Changing Systems

British Columbia isn't the only place having an election these days, British, uh, Britain is having one as well. Britain's current state of affairs is somewhat similar to B.C. in that they have two main parties (the somewhat to the right wing Conservative party and the somewhat to the left Labour party) and a smaller more leftist third party known as the Liberal Democrats (plus the usual collection of really small parties).

That's just some background to this interesting article by Richard Dawkins that appeared in The Independent, the other day. Says Dawkins in explaining why he supports the campaign of Reg Keys (an anti-war independent candidate running against Blair in the Sedgefield riding):

"But the most important thing the centre-left coalition might achieve is proportional representation. This would kill, once and for all, the idea that a vote for anybody other than Labour or Conservative is "wasted". Votes are wasted in this sense only because of the flagrantly undemocratic first-past-the-post system. With the single transferable PR system, no vote is wasted. You vote your preference - and no silly scares about big bad Tories.
Under the first-past-the-post system, your vote is wasted unless you happen to live in a marginal constituency. We saw this in America, with the grotesque concentration of electioneering firepower and money in a few key states such as Ohio and Florida. The only people who like first-past-the-post are politicians whom it puts into power. The Liberal Democrats have long been committed to PR. My greatest hope is that a hung parliament might enable them to implement it. This would benefit the long-term future of our democracy: a boon that would long outlive the short-term promises of any party."

Sound familiar?

I thought this article was interesting since one of the reasons 'No' supporters offer for sticking with our current system is that is an important part of our British system of government which we shouldn't risk messing with. So it would be kind of ironic if Britain ends up switching to STV (or some other form of PR) leaving us and the Americans as the last two Western countries still using just First Past the Post.

In a way, this situation kind of reminds me of the debate between the Imperial system of measurement and the Metric system. For most of the world, the decision to switch to metric was a relatively easy one since it was clearly a superior system. In England, Canada and the U.S. however, the decision was drawn out and controversial because of our love for tradition and resistance to change. Canada eventually made the switch to Metric on our own while the English got dragged into it by the Europeans. The Americans still won't switch.

Similarly, England, Canada and the U.S. are also lagging the world in changing to a proportional electoral system. England has already switched to a form of PR for its European elections as well as for regional elections in Scotland, Wales and Nothern Ireland. Canada is taking steps towards PR as well, and of course, in the U.S. progress is barely even on the radar screen.

So on May 17th you have a choice between our old, good for its time but its time has passed Imperial, First-Past-the-Post electoral system, or the new, superior, metric, Single Transferable Vote system. And while switching to metric was controversial at the time - do you think many people would want to go back?

STV Round-Up: How Does STV Work?

Another poll in today's globe showing that around half the population has no idea what the referendum is about and that (unsurprisingly) a similar percentage are undecided about whether to vote yes or no. It's encouraging that, among decided voters, support for a 'Yes' vote continues to run above 60% (27% for, 15% against), but clearly more work needs to be done to get people educated.

With that in mind, here's a few links:

Matt at liquid thoughts does a good job of making STV as easy as pie via the magic of analogy.

Meanwhile, Andrew at Not Sugar Coated tries to fit BC-STV into a nutshell.

Of course part of understanding STV well (at least in my mind) is not being taken in by some of the 'No' side's arguments.

To that end, this post from the Ogre's Den does a nice concise job of explaining the system and answering some of the 'No' side arguments.

And over at the Tyee, Rafe Mair echoes some of the Ogre's points in explaining why he supports STV.

Meanwhile the North Shore news has some good coverage of STV including this 'Vote Yes' editorial.

Finally, it's on the topic of Proportional Representation rather than STV in B.C. per say, but this post From Another Perspective, is worth a read if you're interested in electoral reform in general, specifically how proportional representation could work in practice.

Update: Via Tannock.Net I found this excellent STV resource from the CBC. If you want to vote in their ice cream election (which compares FPTP and STV side by side), you have until 9 (pm?) on Monday. What is it with STV and food anyway?

Voice of Reason

This is just a quick note to recommend Ian King's latest post, "A plea: Slag STV honestly" in which he calmly and thoroughly debunks a couple of the more misguided 'No' side arguments such as worries about electronic voting or that the Assembly was hijacked by people with an ideological agenda. As Ian says,

"Opponents of STV do their own cause a great disservice when they try to smear STV by bringing in these strawman arguments that are at most tagential (sic) to the system."

The 'No' arguments I've seen so far have tended to more resemble the unrefined results of a long brain-storming session than a coherent critique of the system. I get the feeling (in general) that 'No' people are just throwing up any possible excuse to vote 'No' rather than just stating and elaborating on their core reasons for opposing STV. More on this another day.

STV Poll: Less than one-fifth of British Columbians think B.C. should keep its First Past the Post electoral system

See here for the results of a poll on STV done by Nordic Research group (hat tip Burkean Canuck). The results show that 26% of people surveyed would vote 'yes' and 17% would vote no. Clearly, that leaves a large undecided block (57%). If the undecided block were to vote the same as the decided block, the end result would be 60.5% 'yes' and 39.5% 'no' and STV would pass.

I don't know much about the Nordic Research folks but it's clear they were hoping for a bigger 'No' vote based on how hard they try to spin the results. Their lead is "Less than one-third of British Columbians think that BC should adopt the BC-STV electoral system according to a poll conducted by Nordic Research Group." Of course, that statement is equally valid with my title to this post, and both are an absurd way to objectively characterize the results. In fact, bs like this makes one think that there should be some kind of professional standards one has to meet to be allowed to do poll write-ups.

Anyway, what the poll shows (besides there being more than 3 'yes' voters for every 2 'no' voters), consistent with an earlier Ipsos-Reid poll, is that there's a long way to go in building awareness of the proposed new system, of course if you're here reading this you're likely not one of those uninformed people. But if you are, please visit the links along the right hand side. Or feel free to send me an email. It may be a long time before we get another chance to improve our electoral system.

More Choice Under STV - Another Perspective

There was an interesting article in Monday magazine (thanks to a reader for the tip) with the reporter (Andrew MacLeod) talking to Australian Senator Bob Brown, a Green Party representative who was elected under STV.

Some quotes from Brown,

"It's so thoroughly democratic because it's the system that most has the Parliament reflect the wishes of the voters," he says in a phone interview from his home. "The old single member electorates are thoroughly undemocratic . . . [STV] has meant there's been independent or small party representation in the Tasmanian government, and the ACT and the Australian senate."

and later,

"The system's worked well. It's been very productive." In Tasmania in years when the Greens held the balance of power, the government made an apology to local aboriginal people, advanced gay rights, passed freedom of information legislation and imporved [sic] labour laws, he adds. And, he says, the STV system provides for wider representation and "makes for a much better debate in the Parliament."

But the part which caught my attention most was this:

"...most Australians (including Brown) oppose the industrial-scale logging that continues in Tasmanian forests. During the last election, Brown says, a poll showed 85 percent of Australians wanted the logging to stop, yet neither of the country's main parties would oppose it. But since STV meant voters had realistic choices other than the two main parties, he says, the issue became huge in the last week before the election. "Without the STV system it simply would not have been on the agenda."

One of my 2 main reasons for supporting STV is that it will give voters more choice at the ballot box- because they will be able to choose between different representatives of the same party and also to vote for smaller parties without fear of needing to vote 'strategically' or of wasting their vote. One thing I hadn't considered was that under the current system, if the two main parties take the same position on an issue, voters have little recourse and so that topic will cease to become an election issue. But with third (and fourth and so on) parties having a legitimate shot at winning seats, they will be able to force issues which are important to the public onto the agenda. Just another way that STV puts more power in the hands of the voters and less in the hands of the two big parties.

Want to Blog About the Referendum - Register with the Government First

note: cross-posted at the e-group

I recently received a comment which suggested that I might be breaking the law by writing this blog without first registering with the government. In response, I emailed elections BC to see if this was indeed the case.

I (foolishly, as it turns out) expected to get a reply indicating that no, the law on referendum advertising was not intended to apply to people who were just expressing their personal opinion on the internet without funding from anyone, but in fact I received this reply:

"Thank you for your inquiry. According to the Election Act, anyone promoting or opposing a particular response in voting in the upcoming referendum must register as a referendum advertising sponsor. The referendum campaign period began on March 1, 2005 and continues until 8:00 p.m. Pacific time, May 17, 2005. As your Web page has been accessible to the public during this period, it is imperative that you register with Elections BC as soon as possible."

There was a little more back and forth in which I explained why I thought that they should consider the matter further (which they did after asking me to forward the url for my site) and which ended with this explanation from elections BC:

"Thank you for sending me the link to your Web site. I have taken a close look at the site, and I feel that it constitutes referendum advertising. While there are links to various "No" sites, I feel that overall, the Web site clearly promotes a certain response to voting in the referendum. Regarding your individual blogs and postings on other Web sites, I feel that given their editorial nature, they do not constitute referendum advertising and do not require authorization statements.

Rapidly evolving technologies and the internet create challenges in determining political commentary vs. political advertising. However, Web sites created for promoting, directly or indirectly, a specific response in voting in the referendum do, in Elections BC's view, clearly constitute referendum advertising. Persons or organizations who create these sites must register as referendum advertising sponsors if the sites are accessible during the referendum campaign period. This approach is consistent with political party and candidate sites, which are a form of election
advertising during an election campaign period.

We fully recognize that not all Web sites that express an opinion on the referendum are engaged in referendum advertising. Individuals' blogs, that were not established or created for the purpose of conducting referendum advertising or promoting a specific response in voting, would not generally be considered referendum advertising. However, with rapidly emerging technologies each situation must be reviewed and determined on its own merit, and a blog could, conceivably, be created as an effective advertising method."

A similar back and forth exchange as well as some good analysis of the legalities can be found at David Schreck's site. A google search for 'Vote no STV' will bring up Schreck's site as one of the first hits, but he is not required to register his site because it existed before the referendum campaign and it is not devoted solely to encouraging people to vote against STV (he also encourages people to vote NDP).

Anyway, I have been debating whether or not to comply with elections BC's request. As one person who I asked succinctly said,

"It all depends on whether you're fighting the good fight against an unjust law that egregiously curtails your rights or if you're just childishly bucking the bureaucrats."

On the one hand, registration is free and while I would prefer not to have my name, phone number and address prominently posted on the internet, it is not a huge infringement on me. Still, for those who supported the right of bloggers to remain anonymous in recent discussion on the e-group, it's worth noting that under this type of legislation your anonymity would be threatened. For example, if the federal legislation were amended to follow BC's example, anyone classifying themselves as a 'blogging Tory' might have to register with the government (while other sites which were just as partisan but not as clearly identified as such would presumably be exempt).

It seems odd to me that someone can spend their day preaching in the park about voting yes, writing letters to the paper on why to vote yes, writing a vote-yes editorial in the paper and appearing on the radio and on television explaining why to vote yes but only when they get home and decide to start a blog/website explaining why people should vote yes are they forced to register. Especially when they could post all the same stuff on their existing blog and not have to register!

Finally, while elections BC is (currently) interpreting the law to only apply to blogs specifically created to argue one side of the referendum, I see nothing in the law itself which really supports this distinction. Which in turn means that this interpretation could (theoretically) change at any time and anyone who posts a comment anywhere on the internet for or against the referendum would suddenly be in violation of the law. The elections BC advertising 'Q&A' specifically states that even material published before the referendum period starts is considered advertising if it is 'available' (i.e. online) during the referendum period.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that, while I am flattered that elections BC would consider the completely unfunded expression of my opinion to be so influential that the public interest requires that I register with the government before expressing it, it feels like an unreasonable intrusion into my right to freedom of speech.

Notwithstanding this, I have decided I don't feel strongly enough about it to pick this battle and accordingly I have placed my site 'under the sponsorship of' the yes campaign for whatever that's worth, but I'm still torn over the wisdom of this decision.

Is this an unjust law worth fighting? Is it a threat to bloggers in general and their anonymity in particular? Is it one step on a road to ever tighter government control over the internet? Am I making a big deal over nothing?

Condescension

One of the things I've noticed in a few anti-STV posts recently is the argument that STV is too complicated - not for the person who is writing the post but for other imaginary people such as 'joe sixpack', the 'layman' or the 'average voter'.

I can only speak for myself but few things would irritate me more than to know that someone (who understands STV themselves) is telling people to vote against it because they think it is too confusing for my little brain. If people find STV too complicated for themselves to support then fine, but saying it's too complicated for the 'little people' strikes me as terribly condescending.