 |   |  Click for Search Instructions |
| Home > News & Events |
|
|
Neal Hall, The Vancouver Sun26th October, 2004 :
Vancouver (Internal)
Proposed election system voter-friendly, expert
says
The
Vancouver Sun
, 26 October 2004
The new electoral system proposed for B.C. will force
politicians to pay more attention to voters' concerns, says a
University of B.C. political science professor who served as chief
research officer to the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform.
"It's voter-friendly," said Ken Carty after the assembly decided
to recommend the single transferable vote system to replace B.C.'s
current winner-takes-all voting system. "It's going to make party
caucuses much more sensitive to the voters."
Voters will decide in a referendum to be held during next year's
May 17 provincial election whether they will accept the assembly's
recommendation.
Most people have no knowledge or experience with single
transferable voting (STV,) a proportional representation system in
use in Ireland, Malta, Tasmania, the Australian senate and some
municipalities.
"It will be the first time voting results will be fair -- you
get 50 per cent of the vote, you get 50 per cent of the seats,"
Carty told reporters at a briefing after the assembly's vote on
Sunday.
When one reporter asked why the system is so rare if it's so
great, Carty replied: "Because usually politicians chose election
systems."
He noted that twice in Irish history, there were movements to
bring back a single-member plurality system, also called first past
the post (FPTP,) the voting system now in place in B.C.
And twice the Irish voted FPTP down, said Carty.
Asked why the assembly chose STV over mixed-member proportional
(MMP,) which was adopted in New Zealand in the mid-1990s, he said:
"My reading of the assembly members is they feel this system will
make politicians more responsive to voters."
He noted that people's trust in political parties has been in
steady decline in western democracies, including Canada.
"I think they [assembly members] were looking for a voting
system that's more voter-focused than party-focused," Carty
explained.
STV is known as a candidate-based voting system rather than a
party-based system -- the candidates are forced to be sensitive to
the concerns of constituents and may even end up competing against
candidates in their own party.
The STV system doesn't waste votes -- every vote is counted on
the preferential ballots, which involve the voters ranking each
candidate, placing the numeral 1 beside the name of a voter's first
choice, 2 beside the second preference, and so on.
For this reason, STV voting is often referred to "as easy as
1,2,3."
The system involves ordinal ballots, meaning voters can rank as
many or as few candidates as they want.
It allows voters to split choices between parties, choosing a
party not normally supported "to keep the other guys honest."
That's much like what happened in Vancouver city elections
during the late Harry Rankin's time. The left-leaning councillor
often topped the polls, receiving votes from across party lines
because he was seen as an effective watchdog at city hall.
Counting STV ballots is somewhat difficult to explain, mainly
because all voting systems are based on mathematical formulas.
"Explaining voting is a mix of the concrete and abstract," Carty
said.
To determine which candidates are elected, STV uses the "Droop
quota" -- named after a 19th-century inventor, mathematician and
lawyer H.R. Droop -- to calculate the percentage threshold needed
to win.
The formula is: the total number of seats plus one in a
constituency divided into the total number of votes cast = X plus
one.
To keep things really simple, let's say there are 100 total
votes in a three-seat riding. Three seats plus one divided into 100
equals 25 plus one, or 26.
The percentage needed to win, using the Droop quota, is 26 per
cent or 26 votes.
When results are counted, ballots are sorted by first-preference
votes.
In the hypothetical example, if one candidate got 40
first-preference votes, that person would be elected as he or she
exceeded the required 26 votes.
Let's say none of the other candidates received more than 26
first-preference votes.
The second round of counting involves going back to the one
elected candidate, who received 14 more than the required 26
votes.
The second preferences of the 14 surplus votes are then
transferred to the remaining candidates.
If there is still no other candidate elected, then the candidate
with the least votes is eliminated, and the second preferences of
those ballots are redistributed to the remaining candidates.
This transfer of surplus votes of winning candidates or
eliminated candidates then goes on, based on second preferences,
third preferences and so on until all the seats are filled.
Carty points out that STV is used for leadership conventions of
the major political parties, although during the conventions,
delegates vote again if there is a second or third round. In STV,
the second- and third-preference choices are done all at once.
Carty said STV might result in a minority government, although
there will still be the same two dominant parties in B.C. -- the
provincial Liberals and the New Democrats. Still, STV will allow
smaller parties to get a few members elected.
"You might get the odd independent," Carty said. "There will be
a few more parties."
One thing is certain, he said. "You're going to get a
proportional system with fair results."
THE SINGLE TRANSFERABLE VOTING SYSTEM: HOW IT
WORKS:
As easy as 1, 2, 3?
The Citizens' Assembly says it's "as easy as 1,2,3" and in a
sense the Single Transferrable Vote is simple -- for the citizen
casting a ballot.
However, understanding how a final result is tallied
is another matter altogether.
To explain the system clearly, this example looks at a
hypothetical riding where six candidates are vying for three
seats.
Example
How do we know that? By using this simple formula:
(Votes cast divided by [number of seats plus one])+1
In other words: 100 divided by (3+1) = 25 + 1 =
26
Election day
The 100 voters have had their say. Now it's time to pick three
new elected members. It will take several tries.
First count
Smith 45
Jones 20
Chan 10
Gill 10
Wong 10
O'Reilly 5
Second count
Smith received 19 more votes than required for election on first
count. The second choices on the 19 surplus ballots are added to
the vote totals of the remaining five candidates.
Jones +10 = 30
Chan +3 = 13
Gill +2 = 12
Wong +2 = 12
O'Reilly +2 =7
Third Count
Jones received 4 more votes than required for election on second
count. The third choices on the four surplus ballots are added to
the vote totals of the remaining four candidates.
Chan +3 = 16
Gill +1 =13
Wong +0 = 12
O'Reilly +0 =7
Fourth Count
No candidate received enough votes after the third count to win
election. The next step is to drop the candidate with the fewest
votes, in this case O'Reilly, and redistribute those seven votes to
the remaining three candidates.
Chan +4 = 20
Gill +1 = 16
Wong +2 = 13
Fifth Count
Still no winner. Again the candidate with the fewest votes,
Wong, was dropped. Those 13 votes are redistributed to the
remaining two candidates.
Chan +8 = 28
Gill +5 = 21
Result
The three new representatives have been selected.
[ Copyright 2004, The Vancouver
Sun. Reproduced here by permission of The Vancouver
Sun.]
|
| © 2003 Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform | Site powered by  levelCMS | Site Map | Privacy Policy |