Contact UsSearch
Click for Search Instructions
Home > Get Involved

Submission SCARLETT-1392 (Online)

Submission By Donald Scarlett
AddressKaslo, BC,
Organization
Date20040825
CategoryElectoral system change
Abstract
STV [AV] does have a place in a greatly improved electoral system for BC, but only if modified so it can work within an MMP system. [2 pages]

Submission Content
I understand that the public input phase of your electoral reform investigation is ending and that you are hearing final submissions from people who represent each of the major options open to you, namely Status Quo, Single Transferable Vote and Mixed-Member Proportional Representation. I also understand that the public presentations to your website and at your public meetings around the province showed a strong public preference for MMP and a very small desire to stick with the status quo.  Although I understand that the STV option was promoted by someone at many of your public meetings, I could not help but notice that the lone STV presenter in Nelson (the public meeting I attended) was not a local person, and was in fact sponsored by the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation.

It's no secret that there is a lot at stake when electoral reform is considered.  It would be very surprising if interest groups with a lot to gain or lose did not attempt to influence your process.  I hope, of course, that when you receive submissions from identified special interest groups such as the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation you will keep in mind the difference between the interest of a lobby group and the interest of the public.

But what I principally want to suggest to the Citizens' Assembly are the following:

  1. That the status quo need not be of much concern to you, because if you propose an electoral reform concept which becomes a future referendum question, the public will always be able to opt for the status quo by failing to support electoral reform.
  2. If MMP was by far the most popular electoral reform option expressed throughout your process, then it should be regarded as a primary option for your final report--unless the arguments in its favour contain logical or technical flaws.  My impression of presenters for MMP on your website and in Nelson was that they were generally quite familiar with their subject and spoke of realistic scenarios.  People want their democratic elections to reflect the will of the voting public, and MMP is a means to achieve that goal.  No other electoral reform option, including STV, would be as effective in doing so.  I hope the Citizens' Assembly will not be diverted by artificial constraints, such as keeping the number of seats in the legislature at today's level, from advocating the electoral reform that can do the best job of revitalizing democracy in B.C.
  3. MMP as proposed by most submissions generally is silent on the method of election of "local members" (MLAs elected directly from constituencies). The implication is that the first-past-the-post system would be retained for local member election.  This need not, and should not be your conclusion. FPTP elections anywhere in the province are not made any more democratic or fair just because there may be a "topping up" of seats from party lists at the end.  All our elections should be as democratic (i.e. reflecting the popular will) as possible.  Since MMP can't be used to elect one MLA in a single seat constituency, and FPTP is known to frequently elect MLAs who are preferred by only a minority of voters, the Citizens' Assembly should consider use of a modified form of STV for local elections under an MMP system.
The modified STV system I have in mind is simpler than the Irish model.  It could elect single members from constituencies about the same size as those we presently have.  Every ballot would have a first, second and third choice on it.  Voters fill in as many as they want (i.e. just their first preference, first and second preference, or all three) but must fill in a first preference.  Voters should be encouraged not to place the name of the same candidate in more than one preference level, but if they do so, it should be made clear that second and third preferences of the same candidate will be discarded.  Obviously, voters should be encouraged to place on their ballots only candidates who would be acceptable to them.

When the vote count takes place, if the first choice votes alone constitute a majority for a candidate out of the total number of ballots cast, he/she is declared elected.  If not, the second choice votes are combined with the first choice votes and if any candidate receives enough total votes to equal a majority of the ballots cast, she/he is declared elected.  If not, the third choice votes are combined with the first and second choice votes, and if any candidate receives enough total votes to equal a majority of the ballots cast, he/she is declared elected.  If more than one candidate at this stage receives enough total votes to equal a majority of the number of ballots cast, then the candidate with the larger number of total votes is declared elected.  In the unusual event that there is still not a majority, the candidate with the largest number of total votes is declared elected.

I chose three as the best number of choices on each ballot because often there have been more than two parties running with similar election platforms.  Voters could leave their 2nd or 3rd choices blank if they desired.  This variant of STV is well adapted to single member constituencies, is relatively easy to understand and administer, and--most important--would ensure that the person elected will always be acceptable to the largest possible number of voters (nearly always a majority).

The use of a modified version of STV for local elections in an MMPR electoral system is within the Citizens' Assembly mandate as I understand it.  It puts an end to the unfairness and undemocratic outcomes we have in the past experienced with today's FPTP electoral system.  STV does have a place in a greatly improved electoral system for B.C., but only if modified so it can work within an MMP system.

Thank you for your consideration of my submission.  I am impressed with the process and the work of the Citizens' Assembly and proud of you all for what you are trying to do for democracy.

© 2003 Citizens' Assembly on Electoral ReformSite powered by levelCMSSite Map | Privacy Policy