|
Besides casting their vote in 2005, BC voters will
be asked whether or not they want to replace the current “first
past the post” system with a new alternative.
The concept, the Single Transferable Vote (STV), is
the creation of an assembly of 160 British Columbians
randomly selected from communities around the province.
After nearly 10 months of study, research and debate,
plus 50 public hearings and 1,603 written submissions
from the public, the Assembly made a decision to go
with a variant of models in place in Ireland, parts
of Australia and Malta.
If voted in, the STV system means that instead of
writing on the ballot a single “X” for
a single candidate, the voter would be able to rank
candidates (1, 2, 3 and so on) according to the voter’s
personal preferences. As well, BC’s constituencies
would no longer be single-MLA electoral districts.
There would be larger ridings, each with more than
one MLA.
Why BC? Why Now?
The process extends the findings of
the Citizen’s Assembly on Electoral Reform, who
were mandated to review a potential alternative electoral
system for BC.
The need for an overhaul of the "first-past-the-post" system
is undeniably strong. Canada’s ‘winner-take-all’ system
polarizes the community because those among us who
did not vote for the winner feel they may as well have
not voted at all. The popular vote rarely reflects
the number of seats a party holds in legislature; and
party discipline frequently trumps local priorities.
Which is why this month BC voters will be asked to
answer the following:
"Should British Columbia change to the BC-STV
electoral system as recommended by the Citizens' Assembly
on Electoral Reform? Yes / No"
If more than 60 percent of voters, and at least 48
of the 79 constituencies say yes to this question,
then STV will become BC’s new electoral system
in 2009.
Public Knowledge
As it is now, most citizens do not have
much information about what BC-STV stands for, although
it is recommended that they do their homework - and from
more sources than one.
The STV system is a variance of Proportional Representation
(PR), which is among the most widely employed electoral
systems in the world.
PR attempts to reduce the disparity between a party’s
share of the national vote and its share of parliamentary
seats. It can be practiced in three ways:
1) Party List System (List PR)
2) Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) System
3) The Single Transferable Vote (STV) System
Out of the three, Party List PR is used most internationally.
In this system, voters vote for a political party of
their choice and not for individuals. Parties then
receive seats in proportion to their overall share
of national votes. Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland,
the Netherlands, South Africa and Argentina use this
system. Party List PR is praised for its ability to
elect more women to parliament. According to the Inter-Parliamentary
Union, PR is used in all five of the countries - Sweden,
Denmark, Norway, Finland and the Netherlands - in which
female membership exceeds 30%.
In the MMP system voters cast two votes, one for the
local MP and one for the party. MMP is used in Albania,
Bolivia, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Mexico, New Zealand
and Venezuela. New Zealand’s switch to MMP in
1996 showed an immediate improvement in women’s
and aboriginal representation. Women’s representation
increased from 21% in 1993 to 29% in 1996, while Maori
representation more than doubled (from 6% to 13%).
When asked why the BC citizen’s assembly did
not recommend the MMP, they answered that to make MMP
work as a proportional representation system within
Canada, the federal government would have to add more
seats to the legislature, which it wasn’t prepared
to do.
The
STV System
In the nineteenth century, mathematicians Thomas Hare
in Britain and Carl Andru in Denmark independently invented
the core principles of the system.
In the STV system, voters rank candidates in order
of preference. To win, a candidate needs to meet a
required quota. Political scientists have often advocated
the STV as one of the most attractive electoral systems.
However it has been rarely used throughout the world.
One of the places it has been used is in Canada, however. Alberta and Manitoba both used the STV in provincial
elections between 1920 and 1956.
Alberta’s Social Credit government abolished
the province’s use of the STV system in 1950’s,
returning the entire province to first past the post.
The government was sharply criticized for changing
the voting system without public consultation and,
not surprisingly, was accused of making the change
out of self-interest.
Political science professor Dr. J. Paul Johnston at
the University of Alberta Johnston notes that Calgary
used the STV system until 1974. "Calgary has probably
had more STV elections than any other jurisdiction
I can think of in the world," he says. Why did
they stop? "I think they probably forgot why they
had decided to use that system in the first place," he
says.
Winnipeg used STV from 1920 until it fell apart in
the 1950’s, mainly because multi-member districts
undermined the close relationship between constituents
and MLA’s. There was also no redistribution of
seats to reflect the changing population and growth
of the city.
Key Features
A key feature in the STV system is the fact that voters choose candidates, not
parties.
In principle, this means independent candidates may have a better chance of winning.
Voters are also more likely to support small, third
parties under a PR system. They know that their vote
won't be wasted if they throw their support behind
a candidate or party that has no chance at winning
the riding or the overall election.
The incentives on political parties to inform, mobilize
and recruit are vastly different under any PR system – STV
included. Proportional Representation has the potential
to change the behaviour of parties. Under PR, competition
comes from
from all parties (this includes independents) and from
all sides of the political spectrum. This puts immense
pressure on parties to clarify their
policies and be clear about who they are, what they
represent, and how they differ from their competitors.
Critics claim that PR gives rise to unstable governments
(the Nazi Party was voted in with PR with increasing
representation over 5 successive elections between
1926 and 1933), weakens political accountability
and gives too much power to small parties.
A criticism levied against STV, in particular, is
its supposed complexity. Voters are asked to rank their
preferred candidates in order of personal preference,
their ballot goes into a system where, once all the
votes are analyzed, figuring out who won is: (Votes
cast divided by [number of seats plus one]) +1.
How Does it Work?
A computer counts all votes.
The candidate with the least votes is eliminated and
the votes listing that candidate as the 1st preference
are redistributed among the candidates that were selected
as the #2 preferred choice.
The process is repeated until the winner is selected.
In a landslide scenario a winner could be elected
in the first cut, with 50% plus 1 vote result. No big
surprise there, business as usual.
In a tightly contested scenario every vote counts – no
votes are wasted – because everyone gets to have
their preferred person voted for and then also they
can clearly state their alternate choices. Typically
the outcome would be one where the elected person would
be the one that – while not everyone would be
truly happy with – it would be the person that
most of that riding could live with.
In BC, a province with a reputation for its political
polarities, debate about the merits of the proposed
electoral changes is emotional, passionate and often
not very accurately presented. Which is why it is strongly
recommended that voters do their research.
On the one side of it, the BC citizen’s assembly
is sticking by its slogan: “STV: As easy as 123!”
On the other side, opponents are more concerned with
how STV is inherently set up to “fail” in
BC. They often cite the use of STV in Malta as evidence
of the system’s potential to fail in BC, yet
they do not address the political differences between
the two regions. Malta in itself is a particularly
unique case in that is has a virtually pure two-party
system. This is unusual for any type of PR system.
The reasons why third parties do not exist in Malta
are not entirely clear.
In BC there are currently 43 registered political parties – 40
of which are considered independent.
It would be wiser for voters to study what has happened
closer to home, in Manitoba and Alberta, two provinces
which have both used the system and have had varying
results of success and failure.
Regardless of what both the critics and the believers
of the system may say, ultimately it is the choice
of the voter to decide.
Indeed, it is not about winning, it’s about
having a voice. STV may be the very process that brings
voters back to the table and reverses the trend of
voter apathy.
Eire (Southern Ireland) has used the STV system since
1922 and so far has had two referendums (both instigated
by the governing party) to replace STV with the first
past the post system. In both referendums, voters decided
to keep STV. The margin of victory was narrow in 1959,
but wide in 1968.
Editor’s Note: This subject will be covered
in more detail as more information becomes available.
|
