Single Transferable Vote

[ReeferMadness]

Did I mention something incorrect? I said I understood enough about it that I have made my decision.

In all fairness, it is up to each of us to educate ourselves about our government, our politics, our voting structure, and the politicians we cast our votes for.

The links you provided will outline the pros and cons of the STV and it is perhaps there that one's decison should be made, not a political forum. Here I am only expressing an opinion.

As I said supporters of it are in my opinion basically pro-government in their approach to societal problem-solving.

Not being a supporter of social engineering I would prefer to divest government of most of it's meddling in the affairs of society not provide a broader base of interests thinking that better representation of the varied interests brings more efficient government and creates a more equal and just society. It won't. Reducing the influence and size of government is the only thing that will.

Hey Reefer did you read that link I posted about Ireland's luck with the STV?

Pliny, STV has as much to do with a 'pro-government' approach as it does with lclimate change. STV is about better governance, not more or less governance. As I said earlier, I don't have time to waste on people who've closed their minds.

I'll come back another time and debate you on whether government is a good thing or bad thing. Meanwhile, you can read Ayn Rand and dream of your utopian ideals. Or read some Dickens to see what happens when they're actually put into action.

Later.

[Wilber]

I believe on your ballot you make choices and rank all parties according to your preference. Once a percentage of votes has elected an MLA the vote is transferred to the next most popular choice until another MLA is elected. Then the remaining votes are transferred to the next choice until he receives enough of a percentage of the votes. A person who gets one vote could in theory get elected if enough votes remain to be transferred to him.

All parties would run candidates in all regions but only one MLA is allowed to be elected from a party per region. I believe a region must contain a certain amount of ridings.

So your vote could be transferred to a party with which you totally disagree and you find government working at odds with itself - but apparently competition between MLA's all the time is a good thing.

Do I have all that correct?

You have it wrong. Where did you get the idea that only one MLA per party is allowed to be elected per region? The persons who get the most votes through the transfer system will win, their party standing has nothing to do with STV. That is why many are against STV because they feel it makes people less likely to vote on party lines and might make fear mongering a less effective election tactic.

You rank as many or as few candidates as you want to on your ballot. For example, if there are fifteen people running for three seats and there were only three who would be acceptable to you, just rank those three and leave the others blank. You can still use your vote as you would a FPP if you want to. Your vote can only be transferred between those three in order to give all of them the maximum chance of being elected. No one is forcing you to rank and possibly transfer your vote to someone you totally disagree with. Unfortunately these are some of the scare tactics the anti STV crowd are using. There are philosophical reasons to be against STV but these ones are pure BS.

Your vote can only be transferred between those three in order to give all of them the maximum chance of being elected.

That's not quite true, in this case you have three votes and one would go to each of these as there are three seats but the point is, your vote can only be transferred to candidates you actually rank. If you really don't want someone, you just don't rank them period.

Edited May 6, 2009 by Wilber

[Pliny]

You have it wrong. Where did you get the idea that only one MLA per party is allowed to be elected per region? The persons who get the most votes through the transfer system will win, their party standing has nothing to do with STV. That is why many are against STV because they feel it makes people less likely to vote on party lines and might make fear mongering a less effective election tactic.

You rank as many or as few candidates as you want to on your ballot. For example, if there are fifteen people running for three seats and there were only three who would be acceptable to you, just rank those three and leave the others blank. You can still use your vote as you would a FPP if you want to. Your vote can only be transferred between those three in order to give all of them the maximum chance of being elected. No one is forcing you to rank and possibly transfer your vote to someone you totally disagree with. Unfortunately these are some of the scare tactics the anti STV crowd are using. There are philosophical reasons to be against STV but these ones are pure BS.

That's not quite true, in this case you have three votes and one would go to each of these as there are three seats but the point is, your vote can only be transferred to candidates you actually rank. If you really don't want someone, you just don't rank them period.

Well, thanks for trying to straighten me out Wilber.

From what I understand it won't pay to vote the most popular or well-known candidate for a party in a region and vote the party line on your other choices. Votes would have to pretty much be in line with the ridings in order to elect more than one MLA from the same party. If Candidate A is the most popular candidate in the region and all the ridings wish to ensure he is elected first and candidate B second and candidate C third all from the same party they don't have a chance of being elected. They would hardly have gotten any first choice votes. If people stuck to voting within their riding then there would be a chance of getting two MLA's from the same party elected. If people in a region think they can vote for the most popular guy in their party and put the other candidates in the same party as their second and third choices and fourth choices then they are sadly mistaken if they think their vote will transfer to their second choice. It may but most probably if everyone voted in a similar fashion the second and third candidates would not have gotten enough first choice votes to get past the first round let alone be elected with second choice ballots. If everyone stuck to voting within their own riding and putting their candidate as their first choice then they would have a chance of electing more than one MLA. Now the vote may stay within ridings as the voters first choice, and in some cases will, so in those instances you will be able to elect MLA's in the same region of the same party and if voting remained entirely within the same riding as first choice then you would have the same results as first past the post.

The system is really bad for regions where people vote the party line and one of their candidates in the region is stronger than the others. In a traditionally NDP area such as East Vancouver if there are say 4 ridings in the region the NDP will elect one candidate for sure. People who voted for that candidate and vote the party line with their second, third, and fourth choices believe their votes if surplus will transfer to those choices but those choices have to first receive enough first choice votes for them to matter and even then probably won't get enough transferred votes to win a seat. Voting the party line in a region won't work for all the candidates.

Do I have it right now?

I understand why minority governments will be the order of the day.

You know I don't even know if under STV the ridings in a region are even defined. If they aren't it would make it very difficult to attempt to get more than one MLA elected except by chance and it would be dependent upon the popularity of the candidates. In such case it would help if they were all of the same caliber and known equally well to their constituents.

[Pliny]

Pliny, STV has as much to do with a 'pro-government' approach as it does with lclimate change. STV is about better governance, not more or less governance. As I said earlier, I don't have time to waste on people who've closed their minds.

I'll come back another time and debate you on whether government is a good thing or bad thing. Meanwhile, you can read Ayn Rand and dream of your utopian ideals. Or read some Dickens to see what happens when they're actually put into action.

Later.

So you never did read that link.

[Wilber]

Well, thanks for trying to straighten me out Wilber.

From what I understand it won't pay to vote the most popular or well-known candidate for a party in a region and vote the party line on your other choices. Votes would have to pretty much be in line with the ridings in order to elect more than one MLA from the same party. If Candidate A is the most popular candidate in the region and all the ridings wish to ensure he is elected first and candidate B second and candidate C third all from the same party they don't have a chance of being elected. They would hardly have gotten any first choice votes. If people stuck to voting within their riding then there would be a chance of getting two MLA's from the same party elected. If people in a region think they can vote for the most popular guy in their party and put the other candidates in the same party as their second and third choices and fourth choices then they are sadly mistaken if they think their vote will transfer to their second choice. It may but most probably if everyone voted in a similar fashion the second and third candidates would not have gotten enough first choice votes to get past the first round let alone be elected with second choice ballots. If everyone stuck to voting within their own riding and putting their candidate as their first choice then they would have a chance of electing more than one MLA. Now the vote may stay within ridings as the voters first choice, and in some cases will, so in those instances you will be able to elect MLA's in the same region of the same party and if voting remained entirely within the same riding as first choice then you would have the same results as first past the post.

The system is really bad for regions where people vote the party line and one of their candidates in the region is stronger than the others. In a traditionally NDP area such as East Vancouver if there are say 4 ridings in the region the NDP will elect one candidate for sure. People who voted for that candidate and vote the party line with their second, third, and fourth choices believe their votes if surplus will transfer to those choices but those choices have to first receive enough first choice votes for them to matter and even then probably won't get enough transferred votes to win a seat. Voting the party line in a region won't work for all the candidates.

Do I have it right now?

I understand why minority governments will be the order of the day.

You know I don't even know if under STV the ridings in a region are even defined. If they aren't it would make it very difficult to attempt to get more than one MLA elected except by chance and it would be dependent upon the popularity of the candidates. In such case it would help if they were all of the same caliber and known equally well to their constituents.

The way I understand it is the total number of votes cast is divided by the number of seats plus one. That number plus one is the number of votes needed to be elected. Say your first choice needed 5000 votes to meet that criteria but got 7000, that means they only needed 60% of your vote to get elected so the remaining 40% would go to your second choice and so on. If you were in a two person riding and voted for the two candidates from the same party, 100% of your vote would go toward getting them both elected rather than just one of them. After each count the bottom candidate is eliminated. If they were your first choice, 100% of your vote would go to your second choice and so on. What is the problem with getting the maximum mileage out of your vote?

I don't think ridings within a region will be defined. If you are in a three member region you will have three representatives. In this respect it won't be much different from a municipal system where you vote for all the council seats and all the councilors are responsible to all the citizens. Too bad we can't all vote for a premier the way we do for a mayor.

[Pliny]

The way I understand it is the total number of votes cast is divided by the number of seats plus one. That number plus one is the number of votes needed to be elected. Say your first choice needed 5000 votes to meet that criteria but got 7000, that means they only needed 60% of your vote to get elected so the remaining 40% would go to your second choice and so on. If you were in a two person riding and voted for the two candidates from the same party, 100% of your vote would go toward getting them both elected rather than just one of them. After each count the bottom candidate is eliminated. If they were your first choice, 100% of your vote would go to your second choice and so on. What is the problem with getting the maximum mileage out of your vote?

I have a scenario to present to you.

I don't think ridings within a region will be defined. If you are in a three member region you will have three representatives. In this respect it won't be much different from a municipal system where you vote for all the council seats and all the councilors are responsible to all the citizens. Too bad we can't all vote for a premier the way we do for a mayor.

You are right the ridings will not be defined.

Here's an interesting scenario for you. I came across this doing some research last night.

The proponents of STV believe the STV system will produce primarily minority governments. Now I came across some information that seems contradictory to that claim. The government in Ireland has primarily been a majority government of the FF (Fienna Fein?) party over the last eighty years so why do proponents here feel minority governments will be elected here?

I think it is because of the following.

I looked at an actual riding in Ireland how the votes went and were allotted. The two leading candidates in the riding, I think there were twelve all together seeking 7 or 8 seats., were from the same party. I thought, well how did that happen that the two candidates from the same party in the same riding split the first ballot pretty much evenly. It seemed odd because let's say the downtown eastside is comprised of 4 current ridings combined into one. Traditionally, the downtowneastside is NDP. Let's say Jenny Kwan is one of the NDP candidates vying for a seat along with three other NDP candidates. Jenny Kwan, being a high profile candidate, would get most of the votes in the riding. The NDP voters would pick her first and if they were voting the party line would vote the other candidates second third and fourth. Let's say Jenny Kwan, being very popular among NDP voters, gets 50% of the entire vote in the riding as their first choice. Jenny only needs 25% of the vote in the riding to win her seat. But there is now only fifty percent of the vote to be divided among the rest of the candidates; the three NDP candidates, probably four Liberal candidates, a couple of Greens and maybe a conservative and an independent. The liberals will probably have a candidate that can muster 25% of the vote. So now two candidates are elected. That leaves 25% of the total votes remaining in the riding being split between 10 other candidates. Most of those votes won't go to either the Liberals or the NDP. The people who are going to vote for them as their first choice have already been counted for the most part. Some NDP voters may not like Jenny Kwan and voted for some other candidate as their first choice. Without transfer votes that candidate doesn't stand a chance of getting elected though because there is only 25% of the first ballot votes left. They will be divided with perhaps 15% going to the 3 liberal and other party candidates and the remaining 10% of the first ballot going to the other three NDP candidates remaining. There is a chance another NDP candidate could be elected but he would have to get a percentage of the 10% votes that would add up to 25% with the transferred votes. So 7% plus 18% of his votes coming from the second choice ballot will get him elected. Some of those second choice ballots may have gone to the Green Party or an independent. The other two NDP candidates would have gotten only 3% of the first choice votes. With the second NDP candidate taking all the second choice transferable votes to become elected the other two will be eliminated. In a region of four ridings the NDP are used to taking all four seats since the area has traditionally been NDP. Now there is a liberal and maybe a Green or another Liberal in NDP territory.

In order for the NDP to gain all the seats, which I believe they could, the citizens would have to understand the system of voting and they could then manipulate it to gain majority government. All that would be necessary to happen is that the communities of a region who support a particular party get together, split themselves up into groups of 4 and give their four candidates a fairly equal amount of votes each. Some thing not too hard to do with a big organized political party. Voting the party line with a front runner in the region will never achieve more than one or two seats but if the party divides their vote as equally as possible among the four candidates and the second choice candidate's vote is divided as equally as possible then there is a chance all four seats can be won by the same party on the second ballot.

This is how I think one party in Ireland has been able to gain a majority government for most of the eighty years they have had the STV.

What's your view of this?

Edited May 8, 2009 by Pliny

[Wilber]

I have a scenario to present to you.

You are right the ridings will not be defined.

Here's an interesting scenario for you. I came across this doing some research last night.

The proponents of STV believe the STV system will produce primarily minority governments. Now I came across some information that seems contradictory to that claim. The government in Ireland has primarily been a majority government of the FF (Fienna Fein?) party over the last eighty years so why do proponents here feel minority governments will be elected here?

I think it is because of the following.

I looked at an actual riding in Ireland how the votes went and were allotted. The two leading candidates in the riding, I think there were twelve all together seeking 7 or 8 seats., were from the same party. I thought, well how did that happen that the two candidates from the same party in the same riding split the first ballot pretty much evenly. It seemed odd because let's say the downtown eastside is comprised of 4 current ridings combined into one. Traditionally, the downtowneastside is NDP. Let's say Jenny Kwan is one of the NDP candidates vying for a seat along with three other NDP candidates. Jenny Kwan, being a high profile candidate, would get most of the votes in the riding. The NDP voters would pick her first and if they were voting the party line would vote the other candidates second third and fourth. Let's say Jenny Kwan, being very popular among NDP voters, gets 50% of the entire vote in the riding as their first choice. Jenny only needs 25% of the vote in the riding to win her seat. But there is now only fifty percent of the vote to be divided among the rest of the candidates; the three NDP candidates, probably four Liberal candidates, a couple of Greens and maybe a conservative and an independent. The liberals will probably have a candidate that can muster 25% of the vote. So now two candidates are elected. That leaves 25% of the total votes remaining in the riding being split between 10 other candidates. Most of those votes won't go to either the Liberals or the NDP. The people who are going to vote for them as their first choice have already been counted for the most part. Some NDP voters may not like Jenny Kwan and voted for some other candidate as their first choice. Without transfer votes that candidate doesn't stand a chance of getting elected though because there is only 25% of the first ballot votes left. They will be divided with perhaps 15% going to the 3 liberal and other party candidates and the remaining 10% of the first ballot going to the other three NDP candidates remaining. There is a chance another NDP candidate could be elected but he would have to get a percentage of the 10% votes that would add up to 25% with the transferred votes. So 7% plus 18% of his votes coming from the second choice ballot will get him elected. Some of those second choice ballots may have gone to the Green Party or an independent. The other two NDP candidates would have gotten only 3% of the first choice votes. With the second NDP candidate taking all the second choice transferable votes to become elected the other two will be eliminated. In a region of four ridings the NDP are used to taking all four seats since the area has traditionally been NDP. Now there is a liberal and maybe a Green or another Liberal in NDP territory.

In order for the NDP to gain all the seats, which I believe they could, the citizens would have to understand the system of voting and they could then manipulate it to gain majority government. All that would be necessary to happen is that the communities of a region who support a particular party get together, split themselves up into groups of 4 and give their four candidates a fairly equal amount of votes each. Some thing not too hard to do with a big organized political party. Voting the party line with a front runner in the region will never achieve more than one or two seats but if the party divides their vote as equally as possible among the four candidates and the second choice candidate's vote is divided as equally as possible then there is a chance all four seats can be won by the same party on the second ballot.

This is how I think one party in Ireland has been able to gain a majority government for most of the eighty years they have had the STV.

What's your view of this?

You assume a lot. If you don't rank a candidate they can't get any part of your vote and if you do, it is because you are prepared to see them elected. If the seats wound up as you describe it would because it reflected what voters indicated on their ballots. Right now a party can wind up with all the seats even though less than fifty percent of the people in voted for them . We have parties which have formed majorities even though less than forty percent of voters cast ballots for them. That is a screwed up system IMO and not democratic. It seems Canadians like democracy if it means putting almost all the power in the hands of one party leader. We must have majorities. In other words, they only like the idea of democracy when they go to the polls. Between elections they like being governed by an autocrat. They seem to think real democracy is somehow dangerous.

[Wilber]

One more thing. Minority governments are what you make them. Naysayers point to Israel and Italy but their governments do function because they have to and that is the bottom line. Politicians will be forced to get the job done regardless of the system they have to operate in or they will get the boot in the next election. Germany's government has been very stable but seldom if ever does any party have a majority even with a FPTP system.

[Nat]

All I know is that Glen Clark got to be premier with the NDP having less popular votes then the Gorden Campbell Liberals, enough reason for me to vote for STV over FPTP.

[kimmy]

I posted this in another thread but it belongs in this one.

I was undecided but am now leaning towards voting yes. If it wins and people grow to hate it, changes will be made. But if it loses, there's probably little hope of another attempt at electoral reform (whether STV or any other system.) "The voters have spoken, and they are happy with the first past the post system" will be the interpretation of the outcome. And that's not the vote I want to make. I wish there was a second question on the ballot, asking people if they want a different electoral system or continue with FPTP.

One of the strongest arguments for FPTP has been the linking of a single MLA to a single riding. I kind of like that. The "NO STV" campaign commercial features road signs that say "Welcome to Nelson! Your MLA..." "Welcome to Kimberly! Your MLA..." "Welcome to Kamloops! Your MLA..." being crossed out with red X's to make the point.

My enthusiasm for that argument was dampened considerably when I looked at the electoral map of my area. I can walk literally a couple of blocks south and be in a different riding. I can walk a couple of blocks east and be in a different riding. And yet while my neighbors will have different MLAs than I do, people who live an hour drive away will have the same MLA as me. The city I live in has been carved into wedges so that large rural ridings will have enough people. I have had this complaint about federal elections in the past where slivers around the edge of Edmonton were carved off to bump up the population of surrounding rural ridings, and I can scarcely believe that Elections BC has somehow managed to draw up an even more tortured electoral map

The "NO STV" side has complained that instead of single small ridings with single MLAs, you'll have enormous ridings with multiple MLAs who aren't directly accountable to the people they represent. Well, next week the current system will create, in effect, a super-riding the size of a small european country, with 3 MLAs, all accountable only to the voters within roughly a 15 kilometer radius of me, who will so heavily skew the demographics of all 3 ridings that the rural voters might as well just stay home.

-k

[Nat]

One of the strongest arguments for FPTP has been the linking of a single MLA to a single riding. I kind of like that. The "NO STV" campaign commercial features road signs that say "Welcome to Nelson! Your MLA..." "Welcome to Kimberly! Your MLA..." "Welcome to Kamloops! Your MLA..." being crossed out with red X's to make the point.

My enthusiasm for that argument was dampened considerably when I looked at the electoral map of my area. I can walk literally a couple of blocks south and be in a different riding. I can walk a couple of blocks east and be in a different riding. And yet while my neighbors will have different MLAs than I do, people who live an hour drive away will have the same MLA as me. The city I live in has been carved into wedges so that large rural ridings will have enough people. I have had this complaint about federal elections in the past where slivers around the edge of Edmonton were carved off to bump up the population of surrounding rural ridings, and I can scarcely believe that Elections BC has somehow managed to draw up an even more tortured electoral map

-k

Where I live the city has been divide into two and shares half of each riding with another city. So instead of one MLA we have two but both shared with larger cities. So I don't see the advantage with FPTP here.

[ReeferMadness]

I posted this in another thread but it belongs in this one.

I was undecided but am now leaning towards voting yes. If it wins and people grow to hate it, changes will be made. But if it loses, there's probably little hope of another attempt at electoral reform (whether STV or any other system.) "The voters have spoken, and they are happy with the first past the post system" will be the interpretation of the outcome. And that's not the vote I want to make. I wish there was a second question on the ballot, asking people if they want a different electoral system or continue with FPTP.

One of the strongest arguments for FPTP has been the linking of a single MLA to a single riding. I kind of like that. The "NO STV" campaign commercial features road signs that say "Welcome to Nelson! Your MLA..." "Welcome to Kimberly! Your MLA..." "Welcome to Kamloops! Your MLA..." being crossed out with red X's to make the point.

My enthusiasm for that argument was dampened considerably when I looked at the electoral map of my area. I can walk literally a couple of blocks south and be in a different riding. I can walk a couple of blocks east and be in a different riding. And yet while my neighbors will have different MLAs than I do, people who live an hour drive away will have the same MLA as me. The city I live in has been carved into wedges so that large rural ridings will have enough people. I have had this complaint about federal elections in the past where slivers around the edge of Edmonton were carved off to bump up the population of surrounding rural ridings, and I can scarcely believe that Elections BC has somehow managed to draw up an even more tortured electoral map

The "NO STV" side has complained that instead of single small ridings with single MLAs, you'll have enormous ridings with multiple MLAs who aren't directly accountable to the people they represent. Well, next week the current system will create, in effect, a super-riding the size of a small european country, with 3 MLAs, all accountable only to the voters within roughly a 15 kilometer radius of me, who will so heavily skew the demographics of all 3 ridings that the rural voters might as well just stay home.

-k

I've never understood why people find it so important to have an MLA from their town or neighborhood. I can see some importance attached to rural/urban splits or regional differences but even that isn't my overriding concern. I'd MUCH rather have an MLA who shared my views but lived 500 miles away than somebody around the corner who won't do anything for me. STV gives you more MLA's to choose from so chances are better you'll have one you can work with.

I wonder how many people have ever taken a complaint to an MLA and the average satisfaction rating of those interactions. My experience is that if you have an issue of policy (as opposed to assistance dealing with the bureacracy) and your MLA's party doesn't agree with you, you might as well forget it. You can take your issue to the opposition, the media, maybe even a lawyer; just forget about taking it to your MLA.

Elections BC has a tough job balancing a bunch of objectives and limitations. They try to fit natural communities together, maintain northern representation and still maintain voter parity, all while not adding too many MLA's. I'm sure it could be done better but I don't know enough to criticize them. Ridings are always going to be to some extent artificial. I have a friend who was in a middle class riding in the 2005 election but now thanks to a jog in the riding layout, now finds herself lumped in with one of the wealthiest communities in BC.

Edited May 9, 2009 by ReeferMadness

[Wilber]

The "NO STV" side has complained that instead of single small ridings with single MLAs, you'll have enormous ridings with multiple MLAs who aren't directly accountable to the people they represent. Well, next week the current system will create, in effect, a super-riding the size of a small european country, with 3 MLAs, all accountable only to the voters within roughly a 15 kilometer radius of me, who will so heavily skew the demographics of all 3 ridings that the rural voters might as well just stay home.

A lot of our ridings are already the size of some small European countries. The so called "super ridings" which would be created will be smaller than some of our federal ridings. Why do you maintain they won't be accountable to you? All three of them will need your vote to get elected just as much as they do the person who lives next door to them. That's the beauty of this system, they won't just be able to rely on their core and to hell with everyone else because it will also be important for them to become peoples second and third choices if they can't be their first. They just changed the electoral boundaries here. My old MLA is now in a different riding and the new incumbent who is running in my area lives in Mission. I got no say in the matter so really, what's the difference?

[catterinax]

thanks for the post - it was informative

[ReeferMadness]

I have a scenario to present to you.

You are right the ridings will not be defined.

Here's an interesting scenario for you. I came across this doing some research last night.

The proponents of STV believe the STV system will produce primarily minority governments. Now I came across some information that seems contradictory to that claim. The government in Ireland has primarily been a majority government of the FF (Fienna Fein?) party over the last eighty years so why do proponents here feel minority governments will be elected here?

I think it is because of the following.

I looked at an actual riding in Ireland how the votes went and were allotted. The two leading candidates in the riding, I think there were twelve all together seeking 7 or 8 seats., were from the same party. I thought, well how did that happen that the two candidates from the same party in the same riding split the first ballot pretty much evenly. It seemed odd because let's say the downtown eastside is comprised of 4 current ridings combined into one. Traditionally, the downtowneastside is NDP. Let's say Jenny Kwan is one of the NDP candidates vying for a seat along with three other NDP candidates. Jenny Kwan, being a high profile candidate, would get most of the votes in the riding. The NDP voters would pick her first and if they were voting the party line would vote the other candidates second third and fourth. Let's say Jenny Kwan, being very popular among NDP voters, gets 50% of the entire vote in the riding as their first choice. Jenny only needs 25% of the vote in the riding to win her seat. But there is now only fifty percent of the vote to be divided among the rest of the candidates; the three NDP candidates, probably four Liberal candidates, a couple of Greens and maybe a conservative and an independent. The liberals will probably have a candidate that can muster 25% of the vote. So now two candidates are elected. That leaves 25% of the total votes remaining in the riding being split between 10 other candidates. Most of those votes won't go to either the Liberals or the NDP. The people who are going to vote for them as their first choice have already been counted for the most part. Some NDP voters may not like Jenny Kwan and voted for some other candidate as their first choice. Without transfer votes that candidate doesn't stand a chance of getting elected though because there is only 25% of the first ballot votes left. They will be divided with perhaps 15% going to the 3 liberal and other party candidates and the remaining 10% of the first ballot going to the other three NDP candidates remaining. There is a chance another NDP candidate could be elected but he would have to get a percentage of the 10% votes that would add up to 25% with the transferred votes. So 7% plus 18% of his votes coming from the second choice ballot will get him elected. Some of those second choice ballots may have gone to the Green Party or an independent. The other two NDP candidates would have gotten only 3% of the first choice votes. With the second NDP candidate taking all the second choice transferable votes to become elected the other two will be eliminated. In a region of four ridings the NDP are used to taking all four seats since the area has traditionally been NDP. Now there is a liberal and maybe a Green or another Liberal in NDP territory.

In order for the NDP to gain all the seats, which I believe they could, the citizens would have to understand the system of voting and they could then manipulate it to gain majority government. All that would be necessary to happen is that the communities of a region who support a particular party get together, split themselves up into groups of 4 and give their four candidates a fairly equal amount of votes each. Some thing not too hard to do with a big organized political party. Voting the party line with a front runner in the region will never achieve more than one or two seats but if the party divides their vote as equally as possible among the four candidates and the second choice candidate's vote is divided as equally as possible then there is a chance all four seats can be won by the same party on the second ballot.

This is how I think one party in Ireland has been able to gain a majority government for most of the eighty years they have had the STV.

What's your view of this?

Pliny - contrary to what some anti-STVers have claimed, you only have 1 vote under STV. It may be fractionalized but it's still only one vote. For a party to get all of 5 seats, you need over 80% of the popular vote and than wouldn't happen anywhere in BC. A guy by the name of Wilf Day did some calculations and came to the conclusion (as I recall) that none of the ridings in BC would all go to one party, if people voted the way they did in 2005. Obviously, things will change from election to election, though. It's quite possible that a single party could get both seats in a 2 riding district and somewhat possible to sweep a 3 riding district. As there are more members it gets harder.

You're wrong about Ireland. According to Elections Ireland,, the last single party, majority government was in 1977. Since then, there have been coalitions and a couple of minority governments.

Fianna Fail has been consistently the most successful party. There's nothing inherently wrong with that - maybe they've done a good job. The key is that representation in legislature is somewhat proportional to the way people vote.

[Pliny]

Pliny - contrary to what some anti-STVers have claimed, you only have 1 vote under STV. It may be fractionalized but it's still only one vote. For a party to get all of 5 seats, you need over 80% of the popular vote and than wouldn't happen anywhere in BC. A guy by the name of Wilf Day did some calculations and came to the conclusion (as I recall) that none of the ridings in BC would all go to one party, if people voted the way they did in 2005. Obviously, things will change from election to election, though. It's quite possible that a single party could get both seats in a 2 riding district and somewhat possible to sweep a 3 riding district. As there are more members it gets harder.

You're wrong about Ireland. According to Elections Ireland,, the last single party, majority government was in 1977. Since then, there have been coalitions and a couple of minority governments.

Fianna Fail has been consistently the most successful party. There's nothing inherently wrong with that - maybe they've done a good job. The key is that representation in legislature is somewhat proportional to the way people vote.

I don't think I was wrong about Ireland.

This is from the nostv website:

STV has been in use in Ireland for over 80 years. Despite its use, one party, Fianna Fáil, has formed the government in all but 19 years since 1932. From 1932 to 1989 it formed a majority government after all but 5 elections. Since 1989 it has been the major party in 7 coalition governments, failing to form government only from 1994-97. It is currently government in coalition with the 6 Greens and 2 Progressive Democrats.

I know you only have one vote with STV.

There are several things I have questions about regarding STV. It isn't simple. It is very complicated, not just for the voter but for the vote-counter. Traditionally, the FPTP system is simple and the results easily understood. Under STV I think people will be wondering how the results came out like they did.

In the example I gave of being able to manipulate votes to optimize their transferability it makes no sense for people to vote for one candidate who is prominent in the riding and if you wish to vote the party line, a second candidate in the same riding. The chances of your vote being transferred to the second candidate is reduced significantly. If the first candidate gets a heavy surplus of votes, taking votes from the second candidate, the chances they get transferred to the second candidate are slim as it is more likely the second candidate will be eliminated. I agree with STV proponents that a majority will be hard to achieve especially if you are thinking for the perspective of a FPTP system. If you understand the STV system then you have to change the way you think about elections.

If people don't like the elected government they can go out and vote. They will vote when government makes a difference to them in their lives or becomes oppressive. The FPTP system is not as convoluted as STV. If voting cannot be explained simply, and I don't see STV being too simple, to the general populace how their vote is being used, then how can they be expected to vote so that they feel it is most effective.

Some people may vote for similar but different ideological parties, such as the Greens and the NDP, under STV and that would be effectively using your transferable vote. Your vote being transferred is not as effective if you attempt to use it to vote for a particular party.

Well I am sure we will have an opportunity to see how STV works after tomorrow. If we don't I won't say I'll be sorry. I like FPTP because I want some leadership in the direction of the government and I like to see where they are going ideologically. If they are a coalition of various parties I may not like the compromises that have to be made in order for government to function. I know where the NDP stands and where the Liberals stand. I will vote for them according to my preferences.

Under STV, even after my vote has been transferred or not used because it is surplus and my second choice was eliminated, I still won't know the direction of government. It will depend upon what kind of coalitions are formed. I will never be sure where government is going but I do know it won't be toward a smaller, limited and less intrusive one. It will be toward growth in the tax and spend mentality. I suppose we are getting that now under FPTP but from what I understand of STV there is more opportunity to reverse or impede the growth of government under an FPTP system.

Tomorrow is the day! Good luck!

[ReeferMadness]

I don't think I was wrong about Ireland.

While the nostv site is technically correct, it was written in a misleading manner. Since 1977, Fianna Fail has not, by itself managed to get a majority. It needed to partner with one or more parties to form a coalition to make a majority. Regardless, the point isn't whether STV allows majorities or not; it's whether those majorities are real or phony. Under FPTP, it's quite common to get a majority of seats with only 40% of the votes. With STV, that might be technically possible but it's much rarer.

There are several things I have questions about regarding STV. It isn't simple. It is very complicated, not just for the voter but for the vote-counter. Traditionally, the FPTP system is simple and the results easily understood. Under STV I think people will be wondering how the results came out like they did.

In the example I gave of being able to manipulate votes to optimize their transferability it makes no sense for people to vote for one candidate who is prominent in the riding and if you wish to vote the party line, a second candidate in the same riding. The chances of your vote being transferred to the second candidate is reduced significantly. If the first candidate gets a heavy surplus of votes, taking votes from the second candidate, the chances they get transferred to the second candidate are slim as it is more likely the second candidate will be eliminated. I agree with STV proponents that a majority will be hard to achieve especially if you are thinking for the perspective of a FPTP system. If you understand the STV system then you have to change the way you think about elections.

What you're talking about is called 'gaming' the system. It's technically possible under STV but it's not that easy and if you make mistakes it can backfire. The best way to vote under STV is just rank your candidates the way you like them. If your first choice is very popular, chances are that part of your vote (and part of someone else's vote) will work towards your second choice. If your first choice is very unpopular, then your entire second choice will probably be transferred somewhere else. The real voters who lose out are some candidates in the middle whose votes never get transferred and the candidate still loses. But it's pretty tough to guess who that will be. Also, the experts say that under STV upwards of 80% of voters get at least 1 MLA they voted for. That sounds pretty impressive to me.

In terms of understanding STV, you could try this site: trystv.ca. You can vote online and it will show you the results of your vote and all of the others who've been there before you.

STV is perfectly understandable to anyone who wants to invest a bit of time. For those who won't, that's fine too. Elections BC does the counting, not the voters. And Elections BC has said that if voters can remember how they voted, they will be able to figure out where their votes went after the election.

If people don't like the elected government they can go out and vote. They will vote when government makes a difference to them in their lives or becomes oppressive. The FPTP system is not as convoluted as STV. If voting cannot be explained simply, and I don't see STV being too simple, to the general populace how their vote is being used, then how can they be expected to vote so that they feel it is most effective.

Simple is not always better. The simplest form of government is a dictatorship. And in fact, a good portion of the electorate always vote for someone they don't like to prevent someone they like even less from getting elected (strategic voting)

Some people may vote for similar but different ideological parties, such as the Greens and the NDP, under STV and that would be effectively using your transferable vote. Your vote being transferred is not as effective if you attempt to use it to vote for a particular party.

That's really not true. If your vote is transferred from the 'losing' end, it is transferred at full value. If it's transferred from the 'winning' end, it's transferred at part value. Either way, it will only add up to 1 at the end of the count. In fact, first past the post is much worse from this perspective because of vote splitting.

It's funny you think that the Greens are similar to the NDP. If you look on rabble.ca where the NDP faithful hang out, you can see them trashing the green party as right-wing pretend environmentalists. In fact, neither is really accurate.

Well I am sure we will have an opportunity to see how STV works after tomorrow. If we don't I won't say I'll be sorry. I like FPTP because I want some leadership in the direction of the government and I like to see where they are going ideologically. If they are a coalition of various parties I may not like the compromises that have to be made in order for government to function. I know where the NDP stands and where the Liberals stand. I will vote for them according to my preferences.

Chances are very good that STV won't make it. The no campaign, consisting largely of political insiders and spin doctors, has run a very successful negative political-style campaign. Have you noticed that nobody has said anything good about first past the post?

Under STV, even after my vote has been transferred or not used because it is surplus and my second choice was eliminated, I still won't know the direction of government. It will depend upon what kind of coalitions are formed. I will never be sure where government is going but I do know it won't be toward a smaller, limited and less intrusive one. It will be toward growth in the tax and spend mentality. I suppose we are getting that now under FPTP but from what I understand of STV there is more opportunity to reverse or impede the growth of government under an FPTP system.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that. Coalitions are not unusual in most western democracies and most of them work just fine. We're not used to coalitions in Canada so we get freaked out about the backroom deals.

When you have minority governments under FPTP, there is a big game to see who can move the electorate by a few percentage points to turn the minority into a majority. That's why minority governments often don't last.

Tomorrow is the day! Good luck!

Thanks. We'll need it.

[Pliny]

It's funny you think that the Greens are similar to the NDP. If you look on rabble.ca where the NDP faithful hang out, you can see them trashing the green party as right-wing pretend environmentalists. In fact, neither is really accurate.

They have a similar ideology in that they think government should handle all social ills and the more social engineering the better.

Chances are very good that STV won't make it. The no campaign, consisting largely of political insiders and spin doctors, has run a very successful negative political-style campaign. Have you noticed that nobody has said anything good about first past the post?

All I have heard all week is we need to give STV a try. No one needs to be talking about FPTP except in comparison to STV.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that. Coalitions are not unusual in most western democracies and most of them work just fine. We're not used to coalitions in Canada so we get freaked out about the backroom deals.

FPTP coupled with our proximity to the US has kept us from the type of European socialism that is now falling apart in Europe.

If people understood where socialism inevitably ends up they would be little more leery of it. But hey if you can get something for nothing go ahead and vote for it.

[Wilber]

FPTP coupled with our proximity to the US has kept us from the type of European socialism that is now falling apart in Europe.

An interesting observation, I wonder how you came to it.

There are several things I have questions about regarding STV. It isn't simple. It is very complicated, not just for the voter but for the vote-counter. Traditionally, the FPTP system is simple and the results easily understood. Under STV I think people will be wondering how the results came out like they did.

The counting will be fairly labour intensive but the voting is dead simple. You just rate candidates the way you like them. The assertion that you won't know where your vote went is bogus. All you have to do is look at who won and how you rated the candidates to know where your vote went and whether in actually helped elect someone.

In the example I gave of being able to manipulate votes to optimize their transferability it makes no sense for people to vote for one candidate who is prominent in the riding and if you wish to vote the party line, a second candidate in the same riding. The chances of your vote being transferred to the second candidate is reduced significantly. If the first candidate gets a heavy surplus of votes, taking votes from the second candidate, the chances they get transferred to the second candidate are slim as it is more likely the second candidate will be eliminated. I agree with STV proponents that a majority will be hard to achieve especially if you are thinking for the perspective of a FPTP system. If you understand the STV system then you have to change the way you think about elections.

This has already been explained. The first candidate will not take votes from the second. On the contrary, any portion of your vote that was in excess of what the popular candidate needed to be elected will go to your second choice if you have one, therefore you may or may not have a part in electing that second candidate as well.

If people don't like the elected government they can go out and vote. They will vote when government makes a difference to them in their lives or becomes oppressive. The FPTP system is not as convoluted as STV. If voting cannot be explained simply, and I don't see STV being too simple, to the general populace how their vote is being used, then how can they be expected to vote so that they feel it is most effective.

Voting under STV is simple. The counting will be more complicated. Too many people are just too lazy to take the time to find out how it works and make up their own minds. They are just waiting for someone to tell them how to vote. I think this is true of people on both sides of the issue.

Well I am sure we will have an opportunity to see how STV works after tomorrow. If we don't I won't say I'll be sorry. I like FPTP because I want some leadership in the direction of the government and I like to see where they are going ideologically. If they are a coalition of various parties I may not like the compromises that have to be made in order for government to function. I know where the NDP stands and where the Liberals stand. I will vote for them according to my preferences.

Governing with a majority requires a lot less leadership than trying to get a consensus.

[ReeferMadness]

Even if you can't bring yourself to vote for a candidate, vote for democracy. Vote YES for BC-STV!!

[bill_barilko]

Even if you can't bring yourself to vote for a candidate, vote for democracy. Vote YES for BC-STV!!

I just voted NO to STV and I hope to never hear about that bull again in this lifetime.

[ReeferMadness]

I just voted NO to STV and I hope to never hear about that bull again in this lifetime.

That might be OK - how long do you expect to live?

[Wilber]

Even if you can't bring yourself to vote for a candidate, vote for democracy. Vote YES for BC-STV!!

I did.

[kimmy]

Well, it appears that STV has been soundly defeated.

It looks like we are stuck with FPTP for a very long time.

-k

[Riverwind]

Well, it appears that STV has been soundly defeated.

Voter turnout was only 48% despite the fact that STV was on the ballot. This suggests two things:

1) People who actually vote have no problem with FPTP.

2) The people who don't vote aren't going to be motived by changing the system.

The second point is most important since electoral change advocates have long insisted that changing the system would increase voter turnout. The BC election results make it clear that the claim has no basis in reality.

The drop in support for STV this time around is likely because people actually understood what they were voting for. To illustrate the problem: the NO-STV campaign put the 'Understanding STV' video produced by YES-STV campaign on the NO_STV website (i.e. the 'Understanding STV' video turned people off the STV concept).

Edited May 13, 2009 by Riverwind