BC-STV and the Indo-Canadian vote

My first of three short articles regarding BC-STV Before the referendum on May 6th.

This article is about electioneering, a discipline that is absolutely despicable but also unfortunately very efficient!

There is a general negative attitude towards BC-STV in the Indo-Canadian community.  The reason comes from an association of the BC-STV voting system to the voting system (Block voting) used at the municipal level.  While both systems are at-large electoral systems, any similarities between them just stop here.  In and all other aspects they completely differ.  These two graphics (BC-STV, Block Voting) – thanks Bruce for the illustrations – perfectly illustrates this aspect.  BC-STV is a system designed to but forward minorities, Block voting used at the municipal level is designed to silence them!

The crucial difference between those systems comes from the fact that under BC-STV, we rank candidates.  If someone wants an Indo-Canadian elected, they can rank Indo-Canadian candidates, among different parties, as their first choices, this process is explained here. Therefore the Indo-Canadians “voter-rich concentration” (the fact that Indo-Canadians tend to be very numerous in certain neighbourhoods) would work very well in BC-STV!  I actually believe it would even be better under BC-STV than under the current FPTP system!

So my message to everyone (including the very important Indo-Canadian community) is to study and look closely at the proposed systems and make your mind according to your values whatever it might be, but do not let false perceptions blur your judgement.

If you are more at-ease in Punjabi, there is a brief explanation of the referendum here and also a translation of the Citizens’ Assembly final report here.

Frédéric Van Caenegem

In a few days: STV vs MMP!

I was interviewed about BC-STV (or VUT: Vote Unique Transférable) on CILS-FM 107.9 (a French-language community radio based in Victoria) earlier today. It will be rebroadcast. More info on the French side: http://blogue.vancf.net/2009/04/22/cils-fm/

Frédéric Van Caenegem

My latest comment published in today’s 24hrs newspaper.  It is an unusually very neutral comment from myself.

On May 12, the referendum on electoral reform will be more important than the election itself. The election will impact us for the next few years; the referendum will impact us for the next few decades at the very least. Make your homework and study both sides of the issue at stv.ca and nostv.org.

Frédéric Van Caenegem

Don’t know what BC-STV might look like?

Try it out at: http://trystv.ca/

Frédéric.

Every time there is a by-election, I hear people saying the same thing: “How much is this going to cost?”. I usually respond: “democracy has a price, and that price is less onerous than a “free” dictatorship”. But that being said, is there a way to mitigate the costs related to an election?

Right now, in BC (and everywhere in Canada) if an elected official resigns (a fairly common event), is expelled from the legislature (a very rare event) or dies (an event that everyone has to go through in life), we have to hold a by-election to replace the departing (or departed) politician. Under our current system, there is no other way of dealing with this issue.

Under BC-STV, it could be a different story. As you may know, under BC-STV, electors rank candidates according to their preferences. Under that system, votes are transferred to your second, third, fourth, etc. choices depending of various situations; see http://stv.ca/how-does-stv-work#transfer for more details regarding this process.

The same principle could be applied if, for example, an MLA resigns during his/her mandate. Instead of holding a by-election, we can simply look back at the results of the previous general election. From those results, we simply transfer the choice made by voters who elected the departing politician. The result is that we get a new elected officials who has, roughly, the same values and ideas has the one who just quit. In other words, a new MLA from the same party.

This is actually what is being done in Australia and Malta. And not only does it save a by-election, but the voters’ will gets very well transferred under this principle and the new politician is almost always of the same party of the departing politician. Therefore, balance between parties remains. In fact, since 1985, in Tasmania, if the “new” guy is not from the same party as the “old” one, a by-election must be organized. And this has yet to happen.

Under the current FPTP system, by-elections must be held to replace politicians. Under BC-STV, by-elections can be avoided, without compromising the people’s will.

You can read more about this issue in here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issues_affecting_the_Single_Transferable_Vote#Vacancies

Frédéric Van Caenegem

Published in the latest edition of Common Ground:

“Under BC-STV, each person gets to rank candidates in order of preference 1, 2, 3, etc. If your favourite candidate is eliminated, your vote is not wasted; it is simply transferred to your second choice, and so on. No need to vote strategically for the “lesser of two evils” as we do currently. I truly believe that BC-STV is a tool to get our democracy to work better, to get governments more responsive to the people and to improve the “government of the people, by the people, for the people” as per Abraham Lincoln’s famous saying.”

Frédéric Van Caenegem

More “BC-STV: In 100 words or less”: http://www.commonground.ca/iss/213/cg213_stv.shtml

I have seen quite a lot of spelling mistake before.  I make quite a lot myself too.  But this one comes from a simple one page advertising from the City!

Good luck recieving this tax free money for those eligible!

Frédéric Van Caenegem

The following is an email I’ve sent to friends and contacts earlier today!

Title: BC-STV

This message is in English only, so no need to look further down!

Pas de français??? Non, pas cette fois!!!

Hello friends!

I am writing about politics. If not interested, you can just delete, I will never know and therefore not feel offended!

As you may know, there is an important referendum coming on May 12, here in BC. The referendum will ask people whether or not they want to change the way we elect our MLAs (Member of the Legislative Assembly) in Victoria. There are two propositions:
- FPTP (First Pass The Post) – the current system
- BC-STV (Single Transferable Vote) – the alternative

I personally clearly favour the BC-STV alternative.

In our current system, we vote for one candidate. This simple idea creates in reality hugely distorted results. For example, a Party getting a minority of the vote forms the government, or ever worst, the Party coming in second place can form a majority government! Also in our system, some parties can get a significant percentage of the vote and get no seats! All of this cannot be good for democracy!

In 2003, the provincial government created the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform. Ordinary citizens were picked by random throughout BC and had for mandate to look at the different electoral systems used all over the world. After careful consideration, they proposed that BC-STV would be the best system for BC. I was a bit surprised by their choice at the beginning, but after looking at it more closely, I really came to realise that STV is clearly the best option for BC.

Under BC-STV, each person gets to rank candidates in order of preference 1, 2, 3, etc. If your favourite candidate gets little popular support and is eliminated, your vote is not wasted; it is simply transferred to your second choice, and so on… No need to vote strategically for the “lesser of two evil” as we do currently. You just vote according to your conscience. You rank candidates according to your preference in different parties, or all in the same Party if you want, it’s up to you. And if you want to vote for just one candidate, that’s fine too!

STV is already being used in Ireland, New Zealand, Malta and Australia. These countries have amongst the highest electoral participation in the world! The reason is simple: your vote makes a difference! Experience in those countries also shows that STV creates legislature where the numbers of MLA in the assembly is very close to the popular vote. If a Party gets 40% of the vote, it will get about 40% (±2%) of the seats! That makes sense!

BC-STV will not fix all the problems in the world; it will not eliminate poverty in our province, fix our troubled economy or retrofit our schools for earthquake resistance (no one talks about this issue!). Some people don’t like that STV tends to create minority government. Experience elsewhere shows it makes coalition government where parties tend to work together (most of the time, it is still politics after all!). BC-STV will not fix everything, but I truly believe it is a tool to get our democracy to work better, to get governments more responsive to the people, to improve the “government of the people, by the people and for the people” as per Abraham Lincoln’s famous saying.

As you guessed, I am involved with the “Yes for BC-STV” campaign. Not sure exactly how to best utilize my talents (the story of my life!) but I’m trying to get involved with the reach out to cultural communities, where I feel I can best utilize my natural aptitudes.

If you are interested in helping out for the referendum, you can register on the “Yes for STV” website (http://www.stv.ca/) or contact me directly. If you know a friend or relative that might be interested, please spread the news. If you have questions about STV, this electoral process or whatever is on your mind, you can always email or phone me and I will try my best to answer neutrally (yes, I can do that!) your questions.

Please find below additional sites if you want to learn more:
BC government information website: http://www.bcreferendum2009.ca/
Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform: http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/
Yes for BC-STV: http://www.stv.ca/
No for BC-STV: http://www.nostv.org/

Thank you for reading,
Frédéric
http://www.vancf.net/

My comment to this post:
http://challengingthecommonplace.blogspot.com/2009/02/bc-ndp-and-electoral-reform-p4.html

By this non-response, Carole James want the referendum to fail. She seem to say that if the yes for BC-STV is under 60%, then an other form of Proportional Representation (like MMP) will be proposed to British Columbians. But, by being vague, she makes no commitments toward this. In other words, she wants the referendum to fail and the current electoral system to continue as is.

To those who like MMP (and it is your right to prefer that system) don’t be tempted to vote No for STV in the hope of a theoretically better system in the future. The referendum is between STV and FPTP, people are asked to make a decision on these two options (I prefer STV personally). If you like a third alternative, I am afraid you are left to make up your mind on the systems proposed and continue promoting whatever electoral system you prefer in the future.

Frédéric Van Caenegem

It’s without big surprise that Michael Ignatieff decided to support the conservative budget. Ignatieff’s objective is to help Canada by restoring the significance of the Liberal Party. Not my choice, but then again, I am not a Liberal so quite frankly, the Liberals should not listen to me.

I did support the coalition for two reasons. The main reason: being a progressive, I saw with enthusiasm that the NDP was being part of this coalition and therefore could influence policy making in Canada. Quite frankly, I would have preferred a NDP-Green coalition government, but that was not the choice of Canadians and, under the current Parliament, a Liberal-NDP coalition was the best thing possible.

The second reason I supported the coalition was that the Liberal-NDP government was going to consult the Bloc Québécois. Being from Québec, I know and understand Québec’s political culture. Towards the separatist threat, there are two possible attitudes: discussing with Québec separatists or isolating the separatists.

Trudeau didn’t want to discuss with them and he managed to frustrate just about everyone. Mulroney tried to discuss with the separatist and also managed to frustrate just about everyone. Jean Chrétien followed in Trudeau’s steps and also refused any discussion with the separatists. That plan was called the “Plan B”, and the main spokesperson for that “plan B” in Québec was none other than Stéphane Dion.

Can the Québec question be solved? I can’t say for sure, but I believe it can only be possible through discussion with the separatists.

Québec socio-political values are more progressive than in the other provinces for complex reasons that I will not even try to explain here (partially because I can’t). Québec’s left-wing lean is even more pronounced in the separatist vote. The federalists in Québec tend to be slightly more conservative than their separatists’ counterpart. Therefore, one would think that the left-wing NDP should have their best results in Québec; but quite contrary, the NDP is weaker in Québec than anywhere else. This comes from the fact that progressives in Québec tend to be also separatists (which the NDP obviously isn’t) and therefore massively vote for the Bloc Québécois.

This coalition was (among things) an attempt by Canadian progressives to discuss with their separatist counterparts of Québec. This coalition didn’t last, it didn’t even govern! But call me old fashioned, I still believe through discussion with separatists, we’ll discover that their grievances are not completely incompatible with Canadian values.

To the age old question of: What does Québec want? Could the answer possibly be: “just to be heard!”