Submission BANGAY-1097 (Online)
|
| Submission By | Mr Alan Bangay |
| Address | Sechelt, BC, |
| Organization | |
| Date | 20040811 |
| Category | Citizens' Assembly process, Electoral system change |
|
Abstract
|
|
I am part of the over 70% of those making submissions who favour
the MMP model. STV cannot make the claim to be more democratic than
the MPP system, since the voting system at the polls is more
complex. [2 pages]
|
|
Submission Content
|
SUBMISSION TO THE B.C. CITIZENS' ASSEMBLY ON PROPORTIONAL
REPRESENTATIONAL VOTING
I understand that the public of B.C's submissions to the above
Citizens Assembly are in excess of 70% in favour of the Mixed
Member Proportional (MMP) and 4% in favour of the Single
Transferable Vote (STV) systems of voting. It should be noted that
in the few countries where it has been tried, (Malta and Ireland),
the STV system does not produce democratic results.
I am part of the over 70% favouring the MMP model, for the
following reasons:
-
It is simple to work with because it doesn't require a voter to
understand a much more complex system.
-
The results tend to be more gender representative. After all,
over 50% of eligible voters in B.C. are women. The numbers of women
who qualify for seats in the B.C. Legislature should reflect that
percentage as closely as possible. Where the STV system has been
tried, it has gender-bias favouring men over women.
-
Vote counting under the MMP system is transparent and
straight-forward, whereas under the STV system, there are so many
complex steps to go through that it would take much more than 1 day
to achieve final results. This would put volunteer scrutineers at a
distinct disadvantage.
-
Under the MMP system, election results are known within hours of
poll closings so candidates and the public get to know in a
properly timely fashion who will form the government and who will
sit in opposition. The STV system is very complex to administer
following poll closings with its many complex steps, thus it is
subject to error at many points. Results could take days and longer
to become known. The process is anything but transparent because of
the numbers of steps and calculations, which will not be readily
understood by most voters. This could result in many voter errors.
Further, it is not clear if scrutineers, as we know them today,
would be able to participate in all the steps required before a
winner is decided upon.
-
The STV system cannot make the claim to be more democratic than
the MPP system, since the voting system at the polls is in itself
more complex. The more complex any system is, the greater the
probability of error.
Now I understand that within the Citizens Assembly itself, there
are obvious bias problems. Did the committee struck to select the 9
present have the entire Citizens Assembly ratify their choices
before continuing with the reporting process? If so, was the voting
bias position of each of the 9 representatives made crystal clear
to the entire assembly before such an approval vote would have
taken place? If not, then the Citizens Assembly work is immediately
flawed and the committee currently selected should be disbanded and
replaced with one which meets the above criteria.
I understand that of the current 9 members on the presenter, only 2
favouring the MMP position will be permitted to speak Does this
mean that any other MMP supporters on the committee are thus
silenced? Or has this committee have only 2 persons who represent
the overwhelming 70% of the public who want the MMP voting system?
Only 2 members of the 9-member presentation committee are women.
The whole Citizens Assembly was about 50% women, so why then do
only 2 women qualify to be on the current presentation
committee?
The make-up of the representation committee for reporting to the
Legislature must reflect what the public input is saying, so as
close to 70% of these 9 presenters should be persons who favour the
MMP systems of voting, with 4% of the committee representing the
STV voting system. Apparently, the pro-STV representation on this
committee (4 members) greatly over-represents this minority public
opinion. Until this problem is addressed and corrected by the
re-creation of a new balanced committee, which correctly represents
the public's input in proportion to that public input, then the
entire process at this point, becomes fraudulent and cannot be
valid. Failure to recreate this committee as it currently stands,
subverts the democratic process and conceivably might be
manipulated in favour of continuing right-wing only supremacy
regardless of how B.C. voters cast their votes. This would not be
an improvement over the current, faulty system of
first-past-the-post.
I would expect that in a truly democratic process, all 9 persons
chosen to report to the legislature would have equal opportunity to
speak. Anything less that that makes the whole exercise become a
farce! It is also an affront to the entire B.C. Citizens Assembly
Membership and the voters of British Columbia.
|
levelCMS