Referendum

In conjunction with the 2009 General Election will be a referendum on whether the voting system will be changed to that of a Single Transferrable Vote ballot.

The ballot question will be as follows:

Which electoral system should British Columbia use to elect members to the provincial Legislative Assembly?
• The existing electoral system (First-Past-the-Post)
• The single transferable vote electoral system (BC-STV) proposed by the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform

=========================================================
Referendum Results, 2009:

Electoral District	FPTP	FPTP (%)	STV	STV (%)	Total	Passed?	STV Rank
Abbotsford South	11,320	71.53%	4,506	28.47%	15,826	NO	82
Abbotsford West	11,952	76.26%	3,720	23.74%	15,672	NO	85
Abbotsford-Mission	12,018	68.57%	5,509	31.43%	17,527	NO	72
Alberni-Pacific Rim	9,528	55.17%	7,742	44.83%	17,270	NO	15
Boundary-Similkameen	10,970	63.57%	6,287	36.43%	17,257	NO	47
Burnaby North	12,030	61.29%	7,597	38.71%	19,627	NO	35
Burnaby-Deer Lake	9,868	61.76%	6,109	38.24%	15,977	NO	37
Burnaby-Edmonds	9,798	61.05%	6,250	38.95%	16,048	NO	34
Burnaby-Lougheed	11,151	60.18%	7,379	39.82%	18,530	NO	31
Cariboo North	9,222	66.73%	4,598	33.27%	13,820	NO	62
Cariboo-Chilcotin	8,523	67.16%	4,168	32.84%	12,691	NO	66
Chilliwack	12,071	68.08%	5,659	31.92%	17,730	NO	70
Chilliwack-Hope	11,169	68%	5,278	32.09%	16,447	NO	69
Columbia River-Revelstoke	8,233	63.07%	4,821	36.93%	13,054	NO	43
Comox Valley	16,626	57.93%	12,075	42.07%	28,701	NO	24
Coquitlam-Burke Mountain	9,689	65.45%	5,114	34.55%	14,803	NO	57
Coquitlam-Maillardville	12,711	63.91%	7,177	36.09%	19,888	NO	50
Cowichan Valley	14,191	55.69%	11,291	44.31%	25,482	NO	17
Delta North	13,705	68.78%	6,220	31.22%	19,925	NO	73
Delta South	14,753	64.53%	8,109	35.47%	22,862	NO	52
Esquimalt-Royal Roads	10,990	51.42%	10,384	48.58%	21,374	NO	11
Fort Langley-Aldergrove	16,777	69.04%	7,525	30.96%	24,302	NO	74
Fraser-Nicola	9,461	70.60%	3,940	29.40%	13,401	NO	81
Juan de Fuca	11,130	56.27%	8,649	43.73%	19,779	NO	20
Kamloops-North Thompson	14,212	69.62%	6,202	30.38%	20,414	NO	79
Kamloops-South Thompson	15,464	68.09%	7,246	31.91%	22,710	NO	71
Kelowna-Lake Country	11,866	62.33%	7,171	37.67%	19,037	NO	39
Kelowna-Mission	12,887	63.23%	7,493	36.77%	20,380	NO	45
Kootenay East	11,076	69.49%	4,864	30.51%	15,940	NO	78
Kootenay West	10,104	55.60%	8,070	44.40%	18,174	NO	16
Langley	15,948	69.18%	7,104	30.82%	23,052	NO	75
Maple Ridge-Mission	12,195	65.23%	6,500	34.77%	18,695	NO	55
Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows	13,363	66.14%	6,842	33.86%	20,205	NO	60
Nanaimo	12,430	57.58%	9,156	42.42%	21,586	NO	22
Nanaimo-North Cowichan	12,956	55.78%	10,271	44.22%	23,227	NO	18
Nechako Lakes	6,144	70.56%	2,564	29.44%	8,708	NO	80
Nelson-Creston	8,106	50.31%	8,006	49.69%	16,112	NO	9
New Westminster	13,548	58.23%	9,718	41.77%	23,266	NO	25
North Coast	5,231	60.66%	3,393	39.34%	8,624	NO	33
North Island	13,146	59.23%	9,049	40.77%	22,195	NO	27
North Vancouver-Lonsdale	11,666	57.39%	8,661	42.61%	20,327	NO	21
North Vancouver-Seymour	12,924	58.91%	9,013	41.09%	21,937	NO	26
Oak Bay-Gordon Head	12,591	50.05%	12,567	49.95%	25,158	NO	8
Parksville-Qualicum	16,300	62.36%	9,838	37.64%	26,138	NO	40
Peace River North	5,516	60.56%	3,593	39.44%	9,109	NO	32
Peace River South	4,885	66.32%	2,481	33.68%	7,366	NO	61
Penticton	13,577	60.13%	9,001	39.87%	22,578	NO	30
Port Coquitlam	13,004	65.81%	6,757	34.19%	19,761	NO	58
Port Moody-Coquitlam	11,595	62.23%	7,037	37.77%	18,632	NO	38
Powell River-Sunshine Coast	13,288	59.48%	9,053	40.52%	22,341	NO	28
Prince George-Mackenzie	11,593	67.46%	5,591	33%	17,184	NO	67
Prince George-Valemount	11,526	66.07%	5,919	33.93%	17,445	NO	59
Richmond Centre	10,892	67.01%	5,362	32.99%	16,254	NO	64
Richmond East	11,907	67.05%	5,851	32.95%	17,758	NO	65
Richmond-Steveston	13,702	65.20%	7,312	34.80%	21,014	NO	54
Saanich North and the Islands	14,803	51.31%	14,047	48.69%	28,850	NO	10
Saanich South	13,559	55.81%	10,734	44.19%	24,293	NO	19
Shuswap	14,261	63.69%	8,131	36.31%	22,392	NO	49
Skeena	7,164	64.03%	4,024	35.97%	11,188	NO	51
Stikine	5,053	61.68%	3,139	38.32%	8,192	NO	36
Surrey-Cloverdale	15,013	69.19%	6,685	30.81%	21,698	NO	76
Surrey-Fleetwood	11,693	67.83%	5,546	32.17%	17,239	NO	68
Surrey-Green Timbers	10,653	73.62%	3,817	26.38%	14,470	NO	84
Surrey-Newton	10,959	73.09%	4,034	26.91%	14,993	NO	83
Surrey-Panorama	14,758	69.25%	6,554	30.75%	21,312	NO	77
Surrey-Tynehead	10,917	66.84%	5,416	33.16%	16,333	NO	63
Surrey-Whalley	9,641	63.14%	5,629	36.86%	15,270	NO	44
Surrey-White Rock	15,474	65.44%	8,171	34.56%	23,645	NO	56
Vancouver-Fairview	11,169	48.68%	11,774	51.32%	22,943	YES	7
Vancouver-False Creek	8,267	51.74%	7,711	48.26%	15,978	NO	12
Vancouver-Fraserview	11,707	63.59%	6,704	36.41%	18,411	NO	48
Vancouver-Hastings	8,705	46.94%	9,841	53.06%	18,546	YES	5
Vancouver-Kensington	9,483	53.87%	8,119	46.13%	17,602	NO	13
Vancouver-Kingsway	9,314	60.00%	6,210	40.00%	15,524	NO	29
Vancouver-Langara	11,182	64.59%	6,130	35.41%	17,312	NO	53
Vancouver-Mount Pleasant	6,345	38%	10,292	61.86%	16,637	YES	1
Vancouver-Point Grey	10,636	47.42%	11,795	52.58%	22,431	YES	6
Vancouver-Quilchena	13,812	62.88%	8,154	37.12%	21,966	NO	42
Vancouver-West End	7,990	46.72%	9,111	53%	17,101	YES	4
Vernon-Monashee	13,536	57.72%	9,916	42.28%	23,452	NO	23
Victoria-Beacon Hill	9,108	38.28%	14,685	61.72%	23,793	YES	2
Victoria-Swan Lake	9,352	43.93%	11,935	56.07%	21,287	YES	3
West Vancouver-Capilano	13,924	63.27%	8,085	36.73%	22,009	NO	46
West Vancouver-Sea to Sky	9,907	54.79%	8,174	45.21%	18,081	NO	14
Westside-Kelowna	11,809	62.75%	7,011	37.25%	18,820	NO	41
Total Votes:	971,722	60.9%	623,366	39.1%	1,595,088

=========================================================

For the following two projections, please note that this is a very limited analysis, and that such results will not be realized in an actual election because voter behaviour will change with a change in the electoral system.

The following is an analysis of 2005 voting results and a guess on what the 2005 results would have been if the 2009 electoral boundaries for STV were used – this assumes that voters are 100% partisan with their votes and Greens do not transfer their ballots to other parties:

						Predicted Seats
Electoral District	Mag.	BC Libs	NDP	Green	Quota	BCL	NDP	Green
Burnaby-New Westminster	5	48,473	51,956	9,472	18,722	2	3	0
Capital Region	7	75,445	91,679	20,536	24,075	3	3	1
Cariboo-Thompson	5	44,105	42,583	6,664	16,064	3	2	0
Columbia-Kootenay	4	19,672	27,695	5,330	10,631	2	2	0
Fraser Valley East	5	57,830	36,594	8,802	17,704	3	2	0
Fraser Valley West	4	39,192	27,686	7,440	15,247	2	2	0
Mid-Island	4	36,624	39,672	7,597	17,160	2	2	0
North Central	3	22,204	16,772	3,647	11,606	2	1	0
North Island-South Coast	4	42,362	49,812	13,204	21,643	2	2	0
North Shore-Sea to Sky	4	50,366	24,833	14,458	18,303	2	1	1
Northeast	2	11,308	5,807	1,594	6,442	1	1	0
Northwest	3	16,271	17,188	2,014	9,172	1	2	0
Okanagan-Boundary	3	31,978	30,388	6,492	17,904	2	1	0
Okanagan-Shuswap	4	48,664	32,855	9,110	20,062	2	2	0
Richmond-Delta	5	55,011	36,386	7,742	18,087	3	2	0
Surrey North	4	29,093	39,949	4,000	15,084	2	2	0
Surrey South	4	41,464	26,704	6,701	15,368	2	2	0
Tri-Cities	4	34,914	32,224	4,776	14,677	2	2	0
Vancouver East	5	37,946	54,094	7,853	17,175	2	3	0
Vancouver West	6	64,196	46,842	14,410	18,199	3	2	1
		807,118	731,719	161,842		43	39	3
		45.8%	41.5%	9.2%		50.6%	45.9%	3.5%

The following is an analysis of 2005 voting results and a guess on what the 2005 results would have been if the 2009 electoral boundaries for STV were used – this assumes that voters are 100% partisan, but Greens do transfer 75% of their ballots to the NDP and 25% to the BC Liberals after all Green candidates have been eliminated:

						Predicted Seats
Electoral District	Mag.	BC Libs	NDP	Green	Quota	BCL	NDP	Green
Burnaby-New Westminster	5	48,473	51,956	9,472	18,722	2	3	0
Capital Region	7	75,445	91,679	20,536	24,075	3	3	1
Cariboo-Thompson	5	44,105	42,583	6,664	16,064	2	3	0
Columbia-Kootenay	4	19,672	27,695	5,330	10,631	1	3	0
Fraser Valley East	5	57,830	36,594	8,802	17,704	3	2	0
Fraser Valley West	4	39,192	27,686	7,440	15,247	2	2	0
Mid-Island	4	36,624	39,672	7,597	17,160	2	2	0
North Central	3	22,204	16,772	3,647	11,606	2	1	0
North Island-South Coast	4	42,362	49,812	13,204	21,643	2	2	0
North Shore-Sea to Sky	4	50,366	24,833	14,458	18,303	2	1	1
Northeast	2	11,308	5,807	1,594	6,442	1	1	0
Northwest	3	16,271	17,188	2,014	9,172	1	2	0
Okanagan-Boundary	3	31,978	30,388	6,492	17,904	1	2	0
Okanagan-Shuswap	4	48,664	32,855	9,110	20,062	2	2	0
Richmond-Delta	5	55,011	36,386	7,742	18,087	3	2	0
Surrey North	4	29,093	39,949	4,000	15,084	2	2	0
Surrey South	4	41,464	26,704	6,701	15,368	2	2	0
Tri-Cities	4	34,914	32,224	4,776	14,677	2	2	0
Vancouver East	5	37,946	54,094	7,853	17,175	2	3	0
Vancouver West	6	64,196	46,842	14,410	18,199	3	2	1
		807,118	731,719	161,842		40	42	3
		45.8%	41.5%	9.2%		47.1%	49.4%	3.5%

1. Tom commented -
   (April 18, 2009 @ 13:33):

   I think you’ve goofed somewhere, Sacha, as I reckon with those numbers there would be three Green seats. Remember that under STV the final seat in each district is often not filled by hitting quota but by being the best of those left standing.

   For instance, in Vancouver West, 3 Liberal quotas filled would leave the next Liberal candidate with a notional 9,599 votes; and 2 NDP quotas would leave the next NDP candidate with a notional 10,444 votes. If Green votes had transferred rigidly within the party, that means the best-ranked Green candidate would have all 14,410 votes at that point. Accordingly, nobody is over quota, the lowest-rank candidates keep iteratively dropping and eventually the Green beats out the NDPer for the sixth and final seat.

   Likewise, in Capital Region the seventh seat goes to the Green (Liberals are 3 quotas, remainder of 3220; NDP are 3 quotas, remainder of 19,459, and the seventh seat goes to the Greens with 20,536). And on the North Shore they’d squeeze out the Liberals for the fourth seat by a tiny margin.

2. Sacha commented -
   (April 18, 2009 @ 17:28):

   Hi Tom,

   I think you’re right. I’ll post some revisions on Sunday.

3. Jody commented -
   (April 25, 2009 @ 08:18):

   I really don’t like the idea of my vote numbers being moved around like that. It’s not right! Also it leave far too much room for error and discrepancys.

4. Ben commented -
   (April 28, 2009 @ 12:20):

   Your vote will only be moved around if you want it to be. If you want to only vote for one candidate, you’d rank him or her number 1, and leave the rest of the ballot blank. Nobody’s vote gets moved to a candidate without their say so.

5. Emisar commented -
   (April 28, 2009 @ 15:25):

   The Green Party and the NDP support BC-STV, which is reason enough for me to oppose it.

6. Mike commented -
   (April 29, 2009 @ 22:02):

   Has anyone explored the game theory involved in parties choosing the number of candidates to run in a district?

7. IR commented -
   (May 2, 2009 @ 23:29):

   Emisar: If there is a quiet champion for STV it is most likely Gordon Campbell. The 2nd referendum would have been unlikely without his support.

   The NDP do not officially take either side, however Carole James has publicly said that she opposes it. The campaign against STV is dominated by NDP insiders such as Tieleman and Schreck. A number of NDP old guard are railing against STV because they are afraid that the NDP will never have enough support to ever win another majority.

   Still want to vote against it?

   Mike: Most people who analyze that conclude that major parties should run one candidate for every seat they expect to win in a district, plus one. Running one spare helps cover for bad news emerging about one of the candidates, or allows the party to take another seat if the party support surges. I ran the numbers once for Ireland and it worked out to the number expected to win + 0.9 on average I think. The nice thing is that the optimal number for the parties is pretty good for the voters. Since there will usually be one candidate from each party that loses, a voter can stay loyal to his favourite party without having to support each and every one of the candidates. It’s great for making a rep accountable to the constituency and not just the party.

8. Mike commented -
   (May 4, 2009 @ 20:06):

   While I like the idea of preventing the NDP from ever winning a majority government, I still oppose STV. In fact, under BCSTV, I doubt that Gordon Campbell would be premier. Gordon Campbell may be the only person who can hold a coalition of Liberals and Conservatives together to ensure that they don’t split the anti-NDP vote. If STV were to pass, then Liberals and Conservatives could run candidates against each other. Left of centre voters who vote Liberal federally would vote for the more moderate BC Liberals instead of the BCNDP. The Conservatives would win most of the non-NDP rural vote and the Liberals would win in a few seats in the GVRD and a couple in the CRD. Then after the election, there would at least be enough non-NDP MLAs to ensure that the Provincial government was not dominated by big labour. The centrist Liberals would probably hold the balance of power.

   So as a federal Liberal, I should support it. But I don’t because it neuters voters of their ability to clean house and change the government. Especially those who live in districts with few representatives. Here’s an example:

   Under BCSTV, the Northeast District (Peace River) would have 1 BC Liberal and 1 NDP MLA after the 2005 election, even though the BC Liberals had Unless one party or the other wins by a huge margin, BCSTV essentially neuters that region of it’s ability to affect the partisan makeup of the legislature. If 34% of Peace river voters always vote NDP (or Green with NDP as second choice), then they will get an NDP MLA no matter what. If huge vote swings in the district have no impact on who is elected, then how is that going to increase turnout?

   At the same time, the CRD gets a 7 member district. The partisan vote swing required for a seat change (as a proportion of total vote) is much lower in districts with more seats. It’s easier for politicians to make promises in the CRD to win over swing voters to win that marginal seat than trying to swing 10-30% of voters to win another seat in Peace River. Under BCSTV, politicians will focus on districts with lots of MLAs so the can win marginal seats.

   BCSTV may be good for the Federal Liberals from the CRD like me, but I don’t think that it’s good for democracy in BC.

9. Splendor Sine Occasu commented -
   (May 4, 2009 @ 22:14):

   As someone who supported and voted for BC-STV last time, I cannot in good conscience support it this time.

   The main reason is because how seats are distributed. I see that in my BC-STV riding, it is a huge area encompassing many different cities and regions. It is very possible that all 5 of my MLA’s will not be from an area within a couple hour’s drive of my home.

   I might still support it if my riding were smaller with two MLA’s. At least I would know that they were from my area and were familiar with issues in our region.

   I would much rather see a Single Transferrable Vote system without the mega-ridings.

10. IR commented -
    (May 4, 2009 @ 23:30):

    Mike: I see your point about the 2-seater in the Northeast, however this is only 2 seats out of the 85, which is nothing compared to the number of gimmes that already exist out there for whoever the party nominates.

    As for the vote swing argument, remember that it’s not just first preferences that get a candidate elected. Most MLAs will win their seats with the help of transfers, so they will need those 2nd, 3rd, etc. rankings. In general it will not be a 15%+ vote swing that decides the final seat for a district, but an amount much smaller. As a result nearly every district will have seats in play.

    The real benefit that first past the post simply cannot touch is the competition for seats within party ranks. You will have probably 4 Liberals and 4 NDP candidates on the CRD ballot, and they obviously will not all win seats. Each of the Liberals will be out to prove that you should not only vote for Liberals, but that he or she is the one who should get your #1 ranking. A lousy Liberal incumbent is no longer safe in a strong Liberal riding because he’ll be replaced with another Liberal. This is where democracy really improves – the intra party competition imposes a whole new level of accountability to the supporters.

    Splendor: At least 85% or so of the voters would help to elect the 5 reps in your district, and since your riding represents 20% of the vote, at least one of the candidates will have to resonate with voters in your riding. (Irish reps under STV are geographically spread throughout their districts for this very reason. The parties know that neglecting any significant area with their nominations opens the door for another party or an independent, so they avoid concentrating them too much.) The only way for every rep to come from one corner of the district is if a) the parties concentrate their nominations in that area, and b) voters choose to vote for those candidates, essentially consenting to this concentration. Practically speaking it just won’t happen that way.

    With STV you’re almost guaranteed to have at least one rep who sympathizes with you politically, needs your support to be re-elected, and will therefore be sensitive to the issues in your area, even if that rep happens to come from a neighbouring riding. In all likelihood several of them will pick up on hot button issues from your area and you will actually have competition between the MLAs, with each out to prove that they deserve your top ranking next time around. Contrast this with first past the post – your MLA might live next door, but if he’s NDP and you’re a Liberal supporter you might just as well have nobody when it comes to any issue that the parties disagree about. Worse still, if you live in a riding like mine, and your MLA dies, then you really do have nobody.

11. Mike commented -
    (May 5, 2009 @ 08:29):

    That still does not address how people in ridings with few members are screwed over. In peace river, unless people vote 67% BC Liberal or 67% NDP/Green, they will end up with one MLA of each. In terms of representing the people of the riding, having one NDP MLA and one BC Liberal is just as poor a representation as having 2 BC Liberals. That district is neutered. It doesn’t matter if it is overwhelmingly Liberal or NDP, because unless it is 67%+ one or the other, they still get treated as if it is 50-50. It is unfair to have districts of 2 MLAs when there is also a district with 7, even if the one with 7 has more people living in it.

    It doesn’t matter because as I said earlier, it looks like the referendum is going to win less support than it did in 2005. A recent poll has only 53% voting in favor: not nearly enough for it to pass. I think that many people are more inclined to vote against something that was already defeated, even if it originally had popular support. It’s beating a dead horse.

12. Sacha Peter commented -
    (May 5, 2009 @ 10:39):

    Mike – I told the electoral boundaries commission at one of their meetings that in no circumstances should they ever set the number of seats in an electoral district to be an even number.

    Also if the boundaries in the “extreme rural” seats were such that they were one member constituencies vs. the urban constituencies that had multi-members, that would have been perfect.

    Unfortunately for the EBC, all I can say is they screwed up the STV boundaries, I would agree.

13. IR commented -
    (May 5, 2009 @ 11:16):

    Mike: I also don’t like 2-seaters, but consider its overall importance:
    - there is only one district proposed as a 2-seater
    - this is an element of the system that is easily changed by future Electoral Boundaries Commissions, and it would likely be driven by input from those voters

    The 53% poll you refer to was an online poll by Angus Reid. Their ‘traditional’ poll showed 65%, and I’ve seen another online poll come in at over 90% (not saying that I believe that one). I think this thing will be very close. One thing we do know is that more knowledge of STV and the CA invariably lead to higher levels of support. Voters really like the idea of more accountable MLAs and less negative campaigning.

    Even if it doesn’t reach 60%, the support level will be very important. Another 55%+ result leaves us in the same mess as before, with a clear majority wanting to change the system, and being held up by an arbitrarily high threshold that has no popular legitimacy. (Which just happens to suit those who prosper with the current system.)

    Sacha: The Citizens Assembly considered keeping rural 1-seaters but too many people at public hearings in Northern areas said they preferred to have more votes count. While I agree that 2-seaters are probably less than optimal, I don’t see any problem with the other even numbers. The presence of any strong 3rd party or independent will serve to ensure that the candidates have to be competitive, and the parties won’t be able to take their seat counts totally for granted.

14. Mike commented -
    (May 8, 2009 @ 22:11):

    A friend sent me this excellent video of a forum up at UVic sponsored by the daily paper. The information is top-notch. No rhetoric, just three presentations on views of how things would be different, then a question period where lots of great questions are asked and the panel gives informed answers.
    http://www.uvic.ca/resources/stv.php

15. Fred commented -
    (May 10, 2009 @ 23:51):

    I try to envision the impact of STV on White Rock and come to the conclusion that White Rock will probably be included in a 7 or 8 seat region with all of Surrey. IMO under the current system, Liberal Gordon Hogg will win the 2009 election in White Rock by 10,000 to 14,000 votes. Under STV it is possible that he would not be one of the top 7 or 8 top candidates in the Surrey region and therefore would not be elected.

16. IR commented -
    (May 11, 2009 @ 08:36):

    Hi Fred,

    A few things:

    The Electoral Boundaries Commission put White Rock in a 4-seater.

    There are no 8-seaters in BC-STV, and currently only one 7-seater is being proposed, and it is in the Victoria area.

    Gordon Hogg would need to secure about 20,000 total votes from the 4 former first-past-the-post ridings put together, and not just the former riding. He can do this not just through voters that rank him #1, but also with the help of #2 and #3 rankings from voters that preferred somebody else and don’t win seats. (Most of the time that losing candidate will one of two other Liberals, and the transfer mechanism ensures that Liberal voters keep their full voting strength regardless of which one they happen to rank #1.)

    If he’s popular enough with the voters Gordon Hogg will have no problem. In any event, I can pretty much guarantee that you will have minimum 1 Liberal MLA and one NDP MLA. The other 2 they will have to fight over, giving your district “swing riding” status. (OK nearly every district will have that status, but it does mean that neither of the big parties will be able to take the voters of any region for granted.)

17. IR commented -
    (May 11, 2009 @ 08:40):

    Believe me, STV is a really well thought-out system that puts the voters first.

    My personal prediction – if we pass this thing, then by the time we make it to the 3-election review we’ll like it so much that the review will be a non-event. It’s fear of change that is holding us back the most, but once we try it the fear will quickly fade.

18. Fred commented -
    (May 11, 2009 @ 10:39):

    IR, Thanks for your clarification that White Rock is in a 4-seat region. I can see now (from the chart above) that Surrey is divided into two 4-seat electoral regions.