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.