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

Before you vote, watch this video and tell all your friends:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhccpzI4lbQ

Few have been as honest and insightful as former Deputy Premier Christy Clark on CKNW yesterday. Here’s the video everybody needs to see before they vote in Tuesday’s provincial referendum.

As Christy says, this is the most important vote we’ll cast. Please forward this to everybody you know.

Regards,
Shoni Field
British Columbians for BC-STV

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

A student asked me a few questions about BC-STV for her Social Studies 11 course a few days ago. Here were my answers!

> When you first time heard about BC-STV?

In 2004, when the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform (http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/) decided that STV should be used for British Columbia. I didn’t follow that much the discussion about the work of the Citizens’ Assembly so I was quite surprised by their decision. At the time I was a loose supporter of MMP electoral system (used in Germany). I was actually a bit disappointed by their decision actually. But after looking into more details at BC-STV, I started to like it more and more!

> What do think about this new system according to your own understanding?

My post here (http://blog.vancf.net/2009/02/10/bc-stv/) will answer most of this question. But to actually answer it…

Years ago, when I looked at the problems of our electoral system, I started to imagine what would be a perfect electoral system and… I didn’t find it. It seems to me that each system is perfect in some way and fails completely in an other way.

The current system (First Past The Post: FPTP) doesn’t provide representation for the diversity of political opinion. A party can easily get 18% of the vote and no seats and, on the same election, an other party will form a majority government with… 37% of the vote!

Proportional electoral systems (PR: used in many European countries) will fix that but… it creates chaotic politics where there are so many political parties that politics becomes overwhelmingly complicated, everyone gets represented, but there is no consensus building. As I have seen in a French comedy show a few years ago, “If for some reason you don’t a find a party that represent you, you don’t have to worry. You can simply create your own political party and vote for yourself!”

In Germany, they use a mix system. Half of their Parliament is filled used FPTP and the other half using PR. It actually makes it better in some ways! It moderates the problems of both systems. But it doesn’t eliminate them completely.

So when the Citizens’ Assembly proposed that we should use STV I was… surprised! This system is almost not used anywhere I didn’t know a lot about it myself but, as I mentioned earlier, the more I looked at STV, the more I liked it!

STV is a compromise system. A way to have proportional representation and keep local representation. In many ways, STV is not perfect and this imperfection is its strength!

In STV, voters rank candidates in order of preference. If a voter’s first choice is eliminated, their vote is simply transferred to their second choice! And that makes all the difference in the world. It gives voters have a lot of power as their vote has significant impact!

> Do you think there are still some shortcomings in this new system? Compare to the old one?

It’s got complex mathematics, I know a lot of supporters of STV don’t like to mention this, but STV has complex mathematics that are actually based of simple principles. They are not too difficult to understand, but you need to look at it closely a few minutes to understand these mathematics. The current system can be understood in 2 seconds! And sometimes people are used to that simplicity and have difficulty to realize that electoral system can bit a bit more sophisticated. STV is more sophisticated, but barely more complicated than the current electoral system. And anyone can understand it. Hopefully most pro-STV volunteers can also explain it!

> Which one are you prefer? Why?

BC-STV! It provides proportionality and fair results, gives almost everyone an MLA they voted for, get rids of strategic voting and actually improves local representation. FPTP… is simple! But unfair and gives a lot of power to party strategists and not to voters.

Hope these answers helps,
Frédéric.

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

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

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