If you just have one thing to watch before making your mind on the referendum, I recommend Christy Clark’s comment.  It is available here on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhccpzI4lbQ

If you can’t see the video, the text is available on cknw’s website here: http://www.cknw.com/blog/christys_bc_15/blogentry.aspx?BlogEntryID=10031397

Frédéric Van Caenegem

My last of three short texts regarding the referendum

One aspect on which very little has been written on is the ridings under BC-STV and FPTP electoral systems. One quick look at the map will show one thing very quickly: the ridings are bigger under BC-STV! That being said, are they better?

The current system divides the territory into ridings that have roughly the same population. Simple right? Well not so much. Under the FPTP electoral system, democracy can be rigged by controlling the geography of ridings. This is actually very common in the United States and it is called gerrymandering.

In Canada, there is less gerrymandering. The main reason is that in Canada, independent commissions draw the ridings; while in the United States, it is the congressmen themselves that draw up these districts. After each election, these are redrawn to maximize their probability of being elected. Look here at Florida’s 3rd district for example!

Even though nothing prevents these commissions to be partisan, the situation has remained fairly civilized north of the border. But I have a feeling that with governments and political parties being less and less cautious about political manipulation, it is just a question of time before we get to that point too.

And here is another reason why I like BC-STV: gerrymandering is impossible under BC-STV ridings. Effectively, ridings being bigger and more competitive, geographic manipulation cannot assure re-election!

In addition of getting rid of gerrymandering, another thing I noticed from the BC-STV map is that these ridings make sense. Under FPTP ridings, quite often the ridings are weird, being in the middle of a neighbourhood for no reason. What makes the people living north of 49th street so different from the people living south of it?

Under BC-STV, ridings make much more sense. Burnaby-New Westminster is… Burnaby and New Westminster. Under BC-STV, ridings tend to correspond much more to geographic entities that are known to everyone. There are almost no artificial lines that have no social, regional or even municipal meaning.

Ridings under BC-STV make much more sense and correspond to real entities: regions, municipalities, etc.  That makes BC-STV impossible to manipulate through gerrymandering. The ridings under the current electoral system can be manipulated by political interests!

Remember to vote on May 12, polls are open from 8AM to 8PM. If you don’t know where to vote, contact ElectionsBC.

Frédéric Van Caenegem

The second of three short text about the upcoming referendum.

Some MMP supporter say vote no for STV, because we are going to have instead a supposedly better system in MMP. While I certainly respect that some people may prefer MMP to STV, I urge voters to actually vote regarding the two systems proposed on the May 12 referendum (STV and FPTP).

MMP (Mix-Member Proportionality) is an electoral system used in many countries, like Germany for example. Under MMP voters make two choices: a local MLA as we currently do, and a party vote. Half of the MLAs are elected in ridings, and the other half are named by parties as per their share of the vote.

Some argue that MMP is better than STV, however I disagree. Under MMP, Parties name half of the MLAs, with no or very little say by voters. And by this, MMP is just non-compatible with Canadian political values. In fact, the latest point is the main reason why the P.E.I. and Ontario referendum failed miserably in 2005 and 2007 respectively. Please read this report about this issue.

I know that most supporters of the MMP system do support change for the STV electoral system. But some just pretend if we vote no to STV, then we could have a “better” system in the long run. I heard that before, like the Vancouver municipal referendum in 2004. Since then, have we talked about electoral reform in municipal politics? Let’s be clear, those who say we should vote no for STV in exchange for something better just want one thing: to keep the current system!

If they truly want “something better next time”, they would vote for STV. Because STV is better (but that is my biased opinion), but also if STV gets in, there will be a review of the electoral system after three elections. This is the plan of the Citizens’ Assembly. This is why, people who truly believe in MMP vote for STV!

Frédéric Van Caenegem

Last short article: STV ridings vs FPTP ridings

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!

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

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