Do you really think David Schreck would have liked that model any better than BC-STV?
I was actually speaking of online forums (maybe here, I'm not sure) where there was a lot of anti-STV sentiment because it wasn't MMP.
I agree completely with your comments about Schreck (and they apply equally well to Tieleman). Given Carole James' position on STV, it makes me wonder whether the NDP leadership are using Schreck/Tieleman to kill this thing so that they don't have to get their fingers dirty.
Things are even worse with FPTP than the comparisons in posts #11 and 20 show because they're comparing apples to oranges.
In these plots, you're counted as 'represented' with FPTP if you voted for a particular party/candidate (note that you can't distinguish between these with FPTP), even if you didn't really like the candidate. With STV, you're only counted as represented if your vote actually helped elect a candidate, but this understates the support the elected candidates have since many of the voters whose votes weren't included in the count for someone who got elected (eg, because their first preference was for the last loser) would actually be perfectly happy with one of the winners.
In Scotland in 2007, for example, 80% of votes are used to determine the outcome in a 4 seat district, but ~90% of all voters ranked one of the winners in their top three. It's this number of 90% 'satisfied voters' that should be compared with the 50% number frequently quoted for FPTP (and the number would be even higher if we counted all ballots who saw someone from the same party as their #1 choice elected).
If an STV opponent insists that we should only use the 80% number, which is the number of votes that were actually attributed to a particular candidate and used to exceed the victory threshold, then we should be consistent and do the same for FPTP. With FPTP, a candidate only needs as many votes as their closest competitor; we could stop counting at that point. On average, this worked out to 36% in BC in 2005.
So, either STV is better than FPTP by having 80% of votes actually matter vs 36%, or by having 90% of voters satisfactorily represented vs 50% for FPTP. In either case, STV produces about twice as many represented or satisfied voters as FPTP.
BC has twice the voters per representative than Ireland has. There will be less proportionality. Doubling the size of the BC Leg (to Irish standards) would result in a much higher degree of proportionality under SMP than it now has.Ireland has a slightly smaller district magnitude than in BC, so it is likely that B.C's would be even more proportional.
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.An historic analysis shows that to be a lie. Was FPTP forced on the United States by England? On the other hand, STV was certainly imposed on Ireland by its colonial masters. I am surprised Irish patriots are so supportive of the system!
And, for all of you arguing against the shadowy political forces that prevent us from the Shangri-La that is STV: no democracy anywhere has stronger political parties than the STV-using states. If party bosses (whoever that might be) prevent us from using STV, then they are cutting their own throats.
You know, for a little while, I thought this referendum campaign might be free of the distortions and untruths propogated by the Yes forces last time around. I am so sorry that this is not the case.
CCBC,
Actually, with STV, increasing the District Magnitude (number of MLAs in a district) makes it more proportional. This is generally the case for any type of electoral system.
STV in BC would have an average DM of 4.25 and I think the number for Ireland is 3.5 or 3.75. As the population of BC increases, the DM of districts will increase. So BC-STV will become even more proportional.
The number of districts only matters in that it's better to have fewer of them to allow the DM to increase.
The number of voters per representatives has nothing to do with proportionality, except as it affects DM.
These are pretty basic concepts.
I seem to recall that the US started out as a British colony.
I'd be interested in knowing what standard you're using to determine that "no democracy anywhere has stronger political parties than the STV-using states". Seems a bit over the top, don't you think? You are clearly just making this up.
Supporting the recommendation of the BC Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform
Make Your Vote Count - Support BC-STV - 12th May 2009
I'd be interested in knowing what standard you're using to determine that "no democracy anywhere has stronger political parties than the STV-using states". Seems a bit over the top, don't you think? You are clearly just making this up.
Many respected academics/profs in the field Komito,Gallagher etc. etc. have stated this, regular folks in Ireland have told me this personally as well, but of course you know better.
Ireland has 166 seats and 43 districts, hence average district magnitude = 3.86. BC will have 85 seats in 20 districts, hence average district magnitude = 4.25.
Re: CCBC and Ranger - remember that STV has been used in many places - Ireland, Malta, Australia, New Zealand, Northern Ireland, Scotland, the USA, India, and even Canada. If you're going to make an argument about party strength, please cite numerous examples. Otherwise, it's just as fair to say that FPTP leads to effective dictatorships - just look at Zimbabwe and Mugabe. Much clearly depends on context. To follow CCBC's line of reasoning, if party bosses are opposed to STV and this would be cutting their own throats, do you really believe they're too naive to see this? In the BC context, parties are already as strong as anywhere - this is one of the reasons why Vicki Huntington is very likely to win in Delta - the Liberal incumbent is widely seen as not speaking up for the constituents' interests. I therefore think parties understand clearly that STV creates structural incentives and opportunities for candidates and MLAs to be more representative and open in a way that FPTP prevents.
Whether the parties respond by trying to clamp down hard or not and how the candidates respond is, of course, unknown, but it's clear that in BC the voters value independence of thought and are tired of the polarized politics that prevail here. Even if party control remains strong, the parties as a whole will not be able to be as dogmatic if they have seats proportional to their actual support and do not have an outright majority - at least at a party level, they will have to reach out to at least one other party if they want to get their legislation passed.
In the BC context, parties are already as strong as anywhere - this is one of the reasons why Vicki Huntington is very likely to win in Delta - the Liberal incumbent is widely seen as not speaking up for the constituents' interests.
Another way of saying this would be "Vicki Huntington would only need 13% supp. to get elected and "re-elected" but I assume you wouldn't want STV promoted in that way.
If the people in your riding feel like you do in regards to the incumbent, guess what?, the people can get rid of that person quite easily under our current system. Under an STV system,most regular voters would be powerless.
Ranger,
Vicki Huntington’s BC-STV district would be Richmond-Delta. The DM (number of MLAs) is 5. The quota would be 16.7% (not 13% as you state above). In 2005, there were 109,440 votes cast in this area, giving a quota of 18,241 votes needed to win a seat.
In 2005, the FPTP district winners got (percentage, # votes, % of votes in comparable BC-STV district, % not represented):
Delta North: 47.46%, 10,481 votes, 9.58% of BC-STV District, 52.54% not represented
Delta South: 37.48%, 9,112 votes, 8.33% of BC-STV District, 62.52% not represented
Richmond Centre: 58.56%, 10,908 votes, 9.97% of BC-STV District, 41.44% not represented
Richmond East: 57.48%, 11,652 votes, 10.65% of BC-STV District, 42.52% not represented
Richmond-Steveston: 59.20%, 13,859 votes, 12.66% of BC-STV District, 40.80% not represented
Average: 52.03%, 11,202 votes, 10.24% of BC-STV District, 47.97% not represented
Votes needed to win with BC-STV: 18,241 votes, 16.7%
From 2005 numbers using BC-STV district, voters who wouldn't have an MLA from the party they voted for: 15.8% not represented
BC-STV clearly performs better.
So actually, under BC-STV, candidates will need a higher percentage of the vote and more actual votes to get elected, not less. With BC-STV, candidates will need more support not less.
You and Schreck infer that under BC-STV a candidate will need less support than under FPTP. This is clearly incorrect.
Both of you use a percent figure for a multi-member district and compare it to a percent figure for a single-member district. This is mathematically incorrect.
It’s like the old school yard trick, “Do you want 50% of this $1 bill, or only 20% of this $5 bill?”
But you and Schreck only talk about the percentages and not what they are percents of. You guys just say, “Do you want 50% of this bill or only 20% of that bill?”
This is fundamentally dishonest. If you and Schreck were honourable, you’d stop misleading the public this way.
Supporting the recommendation of the BC Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform
Make Your Vote Count - Support BC-STV - 12th May 2009
Ranger, as you well know, it's actually quite hard for a voter to contribute to removing an incumbent from that voter's preferred party - voters who will only vote for one particular party (in the case of Huntington's riding, this is the Liberal party) normally won't switch their primary vote to another party, which is the only option under FPTP. Delta Liberal-inclined voters are actually quite fortunate to have an independent candidate to vote for who shares their basic values. However, whether or not they could elect the alternative depends on how many people stick with the incumbent - if a lot do, the votes of the supporters of the incumbent and the challenger would be split and another candidate heavily disliked by these voters (in this case, the NDP) could waltz up the middle. Indeed, this came pretty close to happening in 2005. There were 9000 votes for Roddick, 8000 for Huntington, and 7000 for the NDP and Green candidates combined. If there were a little less support for the Liberals overall and a little more for the NDP, the NDP could win with 7-8000 votes out of nearly 25,000 in the riding. Two thirds of the voters would be unhappy with that outcome.
In contrast, with STV, most of the Liberal voters would likely give Huntington (or another Liberal) their second preferences, so they would end up with an MLA they'd infinitely prefer to who the winner would be with FPTP.
I have no problem with someone being elected with 13% of the vote in a multi-member district - this means they represent almost a full current riding's worth of voters. If 17,000 voters want a particular MLA, I say let them have that MLA.
Agreed.... with STV, increasing the District Magnitude (number of MLAs in a district) makes it more proportional. This is generally the case for any type of electoral system.
Who says so? The DM will increase only if seats increase and I see no interest in doing that in BC.STV in BC would have an average DM of 4.25 and I think the number for Ireland is 3.5 or 3.75. As the population of BC increases, the DM of districts will increase.
The number of voters per representatives has nothing to do with proportionality, except as it affects DM.Sure it does. If your quota is half that of another voter's, then your vote is far more likely to make a difference. The DM 6 BC quota for Vancouver West is over 37000 votes. In Ireland the DM 5 quota is about 20000. (ETA: Numbers edited here.)
I seem to recall that the US started out as a British colony.The statement that I quoted claimed that FPTP was "imposed" on former colonies. In the case of the US, that's a silly statement. In the case of Ireland, it's true.
I'd be interested in knowing what standard you're using to determine that "no democracy anywhere has stronger political parties than the STV-using states".Well. let's see. In Ireland a TD that abstains is disciplined. I compare this with BC and, for instance, the NDP MLAs who abstained from voting the party line a while back. (Corky Evans, my MLA, was one of them.) And I recall a time or two or three when MLAs -- both NDP and Socred -- voted against their party positions and weren't disciplined. (This occurred during the NDP's first government, for instance, when Colin Gablemann voted against Barrett's back-to-work legislation. Not only was Gableman not disciplined, he was elevated to Cabinet. Any TD who tries anything of the sort will find him/herself out of the Party. And, yes, it's happened.) As for nomination practices, consider the NDP Delta-North nomination last election. Provincial office demanded that a person be added to the nomination ballot. The constituency refused, nominated another candidate, and elected him. The current situation on gender balance -- where Provincial Office is unable to enforce its policy -- should underline that. So there's my standard.
BC has twice the voters per representative than Ireland has. There will be less proportionality. Doubling the size of the BC Leg (to Irish standards) would result in a much higher degree of proportionality under SMP than it now has.
A 5 member STV legislature with one single 5 member riding is more proportional than a 10,000 member legislature elected by single member plurality (SMP).
...no democracy anywhere has stronger political parties than the STV-using states. If party bosses (whoever that might be) prevent us from using STV, then they are cutting their own throats.
The strength of parties is mostly derived by things other than the electoral system. Requiring governments to maintain the confidence of the legislature gives parties an immense amount of power no matter what electoral system is used. If we want to look at ways to increase the power of individual MLA's vis a vis their parties we have to look beyond the issue of electoral systems. Simply relaxing or removing the need for confidence votes would give MLA's a lot more power to act independently, whether in a STV or SMP system.
Some party bosses love SMP. These party bosses belong to parties that often win majorities with a minority of the vote.
Party bosses that hate the idea of cooperating with other parties hate STV and any system that is more proportional.
CCBC,
There’s no guarantee that there will be MLAs added to the legislature. You are correct.
However, as population increases in the urban areas and decreases in the rural areas, the legislature has been unwilling to shift MLAs from rural to urban. The legislature has consistently just increased the number of urban MLAs to deal with this.
I expect this practice would continue.
It’s my understanding that the Electoral Boundaries Commission purposely left some room in their BC-STV districts to add MLAs when warranted, without the need to change the district boundaries.
For instance, Vancouver East is just about due an additional MLA. Instead of redrawing all the district boundaries, which would be necessary with FPTP, BC-STV would use the same boundary and just add an MLA.
This process would gradually increase DMs. But yes, this does assume that the legislature will continue its past practice.
CCBC, you wrote, “If your quota is half that of another voter's, then your vote is far more likely to make a difference. The DM 6 BC quota for Vancouver West is over 37000 votes. In Ireland the DM 5 quota is about 20000. (ETA: Numbers edited here.)”
Firstly: Vancouver West would have about 312,592 voters (EBC Report). If half of them vote, the quota would be (312,592 / 2) x (1 / 7) + 1 = 22,320
Secondly: Not really sure what you are saying. Districts with higher DMs will always have better proportionality than districts with lower DMs. The ultimate proportional system being one in which everyone is their own representative, with a DM equal to the voting population.
How many people are represented by each MLA is quite a different matter. This is something the legislature has mandated, giving rural voters more MLAs per capita than urban voters. This was out of the mandate of the Citizens' Assembly to look at and is not directly part of the electoral system decision we face.
For convenience, the quota is often expressed as a percentage, but it is properly expressed as a number, as I explained above.
I think everywhere in the world, politics is close to a blood sport. Saying that STV is the worst, seems to me like saying blue is the worst colour. I expect that where people are actually being killed, plenty of examples world wide, the power of the political parties is strongest. As I understand it, this was the case in Northern Ireland before they adopted STV.
Supporting the recommendation of the BC Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform
Make Your Vote Count - Support BC-STV - 12th May 2009
Ranger, as you well know, it's actually quite hard for a voter to contribute to removing an incumbent from that voter's preferred party - voters who will only vote for one particular party (in the case of Huntington's riding, this is the Liberal party) normally won't switch their primary vote to another party, which is the only option under FPTP. Delta Liberal-inclined voters are actually quite fortunate to have an independent candidate to vote for who shares their basic values. However, whether or not they could elect the alternative depends on how many people stick with the incumbent - if a lot do, the votes of the supporters of the incumbent and the challenger would be split and another candidate heavily disliked by these voters (in this case, the NDP) could waltz up the middle. Indeed, this came pretty close to happening in 2005. There were 9000 votes for Roddick, 8000 for Huntington, and 7000 for the NDP and Green candidates combined. If there were a little less support for the Liberals overall and a little more for the NDP, the NDP could win with 7-8000 votes out of nearly 25,000 in the riding. Two thirds of the voters would be unhappy with that outcome.
In contrast, with STV, most of the Liberal voters would likely give Huntington (or another Liberal) their second preferences, so they would end up with an MLA they'd infinitely prefer to who the winner would be with FPTP.
I have no problem with someone being elected with 13% of the vote in a multi-member district - this means they represent almost a full current riding's worth of voters. If 17,000 voters want a particular MLA, I say let them have that MLA.
Voters who will only vote for one party? you mean Fianna fail? Has a Liberal held your riding for the last century? It's amazing how you know what people will do with their votes under a new system, I do know when voters don't know who the people on the ballot are they "plump" they do this in small jurisdictions and unprecedently large ones like ours would most likely be worse, do average voters know the 5 or 6 mla's surrounding them? how about the 4 or 5 people that ran against all of them? I can promise you it's not "random ordinary citizens", remember them?, I'm glad you've admitted that voters rely on a party platform in most cases, we agree on something here, the reality is an STV system in our province will give voters a long list of names that they have no idea who they are or what their about, they barely do now! I hate to break it to you but it won't be ice cream flavors, apples or banana's to choose from on the ballot, those choices would probably have a decent chance of winning.
You and Schreck infer that under BC-STV a candidate will need less support than under FPTP. This is clearly incorrect.
Both of you use a percent figure for a multi-member district and compare it to a percent figure for a single-member district. This is mathematically incorrect.
It’s like the old school yard trick, “Do you want 50% of this $1 bill, or only 20% of this $5 bill?”
But you and Schreck only talk about the percentages and not what they are percents of. You guys just say, “Do you want 50% of this bill or only 20% of that bill?”
This is fundamentally dishonest. If you and Schreck were honourable, you’d stop misleading the public this way.
Not sure which school you went to but that's rich!
You may want to read the Final Report again just for starters before you get too carried away with yourself.
Ranger,
Which page are you refering to?
Supporting the recommendation of the BC Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform
Make Your Vote Count - Support BC-STV - 12th May 2009
CCBC, you wrote, “If your quota is half that of another voter's, then your vote is far more likely to make a difference. The DM 6 BC quota for Vancouver West is over 37000 votes. In Ireland the DM 5 quota is about 20000."
[...] Vancouver West would have about 312,592 voters (EBC Report). If half of them vote, the quota would be (312,592 / 2) x (1 / 7) + 1 = 22,320
All right. And in Ireland if half vote the quota will be about 10000 -- as it was in the last election. I used figures derived from eligible voters without trying to manipulate according to how many would or would not vote. And I used a BC-STV constituency of DM 6 as opposed to an Irish DM 5. In other words, I took the highest DM from both countries. But check the Irish results for yourself: quotas of less than 10000 are not uncommon.
Not really sure what you are saying. Districts with higher DMs will always have better proportionality than districts with lower DMs.
No. You misunderstand. If a given number of voters have more representatives then they will have a more proportionate result. Of course the voting system is another important factor.
The ultimate proportional system being one in which everyone is their own representative, with a DM equal to the voting population.
Yes! In which case your representatives would be equal to the number of voters. But the two work together. Got it now?
Saying that STV is the worst, seems to me like saying blue is the worst colour.
I said nothing like this. STV is, in the end, just another way to count votes. It is still democracy. I think SMP is better suited to democratic practice in a place like BC. (But your interpreting "strong parties" as the "worst" is very telling. Do you think political parties are the enemy? Why do I never hear STV advocates talking about the entrenched forces of privilege and greed? That is a question that occurred to me last referendum, when the Canadian Taxpayers Federation showed up to boost STV at the local Chamber of Commerce.)
(ETA: I really dislike the new Rabble comment system. I have edited to include quotes properly, previewed, and tried the HTML -- but I still wind up with misaligned quoteblocks as above. I hope people can figure out which words are Craig's.)
CCBC,
You wrote, "If a given number of voters have more representatives then they will have a more proportionate result. Of course the voting system is another important factor."
Actually, if you increase the number of representatives and keep single-member districts, then the proportionality won't change very much, at least not until you get to the point of one voter, one MLA.
I suspect that we are discussing different definitions of the word "proportionality".
Apologies for the use of the word "worse". I came into the middle of a conversation you were having above without reading the previous comments.
The first thing I read was you writing, "no democracy anywhere has stronger political parties than the STV-using states".
I thought you were condemning STV because you thought it had the strongest political parties in any democratic state, and that you thought that was a bad thing. A worst thing.
If you think strong political parties are a good thing, and that "no democracy anywhere has stronger political parties than the STV-using states", then I would expect you to really like STV. 
I actually think political parties are very important and play a critical role in our democracy, especially in the area of policy development and the generation of ideas. But there does need to be a balance between the power of the parties and the power of the voter.
I think BC-STV gives the voter an important say in which candidates from a party are elected. This is clearly a transfer of power from the parties to the voter. This will help improve accountability.
It will also help shape the parties' policy directions. This will actually provide a good service to the parties, by keeping them more in touch with the voters.
If voters elect health care advocates, their party will be more likely to pursue health care policies. If voters elect environmentalists from their party, the party's policies will tend to become more environmental.
With FPTP, your vote is simple. You are right, left, or willing to waste (other than symbolically) your vote on a candidate who doesn't stand a chance of getting elected.
With BC-STV, your vote can be much more expressive of what you want to happen, and what is important to you.
Supporting the recommendation of the BC Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform
Make Your Vote Count - Support BC-STV - 12th May 2009
Craig, your analysis misses the point of what parties are all about. There is more than a balance between voter power and party power -- parties have no power except that given them by the voter. Parties develop policy -- ideas shared by like-minded people -- and present them to the voter. The STV Party is a good example. You and those who share your ideology support a position that will soon go to the voter. Since this is a yes/no vote, the voter has to decide whether or not the STV Party is presenting a plan good enough to cause rejection of the system now in place.
CCBC you state:
"No. You misunderstand. If a given number of voters have more representatives then they will have a more proportionate result. Of course the voting system is another important factor."
Sounds like you are confusing the benefits of voter choice with proportionality. This is amazing to me as I know that you debated with me to the contrary about the value of what benefit voter choice really had in an electoral system.
Proportionality is strictly the process of categorizing (portions) votes on the basis of choice. The categories most people think about is the Party line. When you expand the number of choices for representatives you don't change how the vote is categorized at the end of the day.
I do appreciate that since 2005 you have come to discover the true value that voter choice can add to an electoral system!!!
AT
Former Member of the Citizens Assembly of BC on Electoral Reform
the reality is an STV system in our province will give voters a long list of names that they have no idea who they are or what their about, they barely do now!
That's the biggest criticism of open-list MMP as used in Bavaria: although the ballot for local MLA would be easy, the ballot for the six or nine regional MLAs would be a bit of a bed-sheet, remembering that dual candidacy for local MLA and regional MLA means the regional list could have 15 or 23 candidates from each party.
By contrast, BC-STV in your district, the four-seater North Island - South Coast, would see a ballot with three or four NDP candidates, three or four Liberals, a Green (possibly two Greens), and a variety of half a dozen no-hopers. If people voted as they did in 2005 you'd get two New Democrats and two Liberals. Perhaps with a higher turnout for the Greens they might have taken a seat from the Liberals, no one can say.
With about 15 names on the ballot, including a block of four marked NDP inviting NDP voters to rank them 1, 2, 3, 4, can you seriously see voters having any difficulty voting?
If Powell River voters know only the two Powell River candidates well enough to want either, they might rank the local Liberal first and the local NDP candidate second. Perhaps enough voters would do that to give the Powell River NDP candidate the edge over the other NDP candidates?
Who says so? The DM will increase only if seats increase and I see no interest in doing that in BC.STV in BC would have an average DM of 4.25 and I think the number for Ireland is 3.5 or 3.75. As the population of BC increases, the DM of districts will increase.
The last four boundary commissions seem to disagree with you.
Year------------S.W.----Okngn----North----Koot----Cboo/Thomp
1986...............46...........6...........8............4...............5.......
1991...............52...........6...........8............4...............5.......
1996...............52...........6...........8............4...............5.......
2001...............56...........6...........8............4...............5.......
2005...............56...........6...........8............4...............5.......
2009...............61...........7...........8............4...............5.......
2013...............61...........7...........8............4...............5.......
No points for figuring out which column contains territory that's high-DM friendly.
The_Tom,
Good chart.
Make Your Vote Count - Support BC-STV - 12th May 2009
. Since this is a yes/no vote, the voter has to decide whether or not the STV Party is presenting a plan good enough to cause rejection of the system now in place.
Actually no, the politicians want the no side to win, so they have given the no voters (effectively) 1.5 votes each. (Which IS cheating) . Nobody is argueing virgin birth here. It is basic math that you learn by 12 or 13 years old. The only way to make 40 votes equivalent to 60 is to multiply each by 1.5. We all know the education system is the shits but really,
people have to be either mathematically or morally incompitent to swallow the supermajority shit.
If the politicians said "43 thousand people voted for SMP and 57 thousand people voted for stv but we are disqualifying 19 thousand STV votes to give SMP a 43 to 38 win, would you say"hang on a minute!" "thats fucking wrong". or "OK , thats fine with me. Least they didnt turn those people away from the polling stations like those gangsters in Zimbabya".
Is this the end product of consumerism? Any fuckhead with a marketing manager can sell you a deadly veto simply by saying , this is really really important? Come on folks, take your brains out of your arses. Put the numbers on paper, do the math. Be OUTRAGED.
Last time round 19 THOUSAND votes out of every hundred thousand were ignored. That is VILE.
The stv party won 77 of the 79 ridings last time. Which side are you on? Stv changes the balance between voters and party members. In SMP party members (a couple of hundred people at a nomination meeting) elect a candidate who then goes before the party voters to be rubber stamped. In STV, they put forward a number of candidates and the voters can choose between these candidates.This puts more power to set the direction of the party into the hands of the raw voters.
As a voter, voting against STV is akin to a politician voting himself a pay reduction! Or buying a wining lotery ticket and then throwing it away.
Craig, your analysis misses the point of what parties are all about. There is more than a balance between voter power and party power -- parties have no power except that given them by the voter. Parties develop policy -- ideas shared by like-minded people -- and present them to the voter. The STV Party is a good example. You and those who share your ideology support a position that will soon go to the voter. Since this is a yes/no vote, the voter has to decide whether or not the STV Party is presenting a plan good enough to cause rejection of the system now in place.
No. In 1986 BC had one rep per 42000 population. In 1996 this became one per 51000. Last election we were at 1/53000. The additional seats this time only return us to 1996 levels. The original proposal had BC at 1/55000. The additional seats in the North and Interior were a panic response to a poltical gaffe. I expect, next distribution, they will be reassigned to higher-populated areas.The DM will increase only if seats increase and I see no interest in doing that in BC.
The last four boundary commissions seem to disagree with you.
I don't think so. In the debate you had "voter choice" meaning whatever you wanted it to mean -- just another buzzword.Sounds like you are confusing the benefits of voter choice with proportionality. This is amazing to me as I know that you debated with me to the contrary about the value of what benefit voter choice really had in an electoral system.
Look, I understand that a higher DM is more proportional than a lower one. What you are missing is that the quota also impacts proportionality.
Proportionality is strictly the process of categorizing (portions) votes on the basis of choice. The categories most people think about is the Party line. When you expand the number of choices for representatives you don't change how the vote is categorized at the end of the day.
That would not be the argument I get from most STV Party members which is that, under STV, people vote differently and would be inclined to break party lines. Anyway, I said nothing about expanding choices; I said, the lower the quota, the more power the individual vote has. If you have more seats, you have a lower quota. This seems to me so self-evident that I don't understand your opposition to it. If your quota is 22000 votes cast don't you think it will be more difficult to elect a candidate than if the quota is 9000 votes? The smaller quota means a smaller organization, fewer voters to identify and target, and so on.
"If you have more seats, you have a lower quota" I am not sure of the context. It could mean anything!
The dificulty of electing a candidate also depends on the opposition and the electoral system chosen. A green is not going to be elected in a stv 2 seater but has a real chance of their vote influencing the outcome in a way that the voter approves of. In fptp, the green vote always influences the result negatively. The result is the worst that the voter can hope for!
In your example, the green election chances are most influenced by district magnitude. 5 or more seater ridings make green victory likely. A low quota will not help them at all in a 2 seater. In first past the post, you might get some greens elected (due to randomness in voter distribution) if you had an enlarged ledge with a seat for every hundred people. You still would not get meaningful porportionality though!
.
If you have more seats, you have a lower quota. This seems to me so self-evident that I don't understand your opposition to it. If your quota is 22000 votes cast don't you think it will be more difficult to elect a candidate than if the quota is 9000 votes? The smaller quota means a smaller organization, fewer voters to identify and target, and so on.
[/quote]
If a given number of voters have more representatives then they will have a more proportionate result. Of course the voting system is another important factor.
No, the number of representatives in total has little to do with proportionality. FPTP gives the seat to a plurality of those voting and produces no representation for the rest, whose votes do not get reflected in representation. If you doubled the number of MLAs, you would roughly double the number of NDP and Liberal MLAs, but you still wouldn't elect any Greens, because there's no pocket of 10,000 voters where the Greens represent 40% or so of the voters.
Similarly with STV - if we doubled the number of MLAs, but kept the district magnitude to an average of 4.25, the results would be no more proportional (though it would be more proportional if we went to an average DM of 8.5).
Proportionality is therefore almost entirely dependent on the kind of voting system being used and the 'design parameters' of that system (DM in the case of STV). It's true that a single vote would have more influence in electing a single candidate if we had more MLAs, but this does not mean the results are any more proportional.
To Brian, Craig, Antony, JKR, and CCBC:
For each election under SMP, the results are at the mercy of the distribution of the vote. If you had uniform distribution of the party vote down to every 100 voters you wouldn’t get any proportionality at all under SMP. In that case it would’t matter how big the legislature was. Proportionality would be nil for a one seat legislature or a 10,000 seat legislature.
The only reason SMP produces any semblance of proportionality is that the party vote is not uniformly distibuted. (And that’s also the reason why a 10,000 seat legislature, however impractical, would be very proportional under SMP.) That’s why you have safe-seat gerrymandering in the U.S. Perhaps Wilf has some statistics on the proportionality of FPTP legislatures in the range of 50 to 500 seats and the proportionality of legislatures with small district populations versus large district populations.
Bottom line - Increasing the size of the legislature tends to increase proportionality under SMP. More precisely, decreasing the ratio of voters per representative increases proportionality under SMP. (It would be more likely to find a 40% pocket of Green voters in a district of 10,000 voters than in a district of 20,000 voters. And even more likely to find a 40% pocket in a district of 5,000 voters.) BC has a relatively high ratio of district population per representative and relatively less proportionality.
On the other hand, proportionality under STV is primarily determined by the average district magnitude and is far less dependent on the distribution of the party vote. (A uniformly distributed vote would still produce good proportionality under STV.) However, creating smaller STV districts (less population per rep) would also tend to increase proportionality – even without an increase in district magnitude. I believe that’s a significant factor in Ireland’s results - particularly for the smaller parties.
I completely agree with both of these statements.
Increasing the size of the legislature tends to increase proportionality under SMP. More precisely, decreasing the ratio of voters per representative increases proportionality under SMP.
[...] creating smaller STV districts (less population per rep) would also tend to increase proportionality – even without an increase in district magnitude. I believe that’s a significant factor in Ireland’s results - particularly for the smaller parties.
Whoa Nellie, long thread.
