - because there isn't one.
Michelle,
The CA in 2004 had a major debate on gender balance and what would be affective in making a big difference. I personally came to the conclusion that gender balance is not about the electoral system. You can show examples where all systems do well and not so well. Culture has a bigger impact, especially in parts of the world where male dominated societies rule the day.
I kept hearing terms like "there is no solid evidence", "research is inconclusive", etc.
Political parties need to be pressured (legislated has been suggested) to make the difference on this issue.
Proportional systems tend to do better because of the reduction of the plurality nature of majoritarian systems.
AT
This is typical of the misinformation we get from STV naysayers. In fact, Fianna Fail, the largest political party and therefore the party that stands to gain the most under FPTP, mounted campaigns to get rid of STV. The Irish voters elected to keep it.
And that was under 50-50 rules. There was no artificial requirement to get 60% of the vote.
I am guessing that Bill Tieleman is a man. So is David Schreck. I haven't seen or heard of any prominent women supporting FPTP.
Unlike Ireland, polls in Canada show that 90% of Canadians want to elect more women. That was 92% of women voters and 88% of male voters.
In single-member districts, if you want a certain party to be in government you must vote for that party's candidate. No choice. And parties have trouble even nominating 25% women, for several reasons: principally male incumbents, and "imputed prejudice" ("we have to nominate the strongest man.")
With STV the major parties will have several candidates, often four of them, in a district. If voters want to elect more women, they will be pretty sure of having the chance to do so.
It's that simple, really.
At one time there were several papers on line from Australian political scientists on this topic. I used to link to them but they've vanished now (or gone behind a pay wall). Anyway, the consensus seemed to be that it is less the voting system than the behavior of political parties that brings more women into poltics. So, in Tasmania, the Greens had women as organizers and speakers early on -- this was seen as important in allowing women to develop skills such as public speaking that are valuable to politicians. By itself, STV seems to be neutral. Wilf's argument, that in a multi-member district, the parties will assign the leavings to women just doesn't seem to cut it -- anyway, with parties in most districts running fewer candidates than the original ridings, there would seem to be fewer opportunities all around.
And, Anne Edwards is a notable woman supporting FPTP.
NO STV
Official Proponent - NO to the Single Transferable Vote - May 2009 Referendum
NEWS RELEASE Friday April 17, 2009
NO STV says Single Transferable Vote won't help women be elected as MLAs in BC; two prominent women say vote against STV in May 12 referendum
VANCOUVER - The Single Transferable Vote would hurt the chances of women being elected in British Columbia as Members of the Legislative Assembly if it were passed in the May 12 referendum, says NO STV, the group opposing STV.
Vancouver city councilor Andrea Reimer and former provincial NDP cabinet minister Anne Edwards say that decades of experience in the two countries which use STV as their national electoral system demonstrate the failings of STV for women.
"In Ireland's 2007 STV election just 13.3% of those elected to the Dail, their parliament, were women - and that was an all-time high," said Reimer, a Vision Vancouver councilor and former Green Party Vancouver School Board trustee. "And in Malta under STV just 9.2% of elected were women in 2003 - these are very poor results."
Edwards, an NDP cabinet minister from 1991 to 1996 and author of the book Seeking Balance: Conversations with BC Women in Politics, says it is frustrating hearing STV proponents wrongly claiming that STV will elect more women.
"We have to do a much better job of electing women but the facts are the facts - under STV the number of women elected has been simply appalling," Edwards said. "Under our current first past the post system in BC we have elected between 22% and 27% women MLAs since 1991 - not good enough but STV would be a giant step backwards."
Both Reimer and Edwards say that a Friday event sponsored by the Yes for BC-STV group with the title "A Vote for STV is a Vote for Women's Representation" is completely misleading based on the facts of past election results.
Toronto commentator Judy Rebick and Scottish Member of Parliament Tricia Marwick are scheduled speakers at the event.
Reimer added that: "Supporters of STV will point to the Australian senate as proof STV works for women but what they won't tell you is that those gains weren't made until one of their major parties made a commitment to run 50% women. Before that change, only 14% of elected senators were women, on par with other STV countries. Now 36% are women - but it has nothing to do with STV and it's disingenuous to suggest it does."
Of course you forgot to mention EVERY other party fought FF on this and recent polls have shown that the politicians themselves are quite happy with STV, telling people "politicians hate it" is a joke! The yes side brags every time a politician endorses it. only 30,000 voters or so saved STV's bacon in there first referendum and it was a long time ago, they weren't even aware of all the options.
I am still voting NO for STV.. that STV is a scam. STV is not Pro Rep like people are being led to believe and they only 2 other places that use it only 5% of incumbents ever get defeated plus it is far to hard and confusing to figure out. I want something simple like MMP Like New Zealand or full pro rep.
Don't parties like the NDP and BC Liberals use affirmative action programs in order to recruit women candidates who might otherwise not considered running?
I don't see how STV could have a different impact then FPTP.
Imagine if all the candidates for the Green Party or NDP were women :) STV couldn't change the result anymore then FPTP.
You have to get elected, and to get elected you have to run.
Its like saying STV would punish handicapped candidates.
Getting back to Michelle's question, there is serious research, based on both Irish results and New Zealand municipal results, that three-seaters are bad for women, compared to districts of four or more.
There are three three-seaters on the BC-STV map. If they were not necessary for geographic reasons, one could say that their existence was bad for women. However, all three were unavoidable.
I didn't forget to mention it. It simply wasn't relevant to the point. "Ireland" didn't try to get rid of STV, politicians did. And it was the citizens who voted to keep it. Plain and simple.
Oh, everyone - thanks for your posts! I meant to write earlier. :) This is fabulous. I was doing a rush research job that morning and found some stuff myself - but the few posts that showed up here before my deadline were helpful too.
type nostv.org in your browser address box.
The reason I oppose stv myself is primarily because its complex tallying requirement will necessitate the use of computers. Check out "hacking democracy" to learn how the companies who manufacture the voting machines have been accused of shenanigans in the US. STV is being hyped by a very sophisticated process. There are fortunes at steak in terms of equipping bc's polling stations with machines and then the owners and designers of the machines can manipulate the outcomes of elections. It is the big brother nightmare... Mixed Member Proportional Representation is far simpler and also can quickly be counted by hand since there remains only one variable per ballot. Proponents say stv votes can be counted by hand but, in practical terms, this would be very time consuming with many variables per ballot, to say nothing of the redistribution complexity. Do we really want to import US elections machines to Canada. Not to STV.
Not true as to complexity. Just time-consuming, doing eight or so counts. Personally I like the drama of a count that takes three days. But the desire for an "instant-winner" may trump that.
But the paper ballots will still be available for recounts. Nothing lost but the drama.
countme6, what does any of that have to do with how STV will affect women?
I agree Michelle, we know women are better counters!
Former Member of the Citizens Assembly of BC on Electoral Reform
Hee, Assembly talker. I remember when you explained to me how STV is better than MMP for women when we met at the OCA meeting in Toronto. It really helped me figure out how STV works!
If this is not a deliberate lie, explain to us how it is that you are ignorant that
* Tasmania has been doing PR-STV hand counts since before 1909,
* Ireland and Malta have been doing PR-STV hand counts since 1921.
Tell us why British Columbia would need computers to do what other jurisdictions have been doing without them for a century.
Can we please not call differences of opinions "deliberate lies"? That would be great, thanks.
If STV means computer voting then I will be voting No for sure, and I will be telling everyone else I know too, to be voting No.
It doesn't. Tha ballots are paper so it will be 100% possible to do a hand count so even if a count is automated. To me "computer voting" means using a touch screen to actually record a vote. I am OK with a compuer count to speed up the result if the count can be hand verified.
How do you know the ballots are paper?