"STV Electoral Referendum: Voters rejected STV by a margin of 61% to 39%. In our exit poll, STV was supported by 66% of Green voters, 51% of NDP voters and 22% of Liberal voters."
Fair voting failed in Liberal Ontario, too. As a result, 22% of Ontario's registered voters elected the government here with another phony majority. "If it isnt broken, dont fix it."
Okay. STV is dead in BC and, probably, MMP in Canada generally. Now, instead of trying to find excuses ("the No side emphasized math, and we know people can add"), maybe look at the arguments from the Yes side and why people rejected them. First, there is the concept that a political division -- a province, say -- is the functioning unit. That immediately destroys the concept of regional representation. In any nation of great geographic size, that concept is important. The Yes side ignored that or tried to explain it away with nonsense slogans. No, STV did not mean "better representation", The idea that all the units should submit to the greater population centers is neo-Liberalism in its most stark form. (Though I was hooted down on this forum when I first suggested it.) Second, there was the lie that STV was "more democratic" than the current system. Canadians, generally according to national polls, do not believe that their system is non-democratic. Finally, there was the attachment of STV to anti-politics -- and by that, I mean a general tendency to despise both politicians and the political process. Sure, that won some votes in the first BC go-round but overall, it won't fly. The electorate is too smart to believe both that their system is non-democratic and that counting ballots differently would fix it. The argument doesn't make sense -- understand? If you "reformers" genuinely have something to offer then express it in genuine terms. I gave up on so-called "reforms" back when Newt Gingrich was promoting the Contract with America. Remember? Term limits and all that BS? The mechanics of voting are not the problem. If the Greens ever got their act together, they could be a meaningful party. In the meantime, I think the Conservatives will have third party seats before anyone else. I think the electorate weighed the issue and saw no need to change the system. So "reformers", either you make a real argument that will show people how their vote would be better cast or you will always lose.
. . . The idea that all the units should submit to the greater population centers . . .
This statement is absolutely wrong about STV, but it is this "obvious" misunderstanding about STV that really helped to destroy its chances this time around. People did not understand that one person, one vote with STV meant that the population centres could NOT dominate the elections. If a population centre contained 2 out of 5 quotas in a district, then assuming that folks only voted for local candidates, they could only choose 2 of the 4 MLAs.
This is an absolutely vital concept to understand, but we didn't even try to get it across.
I like the back of the watch analogy. STV would look so much more appealing from the front! If only we'd figured out how to do it.
I like the back of the watch analogy. STV would look so much more appealing from the front! If only we'd figured out how to do it.
Maybe we should take some advice from Otto Von Bismarck who famously said "Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made" and " Politics is the art of the next best."
If we required referendums to pass good public policy we would have very little good public policy. Just look at California and the mess they're in. Government by referendum leads to disaster. Electoral reform should not be dependent on referendums. Most people will never agree on a single alternative even if most of them do not like the status quo. That's why public policy is done in the legislature and enforced by the courts.
Electoral reform should be persued like other public policies. Supporters of electoral reform should convince political parties to add electoral reform onto their political platforms. And once these political parties are elected they should be pressured to implement their stated policies.
And if political parties refuse to act, supporters of electoral reform should go to court.
Civil rights movements do not depend on referendums to further their causes. In many ways the electoral reform movement is part of the overall civil rights movement. Feminists did not allow their hopes to be dashed by a referendum. In great measure the black civil rights movement in the US overrode the legislaive system altogether and had many civil rights established via the court system. First Nations have almost completely depended on the courts to give them a modicum of justice in Canada.
The millions of people who have voted for parties that have not seen a single representative elected to a legislature or parliament should take their grievance to court as their civil rights have been limited. Green Party voters alone would make up a potent force that could sway the judiciary to act in favour of electoral reform
People did not understand that one person, one vote with STV meant that the population centres could NOT dominate the elections. If a population centre contained 2 out of 5 quotas in a district, then assuming that folks only voted for local candidates, they could only choose 2 of the 4 MLAs.This is an absolutely vital concept to understand, but we didn't even try to get it across.
But then again, some people would not buy it, because voters don't vote only for local candidates. The other two MLAs from the district might be for parties that elected only one MLA from the district -- who came from the largest centre. Presto, four MLAs from one centre. Or maybe not, maybe three from one centre and one from the other 60% of the district. The fact is, all four represent the whole district, and all four compete to serve all of it. But when a government proposes to "improve" services by building a lovely new facility and closing the small older ones -- centralizing, of course -- which of the four will oppose progress?
That's why Kootenay East was much more opposed to STV than the rest of the Kootenays, isn't it?
Electoral Reform unfortunately enjoys the support of only a minority of voters. The good news is that this support is growing, but very slowly. Support grows with understanding and being made aware of the flaws with FPTP and enlightening the public with the fact that there are significant alternatives for voters.
Those that support and want change need to continue to push awareness of the need for change.
As for the STV vs MMP debate, this is troublesome for supporters as clearly some support one and not the other. My only suggestion is to be more specific for both. This means that organizations like FVC need to take what they have learned from the recent referendums and design the systems and the maps that would generate the greatest support from voters in the long run. This system or systems need to be named and branded so to speak to become part of the social awareness. This would allow everyone involved the facts to decide what they support. The facts are that support is split, so this means that a viable alternative will have to generate enough support on its own to win success by what ever means it may get implemented. In order to bring the STV/MMP supporters together, maybe some other reforms need to be included to improve both systems and the party system as well.
It will take time to educate the public, but they need to know more than "proportional representation". When the subject comes to mind the public needs to know that organizations are proposing specific models and know where to look them up. Again, the benefits and reasons for change need to be front and center with these models.
The reform movement needs to take advantage of the current federal situation and point out the exaggerated problems that are so apparent with FPTP right now. It is fairly easy to point out the flaws, predict future results and for that matter anticipate the political moves of the political parties.
Every election and/or poll, electoral reformers need to push out the comparison numbers that would have been produced by their specific system.
Electoral reformers need to be specific, identify their support, and move forward with strategies learned from the referendums of the last decade. Maybe electoral reform's day has yet to come rather than its moment having past.....
The need for reform is real and will come with time, understanding and the right messaging.
AT
. . . The idea that all the units should submit to the greater population centers . . .This statement is absolutely wrong about STV, but it is this "obvious" misunderstanding about STV that really helped to destroy its chances this time around. People did not understand that one person, one vote with STV meant that the population centres could NOT dominate the elections. If a population centre contained 2 out of 5 quotas in a district, then assuming that folks only voted for local candidates, they could only choose 2 of the 4 MLAs.
This is an absolutely vital concept to understand, but we didn't even try to get it across.
I like the back of the watch analogy. STV would look so much more appealing from the front! If only we'd figured out how to do it.
The reall difficult thing was to figure out that you did need to adjust the presentation of STV overall. This was something that is most obvious in hindsight since it requires the understanding that the academics were looking at it askance -- at the back of the watch.
Difficult, now, to put the toothpaste back into the tube.
SW:
I noticed that you're speaking at the Ottawa conference.
Are you up to taking suggestions into this meeting from the babblers?
Reefermadness and I might have helpful suggestions to make.
I'm always open to hearing suggestions and engaging in discussion. But, in the end, it is my presentation. I can't guarantee how or if I'll be able to include your suggestions.
Stunned Wind:
I have no suggestions for you (I'm not even sure what topic you're presenting on) but if the presentations will be made public after the event, I'd be interested in seeing them.
I hate to state the obvious but the people who can implement PR don't want it and those who want it can't implement it.
It is because the leadership is out of tune with the voters. Ordinary NDP voters are decent people who believe in fairness and fair voting.
You're right about ordinary voters but you're wrong about the leadership. The leadership is very well aware that their supporters want PR which is a big reason why the dirty work of killing STV was farmed out to deniable henchmen. However, they also know that the NDP enjoy an advantage under FPTP in that their vote is more "efficient" than that of the Liberals. In other words, they require fewer votes (on average) to form a majority government. Whatever views they have on fairness are outweighed by pragmatic recognition that the system can work in their favour.
I see three possible ways to getting PR.
1. Happenstance: According to Dr Pilon's excellent book, many if not most countries who have PR got it because political parties brought it in for their own purposes, often to forestall what they saw as a worse possibility. Many brought it in after WWI to prevent communists from taking control under FPTP elections. I understand there is such an opportunity right now in Canada. Apparently, the Conservatives would like to make the Senate elected with a PR voting system. What is bizarre is that Fair Vote Canada has taken the position that this has to wait until we have PR in the Commons.
2. Public Education: The public needs education on voting systems in general and how it relates to democracy, not just PR. This needs to happen anyway but I don't think anybody has the combination of sufficient motivation and sufficient resources to do the educating that would be required to do what needs to be done.
3. Court Action: As JKR pointed out
Civil rights movements do not depend on referendums to further their causes.
We need to face the fact that historically, the majority has not very often acceded rights willingly to minorities. They've had to be fought for in courts and in the streets. People may be notionally motivated by fairness but they won't get really upset about injustice unless it affects them personally. All you have to do is offer them a flimsy pretext as a rationalization for continuing the unfairness (e.g. minority/coalition governments are bad) and they are quite willing to continue do so.
AFAIK, the STV campaign raised 200K during the space of a month. I don't know what it would cost to fight a court case, though.
I'm always open to hearing suggestions and engaging in discussion. But, in the end, it is my presentation. I can't guarantee how or if I'll be able to include your suggestions.
No one would dream of asking you to change your presentaton. However, you being on the agenda meant you'd likely be in Ottawa for the onference whereas RM pointed out that he certainly couldn't go.
I guess I was also thinking that FV might include some mechanism for accepting contributions from interested parties who were unable to make the trip. You being a Fair Voter might have been able to facilitate this.
RM:
You observe that "the majority has not very often acceded rights willingly to minorities" but I think that in this case, the "minority" actually is the "majority"... they just don't know it yet.
The real minority is the political fraternity and they are keeping the gate locked against fairness using smoke and mirrors to misdirect the majority. This is "business as usual" which needs to change.
Fair and equal voting rights as civil rights? That's a Charter thing, right? The argument that equality of voting rights are part and parcel of a Canadian's basic rights should be easy to make. The logic of just what that means for our electoral system in terms of what it must do to vouchsafe those rights is pretty straightforward too.
The notion of "fairness under the law" suggests that a legal approach could be fruitful.
These are the best opportunities now available to us as active agents rather than the passive approach of waiting for circumstance to provide an opportunity.
Note that these arguments don't make mention of fairness for political parties... nor should they. No matter. Achieving essential voting fairness and equality for Canadians will ensure fairness for parties as a byproduct in any event.
But we'd have to stop advocating for proportional representation as the solution. It isn't. It never was.
Closing length.
