Upon reading through the British Columbia Citizens' Association on Electoral Reform's explanations for choosing STV over MMP, I was sorely disappointed.
The BCCAEF maintained that the proportionality obtained in STV is the same as in MMP. This, however, is not the case. There is plenty of documentation of cases in which parties under STV actually won more seats than they were entitled to on a purely proportional basis.
In Ireland's 2007 election, Sein Fein won 6.9% of the vote and elected 4 TDs while the Green Party won 4.7% of the vote and elected 6 TDs. Ireland's long governing party, Fianna Fail, won 41.6% of the vote and elected 78 TDs (47.0%). This is clearly disproportional. In fact, it accomplishes something FPTP does. Giving more seats to parties with less votes.
Here is an explanation of MMP. As you can see, in MMP, as close to proper proportionality as possible is achieved. This is not the case in STV.
On the BCCAFEA website, they maintain that MMP retains problems from FPTP. However, they do not mention any of these. In contrast, it is clear that STV retains the problems from FPTP of electing people solely based on their riding. This is what allows for the disproportion that it has seen.
Is the BCCAFEA so desperate to push through their brainchild that they will distort facts, and tell us that STV is equal to MMP in terms of proportionality? If they are, that is all the more disconcerting.
Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers
If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere
In the last referendum on the question of switching to STV in BC, 58% of voters indicated that they would prefer to vote in a STV system rather than a FPTP system. However, this statistic is very difficult to line up with poll numbers from the coalition drama at the beginning of this year.
Back then, 65% of Western Canadians were found in a Nanos poll to prefer an election were the Tories to be defeated, instead of a coalition. Now, you may ask, what is the link between STV and coalitions?
Under a proportional system such as STV, there are hardly ever clear cut majorities in the legislatures because hardly ever does one receive 50% of the vote. This consequently leads to 2 scenarios:
1. Minority government 2. Coalition government
Many Canadians view both these forms of government as unstable and thereby undesirable. The claims often take the form "with a majority, the government can pass what it wants, hence making government more stable".
These concerns were shown to be important to BC voters in the polls surrounding the possibility of a coalition at the national level, but it seems that at the provincial level, many citizens have not made the connection between STV and coalitions.
This is not to say that I do not think that coalitions are a viable form of government. They are in many cases very successful governments (take Borden's Union party).
But, what we don't want to see is voters that do not realize this aspect of STV, and are then outraged at all the coalitions being formed and the instability of government. Minority governments and coalitions are one reality that has to be grasped if proportional representation is to be achieved.
Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers
If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere
The contention brought up here only pertains to a situation in which a party would be able to present only one candidate in a two candidate riding. This of course is ridiculous. Sorry, I didn't think out my example well enough
STV has been touted as a form of proportional representation, in which less votes are lost than in the "first past the post system". It is designed to restore electors' confidence in the democratic process. However, STV can easily lend itself to quite the opposite of proportional representation.
STV allows for abuse of the electoral system due to its "Transferable" quality. The transferable quality is designed so that no vote is wasted. If the first choice of a voter does not have enough votes to be elected, that vote goes to the second choice. This is also the case when a candidate reaches the quota for being elected. The second choices of the voters supporting that candidate determine the proportion of surplus votes that goes to each of the other candidates.
This is where the true problem with STV lies. A vote can be reused multiple times. This may seem fair. To me it doesn't, but it may. However, what is far more important, IT CAN COMPLETELY COUNTER PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION.
Say a BC Liberal has 60% of the vote in a riding of 10000. The required quota for election is 3334 (votes/seats+1)+1. This means that there are 2666 extra votes. Now suppose that the NDP received 3332 votes and the Greens the remaining 668 votes. Since the all the BC Liberal voters are vocally anti NDP, and also believe the Greens are an easier party to deal with in the Opposition, 100% of their second choices are for the Greens.
This means that all of the surplus Liberal votes transfer to the Greens bringing 668 to 3334, the quota for election. The Green candidate is elected.
Does this still seem fair to you?
Think about it. In a properly proportional system, the Liberals would have received 60% of the seats, the NDP 33% and the Greens 7%. But in this scenario with STV, the Greens get elected while the NDP is shut out.
The reason this can happen is the retention of the ridings system in STV designed so as to not entirely lose regional representation. In other words, the riding system is still used so as to make sure that regional interests are still represented. In addition, the system of ridings ensures that there is a greater degree of accountability that MPs or MLAs have to adhere to. This compromise leads to the problem I just illustrated above.
Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers
If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere
Most of us consider democracy the best form of government. In a democracy all citizens possess certain rights and freedoms provided for in our constitution, including the crucial right to be a part of government as an elected representative. One of the main attributes of democracy is the concept of “majority rule”, in which the majority determines what the government’s policy is. So with these three aspects in mind, how does Canada measure up as a democracy?
As for our rights and freedoms, in 1982, Canada adopted its Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which gave Canadians great freedoms and rights, including the right to a democratic form of government. These rights include a term of five years for the House of Commons, the right to vote and be a member of a legislature, and a requirement that Parliament sit at least once a year.These rights ensure that Canada is democratic, preventing domination of our country by any one party. To stay in power, they must stand for reelection, which is a requirement for any democracy to be viable. This ultimately leaves the decision as to the makeup of government firmly in the hands of Canadian citizens, a characteristic of any true democracy.
There is some criticism concerning the way our political system functions, accusing it of providing too much power to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has a wide range of powers, including the nomination of the Governor-General, the appointment of senators and Supreme Court justices. In recognition of this, Jean Chrétien has said that “[a] strong prime minister, having listened to everyone's opinion, may simply announce that his (her) view is the policy of the government, even if most, or all, the other ministers are opposed.” The Canadian parliamentary system combines the executive and the legislative branches of government, meaning that there is no opposition to the Prime Minister provided by parliament, as the Congress can do to the President in the US.This would seem to be rather undemocratic, as the Prime Minister is only one of many MPs elected by the Canadian electorate.
However, the Prime Minister is an elected representative, and although we officially vote for our own MP to represent our riding, it would be naïve to not admit that in general, when a Canadian voter walks into the polling station, they vote for the leader of whichever party they prefer. So, what the voter is really doing is voting for the Prime Minister. Is it therefore unreasonable to give him this power?
Consider the advantages that bequeathing this range of powers presents. The Prime Minister is in reality the representative of the people. Therefore, if he is able to implement the legislation he wants to without facing opposition, except when his party is a minority, he is really being provided the tools to more easily implement the platform on the basis of which he was elected. If he is the Prime Minister, this means that his platform is the will of the people. We can conclude then that the lack of the opposition that the legislative branch can present in other systems actually makes Canada more democratic.
So, how democratic are we in Canada? We do have a voice through our elected representatives, and the will of the majority of us is ably carried out by a Prime Minister who does not face the encumbering checks and balances that the American President faces from Congress. There may be some imperfections with our system, but these have nothing to do with strict democracy. When it comes to that, the voices of the majority of Canadians are represented by a powerful, democratic Prime Minister.
