Carole James: "4 more years would be too much"

Before all the Carole James supporters jump on me for this inconsiderate slur against their beloved leader, let me say that it is for no personal reason that I would call for Carole James to step down. She is a good leader, who has managed to consolidate once more the BC NDP vote after the disastrous 2001 outing. For this she is to be respected.

The fact is that all the act of consolidating this vote was done four years ago. The numbers that came out tonight are in essence representative of the status quo. So, in four years as Opposition Leader, she has not managed to lead the NDP anywhere nearer to the Promise Land. This in itself would be reason enough for her to step down.

Why? Well, because Gordon Campbell, in those four years, gave her even more ample ammunition with which to puncture his "it's a big job" bubble. He has been repeatedly arrogant, and has failed even more in his policies. The only one in which he has effected positive change is the carbon tax. Quite a few options for Carole James.

To compound the problem, this election was of great importance. As the leader of the NDP says in her ads "8 years is enough" Let me posit that "12 years have been torture" be the new slogan. I think we all know the torture being described: lack of hospital beds, corruption, low minimum wage, government for my friends etc... And it is thanks to Carole James that we have to adopt this slogan.

With such an important election, James needed to win. The fact is that she didn't and let down BC. She has stalled for four years. She failed to win a crucial election, or for that matter to increase her seat count. Next time we need to be able to beat Premier Campbell. Next time, it is sad to say, we need someone other than Carole James.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

STV: An example of electoral system abuse (bad example)

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

The BC NDP: a crumbling party

It's election time here in BC, and the election signs are starting to pop up all over Vancouver. But, as you walk or drive by, one thing becomes clear. The reason all those signs look alike is because they are. There are only BC Liberal signs being put up. I have yet to see a single BC NDP sign. It's as if the party didn't even have signs to give out to their supporters. To me, this is yet another clear indication that the NDP at the provincial level in BC is crumbling. What kind of party are you if you don't even have signs. Even the STV movement has a few signs up. How embarrassing is that?

Signs may not seem like a big deal, but if you think about it, if you aren't a party member, how will you know who the candidates in your riding are apart from seeing signs in your neighbourhood? Does the NDP think that their supporters will all vote based on party allegiance? If that's the case, then they are clearly not being mindful of election strategy, for the BC Liberals are leading them by as much as 10% in many polls.

The list of the miscues keeps growing. Not only are there no signs around here, but is the NDP platform really organized so as to gather a greater crowd under the tent. That would not seem to be the case. The NDP, in a masterful move, have alienated many of the environmental movement, including the Suzuki organization. By vowing to cancel the carbon tax introduced by Gordon Campbell's government, they have made the voting decision of environmentally concerned citizens that much more difficult.

The reason for this strategy is obvious. The NDP is seeking to gain votes in rural BC and among the working classes, as those are the regions in which voters are most affected by the carbon tax. However, these areas normally go Liberal, and what with the economic downturn, the Liberals are seen by many as the more economically responsible party. It is therefore probable that these regions will go Liberal, and the polls indicate this.

While Gordon Campbell has opened the Liberal tent to environmentally conscious voters with his carbon tax, Carole James has gambled that by opposing this initiative, she will receive rural BC vote. At best this strategy may gain her a few seats, but that is more than unlikely if her party organization doesn't start putting up signs.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere