[To see the submission in its original format, see
the linked document below]
Why British Columbia Should Adopt the Single
Transferable Vote (STV)
Abstract
The First-Past-The-Post electoral system has consistently failed
to provide British Columbia with representative government. The
current system should be replaced with a form of proportional
representation. The two most widely supported options for replacing
FPTP in British Columbia are MMP (Mixed Member Proportional System)
and STV (the Single Transferable Vote). STV is the better of the
two systems.
The Problem
For the past fifty years the First-Past-The-Post system has been
used as the electoral system of British Columbia. During this
period it has consistently failed to provide representative
majority government. For over three decades from 1953 onwards the
Social Credit Party enjoyed virtually uninterrupted power at
provincial level by winning a majority of seats in a succession of
elections at which it won only a minority of the popular vote. In
1996 the New Democratic Party won a majority of seats in the
Legislative Assembly though it obtained fewer votes than the
Liberal Party. In 2001 the Liberals won all but three of the seats
in the legislature with 58% of the vote and the Green party with
12% failed to win a single seat.
The Solution
The replacement of FPTP with a system of proportional
representation would make the Legislative Assembly more
representative of the people of British Columbia and prevent
problems of the kind outlined above.
Which System of Proportional
Representation?
The Mixed Member Proportional System (MMP) which as well as
being used in New Zealand is also used in Germany, Scotland and
Wales, has gained a great number of spontaneous and enthusiastic
endorsements as a replacement electoral system for British
Columbia. However, though a vast improvement on the current system,
MMP is not the best replacement available. The best replacement
system is, in my opinion, the Single Transferable Vote (STV).
STV and MMP Compared
Two Classes of Member
Under MMP approximately half the members are elected from single
member ridings and half from party lists as top-up members to
ensure a proportional result. One problem with this is that it
creates two different types of member -those with ridings and those
without. All of the direct members are likely to be members of the
major parties with minor parties only having list representation.
Contrast this with the situation under STV in which all members
represent multi-member geographical ridings.
Fixed Lists
The use of fixed lists under MMP on which the parties decide the
order of candidates gives party machines too much power over which
individuals are elected. For example unpopular or unknown
candidates could be “smuggled” into office
“hidden” in party lists. If a voter wishes
to defeat an individual candidate he or she dislikes on a party
list the only option available to them is to vote against the
entire list. The voter under MMP has no power to express a
preference as to which individual candidates of a party she/he
would like to see elected.
Single Member Ridings
The use of single member ridings under MMP is often presented as
an advantage of the system. I have never understood the arguments
for this. Take the following situation as an example. You approach
the member who represents your riding with a problem you would like
help with or an issue about which you feel deeply. Your direct
riding member disagrees with you on this issue- you are stuck. It
would be much better if you had a number of direct members
representing a range of opinion -at least one of them is likely to
be sympathetic to your point of view.
Another problem with single member direct ridings is that, as
under FPTP, members are likely to only represent a minority of the
electorate in a riding. Also since a party will only nominate a
single candidate in each riding voters will have in effect no
choice over which member of a party will represent them.
Proportionality is Solely Considered in Terms of
Party
MMP in common with all proportional systems based on party lists
considers proportionality solely in terms of party. Whilst
proportionality of party is important it is not the only sort of
proportionality. I would strongly argue that proportionality of
opinion is also important. For a example if a voter wishes to vote
for candidates on the basis of issues that cross party lines this
is impossible under a system that uses fixed lists as a basis for
determining proportionality.
Independents
It is difficult for independent candidates to win seats under
MMP. For the direct seats they have the same very low chance of
election that they have under FPTP. For the list seats independent
candidates have virtually no chance of victory.
STV- A Candidate Based Proportional System
The major advantage STV has over all other proportional systems
is that as a candidate based system it gives the maximum power and
choice to the individual voter. Since STV would be conducted in
multi-member ridings parties would need to nominate a number of
candidates in each riding thereby providing voters with a choice as
to which individual candidates from a party they wish to represent
them. If one of the candidates of a voter’s preferred
party is disliked by the voter she/he has the freedom under STV to
not vote for that particular candidate. In an STV election if all
voters vote entirely on the basis of party allegiance STV will give
seats in proportion to party strength. Voters can under STV, if
they wish, vote for candidates on the basis of criteria other than
party to give proportionality on the basis of issues the voters
consider important rather than merely on the basis of narrow party
allegiance. STV as system encourages representatives to give a good
level of service to and be responsive to the voters who elect them.
Representatives who fail to represent the interests of local people
can under STV be defeated by other candidates of their own party.
Contrast this with the MMP system where a member disliked locally
can be given a high position on a party list and still win a list
seat despite being defeated locally in his or her riding.
Voting in an STV Election is Complicated
A common critisism of STV is that casting a preferential ballot
is too complicated a task for people to understand. This is simply
not true. Preferential voting is currently used in Ireland,
Australia and has in the past been used in Canada with no apparent
problems.
Another critisism made of the use of preferential ballots in
British Columbia is that using one system at federal level (marking
ballot papers with X’s) and another preferential system
at provincial level will lead to confusion and an increase in
spoilt and invalid ballot papers. Since 1973 Northern Ireland has
used preferential voting for local and European elections and
voting with X’s for elections to the House of Commons
with no apparent difficulties. Also it is worth noting that British
Columbia itself used preferential ballots for single-member seats
in 1952 and 1953 whilst using the current voting system for
elections to the Federal Parliament.
Counting an STV Election is Very
Complicated
It is often said that the STV counting procedure is very slow,
extremely complicated and that a computer is required to conduct
the count in a reasonable amount of time. STV was first used for
elections in Ireland in the 1920’s long before
computers were invented. The fractional transfer Newland-Britton
system has been used with hand counting in Northern Ireland for
over 30 years with no significant problems.
Conclusion
The First-Past-The-Post system has consistently failed to
provide British Columbia with representative government. The
current system should be replaced with a system of proportional
representation. Whilst MMP would undoubtedly be a great improvement
on the current system STV is the best alternative system available.
The major advantages of STV over MMP is that it takes power away
from party machines and gives it to individual voters providing
them with the greatest possible degree of choice in selecting the
individual men and women who will represent them.
levelCMS