Three Canadian Provinces Ponder Electoral Reform
BC Voters Are Latest To Hold Referendum On Electing Representatives
May 6, 2009
Increasingly Canadian voters have been disenchanted with the traditional British way of representative democracy; namely first past the post or FPTP. With scenarios like British Columbia in 2001 when the Liberals lost the popular vote but won the majority, many voters pine to have more influential votes. Two alternate ways to have more fair and accountable voting systems are:
- Mixed Member Proportional system (MMP) where there are still riding representatives using FPTP plus members chosen from party lists according to proportional party preference;
- Single Transferable Vote (STV) where fewer larger districts elect two to seven representatives based on preference votes, first choice at least to seventh.
Ontario held a referendum on MMP in October, 2007 and it was defeated, 63% to 37%. P.E.I. voted in 2005, 64% against and 36% for MMP. British Columbia opted to use STV and almost got it in 2005. In May, 2009 it will get a second chance.
Global Voting Systems
Professor Emeritus at the University of Victoria, Norman Ruff said at a recent information meeting (April 30/09) that in 2005, BC chose STV in 77/79 districts but only 57% of the popular vote. This time it still requires 60% but 51 out of 85 districts. STV is also the most studied system in the world among political scientists.
- 70 countries use party lists or variations on MMP
- 47 countries use FPTP, and they are mostly former British colonies
- 21 countries use a hybrid of the two
- only 2 countries, Ireland and Malta, use STV, plus Australia uses it to select its Senate.
Electoral Reform and Democractic Values
Denis Pilon, UVic professor of Canadian politics, BC politics, and elections and representation advises voters to think about what they value in democracy. If status quo, locality (smaller ridings), and direct accountability is important, then FPTP is likely the option. If wasted votes and little influence are a concern, in that every vote over 50% + 1 in a two-party/one representative race is surplus or every vote not cast for the winner is inconsequential, then opting to MMP or STV is a choice.
Pilon also observes certain voting trends in Canada:
- party is the #1 factor in choosing, not the candidate
- less than 10% of the constituents ever visit a riding office or have any contact with the elected representative
- political systems are cultural in nature; BC had variations other than FPTP (17 districts elected 2 members 20 years ago) so FPTP is less entrenched
- voter turnout is decreasing (below 60% in the last federal election) because the vote is seen not to matter
MMP would seem to be the easier sell but Ontario and P.E.I. prove otherwise. Voters there cited confusion and unaccountable representatives from party lists as reasons for a no vote. The BC Citizens' Committee chose STV because it was the most studied system and gives most meaning to the elector, the candidate and the vote; in other words, to fairness and accountability in politics.
Voting Accountability in FPTP & STV
At the core of the issue is the fairness of the vote and making it count. The idea of the single transferable vote means that any surplus votes are proportioned out to the other candidates plus preference votes are meted out. A voter's vote stays with a candidate until elected or dropped from the list of candidates. There are two excellent examples on the BC-STV Referendum Office site.
In short, FPTP is a plurality vote; the first to get the electoral quota wins, and all other votes, surplus or non-winner are inconsequential. STV is a proportional vote, firstly to the one getting the electoral quota, then surplus and preference votes going to candidates until the required district number are selected. Experiences in other STV jurisdictions show no difference in accountability.
Whatever the outcome it is a good opportunity to re-evaluate what democracy means and to confirm that option with a vote.
