Click for Search Instructions |
||
Home > News & Events |
|
Letters to the editor4th November, 2004 :
Vancouver (Internal)
A selection of letters to B.C. newspapers about the
Assembly
On this webpage are:
Voter unhappiness can't be ignored
By Darren van Reyen
Victoria Times Colonist, 04-Nov-2004
Lawrie McFarlane's assessment of the alternative electoral
system proposed by the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform ("New
voting system would reduce accountability," Oct. 28) contains
several errors on how the voting process would be carried out, and
what choices the voter is able to make on the ballot.
The proposed system is a Single (voters receive a single ballot)
Transferable (voters preferences are transferred to determine
candidates with highest overall support) Voting system.
This system would change our current single-member ridings to
larger, multi-member ridings, from which a minimum of two MLAs (in
low-population districts) and a maximum of seven (in high-density
districts) MLAs would be elected. The assembly was cognizant of
Supreme Court rulings which stipulate all citizens' votes must be
of roughly equal weighting -- that is to say, rural ridings cannot
elect a disproportionate number of MLAs per person than their urban
neighbours, or vice versa.
The Citizens' Assembly will provide only broad guidance on
establishing voting districts. The B.C. Electoral Boundary
Commission, which reviews electoral district boundaries every two
years, will, as always, establish the individual ridings.
The statement "electors will no longer be allowed to vote for a
specific MLA" is incorrect. Voters can vote for the MLA of their
choice. The difference is: Voters will no longer make a mark
besides the candidate's name -- they will rank candidates (1, 2, 3,
etc.) on the ballot to indicate whom they most support among the
candidates running for election in their district.
Voters can write a "1" beside only one candidate. They can rank
only candidates from their favoured party, and only those
preferences will be counted from their ballot. If they wish, they
can rank all the candidates on the ballot.
Voters can rank whomever they think will best serve them as
their MLAs, even if the candidates are from different parties. If
voters support this system in the May 17, 2005, referendum, they
will have more choice between election candidates than at any other
time in B.C. history.
Granted, the counting system is more complex than what we are
used to. However, the overwhelming level of dissatisfaction with
our existing "simple" system heard by the assembly -- the lack of
voter choice; the "wasted" votes; the "wrong" winners; the
disproportionate results; the see-saw majority governments, and the
poor voter turnout by citizens who feel their votes don't count --
could not be ignored.
Sure, counting votes on election night will be a little more
complicated, but isn't it worth it to make sure the makeup of the
legislature truly reflects the preferences of the electorate?
McFarlane asserts that accountability will suffer under this
system, because single-issue parties will dominate the legislature.
Ask the Irish -- who have used the proposed system since the 1920s
-- whether single-issue parties dominate their politics or create
unstable governments.
The answer is no. Stable coalitions are typically formed and the
Irish go to the polls, on average, only once every 3.5 years.
Competition between different candidates from the same party for
seats available in their district tends to weaken party control.
Officials must continue to reach out to their constituents between
elections to identify local concerns and distinguish themselves
from the competition. This is because even though a seat may be
relatively safe for a party, the voters get to decide who fills it,
and, in the next election, can replace officials who fail to meet
expectations.
The accountability of majority governments at any time other
than election time is wanting. The distortion between vote share
and seat share which occurs under our first-past-the-post voting
system typically results in large majority governments opposed by a
tiny and ineffective opposition. Is the legislature able to keep
the government in check, the way it is supposed to be under our
Westminster parliamentary system?
Many trade-offs must be made in designing an electoral system
"made-to-fit" for B.C. For 10 months, the Citizens' Assembly
laboured with these trade-offs, and recommends an electoral system
that improves voter choice, increases proportionality, and still
provides for strong local representation.
This recommendation was not made lightly. The assembly did not
have to recommend an alternative unless it was felt that we could
be better represented through another electoral system. Nearly
unanimously, the 160-member Citizens' Assembly agreed that we
could.
By another majority, the assembly agreed that best system is the
single transferable voting system -- adapted to British Columbia's
unique requirements.
Darren van Reyen is a member of the Citizens' Assembly on
Electoral Reform, representing Victoria-Hillside.
-----------------
Fairer results, and you don't have to do the
math
By Brooke Bannister
Richmond Review, 04-Nov-2004
As a member of the Citizen's Assembly on Electoral Reform, I've
watched with great interest the reaction from everyone (private
citizens, political scientists, politicians, and various
commentators, columnists and editors) at the news that we've chosen
to recommend that B.C. voters replace our present "First Past The
Post" electoral system with the "Single Transferable Vote," a
system that has been used successfully in Ireland for the past 80
years or so.
And while I've been pleased with the many positive reviews of this successful system, I'm concerned with the focus on counting votes in the single transferable vote method, and in particular, the transfer of those votes into seats. Some say it's too confusing for most voters to understand-a point that I won't challenge. Even for assembly members, who have spent the last eight months studying electoral systems and everything about them, the vote transfer apparatus of the single transferable vote was somewhat difficult to grasp. But when studying the mechanics of electoral systems, the single transferable vote was no more difficult to understand than most of the other systems we looked at. But we don't ask the voter to do the counting. The trained and neutral people from Elections B.C. will do the counting, and they will ensure that your vote goes where you wanted it to go, and that your vote will count. Where is it written that something we don't completely understand doesn't work? I certainly don't know everything about the things I use most every day-the plumbing in my home, my cellular phone, my computer, or my new electronically-sophisticated automobile-but I know they work, and I like what they can do for me. In my opinion, all we really need to know are the benefits that the single transferable vote can promise us. Benefits like fairer results based on all of our voting preferences, a more diverse, consensual legislature, and less power to political parties. One of the best descriptions I've come across in trying to explain why the single transferable vote works is, according to the International ACE Project (Administration and Cost of Elections), it "is supported because it is seen as fair since it delivers proportional representation, and because of the power it gives voters to choose their parliamentary representatives by ranking all candidates in order of their choice." That's good enough for me. Remember, I can't tell you exactly how my TV works, but I sure enjoy what it gives me! Brooke Bannister is the member for Richmond-Steveston on the Citizen's Assembly on Electoral Reform. -----------------
Irish show the way for math-phobic voters
By Cliff Garbutt
The Vancouver Sun, 03-Nov-2004
Re: Voting under STV is easy -- it's the counting that's hard to
explain, Vaughn Palmer, Oct. 29
As one of the 160 members of the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral
Reform, I share Vaughn Palmer's concern that counting with the
single transferable vote is hard to explain. It's true: We wrestled
with the problem of how the average British Columbian would react
to using an mathematical algorithm as a method for generating fair
and proportional election results.
We're all used to just counting and adding. We don't like math.
Just count 'em, add 'em up, and tell us who won.
But then we took a good look at the Irish. They don't like math
either, but they've been using this system happily for about 100
years. When asked in two separate referendums to give up on all of
this STV nonsense and to surrender their precious Droop formula to
the good old first-past-the-post system, they have flatly refused.
Why? Because they know a good thing when they've got it. They don't
want to turn their voter-friendly system over to the politicians.
They relish the fact that STV puts the power directly into the
hands of voters, not political parties. It is pure and potent
power.
I hope British Columbians will get over the math and realize
that, for the very first time, they have been offered a rare
opportunity to seize the day.
Cliff Garbutt
Vancouver
-----------------
New electoral system is best alternative
By Diana Byford
Victoria Times Colonist, 03-Nov-2004
As a member of the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform I
would like to say that by offering British Columbians the single
transferable vote system, we honestly believe that we have given
the best alternative to our current system -- single member
plurality, or first past the post.
It is now in your hands. Soon you will have to decide by
referendum whether to adopt the new system which offers you the
three things we were asked for in all the public meetings and
through all the more than 1,600 submissions put before us. They
are: proportionality, voter choice and local representation.
Our final report must be delivered by Dec. 15. It will include
details of how this system works and our rational for choosing it.
If you believe, as many British Columbians do, that it is time for
a change, this is your chance. The Assembly has given you this
chance to make that choice, the rest is up to you, the voters of
B.C.
Diana Byford,
Assembly member from Saanich North and the Islands
-----------------
Citizens' Assembly members lauded for their hard
work
By Paula Waatainen
The Vancouver Sun, 03-Nov-2004
I would like to thank the 160 members of the B.C. Citizens'
Assembly on Electoral Reform, and the staff who guided them through
a year long process of study and reflection.
Over the past year, these ordinary citizens have given up
countless hours of time from their families and careers in order to
serve on the assembly. Several members and staff even took the time
last April to guide students through a model Citizens' Assembly at
my school, Rockridge secondary in West Vancouver.
I went downtown to watch the assembly during its last weekend of
deliberations, and was struck by the complexity of the debate, and
the commitment of assembly members to recommend the system which is
in the best interests of B.C. voters.
While I was rooting for a mixed- member proportional system (as
recommended by Rockridge students), I trust that the assembly
members had the wisdom to make the best possible recommendation to
voters.
Paula Waatainen
North Vancouver
|
© 2003 Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform | Site powered by levelCMS | Site Map | Privacy Policy |