BC STV

As my first post I will discuss a topic that directly affects me: the way I may choose.

I am a resident of British Columbia, Canada. In our province we are currently in the process of voting for our Premier. When we vote this coming May there will also be a referendum on How we vote. The Citizen’s Assembly is proposing that we change our current system of First Past the Post (FPP) to create a more proportional method of voting, thereby creating a fairer system. Is proportionality truly fair, or is it how we humans perceive fairness?

The BC Single Transferable Vote (BC STV) gives minorities a voice but creates a dysfunctional government.

The basic premise is that if your first choice doesn’t get voted in or already has sufficient votes then your second choice gets counted, and then your third choice.

This system truly creates proportional legislature more indicative of a cross-section of the voters in the province. I shan’t explain the math because it is lengthy and verbose, but you can access a helpful video at http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/resources/flash/bc-stv-full.swf.

With this system of voting ridings are grouped and the number of MLAs (Member of Legislative Assembly) remains the same. Proponents of the system hope that by increasing the proportionality of the legislature people will feel that their vote counts, and that this may in turn encourage greater voter turnout. Personally I agree with this assessment and voter turnout will increase at first.

Unfortunately there are a number of problems with BC STV; however, proponents of the new system of voting say that they are negligible or false. I wish to argue that the objections are in fact valid, and in the interest of fairness should be addressed accordingly.

Trust
BC STV is complex, and that leads to confusion. Proponents say that it is not confusing, but the general lack of understanding that I have encountered indicates to me that it is. Slogans such as “Power-up your vote” sound good, but they do not adequately explain the system.

A confusing system creates an element of distrust in the political system. The people may not trust their officials, but they must trust in the system under which they vote. Trust is very hard to build, and very easy to break. Trust is far more important than a feeling of satisfaction, which is essentially all that BC STV provides.

Imagine Election Night: Peter Mansbridge would explode trying to understand the numbers. What of us Proles? In close races it is entirely possible, if not likely, that there will be an increase in litigation because of losers disputing the result. Do we really want to open the Pandora’s Box that is legal battles for MLA seats? Al Franken just spent many months trying to sit as the Senator for the Minnesota. The legal issues and waste of taxpayer dollars is a grim reminder that even FPP can lead to tight races and complex counting methods.

A pitfall in BC STV includes the minimum number of votes needed. This number varies per riding: (valid # of votes cast/ (number of seats +1)) +1. This formula is used to determine the threshold of votes each seat winner must receive. Where did this formula come from? How do we know that it is correct? Are we expected to simply trust the government that the minimum number is appropriate?

There have been allegations of corruption made regarding the sale of BC Rail. How can we trust that an even more complex system is free of corruption when our current system already has those elements? How will the voter turnout be affected by an increase in corruption and scandal?

Satisfaction
You are meant to feel satisfied that your vote counted, to feel like you have a voice. Remember that you and I have always had a voice. But there is definitely a problem because many feel that their voice doesn’t count. They feel like there is no point in voting, and that may be the cause of declining voter turn-outs.

BC STV is a system promoted by those who try to satisfy everyone; those who weep for the underdog and the disenfranchised. They would do well to remember that convoluting a system into disfunctionality is no solution, and that being a member of the majority gives little solace.

Statement
Many of us are Statementers, those who choose to make a statement with their vote: this person votes in a way that doesn’t lead to an MLA being elected because that person has such a slim chance of winning. Rather, they choose someone based on any number of criteria to show the establishment that support some exists for their position.

This is called “wasting a vote” and it’s yours to waste. That’s the beauty of a free society is the freedom to choose and the freedom to speak. But don’t be fooled into thinking that a statement vote deserves more credence. It’s a wishy-washy, feel-good, cop-out vote.

You don’t get to make your statement and then have a second choice because you were being ridiculous. You only get ONE vote, one check in the box. That is fair.

The Minority
BC STV will give smaller parties more of a voice because of the proportional representation, but they will have more power than they normally would because they would become the deciding factor on many votes. The larger parties, eager to form government would cater to them. Is this truly proportional representation when your MLA makes concessions to a much smaller party to simply beat the next most competitive opponent? It recently happened with the Bloq Quebèquois and the NDP in our federal parliament.

A minority government is not something to be desired. Stephen Harper has managed to accomplish many things, but at great taxpayer expense and politicking. He has weathered a coalitionist government; he has catered to various parties, and is still in power. The Prime Minister said during the coalition scare that he would actually like a chance “to govern”. There are examples of functional minority governments, but they are inefficient and costly.

Proponents of BC STV wish that every party that runs has a voice, but this is simply unreasonable. Take the recent election for the Israeli government: It is exceedingly confusing to elect a leader because of the multiple parties. Once a party reached a minimum number of votes, as in BC STV, they automatically received a seat in the 120-member Knesset (the Parliament). The largest party, Kadima only received 28 votes and spent an entire month catering to the smaller ones just so the government could sit down. They lost to the Likud party who won a paltry 27 or the 120 votes.

A whole month spent just so a party with 22.5% of the vote could start to govern!

This waste of time and money is unacceptable. The long, drawn-out process of an election is further lengthened by a cornucopia of bickering. Further, the Knesset has become a hotbed of corruption, with representatives exchanging hidden benefits with each other. Is that the atmosphere we British Columbians wish to foster?

Once we vote in this system, it will be very difficult to modify it if any proposed changes make it harder for small parties to receive seats. They won’t vote against their own existence.

The real problem
The problems with our current system are many, but they are underlined by a single issue: the Party System. The reason that the current lack of proportionality leads to perceived failings in fairness is that we allow our government to be formed (Premier and Cabinet) by the party that wins the most seats. This doesn’t always lead to a proportional legislature because the number of people in each riding varies, and if one party keeps coming in second place, it still gets no seats despite a high combined percentage of votes.

Independents struggle with funding and name recognition, while those who choose to tout the party line benefit from the strength in numbers.

The solution is to make everyone an independent. Do away with funding, group campaigning and branding. Make each MLA candidate run alone and independently, and make entry barriers low so that anyone can run. Then require that the Premier also run as an independent, but as a Premier, and not a candidate in a riding.

This will create an atmosphere that requires MLAs to work in the best interest of their riding and only be accountable to their constituents. The Premier picks his cabinet from the pool of elected MLAs, but they could be from anywhere, not just his or her own party.

And so…
The purpose of an election is to create a functional government. While our current system of First Past the Post (FPP) has its flaws, its underlying strength is its simplicity. Most votes wins.

A minority government is not a form of government to be desired. We can make it work at times, but we run the risk of dissenting coalitions that freeze the legislature, corruption and inefficiencies. Yes, your vote may count more so, but do you know how it’s counted? Even if you understand the system do you that it is being counted correctly?

Majority governments are effective, and even if they make a mistake, that mistake can be corrected by voting in a new party. Things like photo radar can be abolished overnight, and fast-ferries can be sold. Run-of-River projects can be approved or abolished (I favor the latter).

A bastardized partisan political system is not the way to solve the problems cause by partisan politics. The solution is to do away with parties entirely. Remember the old adage of KISS: Keep It Simple Stupid!

Fairness is subjective. I believe that it is fair that you may choose to vote for whomever you wish. It is not fair to “Power-up your vote”. If the people vote in Carole James over Gordon Campbell then so be it. Let her work, and vice versa. If she does well, she stays. If she doesn’t, she goes. Simple. Most votes wins. NDP or Liberal or independent or whatever. Pick a winner, pick a loser, or make a statement. Don’t waste your vote. We trust you.

But you only get ONE vote.