BC-STV Referendum, what-if scenarios
Posted April 18, 2009 by Sacha Peter - Link
Category: Referendum
Comments (19)
(Note: Most of this article was re-worked to correspond to a subsequent analysis since my initial analysis was incorrect. The original article is still here, except with a line through the text.)
The political math behind the BC-STV electoral system is a lot different than the standard first-past-the-post system. It is also inappropriate to assume the electoral results would be the same had STV been implemented for 2009; however, I will do so here anyway with that caveat.
The math behind STV is the primary argument against implementing the system – it makes the voting system very difficult to explain in a few words (despite what proponents may claim). The concept of “quota” and “transfer surplus” is also difficult to explain to a non-numerically oriented person, but for somebody that can handle the numbers, the system of STV is very elegant.
I have attempted a paper-napkin version of trying to establish what the Legislature would look like if STV had been established in 2005, using the 2009 STV boundaries. The results are the following (note the present system would have gave approximately 48 BC Liberals and 37 NDP members using present electoral boundaries and the First-Past-The-Post system):
1. Assume all voters are partisan animals and do not transfer their ballots to other parties:
Results: BC Liberals 46, NDP 39
Results: BC Liberals 43, NDP 39, Greens 3
2. Assume all voters are partisan animals and only the Green party supporters transfer their ballots wholly to the NDP:
Results: BC Liberals 40, NDP 45
Results: BC Liberals 40, NDP 42, Greens 3
I have posted the electoral district breakdowns on the Referendum page. Realize these calculations come with a lot of assumptions, and there is some guesswork involved, but I think it would be an accurate projection.
I also think that the Green party, based off of 2005 results, would still be hard-pressed to elect a single member of in the legislature if STV is implemented – but they would get awfully close in getting a seat in the Capital region. If STV is implemented for 2013, it is likely that enough voters will shift their first preferences to a major Green candidate (e.g. Jane Sterk) and push her over the quota and get a seat in the Legislature. The next seat would likely be one in Vancouver West.
I also find it odd, given these results, that the primary opponents of STV are David Schreck and Bill Tieleman, both NDP supporters.
Hi Sacha – David Schreck and I are opposed to STV – and have support from Greens, NDPers, BC Liberals, former Social Credit members and non-aligned voters because STV is a bad electoral system period.
But your caveats should be taken very, very seriously – it’s almost impossible to predict what might happen – especially in BC!
STV’s giant ridings of up to 7 MLAs and 350,000 people, combined with a complicated vote mean local accountability and responsibility of MLAs to voters would disappear.
That’s the reason to vote against STV – partisan politics on this one just don’t make sense.
The opposition to STV by NDP supporters is pretty sensible, from the partisan point of view. Since more Liberal votes than NDP ones are currently “wasted” in very safe seats like Vancouver-Quilchena, the NDP has a built-in electoral advantage wherein they can win a majority of seats without winning a plurality of the vote (as in 1996). This problem is probably somewhat lessened now, as the system is now effectively a two-party system and so vote-splitting is less of a concern.
That being said, many of the criticisms to STV are legitimate ones, and Bill Tieleman makes a strong point above with regards to local accountability and responsibility of MLAs under STV.
Also, it is interesting to note that the Greens would have such difficulty electing legislators even under the system which they so strongly support.
@Bill: It’s not a complicated vote, you just want it to be. It is simply the difference of being able to choose a first, second, third etc. choices. I think this multiple-representation is much better than having a bunch of ridings where more than half of the voters voted for someone besides their MLA. I personally think the latter situation is un-democratic.
I’ll freely admit that I have no idea what an outcome would be ( especially in BC! ) of an STV election. I suspect the first one will be chaos. I do like the idea of making political parties work much harder for a mandate, I think this will force parties to either co-operate in coalitions or broaden their appeal.
Basically, I don’t give a frack about the parties, I think they’re all pretty broken anyway. We need a better system, and I think that will force political parties to be better and actually start serving the *people’s* interests and not their own.
Under STV, the total number of MLA does not change. It is still about 50,000 people for each MLA. What STV does, however, is to group people in much more sensible groupings. The system no longer split up, say, Vancouver East into 5 different jigsaw puzzle pieces. Now VOTERS choose how they group themselves within the region. A group who cares about the fiscal responsibility can support one, a group who is most concern with Downtown Eastside can support one, etc. I would take an MLA that cares about things I care about who lives 15 minutes further off, than one that lives next door but have no respect for my views (especially if I am not one of the 40% of the voters s/he need to get elected).
Furthermore, having multiple MLAs representing groups within a region increases accountability. With the current system, your MLA goes off to Victoria and you never hear from him/her for 4 years. Should a problem that significantly affects a region, such as a proposal to shutdown a hospital, comes up, the MLAs would have to come back and explain their positions to show the voters that they are actually representing their views. The results: We get policy debates even BETWEEN elections. It would be up to the MLA to actively report to the voters, so it would be easy to keep track of the performance of your MLAs, and you can give them the boot come next election if you deem them unworthly!
STV, the single transferable vote gives proportional representation.
So, if the Greens sustain about 13% of the votes, they will get about that percentage of seats in the provincial legislature. Ireland clearly shows this, tho their Greens have less popular support than in BC and Irish multi-member constituencies average less seats per constituency and are therefore less proportional than BC-STV would be.
It is the unpredictability, that is to say the inaccuracy of FPTP that has brought it into disrepute, not least in BC, and why STV is needed to amend the vote and the count.
The STV preference vote in order of choice of candidates, 1, 2, 3, etc, is a big improvement for the voters, because they dont have to worry
about strategic voting any more.
Opponents, however, worry the public with the complications of the STV count, which is the job of trained staff.
It is as if STV supporters were to worry the public with a prospect of having to continuously revise the gerrymandering boundaries to the single member system. (The single member system gerrymanders itself thru population shifts even without intent. In BC, that has been to the NDP advantage.)
So, on balance, FPTP is more onerous, complicated and confusing and expensive than implementing STV, which would have stable
constituencies, with numbers of seats per constituency matched to the size of the local communities, urban or rural, and creating a lasting sense of community identity. Population shifts are covered by merely changing the number of seats in a multi-member constituency.
With STV, the voters get more representatives than one, and they are all dependent on having been personally prefered to a quota of the votes, rather than depending on a party ticket. That is why STV MPPs would be more accountable, not less.
I used to be against STV, but then when I learnt more, I developed a soft spot for it.
But now that I see NDP hacks and Unions are dead against STV, I have made my mind to vote YES for STV.
Anything bad for the parasitic regressive and proto-fascist unions is good for the citizens.
Opposition to BC-STV on the basis of loss of local accountability is laughable. What percentage of the population honestly feel that their MLA is responsive to their needs? The parties have hi-jacked the system with almost all of the power in the premier’s office. Instead of being the people’s representatives in the legislature, the parties have turned the system on its head so that MLA’s are now the parties representatives in the regions. At any rate, most issues are regional or provincial, not local.
Under BC-STV, you will have more choice, not only during the election but also when you need to approach an MLA to work on an issue with you. It is much more important to me that my MLA shares my views than s/he be from my neigboorhood.
Ignore the bunch of insiders who are opposing BC-STV and vote Yes on May 12.
BC-STV will give voters the power to hold politicians and political parties accountable. That’s why some people don’t like it.
Tileman says: “STV’s giant ridings of up to 7 MLAs and 350,000 people, combined with a complicated vote mean local accountability and responsibility of MLAs to voters would disappear.”
So? Its still about one MLA per 50K voters, which is about average.
And what’s so great about “local accounatbility”? Dont we already have regional districts and municiplities? Localness is unduely fetishized by Bill.
Why does accounatbility have to be localized? You create more questions Bill than you have answered.
Don’t be fooled by the STV proponents who say there will be better accountability. All politicians care only about their own re-election, not voters.
Having said that, the problem I see with the STV is just who’s votes get transfered? You won’t find a full explanation. Let’s say that both Bob & Mary vote for the same first choice, but have different second choices. Their common first choice of candidate gets enough votes for election and to qualify for vote transfer after the first round of counting. But Bob’s second choice does not get transfered because some unknown person decides his counts, while Mary’s vote is transfered to her second choice. Does this sound fair? I think NOT.
I’m voting NO. One person – One vote.
“Having said that, the problem I see with the STV is just who’s votes get transfered?”
This is where math comes in.
The vote gets fractionally transferred.
To use an example, let’s pretend the quota is 100. Candidate A gets 120 first place votes. Out of those 120 votes, the second preference is 30 for B and 90 for C.
Candidate B will get [30/(30+90)]*(120-100) transferred to him/her, i.e. 5 votes. Candidate C will get [90/(30+90)]*(120-100), i.e. 15 votes.
If you understand math this is intuitive. If you do not, then what I’ve just written above is greek.
Your argument should be whether people want a voting system that takes math to explain, rather than the false argument of “fairness” that you are presenting.
If your first preference gets elected with more votes than he needs, the unused portion of your vote is transferred to your next preference.
If your first preference gets too few votes and is eliminated, your entire vote goes to your next preference.
Every vote counts, and every vote counts fully.
It’s that simple.
The main issue that I have with the BC-STV is this:
When you have a riding with as many as 350,000 people, and up to 5 or 7 MLA’s, how are they supposed to effectively represent their constituents?
Under the current system, the ridings generally consist of about 50,000 people, (Range in size from 31,000 to 85,000 population) and it is still quite hard sometimes to have a meeting with your MLA. If the new riding has 350,000 people and covers a MUCH larger geographic area, how well will each MLA know their riding? (and therefore effectively represent their constituents…)
The other issue is that this will open the door to Jack Layton-esque politics in BC. I’m sorry, but the last thing we need in BC is an unstable government. The most effective government is a majority government, held accountable by “Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition”.
That’s my $0.02
Of course, the math is simple when you have three candidates and two MLAs to elect.
When you have tons of candidates and seven to elect, that’s when it gets complicated. And that’s when we feed our results into computers to calculate for us instead of doing it by hand. And so, it gets easier and easier for results to be falsified, as we move ourselves further and further away from the voting process.
In response to “voting no” – let’s pretend the city you live in has a sidewalk that is badly cracked up. Which city council member do you get on the phone with?
The “which MLA do I get on the phone with?” is a similar question, and a similar answer.
One side benefit of STV is that it is likely you will likely have a government member to complain to in your riding.
In response to Sacha… But, if you live in Hazelton and all three MLAs (regardless of party) were elected from Prince Rupert, what do you do? STV doesn’t work in the North at all.
But what if you are in the FPTP system and live in Clearwater and your MLA is elected from Kamloops?
In your Hazleton/Prince Rupert example, it is highly unlikely all three will be Rupert people because Prince Rupert will not have enough votes to get them all in.
This is unlike present, where Prince Rupert virtually decides who the North Coast MLA is going to be.
Right, but you cannot argue the point that the distance magnifies under STV. I think it would be very feasible that two well known Prince Rupert people like Gary Coons and Herb Bond would get the nod with maybe the third from Terrace. That is an entirely likely scenario.
Your scenario is likely. I will pose this question:
Let’s say BC had one electoral district (the entire province) and 85 MLAs were to be elected under STV.
Where would the ‘base of power’ from those MLAs be? This is a serious question.
Saying STV gives unproportional power to cities and dense urban centres is a huge non-argument since FPTP also does the same. It’s not worse or better under STV. And just like FPTP you can gerrymander the ridings to give urban centres more or less control, depending on how you see fit. One of the complaints of Prince George in the last electoral boundary shift was that they got “cut from 3 seats to 2″. A very valid argument.