"In 1996 Wilson got elected as a PDA."
- No, Wilson got re-elected. He was already an MLA.
"In 1991 BC elected members from Reform, Social Credit, Liberals and the NDP."
- Reform wasn't elected until 1996 when all of the Socreds MLAs tried to rebrand themselves. (Dave, you should know this.) Only 2 were re-elected (both from the Peace) and the Social Credit was wiped out.
Objectives of Change:
Maximize voter satisfaction - STV Achieves.
Improve regional balance of government - STV Achieves
Decrease vote splitting and strategic voting - STV Achieves.
Reduce disproportional results - STV Achieves.
Mr. Schreck, the empirical evidence from all STV usages consistently enforces the claim that the Single Transferable Vote give results that closely match voting percentages. Any variance that occurs is well within any recognized definition of proportionality and but a fraction of the distortions caused by a plurality. While you claim that STV does not guarantee proportionality and is a "crap shoot", real election statistics from STV jurisdictions show that your claim cannot be substantiated and is appears to be intentionally misleading.
Objectives of Change:
Maximize voter satisfaction - STV Achieves.
Improve regional balance of government - STV Achieves
Decrease vote splitting and strategic voting - STV Achieves.
Reduce disproportional results - STV Achieves.
Thanks for posting the Assembly's objective's Dan. Now folks can understand how three of the objectives are scracificed for the fourth. STV will decrease voter satisfication as British Columbians struggle with a system that has nothing familar to them. It will make regional representation worse as representation goes from 85 single member constituencies to 20 electoral areas where all elected members could come from one corner of the region. And, unless you can read minds, the concept of strategic voting is meaningless. People have to take responsibility for how they vote; it's not good enough to say: "I had to vote this way because Dan made me do it."
David Schreck
See http://www.strategicthoughts.com
The questions you are avoiding are in reply 21.
Your skills testing question! What skills do you think you are testing?
You do realize that if people voted in 5 past the post (with 1 vote each), voting paterns would be widely different? So you CANNOT apply the results from 2007 to it.
Nobody would feel free to vote their first choice.
It would require great amounts of guesswork on the parts of voters trying to make their votes count. You are totally wrong to get the results dilivered under one system and transfer them to another.
So your answer was either an error or a lie.
You choose.
Either way, you failed your own skills testing question and you owe us all an apology.
Have you looked at Gilmours charts yet?
Furthermore, Ireland has a constitution. The government can only change the election rules if they get a majority in a referendum.
(Carole James or Campbell can change the electoral system here on a whim if theyhave a majority in the ledge) You are aware of that, david?
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
[/quote]
I voted strategically against conservatives in victoria in the last federal election. Nobody made me do it.
But if Canada had STV, I could have voted green first preference and STILL had my vote count against the conservatives. Are you happy that Gary Lunn won in saanich gulf islands? That is a good case where green second preferences would have elected a candidate with strong environmental credentials and definitely not Lunn.
Perhaps posters will note ridings where the mla or mp has moved out of the riding for David, or only visited to campaign? I wonder how often David emerson set foot in vancouver kingsway after he got elected? If David Shreck was a fisherman, he would be great at catching red herrings.
Objectives of Change:
Maximize voter satisfaction - STV Achieves.
Improve regional balance of government - STV Achieves
Decrease vote splitting and strategic voting - STV Achieves.
Reduce disproportional results - STV Achieves.
Thanks for posting the Assembly's objective's Dan. Now folks can understand how three of the objectives are scracificed for the fourth. STV will decrease voter satisfication as British Columbians struggle with a system that has nothing familar to them. It will make regional representation worse as representation goes from 85 single member constituencies to 20 electoral areas where all elected members could come from one corner of the region. And, unless you can read minds, the concept of strategic voting is meaningless. People have to take responsibility for how they vote; it's not good enough to say: "I had to vote this way because Dan made me do it."
David Schreck
See http://www.strategicthoughts.com
The questions you are avoiding are in reply 21.
Oh, I recall that was the thread whining about the double majority rules for the referendum and the allocation of funding. Submit your complaints to Campbell, we didn't make the rules.
This nonsense about strategic voting and wasted votes is nothing but wishful thinking from losers. You have no idea how people would vote or why they voted. If pigs had wings they'd fly unless of course they were like penguins - that's the extent of the logic that everything would be different if only you remained terrible at fundraising and organizing but had the benefit of the worst voting system imagainable.
Did you ever think there is a reason that only 1 tenth of one percent of the world's population uses STV even though it was first used in Tasmania in 1897? Hasn't exactly caught fire has it!
David Schreck
See http://www.strategicthoughts.com
O David, in the united kingdom, the commons voted for STV something like 5 times but those in control,(the house of lords) vetoed it."Although the House of Commons voted in favour of the proposals five times, the House of Lords continually rejected it until the nationwide effort was ultimately abandoned in parliament" (Kinda like you guys vetoing the will of the people). And that is the real reason STV is not in more widespread use. YOU guys do not like it. (the Aristocracy) and the political parties.
Check out the reasons STV was abandoned in the USA. You are going to love them.
What a hollow answer you gave to my questions.
Do you,David Schreck, believe in one person one vote or not? Simple question. Do you have to see your lawyer first?
No need to pass off the question to your lord and master either.
60% supermajority is 40 votes for one proposal equal to 60 for the other. I.5 votes for you and just 1 for me. Same thing same difference.
I am so sick of hollow "people" on the left who do not have the common decency to stand up for democracy because just for the moment it suits their short term goals.
Easy to call me the loser. You are basking in (How many dollars of public money did campbell give you?).
Yeah, you are definitely a winner there boy. "This nonsense about strategic voting and wasted votes is nothing but wishful thinking from losers. You have no idea how people would vote or why they voted". Strategic voting is real. You can look it up on line if you want. It is a known flaw of first past the post.
Wasted votes is also very real and very demoralizing for those who cast them. As you can see from the charts, the amount of wasted votes in first past the post is very high and it varies a lot from election to election and riding to riding. If you had ever worked in industry, you might have heard of the term "Quality Control". Quality control means using systems that have tight tollerances and that spit out reliable results over and over again. First past the post is not one of those systems. Note how much higher the voter participation rates in Ireland are. People are much more likely to participate when they know their vote counts.
The questions you are avoiding are in reply 21.
Oh, I recall that was the thread whining about the double majority rules for the referendum and the allocation of funding. Submit your complaints to Campbell, we didn't make the rules.
This nonsense about strategic voting and wasted votes is nothing but wishful thinking from losers. You have no idea how people would vote or why they voted. If pigs had wings they'd fly unless of course they were like penguins - that's the extent of the logic that everything would be different if only you remained terrible at fundraising and organizing but had the benefit of the worst voting system imagainable.
Did you ever think there is a reason that only 1 tenth of one percent of the world's population uses STV even though it was first used in Tasmania in 1897? Hasn't exactly caught fire has it!
David Schreck
See http://www.strategicthoughts.com
[/quote]O David, in the united kingdom, the commons voted for STV something like 5 times but those in control,(the house of lords) vetoed it."Although the House of Commons voted in favour of the proposals five times, the House of Lords continually rejected it until the nationwide effort was ultimately abandoned in parliament" (Kinda like you guys vetoing the will of the people). And that is the real reason STV is not in more widespread use. YOU guys do not like it. (the Aristocracy) and the political parties.
Check out the reasons STV was abandoned in the USA. You are going to love them.
Nu Uh! those TD's have no reason to hate it:
The fact of lots of “safe seats” under STV was confirmed and emphasized by the Ontario Select Committee on Electoral Reform after travelling to Ireland and Europe as part of their research. In their report (2005) the Select Committee wrote
“Supporters of STV as an electoral reform option often state that under this model there are “no safe seats.” On the other hand, the Committee learned that in Ireland, the average member ( “MLA”) is elected four times. In addition, the Committee learned that the presence of powerful political dynasties means there are, in practice many safe seats, safe enough to be “passed on” within the family.”
Brian we are soooo lucky your on the "yes" side. LOL
Check out the reasons STV was abandoned in the USA. You are going to love them.
The reason you told us last year was that their was a danger the U.S. could end up with a black president. Do tell us again this is too amusing.
Ranger, the house of lords is England. They do not have TD,s there, they have MP's.
Tell me, ranger, if you had to hire a doctor to install a heart in you, would your rather the doctor with 10 years experience or would you rather hire a guy who walked in off the street? That is the reason ireland re-elects politicians, they learn on the job under a heavy workload and get better.
Just because STV rewards hard work is not a reason for politicians to like it.
they would rather play golf than help their constituents
Indeed that is one reason the guys and gals here are terrified of it.
.Speechless in fact. Did you learn to quote out of context from David Schreck?
How much you guys get per hour for this?
O David, in the united kingdom, the commons voted for STV something like 5 times but those in control,(the house of lords) vetoed it."Although the House of Commons voted in favour of the proposals five times, the House of Lords continually rejected it until the nationwide effort was ultimately abandoned in parliament" (Kinda like you guys vetoing the will of the people). And that is the real reason STV is not in more widespread use. YOU guys do not like it. (the Aristocracy) and the political parties.
Check out the reasons STV was abandoned in the USA. You are going to love them.
Nu Uh! those TD's have no reason to hate it:
The fact of lots of “safe seats” under STV was confirmed and emphasized by the Ontario Select Committee on Electoral Reform after travelling to Ireland and Europe as part of their research. In their report (2005) the Select Committee wrote
“Supporters of STV as an electoral reform option often state that under this model there are “no safe seats.” On the other hand, the Committee learned that in Ireland, the average member ( “MLA”) is elected four times. In addition, the Committee learned that the presence of powerful political dynasties means there are, in practice many safe seats, safe enough to be “passed on” within the family.”
Brian we are soooo lucky your on the "yes" side. LOL[/quote]
Nope it was to stop blacks from getting elected. Period. The horror of having blacks or communist elected in the USA was enough to get STV repealed. That was what they campaigned on.
Blacks were being elected under STV in the USA in the late 30's and early 40's!
Thats a long long time ago.
First past the post was reintroduced SPECIFICALLY to keep the black minority down and it succeded for 2 generations.
Are you still amused?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_and_use_of_the_Single_Transferable_...
Check out the reasons STV was abandoned in the USA. You are going to love them.
The reason you told us last year was that their was a danger the U.S. could end up with a black president. Do tell us again this is too amusing.
Wondering why we are debating the re-election of candidates and associating it as a bad thing for either electoral system. In any system voters have the right to re-elect a good (or popular) MLA. What is wrong with this???
We have seen disagreement on which system provides the best accountability. But I don't see why penalizing a good MLA is a positive thing for any electoral system.
In choosing BC-STV, I wasn't choosing this system because it was automatically going to force the change of every candidate. We want the best candidates as viewed by the voters, if that is the incumbent, then that is the choice of the voter. Expanding choice through BC-STV gives voters more options and reduces the "safe seat" situation that often exists under FPTP. This situation under FPTP is created by the limited choice offered by the system.
A good candidate through good performance can create a probable election victory by filling the needs of the voters in his riding or district.
AT
Former Member of the Citizens Assembly of BC on Electoral Reform
Do you,David Schreck, believe in one person one vote or not?[/quote]
That's one of the reasons I oppose STV which does not give voters one vote for every MLA to be elected, unlike the 2-member ridings which existed until 1986. Of course, your question was not in the context of how unfair STV voting is, but rather what justifies a double majority requirement for change. I don't recall the Citizens' Assembly objecting to the requirement. The debate didn't arise until the last results were so close. Those close results might not have happened with a question that was clear between the alternatives rather than being phrased as a confidence vote in the Assembly.
As for strategic voting, I grant that there is a literature on it. See http://www.cpsa-acsp.ca/papers-2006/Scotto.pdf which contains an interesting biolography. The problem is that it is like the technique economists use to measure technological change which is what cannot be explained by other factors. So called direct measurement of asking people whether they voted for their first preference is like the falacy of preferences one gets when asking people what they prefer and then observing how they actually behave, e.g. ask about hand washing.
David Schreck
See http://www.strategicthoughts.com
That's one of the reasons I oppose STV which does not give voters one vote for every MLA to be elected
Nonsense. We will get one vote each (as now) and elect the same number of MLAs as we would under FPTP so the ratio is the same. The vote may transfer fractionally but we still get only one each. You either don’t understand how STV works or you are deliberately trying to confuse the issue. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter.
Oh, I recall that was the thread whining about the double majority rules for the referendum and the allocation of funding. Submit your complaints to Campbell, we didn't make the rules.
But the James and the NDP enthusiastically supported the double majority after Campbell proposed it. I guess my complaints will have to be in duplicate. 
__________________________________
One struggle, many fronts.
Total the 2005 party vote for each of the 20 proposed electoral areas and compare it to the quota as a percentage, you'll see that the results wouldn't change, unless one hopes for transfer votes.
In which case, assuming more than half the Green voters should really be voting NDP (as I assume you are telling them regularly), the NDP would benefit from the transfers. Odd, then, that the Green Party favours BC-STV while a few NDP leaders are sceptics and more are silent.
But of course you know voters will vote differently when they know every vote counts, and more of them will vote. Different candidates will run, maybe even different parties. A scary thought for us veterans. (I was a delegate to the NDP founding convention in 1961 at age 18, which I guess qualifies me as a veteran.) New rules, new ideas? Jack Layton seems to really like that sort of thing. In fact, I'd bet you could even manage to run a good campaign under BC-STV. Don't say you couldn't -- someone may quote you after BC-STV passes.
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.
You do realize you are comparing the STV result with the result under SNTV -- used in Afghanistan and Jordan. Fascinating to some, perhaps, but how is this relevant?
Our MMP system was pretty good wasn't it! Do you think a similar model offered in Ontario would have received a better response?
Yes, I do, and I also believe they would have changed their model to regional open list if they had had another three weekends to deliberate. But even so, with a public education campaign that refused to explain anything, no time for the public debate to get underway, and no time for the parties to deliberate on how they would nominate regional list candidates, it would have been hard to get to 60%. Would we have gotten 58%? We may never know.
But a lot of us, and a whole lot of new people, will be discussing this and related points this Saturday in Toronto -- as well as discussing how to help BC-STV win.
We will get one vote each (as now) and elect the same number of MLAs as we would under FPTP so the ratio is the same. The vote may transfer fractionally but we still get only one each. You either don’t understand how STV works or you are deliberately trying to confuse the issue.
See my article titled "STV Makes Your Vote Worth Less" at http://www.strategicthoughts.com/record2008/stvworthless.html for an elaboration on why I beg to differ. Different people have different fractional parts of their votes treated differently under STV.
David Schreck
See http://www.strategicthoughts.com
Now you go from fishing for red herrings to examining how people split dust particles!
In first past the post, sometimes over 50%! of the votes elects nobody!
In BCSTV less than 20% of the votes will be wasted. (Check those charts David).
You really think distracting people with minutae will get them to ignore those HUGE differences? Guess your overtime rate in kicking in now.
Lucky you.
By the way, David, one person one vote, What is your point of view on that?
Agree or disagree?
We will get one vote each (as now) and elect the same number of MLAs as we would under FPTP so the ratio is the same. The vote may transfer fractionally but we still get only one each. You either don’t understand how STV works or you are deliberately trying to confuse the issue.See my article titled "STV Makes Your Vote Worth Less" at http://www.strategicthoughts.com/record2008/stvworthless.html for an elaboration on why I beg to differ. Different people have different fractional parts of their votes treated differently under STV.
David Schreck
See http://www.strategicthoughts.com
I think the 60 60 came in after the CA began. It was INVENTED specifically to prevent this referendum from passing.
And there WERE complaints in the papers. i think some CA people complained too but they were trying to be "nice" to the politicians to try and get their work passed. So they were quiet.
Nobody needs 60% for change. It is bullshit and you, my friend are selling bullshit on commission. In a hollywood movie, you would say "fuck it, I cannot sell my soul any more" about now but unfortunately this is real life.
"That's one of the reasons I oppose STV which does not give voters one vote for every MLA to be elected, unlike the 2-member ridings which existed until 1986"
Now I see, you got 2 votes in your 2 mla ridings up to 1986!
So you feel dispossesed? POOR GUY.
You do know that was a damn good deal, eh? The now equivalent would be me voting in victoria and then sneaking over to another riding and voting there too. Hold on a minute, Thats cheating isn't it?
No wonder you have such dificulty accepting one person one vote.
Fairness, David. It is not all about you.
Do you,David Schreck, believe in one person one vote or not?
That's one of the reasons I oppose STV which does not give voters one vote for every MLA to be elected, unlike the 2-member ridings which existed until 1986. Of course, your question was not in the context of how unfair STV voting is, but rather what justifies a double majority requirement for change. I don't recall the Citizens' Assembly objecting to the requirement. The debate didn't arise until the last results were so close. Those close results might not have happened with a question that was clear between the alternatives rather than being phrased as a confidence vote in the Assembly.
As for strategic voting, I grant that there is a literature on it. See http://www.cpsa-acsp.ca/papers-2006/Scotto.pdf which contains an interesting biolography. The problem is that it is like the technique economists use to measure technological change which is what cannot be explained by other factors. So called direct measurement of asking people whether they voted for their first preference is like the falacy of preferences one gets when asking people what they prefer and then observing how they actually behave, e.g. ask about hand washing.
David Schreck
See http://www.strategicthoughts.com
[/quote]
I don't really see STV as breaking one-vote-per-person. Under STV I would become part of a 5-member riding that has 5 times as many people as my current riding. I am responsible for electing one person with my one vote, just like under FPTP. However, if my vote should fail to elect that candidate - or if they are so popular that my vote is not needed at full value - then some or all of my vote will slide over to other candidates.
David Said:
"Different people have different fractional parts of their votes treated differently under STV."
David there is only three ways your vote can be used. Elect a candidate at full value, move fractionally as a surplus, or transfer to your next choice if your choice is eliminated. Same for everyone!!! The counting system is also transparent in that you know the rules of how your votes will move prior to casting your ballot.
If you consider the fact that all the transfers of the STV ballot are tools used to directly benefit the voter's intent.
Democracy is about improving the common good of society. So when you look at tools that significantly improve the ballot, proportionality, gives society greater choice, and improves not only local representation, but may give you a minority voice, or even an impressionable regional voice.
So now lets go back to FPTP and start by looking at the fact that most of the votes will be wasted right at the start. That the choices offered on the ballot are limited with no flexibility. So many are forced to vote strategically. Then lets understand that this is the specific design of the system. (Majority system using plurality) Then lets look at FPTP and think about who it is intented to benefit?
Not one, but two CAs in two different provinces have looked at FPTP and have said that FPTP does not serve their needs. Voters want to make change. 58% of people supported the recommendation in BC.
AT
Former Member of the Citizens Assembly of BC on Electoral Reform
Hi David
You Said:
"I don't recall the Citizens' Assembly objecting to the requirement. The debate didn't arise until the last results were so close. Those close results might not have happened with a question that was clear between the alternatives rather than being phrased as a confidence vote in the Assembly."
Actually the Assembly did question the double majority, and we did challenge some aspects of our mandate at the beginning. But it is like a new born baby questioning its species. Those were the rules and we were there for a certain purpose. It was not for the Assembly to make these kind of changes. But that does not mean that we didn't completely agree with some of the rules.
AT
[/quote] Former Member of the Citizens Assembly of BC on Electoral Reform
See my article titled "STV Makes Your Vote Worth Less" at http://www.strategicthoughts.com/record2008/stvworthless.html for an elaboration on why I beg to differ. Different people have different fractional parts of their votes treated differently under STV.
Your example shows how a small number of votes could be wasted under STV in certain cercumstances, but as the diagrams posted upthread illustrate, the porportion of votes wasted under FPTP is much, much higher.
I noticed a tendancy omong pro-rep opponants to criticise a presumed flaw in STV that exists to a much greated degree in FPTP. What up with that? 
__________________________________
One struggle, many fronts.
I think the 60 60 came in after the CA began. It was INVENTED specifically to prevent this referendum from passing.
Wrong! See http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/archive/2001-2005/2003OTP0031-000400.htm The government announced the double majority requirement on the same day it announced that it was creating the Citizens' Assembly. It attributes the requirement to Gordon Gibson but his report is no longer available on the government website.
David Schreck
See http://www.strategicthoughts.com
It seems to me that some NDP'ers support Single Member Plurality (SMP) for reasons they are unwilling to admit openly. It seems to me that some NDP'ers support SMP because, once in a blue moon, SMP allows the NDP in BC to form a majority government with approx 40% of the vote.
Many NDP'ers don't want to admit it openly but they love the prospect of the NDP winning a majority government on May 12 even if the BC Liberals receive more votes then the NDP. Some NDP'ers love the prospect of being "wrong winners" so they want to keep SMP.
And a lot of NDP'ers are looking forward to telling supporters of smaller parties that the NDP is the only party people can vote for if they want to replace th BC Liberals. Some NDP supporters like how SMP favors two main parties. So during the next election, the NDP will be telling Green supporters they they must vote strategically for the NDP in order to get rid of the BC Liberals.
In this debate, people who support SMP rarely tell you why SMP is the best system.
So here is my list of why SMP is the best electoral system:
- It forces supporters of smaller parties to either vote strategically for a larger party or waste their vote.
- It allows large parties to form majority governments with a minority of the votes cast.
- Sometimes it allows large parties to win majority governments with fewer votes then another party.
The pro-SMP side's slogan should be - Vote for SMP if you like strategic voting, majority governments with minority support, wrong winners, and if you feel that small parties with their minority opinions have no place in the Legislature.
For a change I would like to see SMP supporters make arguments FOR SMP. rather then just attack STV.
And people who support STV should not spend all their time defending STV but rather they should also make sure that people consider the flaws of SMP.
[Personally I don't like using the term First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) to describe SMP. It makes SMP sound better then it is. SMP does not require politicians to pass any post! If candidates were required to receive 50%+1 of the vote in order to win then SMP could be called "first-past-the-post." But under SMP politicians usually win with a minority of the votes. So SMP could be called "one-closest-to-the-post" but not FPTP.
A better case could even be made for STV being called "first-past-the-post" since, in order to win under STV, most politicians have to obtain a certain level of support. Most politicians who win under STV pass a predetermined post.
"First-past-the-post" best describes the Alternative vote - STV in single member districts.
And if SMP is so great why don't the political parties use it to elect memebers within their own parties? The NDP and BC Liberals don't use SMP to choose their leader or their riding candidates. They use preferential voting. If preferential voting, which STV is a form of, is good enough for the politicians why isn't it good enough for the general public?
I live in Richmond and we consider it a success if we can get 10 people out to an NDP meeting and that is a combined meeting for three ridings. Why get involved? With FPTP we will never elect an MLA. Richmod has the highest rate of child poverty in BC but our MLA's get off scott free because FPTP gives them a free ride.
We need STV and we need it now! I want the NDP to represent me and stand up for STV. Instead we get the same group of party insiders highjacking the debate in order to promote the status quo.
JKR & Pogo
Interesting thoughts and insight!
I agree with those from the no-side having to state why SMP is better.
We have a couple of guys who are leading the no-side of the referendum who have yet to present any good argument for SMP. Not much fact has been presented to support their attacks on BC-STV either.
SMP is very much open to debate as well as BC-STV. As David pointed out, the referendum question clearly states the choice between the two systems.
To get a clear understanding of what is being decided on May 12/09, SMP (FPTP) has to be explained and debated.
AT
Former Member of the Citizens Assembly of BC on Electoral Reform
Some comments after reading these posts:
1) Interesting graph posted by Daniel Grice (#4), but it’s not a best-fit linear regression line. (It’s not even linear) The data points clearly show that the small parties (0 to 15% of the first preference vote) are grossly under-represented in their percentage of seats while the larger parties (35 to 60%) are somewhat over-represented. Why not do a contrasting graph for results under FPTP? That’s the visual needed to compare the two systems.
2) In 2004 the Citizens Assembly was acting as a representative body - not a facsimile for the voters of BC. The selection process was biased towards those predisposed to electoral reform. The overwhelming vote in favour of STV does not necessarily reflect the views of the public at large. (Look at the disastrous vote on the work of the Ontario Citizens Assembly.) Overwhelming majorities and unanimous decisions are sometimes way off the mark.
3) With only 85 seats and a vast, sparsely populated terrain, the BC situation is in no way comparable to Ireland.
4) An MMP system in British Columbia with, for example, 30% top-up seats and 8 independent regional districts with an average district magnitutde of about about 10.6 would be significantly more proportional than an STV system with 20 independent regional districts and an average DM of about 4.3. (MMP falls short of STV when considering other factors.)
5) The results of FPTP elections are at the mercy of the geographical distribution of the vote. Shouldn’t the vote, itself, be the determining factor?
6) The Boundaries Commission did a very good job. This time I won’t be buying a pig in a poke. There’ll be five members in my Burnaby/New West district. All five members will serve the district. Chances are good that I’ll have a member who shares my views on important issues – although that member may not live in New West. (The former Liberal MLA, Joyce Murray, lived in New West and she was a Campbell puppet. She sold out her constituents, and we’ve still got a hole in the ground where St. Mary’s Hospital once stood.)
7) STV is not a cure-all for what happened in the 1996 BC provincial election. It will prevent results like those in 2001.
8) Making exaggerated claims does not help the cause of BC-STV. (There are no safe seats, It’s just as proportional as MMP, etc.)
9) When the leading party consistently gets way more than its deserved share of political power, it’s not healthy for democracy. When two parties are the only ones getting seats, it’s not healthy for democracy.
10) FPTP is not a fair voting system for the second-place party, for all third parties, and for independents - full stop. BC-STV is fairer/more proportional/more representative than FPTP.
11) When the Citizens’ Assembly came down the pike, there were two members of the opposition – Joy McPhail and Jenny Kwan. There were 77 Liberals who wanted to keep their seats. Conclusion: The 60/60 requirement was put in place by a self-interested political party. The 60/60 requirement makes a mockery of the entire process. (With rare exceptions super-majorities are a blot on democracy. Look at the U.S. Senate. Look at California - a pathetic basket case. Imagine – requiring a 2/3 vote in the legislature to pass a tax bill.)
12) If you want government that more accurately represents the will of the voters, that will encourage substantive debate and voting in the assembly, and that will place a check on unaccountable, cabinet/corporate decision-making – then vote for BC-STV. Make the politicians earn their money by actually debating and crafting our governing laws. (And this could all be wishful thinking - but FPTP is a proven failure.)
Hey New West:
4) An MMP system in British Columbia with, for example, 30% top-up seats and 8 independent regional districts with an average district magnitutde of about about 10.6 would be significantly more proportional than an STV system with 20 independent regional districts and an average DM of about 4.3. (MMP falls short of STV when considering other factors.)
I'm not so sure that the above statement is true.
The MMP system we designed with 40% list seats was pretty even with BC-STV in proportionality. Once you drop below 35% list portion of any MMP system it starts to drop in proportionality at a rapid rate. I"m sure Wilf will be quick to correct me if I'm wrong. 30% list and 8 seats under SMP would be at best a Semi-proportional system.
I know that I looked at some Semi-proportional ideas where there were 20-25% list members. Ranger liked this type of system, but I really didn't think it met the bar as far as meeting the objectives of what the voters wanted.
The rest of your points again represent another perspective. Very interesting!
I like your conclusion!!!
AT
Former Member of the Citizens Assembly of BC on Electoral Reform
I agree with those from the no-side having to state why SMP is better.We have a couple of guys who are leading the no-side of the referendum who have yet to present any good argument for SMP. Not much fact has been presented to support their attacks on BC-STV either.
Opponents of pro-rep don't have to defend SMP and they know it. With a 60% threshold all they have to do is create enough fear, uncertainty and doubt to push STV support below 60%. They don't have to promote SMP or even knock STV down to SMP level. If it was a fair fight between STV and SMP then STV would win hands down.
I still think STV can win this time out though. Public education is the key.
__________________________________
One struggle, many fronts.
Hi AT
I don’t want to get into a clash over the relative proportionality of STV vs. MMP. We’ ll never really know until we see BC-STV in action, and this is a debate about the relative merits of STV vs. SMP.
That said - take a look at a hypthetical Vancouver/North Vancouver regional district with 10 local seats and 5 regional top-up seats. The quota for the region is 6.67%. The quota for a six-seat STV district in Vancouver is 14.3%. It seems pretty clear to me that a small party would have a much better chance of winning a seat in the MMP region than in the STV district. Or consider a rural regional district with six local seats and two regional top-up seats. The quota is 12.5% vs. 25% in a three-seat STV district. Once again, a smaller party has a better chance of winning a seat in the MMP region. On the other hand, the relative share of the seats for the major parties would be similar under either system.
Glad you liked the different perspective and conclusion.
I think a clash is a waste of energy.
I honestly think a win for stv here will keep mmp alive especially as a federal option.
Just a point about STV quotas. it isnt just first preferences that make up the quota. 2nd etc preferences from eliminated candidates count towards it too. And it is not easy to figure out how the preferences will go until we actually have a stv election.
In ireland extremist partys get less second preferences than partys like the greens who gain more than you would expect. Preferences seem to go from the extremes to the center more than from the center out. I do not know if that is a rule or just the irish situation. Sinn fein has been boycotted by the other partys in the south for decades. If peace lasts, maybe the boycott will end and perhaps the trend of preferences to the center may go too?
E
Hi AT
I don’t want to get into a clash over the relative proportionality of STV vs. MMP. We’ ll never really know until we see BC-STV in action, and this is a debate about the relative merits of STV vs. SMP.
That said - take a look at a hypthetical Vancouver/North Vancouver regional district with 10 local seats and 5 regional top-up seats. The quota for the region is 6.67%. The quota for a six-seat STV district in Vancouver is 14.3%. It seems pretty clear to me that a small party would have a much better chance of winning a seat in the MMP region than in the STV district. Or consider a rural regional district with six local seats and two regional top-up seats. The quota is 12.5% vs. 25% in a three-seat STV district. Once again, a smaller party has a better chance of winning a seat in the MMP region. On the other hand, the relative share of the seats for the major parties would be similar under either system.
Glad you liked the different perspective and conclusion.
The linear line is 100% proportional as was the one above. The graphs are skewed to fit more data on them. The odd ones out at 6-7% are from Sinn Fein, I believe. Sinn Fein is quite radical and therefore rarely pick up 2nd place votes from supporters of other parties. Ireland has a slightly smaller district magnitude than in BC, so it is likely that B.C's would be even more proportional.
Other key factors to look at is only once has a party with more than 2% of the vote been denied a seat. And parties with 2-3% of the vote quite often get 2-3% of the vote.
Small parties can win under STV, if they can run a few good candidates.
Here is the comparison with BC..
Hi New West
"I don’t want to get into a clash over the relative proportionality of STV vs. MMP. We’ ll never really know until we see BC-STV in action, and this is a debate about the relative merits of STV vs. SMP."
New West, I totally agree, no point discussing MMP at this point, but I did not want to leave anyone with the impression that BC-STV is a Semi-proportional system.
AT
Former Member of the Citizens Assembly of BC on Electoral Reform
Did you ever think there is a reason that only 1 tenth of one percent of the world's population uses STV even though it was first used in Tasmania in 1897? Hasn't exactly caught fire has it!
I think it's ridiculous to assert that STV is only used in a few jurisdictions because it isn't popular, that it "hasn't exactly caught fire".
As you know, the electoral system is determined by the very legislators it elects. As such, there is a FUNDAMENTAL conflict of interest.
I would argue that STV "hasn't exactly caught fire" because self-interested political elites refuse to allow democratic reform that improves voter choice and political accountability. Also, I would argue that legislators are significantly less likely to support electoral system reform, which is supported by candidate surveys from a variety of countries that use many different electoral systems.
It must be noted that examples of public consultation on electoral reform are EXTREMELY rare in human history. As such, we have little actual evidence of how popular alternative electoral systems actually are with voters. And the evidence we have would appear to indicate that STV is much more popular than MMP, as it performed better in referenda in BC and Ireland than MMP did when put before NZ, PEI and Ontario voters.
Finally, it would also be TOTALLY DISINGENUOUS to affirm that FPTP is "popular" because it is used in more countries than STV. An actual historical analysis of how FPTP developed shows that not only was that system chosen and/or maintained by legislators without public consent, but that it is only (or almost exclusively only) used in countries where it was imposed by British colonial authorities. Again, that tells us NOTHING about its popularity.
David, if you truly want to have a reasonable public debate, I believe you should abandon statements like "STV is only used a few places, therefore it must not be good/popular". That's bull, and you should now know it.
2) In 2004 the Citizens Assembly was acting as a representative body - not a facsimile for the voters of BC. The selection process was biased towards those predisposed to electoral reform. The overwhelming vote in favour of STV does not necessarily reflect the views of the public at large. (Look at the disastrous vote on the work of the Ontario Citizens Assembly.)
I agree with you that, because there was an element of self-selection (those that couldn't care about reform didn't go the the selection meetings that randomly chose Assembly members), that certainly Assembly members can be expected to be more supportive of reform than the general populace.
However, in my view, there is an even more important distinction between Assembly members and the general public, which explains the difference in support for the Assembly recommendations in Ontario.
Obviously, by virtue of the world-class learning program undertaken by both Assemblies, Assembly members became MUCH MORE informed about politics in general and, in particular, electoral systems and legislative behaviour (heck, Mr. Schreck is demonstrating that Assembly members know more about that than former legislators!).
So I think that the gap between Assembly members' support for reform and public support for reform, can be partially explained by the fact that educated citizens are far more likely to support electoral reform. As the media coverage of the BC Assembly's work and recommendation was SIGNIFICANTLY more plentiful and less biased than the coverage in Ontario, I think this confirms my hypothesis as well.
Victoria NDP MP Savoie says she supports 'yes' vote on STV.
While provincial NDP leader Carole James has said the party will not take a position on STV, some of the strongest voices against the change include those of former party strategist David Schreck and Bill Tieleman, who was an adviser to former Premier Glen Clark.Asked if her support for STV puts her at odds with her provincial counterparts, Savoie said, “When people I agree with on many issues disagree with me on a position I take, I listen very carefully . . . If I think something's important and it's right, I do and would speak out.”
“I've been thinking about proportional representation for a long time,” she said. “I think it would lead to a more collaborative approach to public debate and public policy.”
Savoie is hosting a public forum on proportional representation in Victoria this evening. The forum will include Nanaimo-Cowichan NDP MP Jean Crowder and University of Victoria political scientist Dennis Pilon.
Crowder has organized a forum at the Nanaimo campus of Vancouver Island University this Thursday, where the advantages and disadvantages of proportional representation will be discussed, along with Canada's current first-past-the-post system. VIU political science professor Allan Warnke and his University of Victoria colleague Dennis Pilon will lead the discussion."People don't have enough information, and we are hoping that this forum will offer enough information to get them to support P.R.," Crowder explained.
The forum is Crowder's own initiative, although it has the support of federal NDP leader Jack Layton and of David Christopherson, the party's critic for democratic reform.
Follow-up:
Daniel - Thanks for the two new graphs. The comparison between Ireland and BC really drives home the disproportionality of the BC results. The enlarged view of Ireland’s small parties confirms my point that the small parties are substantially under-represented under STV.
I agree that having some representation for small parties is more important than having near-perfect or even semi-proportionality. However, I am not willing to extrapolate from the Irish results and remain skeptical that parties getting under 8% of the first prefernce vote will get much if any representation under BC-STV. (Regional parties could develop and win seats in a few districts even though their provincial share of the first-preference vote was well under 8%.)
I also agree that the ability of small-party voters to transfer their votes to other parties or independents is a distinct advantage for STV over SMP and MMP. But the first preference is the most important vote and, at three or four percent, deserves some representation.
Wilf - Yes, six regions would be better than eight and three regions would be even better from the standpoint of proportionality. (“Island” – 11 local, 4 regional, “Lower Mainland” – 30 local, 16 regional, and “Beyond Hope” – 18 local, 6 regional) With six regions, I have a hard time joining the Fraser Valley with Surrey. Of course, the larger the regions, the more difficult the task of adequately representing regional constituents, the less likely the reps will be evenly distributed throughout each region, and the less likely the reps will be accountable to the voters. Coming from a long tradition of SMP, I’m not sure voters would be ready to embrace such large regional districts, so I’m willing to sacrifice some proportionality. Regional MMP is a tough nut to crack in BC or Ontario.
. . . the 2-member ridings which existed until 1986.
Come on, David, bring out Bill Bennett and Dave Barrett again to tell us that their battles in 1975, 1979, and 1983 were as good as it gets.
I'm extremely frustrated to see our outdated, dysfunctional electoral system held in place by party insiders and flunkies. It makes one awfully cynical to see the two big parties look the other way and whistle, hoping that this will just go away. I would like to believe that the Green Party's stand is based in principle but I can't help noticing that without some fom of PR, they have roughly zero chance of getting seats.
Those who stand to gain are in favour and those who stand to lose are against. Is there any integrity left in the world? Isn't it funny that the Federal NDP, (who would gain seats) is in favour while their provincial counterparts are opposed? I'd like to see voters hold their MLA's feet to the fire and make them take an intelligent stand on STV.
Still, it seems that the 'Yes' group has managed to put together a fairly impressive list of intelligent, independent thinkers including David Suzuki.
WRT to STV making MLA's less accountable, I don't see it. I don't feel represented at all right now so it can't get any worse.
Bring on STV. Give more power to the elected representatives and less to the party hacks.
The MMP system we designed with 40% list seats was pretty even with BC-STV in proportionality. Once you drop below 35% list portion of any MMP system it starts to drop in proportionality at a rapid rate. I"m sure Wilf will be quick to correct me if I'm wrong. 30% list and 8 seats under SMP would be at best a Semi-proportional system.
A model with districts of only 10 MLAs, seven local and three regional, would be no more proportional than a seven-seater STV district, and often less proportional due to the low ratio. A district of 10 MLAs with six local and four regional using highest remainder would be fairly equivalent to a seven-seater STV district in terms of proportionality, except for one vital fact: while a party getting only 5%, 6%, or 7% in the STV district might not elect anyone, the votes would transfer and not be wasted; yet with MMP-10, supporters of a party in such a range would waste their votes and would therefore have to cast "strategic votes."
In terms of diversity STV might be termed inferior: in a seven-seater STV district parties might nominate five candidates, but in a six-and-four MMP district, assuming dual candidacy, they might nominate seven regional candidates, allowing for some of them to win local seats, just as Scotland allows 12 candidates for seven regional seats. Five candidates is good enough for me, but some diversity advocates prefer seven.
But in an MMP model for BC I have trouble seeing why you would want as many as eight MMP regions; I can't see more than six. In the North you might want a district of only eight or ten MLAs, but elsewhere you would want districts large enough for 5% of the vote to get representation. I'd like districts of at least 15 (nine-and-six), which is what you would have in the Interior (16) and Vancouver Island (14 or 15). For the Lower Mainland's 46 or 47 MLAs (I'm dodging the question of where Powell River-Sunshine Coast goes), I'd want only two or three regions, never four. (In fact, if you have to have self-contained regions for simplicity, there should be only five of them; if the north's eight are a region, the other four would average 19 MLAs each, ranging from 15 to 23. Using "highest remainder" a party winning 4% would more than likely get a seat in a 19-MLA district.)
I'm extremely frustrated to see our outdated, dysfunctional electoral system held in place by party insiders and flunkies. It makes one awfully cynical to see the two big parties look the other way and whistle, hoping that this will just go away.
I think it is worth noting though that although party elites are opposed to pro-rep, thier supporters are not opposed to it. Exit polls in 2005 showed that a majority of NDP voters voted YES to STV. Liberal support was sonewhat less and Green support was about 80% YES.
Indivdual NDP and Liberal MPPs and candidates are speaking out in favour of STV in their own ridings. The duct tape seems firmly in place on the provincial stage though.
__________________________________
One struggle, many fronts.
Does your vote really count? (A really excellent article, worth reading)
It's a sleepy Wednesday night at the Vancouver Public Library and a crowd of about 100 is milling about in a downstairs auditorium . . ."It was basically going back to second-year university. God, I wasn't ready for that," Quan says with another throaty chuckle. "We really studied this," he adds, turning serious. . .
In short, British Columbians wanted elected representatives who looked like them, sounded like them and had their interests at heart. . .
Calling for a change from Canada's British-modelled system -- where the candidate with the most votes wins, even if the majority of voters support someone else -- is a refrain commonly heard in opposition rhetoric or in the reflections of safely retired politicians. A young Stephen Harper published a paper blasting first-past-the-post and calling for proportional representation long before he learned to benefit from the party-focused system. . .
"There's a reason we had to have a second referendum. You're in a bit of a pickle when you have a result in between 50 and 60 per cent," says Shoni Field. "How can you continue to elect governments using a system that doesn't have the support of the majority of the population?"
Judging by applause, the debate crowd seems split, the slight majority in Field's favour.
David, You do know that your whole story below is nonsense?
The greens have never had an elected MLA in BC even though they get almost twice the first preferences that they do in Ireland. "Total the 2005 party vote for each of the 20 proposed electoral areas and compare it to the quota as a percentage, you'll see that the results wouldn't change, unless one hopes for transfer vote". What an exercise in stupidity. and your next sentence was even more disingenuous.
So David you are saying that FPTP doesn't put small parties at a disadvantage?
I'm saying the present system doesn't put small parties at any more of a disadvantage than BC-STV does. Those interested in assuring representation for parties that get small percentages should promote MMP. Total the 2005 party vote for each of the 20 proposed electoral areas and compare it to the quota as a percentage, you'll see that the results wouldn't change, unless one hopes for transfer votes. Ireland's 2007 election shows that happened in 8% of the cases; we have no idea what would happen in B.C. In other words, instead of assuring proportional representation, STV gives us a crap shoot.
Spell out the objectives of change and compare those to what would be lost. Much to be lost, little to be gained. STV is the wrong system and I suspect that many members of the Assembly know that. After all it admitted that our current system is fair.
David Schreck
See http://www.strategicthoughts.com
and http://www.NoSTV.org
"But the first preference is the most important vote and, at three or four percent, deserves some representation" I actually agree. But the majority opinion is that they (3 or 4%) don't. The Federal NDP want a threshold of 5% for their MMP system and I think most MMP advocates agree. When you take this into concideration, there is very little difference in how MMP and STV represents small partys. Small party voters are not evenly distributed across the province. There are local hotspots. That means that both STV and MMP can be better than expected at representing them. (Depending on the system design). By the way, I do not think any new electoral system won a referendum by a 1.5 ot 1 margin ever, anywhere in the world.
That is the reason for the "supermajority requirement".
Follow-up:
Daniel - Thanks for the two new graphs. The comparison between Ireland and BC really drives home the disproportionality of the BC results. The enlarged view of Ireland’s small parties confirms my point that the small parties are substantially under-represented under STV.
I agree that having some representation for small parties is more important than having near-perfect or even semi-proportionality. However, I am not willing to extrapolate from the Irish results and remain skeptical that parties getting under 8% of the first prefernce vote will get much if any representation under BC-STV. (Regional parties could develop and win seats in a few districts even though their provincial share of the first-preference vote was well under 8%.)
I also agree that the ability of small-party voters to transfer their votes to other parties or independents is a distinct advantage for STV over SMP and MMP. But the first preference is the most important vote and, at three or four percent, deserves some representation.
Does your vote really count? (A really excellent article, worth reading)
.......
Thank you, Wilf. Not only is this article timely and interesting, but the debate between Shoni Field and David Schreck illustrated what's really going on. This is a fight between independent-minded individuals who want to make our system better and political elitists who are determined to maintain their control over the political landscape. This is a fight we can't afford to lose.
During the 2005 election, I was very naive about political reform and was puzzled why so many "progressives" insisted that PR had to be implemented as MMP or not at all. Now it's clear. Those who've drunk the kool-aid know that the political landscape must be closely controlled. Democracy can't be entrusted to the commoners.
Forget about Carole James or Gordon Campbell. Arguably the bigger issue on the ballot won't be a question of who -- but how.
Exactly.
During the 2005 election, I was very naive about political reform and was puzzled why so many "progressives" insisted that PR had to be implemented as MMP or not at all.
Some of them were dissembling. They actually prefer winner-take-all. After all, the Citizens' Assembly's MMP model was open-list. That meant that voters would have two votes: one for your favourite person for local MLA without regard to party (since only your second ballot determines the party make-up of the legislature), and one for your favourite of the several regional candidates nominated by your party (competition between candidates of the same party, just like STV). Do you really think David Schreck would have liked that model any better than BC-STV?
Those interested in assuring representation for parties that get small percentages should promote MMP.
But that's not what you really believe, is it?
"At the 2001 NDP convention a motion was passed that included "that the BC NDP endorse and campaign vigorously in favour of the principle of a Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP) electoral system which would combine single member constituency representation with a form of proportional representation." In the 1991 election, without the support of a resolution from convention, the party also gave recall its blessing. I think that was a mistake in 1991, and that it is a mistake now to support dilution of our parliamentary form of government, which allows governments to have the power necessary to implement their platforms."
"For example, if the Green Party got 12% of the total provincial vote but couldn't elect anyone in any of the constituencies, they might get as many as 9 MLAs appointed to the legislature from their party list." Appointed? The classic fallacy of MMP opponents.
"Many of the MLAs who would have leverage to force the government to buy their votes would not be accountable to constituencies but would come from party lists" under MMP. Apparently the Citizens' Assembly listened to your criticism of MMP, so they chose STV where this criticism would not apply, only to find you've changed sides again.
I think the 60 60 came in after the CA began. It was INVENTED specifically to prevent this referendum from passing.Wrong! See http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/archive/2001-2005/2003OTP0031-000400.htm The government announced the double majority requirement on the same day it announced that it was creating the Citizens' Assembly. It attributes the requirement to Gordon Gibson but his report is no longer available on the government website.
David Schreck
See http://www.strategicthoughts.com
Actually, this press release does NOT attribute the 60% thresholds to Gordon Gibson, nor should it. It didn't come from him.
Gibson's report is on the assembly site and probably has been since the assembly started (I didn't notice until halfway through the assembly process). It is at http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/public/inaction/history (look at the links on the far right).
In fact:
Frequently during my consultations I was asked whether the referendum result would be implemented upon the attainment of a favourable vote of 50 per cent plus one of those voting. Usually the question was asked because of a considerable scepticism in our society in respect of our political process and
politicians generally.The response of course must be that there is no legal requirement that the referendum result be implemented as a result of any majority, no matter how great. Under our constitution the public cannot bind the Legislature in any matter whatsoever save determining its membership. (However under the Referendum Act, if that is the vehicle employed, the voters can bind the government of the day.)
That said, the effective response is that one would expect each of the political parties contesting the next election would make quite specific statements as a part of its campaign as to whether it would implement the advice of a referendum, and what majority it would require to be so bound.
Thus, the legislature is not bound to implement the results of a referendum unless it chooses to do so. And the legislature back in 2003 chose to write a referendum act that did bind them should either side exceed the two 60% thresholds.
But notice that this does NOT take away their right to implement the results of a referendum should either the yes or no vote have laid between 40% and 60%. In other words, Campbell was disingenuous in his 2005 fall throne speech when he chose "not to change the rules". The rules always did and still do allow the legislature of the day to change the voting system. The legislature could have respected the vote and implemented BC-STV - in fact, they could do it tomorrow if they chose to.
