This submission is in support of Mixed-Member
Proportional Representation.
MMP gives people a vote for a local representative and a vote for
the party of their choice. Why is MMP a good choice for BC?
-
it's fair in terms of proportional representation. A party gets
a share of seats in the legislature proportional to its share of
province-wide vote.
-
it retains local representation, which many British Columbians
want. Ridings would have to be slightly larger but voters get two
kinds of representatives: a local representative, and party
representatives.
The fundamental problems with STV are:
-
it is unfair. Some peoples' votes have a far better chance of
getting representation, especially in a proposal like Nick Loenen's
where some voters would still have single-member ridings like
now.
-
it is complicated in terms of vote-counting. Most people want
to know how their votes are counted to have confidence in the
system.
-
it is too complicated for voters who do not want to rank lots
of candidates.
-
it is not proportional, especially in ridings with few
members.
-
it leads to more competitive politics (especially within
parties). This appears to discourage women from running (Ireland
and Malta, the two countries using STV, have among the lowest
number of women elected in the world).
Other Commissions that have studied electoral reform have
rejected STV including the Jenkins Commission in the UK, the Royal
Commission on Electoral Reform in New Zealand and most recently the
Law Commission of Canada in their recommendation of an MMP system
of voting federally in Canada.
Voters in New Zealand firmly rejected STV. In 1992, in a
non-binding referendum on electoral reform there, 85% of people
voted to change their voting system: 70% specified MMP; only 17%
specified STV. New Zealanders adopted MMP, the winner in the
non-binding referendum, in a binding referendum held at the time of
their general election a year later in 1993.
|