Click for Search Instructions |
||
Home > News & Events |
|
John Pifer, Abbotsford News10th November, 2004 :
Vancouver (Internal)
Dawning of electoral dog's breakfast?
By JOHN PIFER
Abbotsford News, 06 November
2004
Whoa, whoa, slow down a little! The unseemly rush
to embrace the single transferable vote system as the definitive
answer to all evils in our current election process needs to be
more closely scrutinized before we British Columbians vote for or
against it next May.
Forgive me for not hopping on the media-driven
bandwagon that suggests any democracy loving voter should embrace
the decisions of the Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform with
open arms.
Don't get me wrong - the work of this assembly
has been considerable through the past 10 months as its 160 members
explored the need to change the first-past-the-post system that has
been the mainstay of Canadian elections for decades.
They felt the overwhelming need to change the way
we elect our provincial government outweighed any arguments that
the system was not broken.
Over the next seven months, it is incumbent upon
British Columbians to examine that decision, and to become aware of
the benefits - and dangers - of the proposed STV process the way it
is structured.
Then, in May, while voting in the general
election, they may vote for or against the proposal from an
educated perspective.
The fact that STV is in use only in low-profile
countries such as Ireland, Tasmania and Malta does not make it the
be-all, end-all of how to make a democracy "better".
The fact that political coalitions usually seem
to produce a dog's breakfast of minority governments that result in
more bickering than action, and lead to more elections than
legislation, must also be considered.
Italy is a perfect case in point: More than 50
different coalitions in the past 40-plus years have governed Italy,
and by all accounts not particularly well.
On the face of it, the preferential ballot
appears to give independents and smaller parties an opportunity to
have some representation in the legislature, as voters do not mark
a single "X" for their preferred candidate, but grade them 1,2,3,
etc. in order of preference.
This all works well if the voters actually use
all of their choices; but strategic voting can skew the results to
make them little different from the first-past-the-post
method.
For example, if seven MLAs are to be elected from
one riding such as Surrey, the candidates will be listed by party
affiliation, and voters can restrict their choices to one or two or
three of their party's players, rather than voting for a mixed
magnificent seven.
Or in a riding where two MLAs are to be elected,
many voters might chose one from each of the principal parties
(Liberal or NDP), believing they are balancing out the
results.
Truth is, it likely would result in two opposing
MLAs, neither of whom would have any clout to get things
done.
It is that prospect of infighting that may well
prevent major projects from even being considered, let alone
implemented.
The result may see political parties having to
make backroom deals with other parties that have nothing in common
with projected goals to better the province. Ideological bitching,
moaning and whining could be the order of the day, rather than good
governance.
So, before you cast your vote for or against STV,
treat it like a new strain of an old disease called politics - and
seek out as many answers, theories, benefits and concerns about the
system from all angles and both sides before that vote.
John
Pifer
is a freelance political analyst and commentator
whose work appears in a number of British Columbia newspapers. This
article firat appeared in the Abbotsford News
on 06 November 2004.
[© Copyright 2004 John Pifer. Reproduced here
with his permission.]
|
© 2003 Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform | Site powered by levelCMS | Site Map | Privacy Policy |