Yes or No To STV Choice is Yours

Wednesday, May 06, 2009 01:04 PM

Prince George, B.C. - Single Transferrable Vote, the system that would give you the option of making more than one choice on the election ballot is once more before the electorate in B.C.

What is it? It is a system that will , depending on the size of the constituency, allow you to elect 2-7 representatives. You would mark your ballot as first second third choice, and so on.

( at right, Bruce Hallsor answers questions, while Bruce Strachan waits his turn to speak)

Bruce Hallsor, speaking on behalf of the YES to STV side, says the system will produce minority governments, “I say that’s better than electing the wrong party.” He says that despite elections which have resulted in huge swings from one party to another, it wasn’t the voters who did that, “It was our electoral system that did that.” He says voters will have more choice, “The voter who wants to vote for a Liberal candidate can decided which one they like, the voter who wants to vote for the NDP will have several candidates to choose from. The voter who wants to vote for the Green party won’t be told not to bother voting because they will be wasting their vote.” Hallsor says no matter who forms the government, a voter will have representation in the government.

Under STV there will be 10 ridings in the lower mainland, and ten in the north. Hallsor says that means better representation for rural B.C.

On the NO side, Bruce Strachan, the former Socred MLA . He wanted to focus on three areas.

The current system “first past the post”: “It has served us well,” Says Strachan “ it has served us well provincially and served us federally.” It is immediate, Strachan says the existing system is clear “ its decisive and it’s what the voters wanted.”
Myths about STV: It is only used in three jurisdictions, Ireland, Malta and the Australian Senate. He says the Irish system is about the closest to our system. He says you can’t say STV delivers change as the same political party has been in charge for 71 years, “Don’t believe the myths that STV will be all things to all people.”
The Map: “If you look at the map, that’s the thing that upsets me so much, to make the convoluted math work, and make 85 representatives, there will be 20 huge areas. The new riding for Quesnel stretches just north of Hixon to the US border, Who do you think is going to dominate that riding, it will be Kamloops.” He pointed to the existing system and Prince George Mackenzie. He noted that incumbent Pat Bell has an office in Mackenzie and knows that he needs that Mackenzie vote in order to get elected “Under STV, he wouldn’t need Mackenzie, he could focus his votes in Prince George where the votes are.” He says the STV system is like deciding the Stanley cup not by who won the most games, but who scored the most goals. ( you can see the map issued by Elections B.C. by clicking here)

In order for STV to be adopted as the electoral system in B.C. it would need to be approved by 60% of the popular vote, and 50% +1 majority in 60% of all ridings. If approved, it would be used for three terms before being reviewed.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Wednesday, May 06, 2009 01:04 PM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: Palopu on May 6 2009 1:37 PM

Its a rare day indeed that I would agree with Bruce Strachan, but in this case I do.

BCSTV-----NO.

Posted by: gus on May 6 2009 2:24 PM

Under the current system, the Conservatives could take enough votes from the BCLiberals to cause the NDP to run up the middle and win the riding.

Or, the greens could take enough votes from the NDP, to keep the riding in the hands of the BCLiberals. It becomes a coin toss that can go either way if it is a close election. None of the minority will get in.

Under the STV, in a close election, the small splinter groups will not have an effect on the outcome. The two larger parties will split the vote in today's climate, for instance. It would be either 2 BCLiberals and one NDP, or the reverse. It is unlikely it would be 3 members of either of the two parties.

Under the present system, 3 members from the BCLiberals is what we have and could end up with again. It is also within the realm of possbility to have 3 members of the NDP. In neither case would that be representative of the people's political leanings.

Just think, you get to choose the person you will go and talk to if there is an issue once people are back in the legislature. You do not have that option now.

Posted by: swingline on May 6 2009 2:51 PM

Right now I can go to my MLA's office and talk to him/her... what happens when "The North" is one riding? Are all the MLAs centralised in PG? Is it really fair to have people "representing" such a large area? The issues important in Dawson Creek are far different than those on the Charlottes, how are those discrepancies solved under STV? At least in the current system, I know who my vote goes to, it's not broken up between several choices using some complicated formula that is different in each riding.

First Past the Post may not be ideal, but we shouldn't vote for STV just because we don't like the current system.

Posted by: Andyfreeze on May 6 2009 3:34 PM

First past the post is a problem in the sense that if you live in a riding that pretty much gets ignored by the elected party,there really isn't much help when you have issue.
If you have a representative who is not a member of the elected/governing party in Victoria,you have no hope at all of getting much done!
While I am unsure if I will actually be voting in support of STV,(still considering it)there is no question we do in fact need a better system.
We also need a better format for removal of politicians who perform poorly for their riding.
Waiting until elecion time is simply not good enough and Recall does not work,but that's another issue.
It was designed by politicians,so why would it work?
I want an elected representative that speaks his mind and listens to those who elected him.
If I vote for someone to do the job for my riding, I do not expect him to spout off party rhetoric or whatever it is he is told to say.
Under the first past the post system,they have no opinion unless it is cleared with the party leader.
That's just not good enough anymore.
It would also seem that the ones who are the most vocal about not supporting STV, are politicians.
That too makes me wonder.
Are they advising us to reject it for our own benefit...or their own?
Seems to me that this is a lot like Campbell advising employers to speak to their employees to support the Liberals.
People can think for themselves and need to do just that.
They do not need Campbell to tell their employers to speak to them on the Liberals behalf!

Posted by: diplomat on May 6 2009 4:06 PM

I can't see how seven MLA's in one riding can agree on anything if they represent different parties.

They will be so busy having arguments about what the priorities should be in their riding that very little if anything will ever get done.

Since the fine art of compromise in politics is just a figment of wishful thinking on the part of some idealists and it does not actually exist in real political life I will do the same as Palopu:

BCSTV-----NO.

Posted by: Harbinger on May 6 2009 4:13 PM

BCSTD--No. If that were to happen you would have to spend the first six months after the election forming coalitions. Who's yer friend? Maybe a tree hugging right winger? In this day and age when five people in a room couldn't agree on what to have fer lunch, no way do we need STDs.

Posted by: BCRacer on May 6 2009 4:25 PM

Who decides where my vote goes??obviously not me, well not really....I want to do that, so, no to STV.

Posted by: EatsBushesShoots&Leaves on May 6 2009 5:06 PM

This is BC. There is no second choice.

Posted by: getajob on May 6 2009 5:10 PM

I think i would rather just vote for the party i want in! so nope on the STV..

Posted by: BC Mary on May 6 2009 5:16 PM

.
What scares me about STV is the counting of the votes.

Seems to me there's room for error, room for disagreement, room for dirty tricks. Dubya tricks.

Then there are those enormous ridings.

STV seems like a very poor choice.

Couldn't folks look at Proportional Representation instead? I'm not sure it's perfect either, but I do wonder why we can't consider other options.

.

Posted by: diplomat on May 6 2009 5:37 PM

Harbinger:"BCSTD--No."

I didn't think so, because STD stands for Sexually Transmitted Disease, usually.

I don't think it will have a chance if it is called BCSTD.

Posted by: thinkingaboutit on May 6 2009 6:03 PM

I will vote for this. Why not? The first past the post system means that I have to vote strategically, eg to avoid vote splitting. If it is a mess we can reform it again.

Posted by: gus on May 6 2009 6:55 PM

"Right now I can go to my MLA's office and talk to him/her... what happens when "The North" is one riding"

That was the old m,ap that was up here. It was never meant to represent the riding.

The riding will be the same as the two we have here now plus the one Rustad is running in to try to get re-elected. Sorry, don't know who else is running in that.

It would mean that PG woiuld once again be the largest population centre of the riding.

Posted by: Harbinger on May 6 2009 8:52 PM

Leave well enough alone.

Posted by: socredible on May 6 2009 9:02 PM

No to BC-STV. It's an utterly ridiculous set-up, way worse than FPP. The size of many of the new proposed rural ridings would make it extremely difficult for those elected to ever adequately represent all their constituents.

First thing that will happen if it's adopted will be all the MLAs in those ridings will start crying for a large pay increase to cover all the additional travelling necessary to properly attend to riding business.

The whole cost of government, already far more than it should be, will increase dramatically. While 'service', as in most other things, will continue to decline.

Posted by: Free Enterprise on May 6 2009 9:53 PM

BC-STV - Say NO! Its only good for big cities like Vancouver. It would hurt places like Prince George. Less representation by a long shot.

Posted by: realitysetsin on May 6 2009 10:59 PM

Free Enterprise;

I agree, from what I have read / researched I agree. In a bigger center it would work. In smaller centers, no go. I am on the no side, albeit softly so at this point.

Posted by: Wayne Smith on May 7 2009 12:58 AM

In what sense has the current system served us well?

In 1996, the Liberals got the most votes, but the NDP formed a "majority" government.

In 2001, the Liberals got 58% of the votes and won 97% of the seats.

The current "majority" government received 46% of the votes. We consider it normal for one political party to have all of the power, even though most people voted against them.

Most of us vote for people who don't get elected. Most MLAs "represent" mostly people who voted against them. The government we get is not the one we voted for.

The current voting system is a disaster. It's an antique. It horribly distorts the results of every election.

With BC-STV, instead of one MLA who we probably voted against, we will have several, probably including our first choice.

Voters will have the power to hold politicians and political parties accountable, because our votes will actually make a difference.

With no phony majorities, Government will be accountable to Parliament.

BC-STV will give us more real choices, fairer election results, and accountable government.

Choice? It's a no-brainer.

On May 12, vote for BC-STV!

Posted by: diplomat on May 7 2009 6:47 AM

Wayne: "Voters will have the power to hold politicians and political parties accountable, because our votes will actually make a difference"

That is one of the most worn out claims in politics!

HOW will you *hold them accountable*? By recall? You know that it works only when the targetted politician resigns first.

So what does that power that you insist we will get with BC-STV consist of?

Once they are elected, they are in. Nothing would change. This accountability thing is a red herring.

"The current voting system is a disaster. It's an antique. It horribly distorts the results of every election."

I disagree. It's not perfect but BC-STV has its shortcomings too, including some serious ones.

Posted by: Northboy on May 7 2009 7:45 AM

I'm with the no vote on this one.

We have new electoral boundaries with a new rural based fiding. Let's see how that works out first, shall we?

STV favours the metro and population density. The last thing we need is a process that concentrates MORE POWER in the urban.

Maybe the rural ;population may need to consider new ways to get their voice heard, but that wouldn't be "democratic"
to some boosters of this brain wave.

Haven't they heard of the "tyranny of the masses"????

Posted by: diplomat on May 7 2009 9:05 AM

"If approved, it would be used for three terms before being reviewed."

BC-STV would be an experiment and we would be stuck with it for 12 years, no matter what we discover once its in place!

12 years is a very long time so we better give this some very serious thought.

I don't like it.

Posted by: gus on May 7 2009 10:31 AM

"STV favours the metro and population density."

I think there is some truth to that. Look at the poll-by-poll vote in an urban area such as PG and you can see that the right wing vote is concentrated in the more rural areas around the city. As one gets into suburbia, it becomes weaker, and then reverses towards the centre and less wealthier areas of the City.

If the boundaries of the two ridings here, or the three as they were, were drawn in a circular fashion, the representatives of the area same geographical area would typically include a left wing party in the centre, a right wing party in the rural ring, and a toss up in the suburban ring.

STV in Prince George would likely return that exact kind of representation.

It is how one draws the boundaries that is the actual key. Anyone who is involved with sampling for statistical analysis would understand that. The more concentrated the sampling area in this sort of application where people of different income groups tend to congregate together, the more homogeneous it becomes.

Posted by: gus on May 7 2009 10:39 AM

How does that favour the metro areas? Because the people in the metro area now have representatives which more truly represent their political stripes.

Do we want that????????

Of course not!!!! Why would anyone believe in such democratic principles? Right?

Posted by: Palopu on May 8 2009 10:22 PM

Wayne Smith.

**Government will be responsible to Parliment***

This is a Provincial initiative, not Federal. We have a Legislative Assembly, not a Parliment. Where are you coming from?????

BCSTV is border line moronic. There are only 3 places on Earth where it is used, Malta, Ireland, and one other that nobody knows. What has Ireland done in the past 100 years that wuld make any country want to immulate them???? Nothing would be a pretty close answer.