B.C. Single transferable vote referendum

[Archeron]

Hello,

Not sure if this topic has been covered here before, but here goes.

As everyone here knows I am sure, the up-coming BC provincial election will include a referendum on whether or not BC should adopt a Single Transferable Vote (SVT) voting system. Although much fanfare surrounded the public consultation process and their results, very little information has been made available to the public, at least not to those unwilling to dig for it. The government sent out a large glossy mailout at great expense that took great care to avoid all the important details of the proposed system such as the counting system, the core of the entire system. This handout barely adequately described our current system and attempted to explain everything anecdotally. I think we have a very scary situation coming here: a referendum where a LARGE majority understand squat about what they are voting on.

However, I digress. Giving that I, and I am sure many here, actually understand the counting process, I would like to hear opinions on the actual effect of this new process should it be adopted. Specifically, what effect will this have on the weight of BC residents outside of the lower mainland? You hear talk of STV further marginalizing the voters outside of Vancouver and Victoria. I have a hard time believing they can really be further marginalized, but what do folks here think? Is this just the spouting of alarmists or does “rural” BC stand to lose some of their already-limited clout?

[fellowtraveller]

Could you summarize the proposed system for the ignorant like myself?

Whatever the outcome, I am thrilled to see somebody, anybody, try to change the face of democracy in this country.

Our old system no longer serves us well.

[Archeron]

Could you summarize the proposed system for the ignorant like myself?

Whatever the outcome, I am thrilled to see somebody, anybody, try to change the face of democracy in this country.

Our old system no longer serves us well.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

First, let me say that I do not consider anyone who does not understand this "ignorant". I am sure my understanding of this is flawed as there is much room for error. I believe that a portion of the people responsible for promoting this referendum may well not understand it.

For starters, here's a few web links. This first one has a nice simulation applet. The "Yes" camp's site. This site may be hard to look at but has tons of info.

Basically, rather than simply having he who gets to most votes win, the entire constituency, ballot, and seating changes. The province gets divided into electoral district, (see this example) each with a number of legislative seats available and a number of candidates. Then, when voting, the voter, rather than simply checking only one candidate, supplies (may supply really) a ranking of candidates in order of preference. I.E. Put a "1" beside your favorite candidate, a "2" beside your second choice, and so on. At the end of the day, there is a brutal iterative counting process best demonstrated in the applet referred to above. In a nutshell, by summing the ballots and dividing by the number of seats, you get a number of votes that a winning candidate must meet or exceed. Now, when say 100 votes go to a given candidate, but only 48 are needed for the win, the second choice on ballots are taken iinto play. In this way, all the people who cast a now-unnecessary "1" for the winning candidate do not have their votes wasted. Instead, their "2" candidate votes are counted along with the "1's" from the ballots that shared the former "2's" candidate. *Blah* I hope that follows. This process continues until all choices are counted, winning candidates are assigned.

David Suzuki attempted to explain this on CBC last night to no avail, and seeing my explanation, I am sure you can see room for failure in explaining. The best way to understand it is to work through a mock election with very few candidates/parties/ballots in a single electoral district. This was totally skipped in the nice glossy mailout from the government.

Does this shed light on the process to your satisfaction?

[fellowtraveller]

I do understand the explanation, thank you.

Assuming you have each Party presenting an equal number of candidates in the electoral district , wouldn't most people just vote for all the candidates in their favourite Party? What is the advantage to that? How does it improve the democratic process.

Thanks again, ad hats off to BC for having both fixed date elections ad looking into this reform.

[Archeron]

Assuming you have each Party presenting an equal number of candidates in the electoral district , wouldn't most people just vote for all the candidates in their favourite Party?  What is the advantage to that?  How does it improve the democratic process.

Thanks again, ad hats off to BC for having both fixed date elections ad looking into this reform.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

With regard to the improvement, I guess it is so that people can assign their "2" to a candidate they like rather than following their partisan tendencies. *shrug*

And yes... the fixed election date is a great idea IMHO. That should be addopted on the federal stage.