The single transferable vote referendum confuses nearly everyone I know. The only reason I’m not confused is that I lived in Ireland, where they’ve had proportional representation since the 1920s. I tried the patience of at least six Irish folks before I came to understand how it works.
Jordan emailed me with a pointer to this bit of educational flash, which does a pretty decent job of explaining how the STV works. Essentially, an STV system does a better job of representing the populace’s choice. It’s a system that’s designed to make every vote actually count.
Here’s a site opposed to the STV. One criticism it raises is that the system is complicated. Well, yes, it’s more complicated than ticking a box, but do we have so little faith in our citizens? Don’t we think they’ll be able to rank a half-dozen politicians?
Another criticism of the particular proportional representation system that STV uses is that it has a high ‘threshold’ for fringe parties. That is (and these stats only come from the anti-STV site, so take them with a grain of salt), only a party with roughly 12% of the popular vote in a given riding would have a shot at a seat in the legislature. This puts the Green Party within striking range, but probably rules out the Marijuana or Unity/Reform parties. I’m a Green Party supporter, but it seems to me that there ought to be some practical minimum for a given seat.
Here’s another site (I already detected one inaccuracy and one dubious argument in their FAQ, though) opposed to STV, and another one in favour of it.
Regardless, I’m convinced that STV offers a fairer, more representative system of government. The established parties fear it, predictably, but I’m really pleased that we’ve got a chance to vote in support of it.
In the context of the current confidence/non-confidence vote in federal politics, Dean quotesthis observation:
Conservative Party: 29.63% of the popular vote (4,019,498)
Bloc Quebecois: 12.39% of the popular vote (1,680,109)
Conservatives + Bloc: 42.02% of the popular vote (5,699,607)vs.
Liberal Party: 36.73% of the vote (4,982,220)
NDP: 15.68% of the vote (2,127,402)
Liberals + NDP: 52.41% of the popular vote (7,109,622)
Of course, I expect it’ll take 20 years and a national referendum before we see any form of proportional representation at the federal level.
DarrenBarefoot.com 
I responded to a post over on Urban Vancouver, linking to a site which I think is a really, really good walk-through:
I think the most confusing thing is the name. Proportional representation as a term seems to be more widely understood — i.e. parties get seats based on the proportion of votes they got.
The demo choice poll results seem to make sense to me: the person with the most overall votes definitely gets elected, you chop off the extra votes and redistribute (second choices etc.). Repeat as necessary until the seats are filled, and the elected representatives reflect who people actually wanted, as opposed to winner-takes-all.
But don’t worry…there is NO WAY this will pass, as not enough people understand it or even know about it. I believe the requirements for it being accepted are also quite high — a large majority PLUS a majority of ridings, IIRC.
(And I am in favour, if that’s not clear)
Hi Darren,
Proportional representation is very simple for the voter. All you are doing is ranking the candidates in the order you prefer them. Its biggest advantage is it results in a fairer representation of popular opinion. Its biggest disadvantage is it results in much smaller majorities and more coalition governments (though some may see that as an advantage). Just look at the results of the recent Britihs general election, and you will see why First Past the Post elections are basically undemocratic.
Declan.
I’m a huge STV fan.
The “it’s too complicated” argument really bugs me. As long as there is a paper trail and an auditable system, I don’t care how complicated the count is. A lot of things are complicated in government – how many citizens do you think could balance a provincial budget?
I love how a proportional system could lead to more minority governments. To paraphrase David Suzuki, talking at a pro-STV rally: “Sure minority governments are a bit slower. If you want speed and efficiency, get a dictator.”
After last weeks election in the UK theres a big argument about our single vote system now. Labour won by only 3% yet have way more seats in the new parliament than the Conservatives. With STV Conservatives and Labour would have had fair representation, and Labour no majoirty. There was an excellent full description in yesterdays Independent.
*Hopes HTML works in the comment box*
Good post Darren – and I’m not just saying that because you’re voting yes (although it doesn’t hurt).
I agree that worries about STV being complicated are overstated, but I’m not convinced (like Boris) that it won’t pass. Polls have consistently shown above 60% support (the requirement for a ‘yes’ vote to be binding) among decided/informed voters. Of course undecided/uninformed still make up half the population so it really comes down to their reaction on seeing the question in the ballot booth.
If you’ll forgive a little self-promotion, I have lots of links and info on STV (including a running list of blogs in favour/opposed/neutral) at my ‘vote yes’ blog.
If we move to STV, won’t parties simply run more candidates? Supporters will vote along party lines. Candidates (and elected officials) will form alliances, pandering to interests the way they do now. Voters will be part of a larger constituency, so people from smaller areas won’t be heard. For example, affluent, educated and urban areas tend to have higher voter turnouts. With the move to larger constituencies, poor, less educated and rural voters will not have their interests heard as much. Won’t this be like the at-large system we see in Vancouver?
Furthermore, the average citizen often barely has an idea of even two candidates. If they have to rank several, they will see this as complicated. And they still won’t vote.
These are just my concerns. I haven’t made up my mind and am interested in hearing why these things might not be so.
It doesn’t make a lot of sense to run more candidates than there are seats for, but if they do, I’ll just vote for the candidates that I prefer on the platform that I like.
Also, while I usually vote NDP, I’d be more likely to use a vote or two to support Green Party candidates that I like.
Even if people vote along party lines, the makup of the house will be much closer to the way people actually voted, as this illustrates.
I think that STV will make partisan politics more difficult, will provide consistency of policy from one government to another, will allow election of the best candidates running rather than simply have people vote party lines, and will discourage gerrymandering.
My four cents.
Great link. The Citizen’s Assembly continues to impress with the way it conducted itself and what it’s delivered to voters. And I have to hand it to the Campbell government for starting an initiative and then staying out of its workings when it was very possible for the assembly to delivery something that would prevent the absurdist imbalance they enjoy now.
As for the STV being complicated, at first blush it is harder to understand than First Past the Post, but in spite of myself I like to give voters credit for being smarter about their voting than we, and the media, and many politicians, usually give them credit for.
Andrea: More or less what double-plus-ungood said. Mostly because I’ve seen it work in Ireland, I have faith in the public understanding the system (or, at least, understanding it enough to vote).
double-plus-ungood is also right about party politics. My one major concern is that STV may breed a sameness in the parties. Go ask 10 Irish people to describe the platform differences between Fianna Fail and Fine Gael (the two major parties) and they won’t be able to. At least I haven’t been able to get a solid answer thus far.
This may have more to do with the parties’ origins in the Civil War, but it’s still a little worrying.
But Canada has never seen a civil war. Do people here care enough about politics to learn about several candidates? There are 22 candidates running in the City of Vancouver area this time around. How many people could really rank more than a couple?
Andrea: From my perspective, ranking two people and knowing that my vote will be counted, is profoundly better than voting for one. Three, five, seven, anything greater than one and an assurance of my vote being meaningful makes all the difference to me.
So, even if the average number of candidates ranked is, say, 2.3, I think it’s considerably more democratic than the current system.
Also, every citizen has the option of only voting for one person. So, we’re not demanding that the electorate be more informed.
Darren, the Fianna Fail and Fine Gael parties were born out of the two sides of the civil war. The civil war itself was basically fought between the people who had fought for independence so both parties are actually more like splits that occurred in one parent party. Traditionally FF were more country/farmer based while FG were more town/intelligencia based. FG were and are more center-right and FF more center left. Proportional Representaion then complicates the ideologies by making single party majorities difficult and coalitions more the norm. FF have spent alot of time in coalition with the Progressive Democrats, who are more conservative/tory style right-wing and business focused. The current government as a result is center right. FGs are center right but their natural coalition partners are Labour and the Workers Party dragging them to the left.
Andrea, you are right parties tend to run more candidates, but those candidates tend to come from different areas and are aimed at maximizing the party vote. Also consituancies in Ireland have more than one seat, there are 3, 4 and 5 seat areas. In a 5 seater, Fianna Fail will generally run 3 candidates and expect to win 2 seats. Fine Gael would probably run 2 and expect to win 1 and probably be close to the 2nd as well. The smaller parties will then usually win 2 sometimes 3 seats. Many people (I’ll include myself here) will vote down the line for their party (in my case Fianna Fail). They will then vote for their coalition favourites. After that alot of people wont give any preference to the other candidates. They end up voting for their top 5. Some people believe you should use all your preferences, but most people dont. Inevitably you wont learn everything about all the candidates, but you learn what you can and vote based on what you know, or at worse on what you know about the candidates party.
I’m voting NDP and I’m also voting in support of SCTV. it might be more complicated to have so many different points of view represented in the house but, It will be a better representation of the what voters want.
I support the STV too, and it seems perfectly understandable to me. I haven’t heard a good argument yet from the No side.
CBC yesterday afternoon had two panelists on representing each side. They also did a fun mock vote on the website using favourite flavours of ice cream to illustrate how the ranking and results work.
Mmmmm, ice cream.
http://www.cbc.ca/bcvotes2005/features/stv.html
Darren & Declan: thanks for your informed answers.
MLAs in rural BC already cover huge geographic areas. Under STV, I am concerned those areas will become even larger. Although parties might run candidates from several areas to maximize the vote, it seems more likely to me that they’ll run candidates from areas with the greatest voter turnout and the greatest support for their party. In rural areas, this might mean that parties will mainly run candidates from Nanaimo or Prince George, but not from Port Hardy or Chetwynd. SImilarly, even in urban areas, parties will pander to the high turnout, affluent, educated populace, running candidates that Dunbar voters like, knowing that there are fewer Strathcona voters. Since it’s generally the urban and affluent voters who show up at the polls, the minority voters will still be in the minority, only more so. Or am I missing something?
Andrea: If we view “more democratic” in part as “more representative of the population”, then that’s probably a fair assessment (though I’m no STV expert).
To say ‘minority voters will still be in the minority’ is a bit misleading though. After all, those who vote for the Green party are in a minority, but they might win representation, which they couldn’t do before.
I’m guessing that the STV will more accurately reflect the distribution of the population. Right now, for example, there are northern ridings which literally contain half the number of voters as metroplitan ridings. Is that fair?
Thanks, Darren. I see your point about representation for people who vote Green (or Socred or whatever).
I do think it *is* fair that some ridings carry half the population. The MLAs for those ridings need to cover a far wider geography. An urban MLA like Jenny Kwan can spend the morning in Mount Pleasant, lunch in Chinatown, early afternoon at the Carnegie Library, and then catch a late ferry to Victoria. However, MLAs in our remote ridings have to deal with constituents who live far apart. They spend a lot of time on the road so that they can actually meet with citizens. They also have to make long flights to Victoria. For example, let’s say you are a Prince George-Peace River MLA who lives in the Peace. You still have to go to Prince George to meet with constituents! And, to fly to Victoria, you have a 4.5 hour flight from Dawson Creek. Given time in getting to the airport, it’s all all-day event for you to go to Victoria for meetings. If the geographies were larger, northern MLAs would never get to meet with anyone.
Andrea: Are the current riding sizes ideal? I’m not sure. I do know that when I move from Vancouver to Peace River, my vote doubles in its power. Regardless of MLA travel time, I’m not sure if that’s particularly democratic.