This has been an insane week. I've been buzzing about at near maximum energy level for most of it, getting things done, staying top of chores and other requests, and juggling as many balls as I feel I can currently handle.
Since my last post, the dance instructor for the class I was taking has quit, I've taken over teaching the kids class and the class I was taking (at the request of Brooke), and Brooke asked me if I wanted to continue teaching after receiving positive feedback (and presumably enjoying the class herself, as she is also taking it).
All of that is extremely exciting to me, and I will absolutely be writing about it in short order. However, there is something more important that I want to write about right now, and that is the upcoming election in BC.
Although Bay and I voted tonight, the bulk of the voting will occur one week from today. As usual, there are a large number of campaign promises being made, and most of those are promises that we, as the voting constituency, will be unlikely to see realized. Additionally, there are the usual set of parties: NDP, Liberals (the front runners in BC), Green, and Conservatives. As usual, the way we ended up voting was not so much an indication of who we wanted to see win, as much as it was strategic. Who is most likely to win, is that a good thing, and do we want to vote against them specifically in an attempt to prevent them from being voted in.
The more important item on the ballot this time around, in my opinion, is a very rare opportunity to change the way in which our vote matters. This is the STV voting referendum, and is one of two ballots that you will be handed when you go to the voting polls.
I feel that the STV referendum has really been given a poor amount of media coverage, considering what a big deal it is, and what a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity we are being given, as voters in a democracy, to make a significant difference. Before we go further, I feel it necessary to point out that I recognize the irony in calling this a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity when we were given the chance in 2003 2005 (Thanks Jeremy!). Nevertheless, it is certainly a rare opportunity, and I doubt we will see this chance again if it passes us by.
I'm hoping to explain what the STV is and how it works, as well as how it compares to our current voting system, titled "First past the post" (abbreviated from here on as FPtP). Before we go further, I want to mention that UVic has put on an absolutely essential webcast covering many of the pros and cons of the two voting systems by a panel of political science experts, and these people do a much better job explaining things than I can. However, this webcast is an hour and forty minutes, and many of us simply don't have the time for that. I am attempting to summarize my own perception from this webcast in this blog. The webcast can be viewed in its entirety here: http://www.uvic.ca/resources/stv.php
Okay, so let's talk voting.
First Past the Post
First Past the Post
The current voting system that we used is titled "First past the post" because the main implication is that the votes for a given riding only matter until we have determined the first candidate that has a majority of votes. Once that has been determined, we can ignore the rest of the votes, as it is impossible for any other candidate to win.
One of the upshots of this system is that if we have a number of roughly equally likely candidates to win (so assume they are all roughly going to get 33% of the votes), the first one that gets 33% of the votes, plus 1 more, wins. As soon as it has been determined that a given candidate has won enough votes, the rest of the votes no longer matter, and this candidate wins the riding.
The consequence of this system is that the candidate that won may have only acquired 33% plus 1 vote, but they will go into parliament representing 100% of the votes, and with the clout to match that.
This system can result in some unusual results, especially where popular vote is concerned. For example, as quoted from this source:
Because of these kind of results, the FPtP system typically tends towards a two-party system, and towards a majority government (since you only end up with two major parties running, and so a majority is inevitable). Another reason that we are more likely to see two-party systems is that the FPtP system "punishes" parties that have a certain number of differences, but also a number of items on their platform that they have in common. I will illustrate why this is the case with an example:
In BC, we have two parties with platforms that are reasonably similar: NDP and Green. The Green party's platform is mostly related to sustainable living and lifestyles, and social programs that help move us in this direction. The NDP's platform is heavily favoured towards increasing social programs, though not necessarily limited to those that would increase sustainable living (for example, supporting the teacher's union as a beneficial social program is a stance the NDP would take, but not necessarily the Green party).
Now, in many ridings, there are some people that will favour many of the Green party's initiatives and approach, but will vote for the NDP, because they really want to support the teachers of BC. Along the same lines, there are people that will appreciate many of the programs that the NDP supports, but will vote with the Green party, simply because they feel that sustainability should be our first and foremost concern.
In this example, let's say that 30% of the people voted for Green, and another 30% voted for NDP. The remaining 40% voted for the only other party running, the Liberals (I'm not attacking the Liberals here, they're just the natural opposition). The irony here is that the majority of the people that have voted favour many of the social programs that are items on the platforms of both NDP and the Green party, but due to the fact that there are differences in these parties, the votes are split between the two. Of final consequence, the Liberals take the riding and win 100% of the votes for the purpose of their seat in the house of commons, even though only 40% of the people in the riding actually wanted them to win.
As you can see from the above example, in the FPtP system, it doesn't pay to run as a party that has similar ideals to another party - you're much better off representing a completely different set of ideals.
The trouble with this approach is that you gradually lead towards a two-party system, similar to what you see in the States, where you have the Republicans, and the Democrats. Both parties are very similar to one another, with minor differences being what define them (quite amusingly so, actually, if you listen to them scream about how vile the other one is). As a consequence of tending towards two-party systems, the FPtP voting system typically leads to candidates with less diversity (as it is important to run a candidate that will appeal to the greatest number of voters).
In some cases, this leads to a situation where people end up voting strategically. A strategic vote would work as follows:
The counterpart to the FPtP voting system is the STV system.
The STV voting system is currently in place in two countries - Ireland and Malta. The way in which this voting system came to be the one proposed as a replacement for our current system is due to the BC citizen's assembly (CA) on electoral reform.
Further details on the CA can be read here, but the main point of interest is that this assembly was created to review our democratic process and determine how it could be improved upon. This assembly was created by randomly choosing 80 men and 80 women from our voting population, and having them, led by a chairperson, review the available voting options and propose a new one (if warranted) to replace our current one.
The STV system is based on two principles (as I understand it):
Point of interest: If the conservatives had had a majority in recent times, it is quite possible that the strong system of checks and balances on our banks that has ensured that Canada is protected to some degree from the economic crisis would have been dismantled and we would find ourselves in the same situation that the rest of the world does today. This point in itself is not a reason to vote for STV, but it does illustrate that taking longer to make a decision can produce better results in the long run."Federally, we have four centre-left parties if you include the Bloc,Now, you would think that a party that represents 4.5% of the population of Canada (that's just shy of one out of every twenty of us) would have a voice in our parliament and see some representation. However, because every one of the votes cast for Green party candidates were in ridings where more dominant parties one, none of these votes counted.
and one party on the right. The result? In the last federal election
the Conservative Party formed a minority government with 143 seats of
308 seats, while winning just 36.27 per cent of the popular vote. By
way of comparison the Liberal Party earned 30.23 per cent of the vote,
but just 77 seats. The Bloc Quebecois got 49 seats with 10.5 per cent,
the NDP won 29 seats with 17.5 per cent, and the Green Party won no
seats with 4.5 per cent."
Because of these kind of results, the FPtP system typically tends towards a two-party system, and towards a majority government (since you only end up with two major parties running, and so a majority is inevitable). Another reason that we are more likely to see two-party systems is that the FPtP system "punishes" parties that have a certain number of differences, but also a number of items on their platform that they have in common. I will illustrate why this is the case with an example:
In BC, we have two parties with platforms that are reasonably similar: NDP and Green. The Green party's platform is mostly related to sustainable living and lifestyles, and social programs that help move us in this direction. The NDP's platform is heavily favoured towards increasing social programs, though not necessarily limited to those that would increase sustainable living (for example, supporting the teacher's union as a beneficial social program is a stance the NDP would take, but not necessarily the Green party).
Now, in many ridings, there are some people that will favour many of the Green party's initiatives and approach, but will vote for the NDP, because they really want to support the teachers of BC. Along the same lines, there are people that will appreciate many of the programs that the NDP supports, but will vote with the Green party, simply because they feel that sustainability should be our first and foremost concern.
In this example, let's say that 30% of the people voted for Green, and another 30% voted for NDP. The remaining 40% voted for the only other party running, the Liberals (I'm not attacking the Liberals here, they're just the natural opposition). The irony here is that the majority of the people that have voted favour many of the social programs that are items on the platforms of both NDP and the Green party, but due to the fact that there are differences in these parties, the votes are split between the two. Of final consequence, the Liberals take the riding and win 100% of the votes for the purpose of their seat in the house of commons, even though only 40% of the people in the riding actually wanted them to win.
As you can see from the above example, in the FPtP system, it doesn't pay to run as a party that has similar ideals to another party - you're much better off representing a completely different set of ideals.
The trouble with this approach is that you gradually lead towards a two-party system, similar to what you see in the States, where you have the Republicans, and the Democrats. Both parties are very similar to one another, with minor differences being what define them (quite amusingly so, actually, if you listen to them scream about how vile the other one is). As a consequence of tending towards two-party systems, the FPtP voting system typically leads to candidates with less diversity (as it is important to run a candidate that will appeal to the greatest number of voters).
In some cases, this leads to a situation where people end up voting strategically. A strategic vote would work as follows:
- John, in his riding, wants the NDP to win. However, if the NDP don't win, he wants to be certain that the Conservatives do not win.
- The polls up to this point show that the race for election is going to be between the Liberals and Conservatives.
- Because of this, John knows that voting for NDP will probably not achieve much - the NDP are not one of the two parties that will win.
- Since his first preference (that the NDPs win) cannot be realized, John votes for Liberals, because this increases the likelihood that his second choice (the Conservatives lose) will be realized.
In my opinion, this represents a broken system. In the purest form of a democracy, someone should not have to place their vote in such a manner as to ensure a given party loses. They should vote with the party or candidate that they truly believe in.
One of the strengths of the FPtP system, at least, as claimed by its proponents, is that it is simple. You go into the voting poll, you place your vote for whichever candidate you like the most in your riding, and that is it. However, is simplicity the goal that a successful democracy should be aiming for, or should our goal be the best representation of its voting population?
I want to make a point of saying that the importance of being able to understand a voting system should not be dismissed - if voters find a system too confusing, they will gradually become disenfranchised from that system, and gradually stop turning out to vote.
However, as the example above illustrates, the claim that the FPtP system is simple is not always the case (it seems counter-intuitive that a party that only got 40% of the votes should be the winner, especially when the rest of the remaining votes were really about which of two similar sets of ideals were most closely aligned with a given voter's).
Delving even further, is there anything simple about the notion of strategic voting? This runs completely against the way that many of us intuitively understand democracy: You choose who you want to represent you, and you vote for them.
The Single Transferable Vote (STV) System
One of the strengths of the FPtP system, at least, as claimed by its proponents, is that it is simple. You go into the voting poll, you place your vote for whichever candidate you like the most in your riding, and that is it. However, is simplicity the goal that a successful democracy should be aiming for, or should our goal be the best representation of its voting population?
I want to make a point of saying that the importance of being able to understand a voting system should not be dismissed - if voters find a system too confusing, they will gradually become disenfranchised from that system, and gradually stop turning out to vote.
However, as the example above illustrates, the claim that the FPtP system is simple is not always the case (it seems counter-intuitive that a party that only got 40% of the votes should be the winner, especially when the rest of the remaining votes were really about which of two similar sets of ideals were most closely aligned with a given voter's).
Delving even further, is there anything simple about the notion of strategic voting? This runs completely against the way that many of us intuitively understand democracy: You choose who you want to represent you, and you vote for them.
The Single Transferable Vote (STV) System
The counterpart to the FPtP voting system is the STV system.
The STV voting system is currently in place in two countries - Ireland and Malta. The way in which this voting system came to be the one proposed as a replacement for our current system is due to the BC citizen's assembly (CA) on electoral reform.
Further details on the CA can be read here, but the main point of interest is that this assembly was created to review our democratic process and determine how it could be improved upon. This assembly was created by randomly choosing 80 men and 80 women from our voting population, and having them, led by a chairperson, review the available voting options and propose a new one (if warranted) to replace our current one.
The voting system that was determined to be the best choice by the CA was STV, and that is how it came to be part of the referendum upon which we are now voting. Before dismissing STV out of hand (should you be tempted to do so), please truly take a minute to consider this point. 160 randomly selected people sat together, reviewed existing democratic processes, and determined that STV was the best option to be introduced in BC. This was not a partisan group, nor a group biased in any particular non-political direction (other than the fact that all of the members do in fact vote). This in itself says something considerable for the STV system.
The STV system is based on two principles (as I understand it):
- Each voter lives in one riding. This riding is larger than the ridings contained in the FPtP system, and there are multiple candidates that are elected from a given riding.
- Instead of voting for just one person, each voter gets to choose their first choice as a candidate, their second choice, and their third choice (and so on, if the riding is large enough to elect more than three candidates)
In an STV system, when you go into the ballot, instead of simply marking an X on the candidate of your choice, you would place a 1 on your first choice, followed by a 2 on your second choice, and a 3 on your third choice.
If you were to go in and vote as you would have with the FPtP system, simply placing an X next to your favorite candidate, it will be treated as though you wanted this candidate for your first choice, and that's it. As you can see, the argument for FPtP being a simpler system is already rendered moot to an extent - you can still vote exactly the same as before, if you so desire.
In the STV voting system, the voting is tallied this way:
For each vote, we look at that person's first choice for a candidate. If that candidate does not yet have enough votes to win themselves a seat, that vote is counted towards them. However, if that candidate has enough votes to guarantee themselves a seat, your vote now goes to your second choice of candidate (hence the name, Single Transferrable Vote). If your second choice candidate also has enough votes to guarantee a seat in parliament, your vote goes to your third choice, and so on.
You are not forced to rate every candidate, and if you only like two of the candidates, you are free to indicate the order of your preference, and have your vote only apply to those two.
The first thing that you may have noticed about this system is that your vote carries a lot more weight. Instead of simply being a situation of "either your vote gets your candidate elected, or it supports the person that gets elected instead", you have full say in who your candidate supports, right down to the last person elected with enough votes.
One of the consequences of this form of tallying votes is that minorities (including women) are often much better represented by the candidates that get elected. Because it is no longer necessary to simply appeal to the greatest number of voters, we, the voting public, are given a greater variety of candidates to choose from, and are able to elect parties that offer a more diverse set of platforms.
In this situation, it is much more reasonable for a member of the Green party to get elected, as they are no longer simply competing in a win/lose battle against the favoured party for a given riding (as there is no such thing - each riding has multiple people running in it that could be elected), and thus, the argument that a vote for Green is throwing away your vote is no longer the case.
One of the main complaints that people have with the STV voting system is that it leads to more minority governments, and this is an important issue to discuss.
A majority government is one in which a given party has won more than 50% of the seats in parliament. When this is the case, they can effectively do whatever they would like, as, whenever something goes to a vote in the house of commons, that party controls enough of it to vote in favour of their planned course of action. People call this situation efficient because the ruling party does not have to contend with any difficulties in pushing through legislation. They consider what they want to do, run a bill through the house, vote it into power, and boom, it's all good.
A minority government is one in which the ruling party has won more seats than any other party, but does not hold more than 50% of the seats. As a result, they cannot pass anything in the house without the support of at least some members of an additional party. In recent times, this has lead to some inefficient governments, because the parties that are in the minority typically wait until the timing is right, then call a vote of no-confidence, shut down the parliament, and a new election is called.
This is a valid concern. Government's should certainly do stuff. That's why we elect them. However, this bears looking into further. For one, as we have already discussed, the FPtP system is one that favours and tends towards creating majority governments. In the FPtP system, whichever party feels they currently have the upper hand in the minority government has it in their best interest to bring down the parliament and call an election. They can then hope to win enough votes to gain a majority and have their way for four years. In this situation, there is very little to be gained from cooperation, as you are better off biding your time until you can bring down parliament. The only cooperation typically comes from trying to make your own party look better in preparation for the moment that you can force an election.
But imagine this from the perspective of the STV system. In this system, the more common situation is one in which we have a minority government. In this case, even if a party does manage to bring down the parliament, they are still very unlikely to gain a majority in the house after the next election. In effect, the main motives behind taking an uncooperative stance, or at least delaying until you can effectively call an election, have been removed.
Another stance worth considering is what we actually mean when we talk about an efficient government. Although it seems efficient to simply be able to make decisions and push them through into laws and practice, the last 8 years in the United States have shown us that there is certainly something to be said for having your government being forced to contemplate and consider your actions.
In theory, a dictatorship is the most efficient form of government, as the ruler in power has free reign to do absolutely anything they want, and can act on that ability. There is nothing to bottleneck this process, and nothing to slow them down.
You can see from this counter-example that term efficiency is either not the ultimate ideal that our governing body should aspire to, or our definition of efficiency (when concerning the government in power) should be changed. I propose that true efficiency in government occurs when the parliament in power best represents that differing ideals and values of the voting population, and carries out the most action possible on behalf of that population. This action should come about through cooperation, discussion, and compromise, just like in the real world.
If we take this version of efficiency to be the ideal to which we wish to hold our government (and you may not, which is fine), the STV vote will certainly produce the most efficient form of government. As we have all experienced at some point or another in our lives, a majority government is great when you agree with what the leading party is doing, but awful when you do not.
I will take a moment to inject my own bias here and suggest that a party that is forced to cooperate with other parties and accept a broader range of issues may require longer to act effectively, but will serve us, the voting population, better in the long run, and ensure that the decisions that are carried out have been carefully considered and deliberated on sufficiently.
Conclusion
The single most tangible benefit of the STV system, in my opinion, is quite simply that it leads to a closer representation of what we, the voting public, desire. A minority government may not be able to spearhead policies and bills into practice and law as quickly as a majority government will, but perhaps that's the way things should be. After all, in real life, it is not possible for me to simply push my own wills and desires through onto other people without first discussing with them and considering the pros and cons.
The single most tangible benefit of the STV system, in my opinion, is quite simply that it leads to a closer representation of what we, the voting public, desire. A minority government may not be able to spearhead policies and bills into practice and law as quickly as a majority government will, but perhaps that's the way things should be. After all, in real life, it is not possible for me to simply push my own wills and desires through onto other people without first discussing with them and considering the pros and cons.
An effective democratic government should represent it's population as closely as possible. Not only in the variety of stances and view points that it possesses, but also in the manner in which it goes about its daily life.
It is rare that the voting public are given the opportunity to make a difference in the power of their vote. By voting STV, I truly believe that we are increasing the power of our vote by making each vote matter a little bit more, and by increasing the chance the government in power is one that more closely represents the variety of stances and beliefs of the members of our province, and hopefully at some point, our country.
Please, regardless of which side of the fence you are on, continue to educate yourself about this opportunity, and vote on it. Watch the video if you can find the time, and share it with everyone that you know that may find it helpful. If you found it helpful, share this blog post with others that may be interested in reading about some of the differences in the two voting systems. Help educate others, and get out there and vote. I hope after reading this that you agree with me that this is a truly exciting opportunity. Thanks for the indulgence.
Final note: If you notice any inconsistencies or errors in what I have written, please make a point of leaving a comment or sending me an e-mail. I will correct it as soon as I can.
Cool post - I enjoyed it. First time on your blog, too.
You asked for errors to be pointed out, so just wanted to let you know that the first referendum on electoral reform was in 05, not 03.
And how bout some more props for the Citizens' Assembly, yo?! Next to the carbon tax, it's the Premier's most impressive accomplishment (in my opinion).
You're mischaracterizing the American system quite a bit by implying power is centralized. In fact, its design enforces the opposite.
@Jeremy - Thanks! Updated the post to reflect your correction. I wasn't even aware that this was the Premier's doing. I agree, this is a substantial (and arguably selfless) accomplishment!
@Myron - Did I imply that? The only thing I thought I said about their government was that they have what amounts to a system with two parties, both of which are fairly similar to each other.
Adam,
I like how much you attempt to be neutral in your assessment of both systems.
I just want to make a single arguement against STV (and i realize that there are MANY for and against it).
I think that the biggest single problem with the system is that it is confusing. That is a problem because we force voters to become more knowledgeable (which, i know, should be a good thing), but I feel like the end result will be more fringe voters looking at the system, not being really convinced that they want to vote anyways, and turn away, which will cause the opposite effect of creating a government that is representative of the people.
Also, in this, I think that the voting process will stop being equal. One person, One vote will disappear., to an extent. Some voters, like you and like me, will take the time to educate ourselves on exactly who we like, what order we like them in, and the strategy of who we vote for based on how we think the results are likely to come in. This is going to take a lot of work, but if we do the research and really pick some strong choices, our vote can be very powerful. Thats great, except that now many people who don't take this time, but DO know that they like the NDP, or Green Party, just write in one choice (or two or three if they had a couple Green candidates) but with no strategy to the order. And even worse, i feel like this system has the potential to cause people to pick their first choice and see that they can pick 7 and go down, or up the list and just write in 2,3,4,5,6,7... which would be a disaster.
I honestly like the FPtP system, but I see the need and appeal of a more representative voting system. I think that a system that gave us a closer representation of '5% of the vote, 5% of the seats' is probably a positive one. But, I don't think that STV is the answer, and I hope it doesnt pass. (well, ive mentioned that i do hope it passes so that we can see what a shitshow it turns into in 2013)
Blake
Blake - thanks for your comment.
Although I felt that I (and the UVic webcast) did address the perceived weakness of STV that you are referring to, it's worth covering again.
The first problem I have with the comment that STV is confusing is that I feel this is a bit of a cop-out.
1. This voting system is in practice in Ireland and Malta, both of which have not seen a decline in their voter turn-out (if anything they have seen an increase). This runs counter to the evidence that we would expect to see if STV was confusing and disenfranchised people from the voting process.
2. Making the comment that STV is confusing but not FPtP feels to me (and would certainly be plausible) as if we are approaching the issue from the bias of already being familiar with FPtP. Can you honestly say that the notion of strategic voting is not confusing and convoluted? How about the fact that Bloc gets a number of seats in parliament with 10% of the popular vote, but that the Green Party get 0 seats with roughly 5% of the popular vote. Just because STV is confusing does not mean that FPtP is not. It just means that we are already familiar with FPtP. This is not a good enough reason to stay with the status quo. Sometimes positive change will require taking one step back so that we can take two steps forward.
About the voting process being equal and one person one vote. It sounds to me like you're suggesting that STV will allow some people to make their vote more useful, or better than other people. I could turn around and make the same argument for the FPtP voting system, as if I vote strategically, you can argue that I am actually using my vote in an efficient manner, whereas my friend who blindly votes for the Green party is effectively "throwing their vote away" (I hate that term, but it serves us well enough in this example). No... I don't agree that STV makes votes less equal. In either case there are strategies that you can use to make your vote more meaningful, but this is not "undemocratic".
"And even worse, i feel like this system has the potential
to cause people to pick their first choice and see that they can pick 7
and go down, or up the list and just write in 2,3,4,5,6,7... which
would be a disaster."
Why would this be any more of a disaster than our current system, where the person votes for someone, and if that person doesn't get picked, they effectively have voted for whoever won? I understand how you feel about this intuitively, but I think that if you pull this apart, you'll see that this is still preferable.
In STV, they vote for their first choice, and if that person wins, they now vote for someone that they didn't choose.
In FPtP, they vote for their first choice, and if that person does NOT win, they now vote for someone that they didn't choose.
No disaster here.
Do you feel that the FPtP voting system has resulted in parties (and more importantly sitting governments) that accurately represent the demographics of our province? If you do, then that's fair, but we will have to agree to disagree.
FPtP isn't a horrible system. It's just that we can (and in my opinion, SHOULD) do better.