There are multiple problems with the Single Transferable Vote (STV) proposed by the British Columbia Citizens' Assembly that will be voted on in a May 17 referendum.
First off, if STV is so great, why is it used as the national electoral system in just two countries: Ireland and Malta, representing about 0.1% of the world population? And those countries have both used STV since the 1920s. STV is not exactly catching on like wildfire!
By comparison, our current first-past-the-post system is used by about 45% of the world's population in democratic countries.
What's wrong with STV? The short version is that it is complicated, confusing, prone to errors and delay, and not truly proportional; that it reduces local accountability, increases party control and discipline, and allows special interests to dominate party nominations.
It also doesn't do many of the things its proponents claim-such as increase the ability of third parties and independents to get elected
Let's talk about complexity.
In recent New Zealand local elections using STV for the first time, 12% of all votes were disqualified, more than 14 times the number rejected in the previous election.
The STV will use a mathematical quota called the Weighted Inclusive Gregory System. Voters will be confused about how the quota works, how their vote will be "transferred," how to rank a large number of candidates in each riding-expect 50-plus in a seven-member constituency-and if they can trust computers to get the results right.
STV will mean less local representation and accountability because STV will mean much larger ridings, and MLAs will be representing far more people over a wider geographic area.
Fair Voting B.C., an STV proponent, estimates that there will be just 18 ridings under STV, compared to the current 79 ridings across the province, with each riding having between two and seven members. In large rural ridings that contain a major town, it's possible that all MLAs elected will come from that town because that's where the most voters are, reducing accountability for other parts of the riding.
Does STV give proportional results? That is, if a party gets 10% of the popular vote in B.C., would it win 10% of the seats? No. STV supporters say it is more proportional than FPTP, but there is no guarantee that seats won will correspond with the popular vote.
And in rural ridings of two members, there is virtually no chance of a third party winning a seat, since the quota means a candidate needs at least 33% support to win.
Another concern is that votes are worth different amounts depending on the size of the riding. A candidate in a two-member riding needs 33% support to win, but a candidate in a seven-member riding would need only about 13% support-yet both MLAs would be treated as equals.
The STV record is not much better on improving the odds of independent candidates to win seats. Malta has used STV since 1921, but not a single independent candidate has been elected since 1950.
Any candidate requires significant funding to win election, and with STV the ridings will be much bigger, forcing candidates to raise even more money. In a seven-member riding, as proposed for Vancouver, major parties will likely each spend $1 million or more, based on spending in the last municipal election-an amount no independent candidate could possibly raise.
The same problems would discourage election of smaller third parties under an STV system. Again, in Malta, there are only two parties with elected officials. In recent elections the largest third party has won less than 2% of the vote and no seats. In Ireland, small parties have won seats, but so have smaller parties in B.C. under first-past-the-post, as recently as 1996.
Professor Lee Komito, a prominent academic at University College in Dublin, has written that: "Under the Irish system, in theory, marginal parties should be able to achieve political representation . . . In practice, however, the Irish party system is dominated by large parties, and small parties are unable to break into the system."
Would STV encourage more women to be elected? No. In Malta, women make up just 9.2% of the country's legislators, with only six women elected out of 65 representatives. In Ireland, just 13.3% of elected officials are women. By comparison, in British Columbia, under our first-past-the-post system, women make up 22.8% of our MLAs, 18 out of 79. And women represent 21.1% of all our elected Members of Parliament, with 65 women out of 308 seats. While it isn't representative of our society, it is significantly better than under either STV system.
Yvonne Galligan, an expert on Irish politics, says that "Ireland ranks close to the bottom of the European scale in terms of women's representation in political life, yet there is no discernible bias among the electorate against women candidates."
"Deviations from party solidarity," says Prof. Michael Gallagher, "are very rare in Ireland and are met with a draconian response-typically, expulsion from the parliamentary party. Fianna Fail, indeed, has a rule that any of its TDs [Members of Parliament] who even abstain on a measure, never mind vote against the party line, automatically incur expulsion."
In conclusion, voting for STV would be a huge mistake that would be very, very difficult to fix for many years.
[Sidebar]
"If STV is so great, why is it used as the national electoral system in just two countries, Ireland and Malta, representing about 0.1% of the world population?"
[Author Affiliation]
(Bill Tieleman is a political commentator and communications strategist who writes a weekly column on B.C. politics in the Georgia Straight newspaper. He is president of West Star Communications and has previously been communications director in the B.C. Premier's Office and also at the B.C. Federation of Labour. He can be reached at weststar@telus.net)
No comments:
Post a Comment