Proportional Representation is within our grasp in BC, if we can just figure out what BC-STV means. It’s the BC Single Transferable Vote, and it’s our best chance to change the way we “do politics” in BC.
by Delores Broten
It’s that time again, when BC hits the hustings for our favourite blood sport, politics. Gordon Campbell’s Liberals passed legislated electoral dates, so we know that, barring a disaster, the next provincial election will take place May 17th, 2005.
We also know that, despite the agony of thousands of voters who want to see the Liberals and their social service and environment cuts dumped, the NDP and the Green Party are not going to come to any kind of “accommodation” to prevent vote splitting. Said it was a blood sport, didn’t I? Only I forgot to mention that it is our blood, we the people, which the politicians are playing with.
The reasons are several.
On the Green side, not only would at least a third of the party membership rather eat nails (or beef) than get anywhere near the “left” NDP, but the Green Party thinks it’s on a roll after polling 12% in the last provincial election and holding on to a lot of that vote in the recent federal election. On a practical rather than ideological level (having no ideology is a kind of ideology) any attempt at accommodation would see the Green Party pull its punches in ridings where the NDP are within hailing distance of election. The Greens can’t afford to do that – they are just on the verge of political respectability, and they have to perform well enough to keep a seat at the all-important TV leadership debate. Also, some Greens believe they can win seats even under our current “winner-take-all,” first-past-the-post system.
As for the NDP, not only do they scorn the Greens as dilettantes, while parts of the entrenched labour component of the party are still severely allergic to “greens,” but their best hope is that the Greens start to split the vote on the right wing side of the ballot. Where the NDP is going to hurt is on Vancouver Island, traditional NDP turf, captured in the last decade by conservatives of various parties. Here the Greens are strong, and they do demonstrably split off NDP votes. The NDP can only hope that the Greens exhaust themselves in this election, so they don’t have to deal with them in 2009.
Which brings us to the meat of this election, the referendum on Proportional Representation.
If both 60% of the voters, and the majority of voters in at least 48 (60%) of the 79 provincial ridings answer yes, BC will have a new proportional representation system of voting for the 2009 election. The referendum results are not binding on the government, but it is pretty hard to imagine any political party going so directly against the people’s wish (although certainly there are precedents for that kind of abuse of political power.)
The members of the Citizens’ Assembly, in a remarkable experiment in populism, were drawn at random from the voters’ list. They spent their weekends for a year studying electoral systems around the world, and finally settled on what they call BC-STV – a Single Transferable Vote system designed for BC. The Assembly members are very enthusiastic about their choice: “It’s similar to the system that’s used in Ireland for almost 100 years, and is not only easy to use, but promises more choice, fairer results, and more power to the voter.” Politicians, the corporate media, elements of the labour movement, and the backroom boys and girls appear to be less thrilled.
In an article in the Victoria Times Colonist, Dave Wills, a member of the Citizens’ Assembly, argues that an analysis of STV as used in Calgary and Edmonton for 20 years shows that “the single transferable vote produces results that are more consistent with the voters’ intentions, providing fair representation for smaller parties and avoiding the exaggerated majorities produced by first-past-the-post.” Wills notes that the system is not perfectly proportional to votes cast, although generally falling within a few percentage points, but the reasons the Citizens’ Assembly opted for it are pretty convincing.
They wanted all Members of the Legislative Assembly to be directly elected by voters, not appointed by political parties, as would be required in other kinds of proportional representation. They wanted those MLAs to be accountable to constituents in ridings, more free to disagree with party discipline when necessary. And they wanted to make sure that rural ridings did not lose any of their representatives in Victoria.
How does STV work?
1. All ridings will be amalgamated to make mega-ridings. The number of MLAs will stay the same so each mega-riding will have more than one MLA.
2. Voters will rank their preferences. You can rank as many names on the ballot as you want: First choice, second choice, third choice…As the Citizens’ Assembly said, Voting is as simple as “1,2,3.”
3. The votes are counted in a kind of run-off system.
4. First, the “quota” — the number of votes required to be elected — is determined. Around the world there are about 6 different formulas which vary in very minor ways to determine the quota. The choice recommended for BC, called Droop’s formula, slightly favours parties receiving an actual majority of the votes, ensuring that they receive a majority in the legislature.
5. Second choice votes are re-distributed from both winning candidates who have more votes than they need, and the lowest scoring candidates, the ones who won’t be packing their bags for Victoria. Those redistributed votes are calculated, using a weighted formula for fairness, from the second choice votes of both the winners and the knocked off candidates, until enough candidates meet the needed vote quota.
Complicated calculations? A little. Perfect? No. The end of hold-your-nose strategic voting? Probably. Are you likely to have at least one MLA who represents your interests, or at least talks to you? Yes.
Better, more fair, more proportional, than what we’ve got now? Undoubtedly.
Check it out. Educate yourself and your neighbours. We won’t get this chance again.
Vote Yes!
***
