Public Forum Recap
So I went to the Public Information forum at UBC Robson Square on Thursday night. It was pretty interesting, there were 4 speakers including David Mills and Shoni Field from the assembly (and in favour) and Bill Tieleman (columnist in the Georgia Straight) and Andrea Reimer (local green party politician) opposed, not that Reimer had anything good to say about the old First Past the Post system.
While it was heartening to see so many people interested in learning more about the system and while I think the overall opinion seemed to be that the current system is broken and it's worth giving the new one a try, there were a couple of points which worried me.
One is that some people still seem to be fighting the battle between Single Transferable Vote (STV) and Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) and making arguments to show that STV isn't as good at MMP at, for example, providing perfect proportionality. Hopefully between now and May 17th, MMP supporters can bring themselves to face the fact that we have a choice between STV and the old First Past the Post system and that voting No isn't going to bring us MMP any faster than voting Yes would.
The second is that one of STV's biggest advantages can actually be a bit of a weakness when it comes to a debate. What I'm talking about is that, under STV, voters have a lot more power and a lot more choice than they do under any other electoral system. As a result, how STV works in practice varies quite a bit (since voters vary from place to place). In Ireland, STV elects a lot of independent candidates and creates a lot of coalition governments. But in Malta, under STV, voters vote along very strict party lines resulting in two parties getting all the seats and alternating majority governments. Meanwhile, in Australia, under STV a high percentage of women have been elected, in contrast to Ireland and especially Malta where the parties nominate few female candidates.
So, one week we can have a column in the Sun where a columnist complains that STV will lead to the breakdown of majority governments and rule by two centrist parties (like in Ireland). And the next week we can have a column in the Georgia Straight complaining that STV won't lead to the breakdown of majority governments and rule by two centrist parties (like in Malta).
And we'll get STV opponents bringing up Malta as an example of why STV is bad for women, but somehow failing to mention that all the legislatures in Australia which use STV elect a lot more women than we do here in B.C.
The point is that voters want different things in different places and STV gives them the freedom to make that happen. That's why it's hard to predict how STV will work out here in B.C. But what we can predict, and what yes supporters needs to emphasize is that however it turns out, it will turn out that way because that's what voters want - not because that's what the parties want or because the electoral system forced things to go a certain way.
For example, say you're a voter who wants to vote NDP and also vote for a woman. Under the old First Past the Post system, the NDP will choose a nominee for your riding (and historically they've chosen mostly men) and if you want to vote NDP, you have to vote for that person. In some ridings there won't be a single female candidate form any party.
Under STV, there will be multiple MLA's elected from each riding. Say you're in a riding from which 5 MLA's are going to be elected. Odds are, the NDP will run at least 4 candidates in this riding - and odds are, one of them will be a woman. Thus, under STV there is a much greater chance of being able to vote for both the party you want and the (type of) candidate you want - because you have more choice. Even if the NDP chooses not to run any women in your riding, there is likely to be a woman running for one of the 'fringe' parties. So you could rank the woman running for the fringe party #1, knowing that when she is eliminated because she got too few votes, your vote will be transferred to the NDP candidate you ranked second on your ballot. That way you can send a message that you want more female candidates and still vote for your party.
Voting under STV vs. the old First Past the Post system is bit like being at a buffet vs. being at some stuffy old restaurant with only 3 choices on the menu.
While it was heartening to see so many people interested in learning more about the system and while I think the overall opinion seemed to be that the current system is broken and it's worth giving the new one a try, there were a couple of points which worried me.
One is that some people still seem to be fighting the battle between Single Transferable Vote (STV) and Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) and making arguments to show that STV isn't as good at MMP at, for example, providing perfect proportionality. Hopefully between now and May 17th, MMP supporters can bring themselves to face the fact that we have a choice between STV and the old First Past the Post system and that voting No isn't going to bring us MMP any faster than voting Yes would.
The second is that one of STV's biggest advantages can actually be a bit of a weakness when it comes to a debate. What I'm talking about is that, under STV, voters have a lot more power and a lot more choice than they do under any other electoral system. As a result, how STV works in practice varies quite a bit (since voters vary from place to place). In Ireland, STV elects a lot of independent candidates and creates a lot of coalition governments. But in Malta, under STV, voters vote along very strict party lines resulting in two parties getting all the seats and alternating majority governments. Meanwhile, in Australia, under STV a high percentage of women have been elected, in contrast to Ireland and especially Malta where the parties nominate few female candidates.
So, one week we can have a column in the Sun where a columnist complains that STV will lead to the breakdown of majority governments and rule by two centrist parties (like in Ireland). And the next week we can have a column in the Georgia Straight complaining that STV won't lead to the breakdown of majority governments and rule by two centrist parties (like in Malta).
And we'll get STV opponents bringing up Malta as an example of why STV is bad for women, but somehow failing to mention that all the legislatures in Australia which use STV elect a lot more women than we do here in B.C.
The point is that voters want different things in different places and STV gives them the freedom to make that happen. That's why it's hard to predict how STV will work out here in B.C. But what we can predict, and what yes supporters needs to emphasize is that however it turns out, it will turn out that way because that's what voters want - not because that's what the parties want or because the electoral system forced things to go a certain way.
For example, say you're a voter who wants to vote NDP and also vote for a woman. Under the old First Past the Post system, the NDP will choose a nominee for your riding (and historically they've chosen mostly men) and if you want to vote NDP, you have to vote for that person. In some ridings there won't be a single female candidate form any party.
Under STV, there will be multiple MLA's elected from each riding. Say you're in a riding from which 5 MLA's are going to be elected. Odds are, the NDP will run at least 4 candidates in this riding - and odds are, one of them will be a woman. Thus, under STV there is a much greater chance of being able to vote for both the party you want and the (type of) candidate you want - because you have more choice. Even if the NDP chooses not to run any women in your riding, there is likely to be a woman running for one of the 'fringe' parties. So you could rank the woman running for the fringe party #1, knowing that when she is eliminated because she got too few votes, your vote will be transferred to the NDP candidate you ranked second on your ballot. That way you can send a message that you want more female candidates and still vote for your party.
Voting under STV vs. the old First Past the Post system is bit like being at a buffet vs. being at some stuffy old restaurant with only 3 choices on the menu.
posted by Declan at
3:56 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home