quote:

---

“It doesn't feel like an election,” someone mused. But he found it hard to explain why. “It's not necessary!” spat somebody else. There's a grumpiness around this campaign. If a surly mood continues to rule, the result may be no change at all. You made us vote? Okay, here's more of the same. People do that when they get pissed off.

---

What Rick and Gordon Gibson don't mention is that STV is used nationally by only two tiny island countries in the world - Malta and Ireland.

They are both densely populated. Both adopted STV in the 1920s and no other country has favoured this orphan system ever since.

In BC, STV would have resulted in huge ridings with multiple elected members per riding, reducing accountability and especially rural representation.

In Ireland roughly 4 million people have 166 elected representatives in a country that would easily fit in the bottom third of Vancouver Island.

In Malta about 400,000 people have 65 representatives in a country that would fit inside greater Victoria.

But in BC, also with about 4 million people, the STV system would have had just 79 provincial Members of the Legislative Assembly in a gigantic province!

STV is the Ford Edsel of electoral systems. It is the Enron of electoral systems. It should not be adopted by BC or anyone else.

That said, after I vote this coming January, I think I might take a stroll over to our old poll in T-S and see whether our names are still on the roles there.

quote:

---

Funny, the column title in the Globe was 'let's have an election on elections', but the rabble column qualifies elections with the word 'stupid.' Does this mean that the socialist hoard isn't very polite?

---

rabble.ca reserves the right to choose its own headlines -- often, but not always, at the request of the writer. In this case, because Rick had said:

quote:

---

But since we've got this stupid election, is there anything useful to be done with it? Yes. We could have an election about doing something about stupid elections.

---

rabble.ca decided to make the headline more accurate.

quote:

---

This election should be about changing the electoral system. People all over Canada say they want that. If we had a mildly rational system, like most of the world, we wouldn't have been stuck with this Parliament. The actual preferences of voters would have been reflected and led to a stabler, more representative and more democratic House of Commons. Surely you've heard the arguments by now. First past the post, wasted votes, a minority of votes leading to huge majorities in seats . . .

---

On the BC Citizens' Assembly inspired by Gordon Gibson, Salutin says

quote:

---

. . he saved most of his praise for the process. Commission members were chosen by lot, worked their butts off, came up with STV, and had their proposal put directly to voters, with no government intervention or tweaking. He called it the greatest advance in direct democracy in 100 years. Have you heard about it? It rarely gets mentioned. There isn't room for it in the normal accounts of politics that go on here. It's miles outside the frame.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill Tieleman:
Rick Salutin has unfortunately listened to just one side of the electoral reform debate in British Columbia. . . STV is the Ford Edsel of electoral systems.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sharon:

We decided, by in large, that we didn't have to tow the line of The Globe and Mail.

---

quote:

---

Besides, I don't want to overstress voting. It's a minimal form of democratic participation. People such as the two Canadians held hostage in Iraq are engaging politically, too, in a far more committed way. There's a political impulse in humans that wants to help shape our joint destiny. But as long as voting is in the mix, we can at least try to reduce its most farcical elements.

---

I think this point can't be overemphasized. I hate the fact that elections are dangled in front of our noses as the so-called proof that we live in a democracy. I am hating the sight of campaign posters. I even hate the Bloc slogan, though I admit it's clever (for a campaign slogan, that is) : Heureusement, ici c'est le Bloc. Last elections, they had a winner slogan too. But that just adds to the depressing element of the whole thing - yeah, give us slogans, give us leaders that can emit sound bites, and we'll politely go and vote for more of same - because there is no hope of anything different; actually anything different within the current system promises to be worse.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilf Day:
You're in the wrong thread, Bill. Salutin wasn't promoting STV, he was promoting proportional representation and the citizen-driven process. Most electoral reformers in Ontario prefer MMP, but the BC process was pretty good . . .

---

I enjoyed Rick's column and agree that he was not promoting STV. It was nice to hear something about the assembly for a change.

But, Wilf, I'm not sure that Bill T will find your comments reassuring. It is my understanding that he doesn't support PR. The current electoral system is 'good' because it occasionally allows the 'progressives' to form a majority government even though they can never(?) get a majority of the popular vote (I wonder why?).

I must add that it will be interesting to see if the citizens of Ontario do indeed agree with "most" of their electoral reformers. Whatever the citizens of Ontario's assembly decide, I hope that they feel the same freedom to make their own decision as did the citizens of BC's assembly.

And, whatever we might say about BC's assembly, it does seem clear that we 'jolted' most electoral reformers by NOT choosing the 'obvious' system.

quote:

---

quote:
Besides, I don't want to overstress voting. It's a minimal form of democratic participation. . .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stunned Wind:
I'm not sure that Bill T will find your comments reassuring. It is my understanding that he doesn't support PR.

---

Okay, a year ago you said you opposed PR, but that was before the BC election and before the BC NDP again said they want some form of PR. Bill, tell us you've seen the light?

[ 13 December 2005: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

KNOW STV is a coalition of individuals, some of whom support MMP and other PR systems and others who do not.

I have debated my friend Andrea Reimer, former Green Party Vancouver school trustee, on PR but Andrea and I are allies in the fight against STV.

Unfortunately, we are going to go through the whole STV debate and vote again in 2008, where it will hopefully be defeated once and for all.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill Tieleman:
hopefully Ontario will not consider this poor electoral system.

---

The Ontario Legislature's Select Committee on Electoral Reform assesses four electoral systems that the Ontario Citizens' Assembly may consider. First Past The Post, Alternative Vote, STV, and MMP. They don't provide a scoreboard. Thankfully, they don't provide any spin toward Alternative Vote, which would be even worse than FPTP. On STV they say:

quote:

---

Encourages social representation? Weak - it has few compensatory mechaniams that allow parties to promote diversity.

STV requires multi-member constituencies, which are at odds with Ontarians’ preferences for “a strong and clear link between voters in a particular constituency and their representative.” Particularly in northern and rural Ontario, multi-member constituencies would cover an ennormous amount of territory.

Unless the average district magnitude (i.e., number of members per riding) is five or more, the system can at best be semi-proportional; magnitudes of five or more would create challenges in Ontario both in terms of the size of the population and the geographic extent of ridings. Irish Members are responsible for an average of 24,000 constituents, so that one five-member Irish district is the size of one Ontario riding (and a smaller one at that). Even in Ireland, the trend is towards more three-member districts, which reduces the proportionality of the system (unless, as one academic pointed out, smaller parties decline to contest the smaller
districts).

Most parties will not run “a slate” of candidates because to do so risks splitting their party’s support. Given the proportional or semiproportional manner in which the seats are allocated within the district, most parties have a fairly clear idea of how many seats they can reasonably hope to gain. Conventional wisdom is that parties expecting to win one or two seats should run only one or two candidates, and parties that might elect more should run only one candidate more than they can reasonably hope to elect. There is an overall reduction in the number of candidates (for all parties), and therefore of opportunities to run.

By and large the main Irish parties tend to be run on personalist lines, which has meant that internal disputes have focused largely on personalities rather than on policies. . . In the 1977 election, for example, 32 out of 148 elected TDs were related to previously serving TDs: 24 sons, 1 daughter, 3 widows, and 4 nephews. In the 1973 election, 37 out of 144 elected TDs were related to previous TDs: 31 sons, 1 daughter, 3 nephews, and 2 sons-in-law. Like party membership, family name commands voting loyalty. . . The point is not to suggest that STV encourages the development of such dynasties, but to observe that in Ireland it clearly places little in their way. . . Anywhere from 50% to 70% of the membership of the Dáil is connected to a political dynasty. Although female labour participation exploded in the 1990s, and is one of the factors responsible for Ireland’s exceptional economic growth, women remain seriously under-represented in the Dáil. Many of the women who do hold seats do so as a representative of one of the strong political families. The system favours incumbency: on average each TD is elected four times.

Of all models considered, STV has the most serious implications for the number of members and the dimensions of constituencies. First of all, it requires multimember districts. While Ireland’s districts range from three to five members each, the districts for Northern Ireland’s Assembly contain six members, a number more consistent with (a) achieving any proportionality, and (b) allowing parties other than the largest to run more than one candidate. Assuming 107 Members in Ontario, an average of five Members per district would reduce the number of districts to about 21, including two (or at most three) in Northern Ontario. This would create some very large ridings geographically, and the average population would be more than 600,000 constituents per district, represented by four or five Members. This seems incompatible not only with Ontarians’ experience of political geography, but also with the desire expressed by STV proponents to shift the balance of power from parties to voters and candidates. In a riding of more than a half-million people, only well-organized and financed parties will be able to campaign effectively. In Ireland, each TD (i.e., Member) represents about 24,000 constituents. On that ratio, the Ontario legislature would require about 518 Members. Ironically, while the Committee heard that one reason the BCCA arrived at a proposal for STV was that its terms of reference did not permit it to recommend increasing the size of the legislature, it is difficult to see how STV could work in Ontario without a sizeable increase in the number of Members.

There is no acknowledgement (by BCCA members) here of systems (as in Germany) where the party lists are determined in provincewide conventions in which all party members have an equal say in determining the outcome. While the existence of open lists is acknowledged, they are dismissed because “Where such open-list systems exist, however, the practice in fact seems to be that many, indeed most, voters don’t exercise this choice and end up just voting for the party of their preference."

Some CA members seemed not to appreciate the fact that STV would actually reduce the total number of candidates running in an election. Under FPP, most parties strive to field a candidate in as many ridings as possible. Under STV, a party must be careful not to dilute its vote by running too many candidates. The accepted strategy is to run only one more candidate than the number of seats one has a reasonable expectation of winning. So, in a hypothetical 5-seat, 100,000 vote riding, a party that historically attracts 20% of the vote will run at most 2 candidates, and perhaps only one, as opposed to the five it would have fielded in the equivalent single member
districts. . . One consequence would be fewer places for aspiring politicians, fewer opportunities to gain experience in running for office, and tighter battles within the party to gain the coveted nominations. The implications of this for all candidates, let alone those from segments of society currently underrepresented, did not seem to be appreciated by the BCSTV supporters with whom the Committee spoke.

An increasing trend, as a result of redistribution, is away from five-seat constituencies to three-seat districts. The explanation is in part that “five-seaters” are often the most populated (and in growing districts). When they grow larger, the easiest solution is to create two “three-seaters” rather than re-jig boundaries with adjacent districts. The growing trend to “three-seaters” definitely offers a distinct advantage to the larger parties.

---

It is clearly public knowledge that the Ontario Committee on Electoral Reform is clearly leaning toward MMP. Something I find a bit concerning when you consider that they will have an influence on the Ontario Citizen's Assembly.

I guess that I have to echo SW's concerns about the Ontario CA having the same freedom to consider all electoral systems fairly and openly.

I've also read your quote from the Commission above, and where they claim we (BC-CA) did not consider some of the aspects of STV, I find that rather amusing, because it is all of public record that we did debate all of the issues mentioned by the committee. Maybe it is them who have not considered all the information.

Clearly this next defective federal election will convince more voters that it is time for a change to a system that gives them more influence over the process.

The Regional tensions that FPTP is putting on this country is very dangerous.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Assembly Talker:
the Ontario Committee on Electoral Reform is clearly leaning toward MMP.

---

quote:

---

We expect a big lobby effort in favour of AV, which I expect will be pitched as Instant Runoff Vote. That's the concern. Luckily, as you know, there are lots of MMP variations they can choose.

---

Who is this lobby group for AV???

I'm sure that any CA group will see through a majoritarian system to the benefits of a more proportional alternative like STV. Why settle for AV when you can gain proportionality by taking it one step further.

You're right there are many variations of MMP they can choose, but are there any good ones that could match the benefits of a good STV system???

I'm still betting that they will see it the same way we did in BC and choose STV. Time will tell.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Assembly Talker:
I'm still betting that they will see it the same way we did in BC and choose STV.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Assembly Talker:
Who is this lobby group for AV???

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Assembly Talker:
You're right there are many variations of MMP they can choose, but are there any good ones that could match the benefits of a good STV system???

---

quote:

---

• an electoral system that respects regional belonging and the electors' choice:
– the high number of districts would help respect
the citizens’ sense of regional belonging;
– electors would have one vote, as they do now. They would vote directly for a candidate in their division. This vote would also be used to calculate how many compensatory MNAs each party would receive for district seats. (Each district would have 3 local MNAs and 2 district MNAs.)

Citizens could deal with either the MNA for their division or the one for their district, whichever one they feel would better act on their behalf or better reflect their convictions. This is one direct benefit of mixed proportional representation: it diversifies political representation on a regional basis.

---