Representation

Ok, don't take this personally, but I have a few quick comments.

1. I have a hard time accepting the democratic credentials of a party which does not even have a competitive nomination process for its candidates. The numerous times I've been involved with party politics, the candidates always had to be selected by a riding association and there was often a contest in the riding. Yes I realize even the big parties parachute candidates in, but really there should be something of a contest, especially for a party pushing for democratic reforms.

2. I had a look at the STV proposal briefly, I need more time with it. I have two problems: a) STV is WAY too complex. Mez and I fought of this one, but I'm of the belief that if an election system cannot be easily explained to a class of grade 10 students, then it is not acceptable. The formula for STV is ridiculously complicated and consequently cannot be understood clearly by most people. Mez and other defenders thing this doesn't matter, but I can't accept a system that cannot be understood by everyone. b) the system as proposed reduces the number of constituencies. I don't understand how something that reduces the number of constituencies can be more democratic. It makes running more expensive, more time consuming and it makes it more difficult to serve the constituents. Yes I know that there will be more than on MLA per constituency, but this only increases the confusion because now there are competing people to represent you. All of them will have to represent a much larger area than before, making close contact harder. They will not distribute the riding amongst them. Oh, and on that note, politics will get MORE partisan since people can now go to an MLA of their choice, rather than the elected MLA being forced to represent everyone, as they should as an elected individual.

For those who don't know me, I'm aussie. We have had preferential voting (or STV, same deal) forever and it is a good thing. It is _not_ too complex. It's maybe a little more complex for those doing the counting, but for those doing the voting it is simple.

The advantage that it gives us is that we generally end up with smaller parties (like the greens, but also independents and some crazy single-issue parties at times) who "hold the balance of power". Which tends to mean that the ruling party does not have an absolute majority and needs to convince at least a few of the others in the middle to side with them. That is nice because it means there's actually some discussion about legislation and opportunities to change things. For example, when the GST was brought in the smaller parties said things like "ok, we'll vote for it as long as you exempt fresh fruit and veges from it".

The reason that STV allows these smallers parties to do better is that you don't have people saying "oh, I can't vote for that guy because he won't win and then my vote is wasted". Instead they say "Well, I'll put him first and then put that guy from the larger party second." Sure, the guy from the larger party is still likely to win, but with the quota system and multiple seats within and electorate that smaller party guy may well end up with enough votes to get a seat too.

*shrug* makes no difference to me in the long run, but don't dismiss it out-right! It _does_ make sense!

And as for non-democratic choices of candidates - perhaps if more people put their hand up then there could be a competition. If only one person offers, who are they supposed to compete against?

With regards to competitive nomination, that is an issue when there is no one else volunteering for the position. The NDP has had this issue as well in certain ridings, however from what I saw (and this may not always be the rule as I have limited experience with this) there was still an approval process in which the riding association approved the candidate (even if they were the only one), as opposed to someone simply sending an email and getting approved by one person and they're good to go. However I guess this would depend on how big the riding association is .. the NDP riding associations are generally fairly small groups, and the Greens are a small-sized party compared to the others, and for all I know the "riding association" could just be comprised of the one guy. :P

Quoting Donna: "It's maybe a little more complex for those doing the counting, but for those doing the voting it is simple."

This is exactly my issue with the entire thing. In my view, there whould not be a difference between what the counter or insider knows and the voter. To say that it is simple for the people voting says that they don't fully understand the system, and that, in my estimation, is not transparent and not democratic. When we in Ontario had the vote on MMP (BTW a much better proposal) we had the same issue - it was not well explained, and when I tried to teach it to my grade 11s (and for those of you who don't know my degrees are in politics) I had a hell of a time, as opposed to our current system. STV is even worse.

I'm not dismissing it outright, as I'm sure Dan knows, I've spent many many years studying these things and debating myself on them. I just don't see how things are more transparent and more democratic in these systems.

Oh and BTW the GST was brought in by a majority government and though it's the constanty boogyman of Canadian politics, it has largely proven to be a good thing, and no party since then has seen fit to remove it. The conservative reductions to it have even been seen by most economists as pointless and even bad policy.

On the issue of candidate selection, I fully get that there may not have been other options, and truthfully I'd say 75% of the time there isn't, but there still needs to be a meeting a vote. Just being selected by a guy after sending an email seems very undeocratic to me.

Ok Stephen, I'll try to address everything you've said here. For those of you not interested in the whole argument, I suggest scrolling down to the last point 'cause there's a nifty fact about the history of Canada and our representation in government.

1. Green Party Candidate Vetting: As Lara pointed out, the Green party, like any other party (even the Liberals & Conservatives) can often find a hard time finding people crazy enough to run for office in an election. In cases like these, there is often no competition for a candidacy for no other reason that no competitors came forward.
   
   In every case (at least with the smart parties) there is always vetting of a candidate by someone who knows what they're doing. In my case specifically, I'd been working with the person assigned this job for over a hear on Adrianne Carr's campaign doing canvassing so he already knew my qualifications. No additional interviews were required because I was a known quantity. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clearer.
   
   
2. Complexity: You make a lot of good points on this front. For the most part, when asked about how STV works, I break it down to "rank your candidate choices, then trust the math" because you're right, trying to explain the voting formula over drinks can be daunting for most. With that said though, your claims about transparency don't hold. This isn't a Diebold situation, we can see every vote, and apply the same publicly-available process to every vote to arrive at easily auditable conclusion. I don't think that you can argue that transparency is a problem.
   
   I understand your objections to the complexity, but frankly I see it as a trade-off between accurate representation and simplicity. Sure our current system is simple to follow, but the fact is that it makes for divisive politics where a minority can often rule as if it were a majority.
   
   
3. Riding Sizes: This is another common complaint and like the complexity argument, it has it's virtues and exaggerations. True, ridings will be larger, and yes local representation will likely suffer somewhat under any system that increases the geography for which a representative is responsible. The question then, like the complexity argument is: "is this trade-off acceptable?". The fact is that as much as we like to claim that MLAs represent a riding, the truth is that in the long run, people elect MLAs (and MPs) based on issues and ideologies. We don't vote for party X because they're going to open a hospital in our riding, we vote for them because we want more hospitals.
   
   There are exceptions, sure like Svend Robinson's giving one of his constituents sanctuary or less high-profile cases as well but you can't deny that for the most part we elect people for their ideas and not their interest in a swath of land.
   
   Compare then, the loss of some local representation versus the gains of actually having the majority of our ideas reflected in our government. STV means more diversity of opinion in the Legislature and therefore a more accurate representation of the voting public. This can't be a bad thing for a democracy.
   
   
4. GST: While you're right about your comment regarding the majority Conservative government bringing in the wildly unpopular GST, I'm afraid that you've completely glazed over the important background information: (1) the GST was brought in to replace the manufacturing tax which was made illegal with Mulroney's Free Trade agreement. That's why every subsequent government has had a tough time removing it -- it has nothing to do with our electoral system.
   
   Interestingly though, your claims had me dig through some history and I found that while yes, the Mulroney government was in fact a majority seat holder at the birth of "Free" Trade and the GST, it did not hold a majority of the popular vote. In fact, Canada hasn't be ruled by a popular-vote majority since 1958, the time before that, 1917! In almost every case in this country's history, we've been ruled by a party holding less than 50% of the popular vote.

1. I'm not discounting the fact that finding someone is difficult, but is there not some sort or riding association that you need to present yourself infront of at a nomination meeting? If not, then hey great! But it just seemed funny.

2. Thankyou for seeing this argument. I guess we just have different opinions on what is an acceptable tradeoff, I don't accept this one. I would be more willing to accept MMP or some other form of PR which is simply rather than STV, one of the most complex versions.

As for our current system creating divisions, I'll point out that the divisions have been the worst under minority rule, which is where STV is likley to perpetually lead you. No PR system has ever elected a majority. When we do have majorities our politicans have traditionally been pretty good at representing all interests to their constituents and helping their constituents. Remember, the true job of a politician really is their interface with their constituents, and how they help them out, as opposed to how they vote in the House.

3. My response here is similar to number 2. The trade-offs don't work for me and Canadians are used to a local rep to talk to when there are problems, and that local rep is often willing to help no matter the political stripes. Having multiple local reps will create confusion and possibly the refusal to help if you are not of the right political leanings. It helps politics, but not government, and let's face facts, this should be about government, not politics.

There are lots of examples of local candidates winning and even independents, rather than parites. Just look at the letters that politicians receive and you'll realize that the local really does matter, A LOT in Canada.

4. The fact that we have been ruled by politicians holding less than 50% of the vote doesn't really bother me, since the system is very much engineered to look locally, and in such a large fractured country this is important. Our system, of a few large parties, does force the parties to appeal to the large centre, as opposed to the outside minorities. This creates balance and allows all to be heard within the centre, while preventing fringe or divisive parties from taking the tiller. The GST discussion is a bit off topic, especially since we are talking provincial politics not federal.

Lastly, I'd like to say that I'm not against PR as a concept, but I think there are much better ways to do it. MMP for example, at least preserves the ridings with local reps while adding a PR component. Plus it is more likely to lead to stable majority governments. Before the recent spade of minority governments I was more open to changes, but I think recent history has shown that our politicians cannot handle majority governments, they don't have the majurity to do it, they would rater fight over partisan issues. I'm not sure how having more, highly focused parties, would reduce this bickering.

I'm not repeating the arguments in favour of PR, which have already been well made, above.

All I'll add is a short history lesson. The 1st past the post system and confrontational parliamentary politics are basically an inheritance of a system that evolved specifically in the England between the 1230s and 1800s (long before everyone was allowed to vote). On the whole, it's a bad idea to say something should be changed just because it's old, but I'll make an exception here. Nobody ever thought out the 1st past the post system - it was just what was used once the previous system of 'who shouts loudest and has the biggest sword' system was replaced. In a world where, by about 1800, an electorate in a riding might be counted in the hundreds and often much less, it worked well enough.

But we're in a much more complicated world now. Under the current system we virtually guaranteee - even under the largest majority government - that MOST people voted AGAINST the winning party. The idea of a mandate is basically a lie: 1st-past-the-post govenerments almost never have a mandate in terms of votes cast.

How can that be right? Any system of PR, and frankly I don't care too much which one, will ensure that governments only govern by the genuine will of the people, reflected in the piece of paper they place in the ballot box. Go BC and STV!

SY: I see what you're saying as far as not liking the idea of the voters not understanding what the counters are doing. In Aus we learn about how the system works at school (primary school even) so we do generally have a decent idea. Voting is also compulsory in Aus, so I guess most people have at least a passing interest in learning how it works (rather than an attitude of "why should I care? I don't vote").
However, we've been using that system since right back when voting began (except maybe one or two right back when the British were still in charge) so people are used to it. Changing to something new is always a little worrying, but just because it's new and different doesn't mean it's bad (like I keep trying to convince my boss, likewise just because it's "the way we've always done it" doesn't mean it's good!).

And seriously, all the voters need to know is "this is the order in which I like these people". I think it actually makes the choices simpler because you don't have to worry about tactics like not "splitting the vote" etc... You can just be honest and it works :)

To make it even more fun, for senate seats you don't even need to know that much. If you don't really care that much you only need to say "this is my favourite party" and then your vote is counted the way that party has registered their preferences (which you can find out beforehand). That makes for some fun negotiations between parties leading up to elections with the big parties trying to secure preferences from the smaller parties, because as I'm sure you can imagine (especially with compulsory voting) a LOT of people choose to vote that way.

1. Complexity - If simplicity is your most important criterion, I highly recommend dictatorship. None of these confusing rules around elections.

Seriously, the beauty of STV is that it is a 'people-centric' system that produces proportional results, not a party-centred system like other types of PR. What other system allows you to vote for the best individuals in multiple parties instead of picking a single party? Voting is simple. Even the counting isn't bad if you take a look at it. A lot of people won't want to but for those that do, it's perfectly accessible.

2. Riding Sizes/Local Representation - I honestly think this is a red herring and after STV passes, people will be looking back and wondering why this was supposed to be such a big deal.
I understand that the ridings are not dissimilar in size to the federal ridings but there will be a lot more representatives. Most communication these days is in the form of e-mail or phone. STV opponents claim that MLA's will all come from the major centres. Ireland's experience with STV is that the representatives tend to be spread out as opposed to being all from one area.

But the real beauty of STV is that you have multiple representatives. Under the current system, if you have an MLA who you think is useless, your options are to wait 4 years or try to mount a recall (which is pretty close to impossible to achieve). Under BC-STV, there is a very good chance that at least one of your MLA's is from your preferred party and if you have issues with one, you have others to choose from. Personally, I'd much prefer to have an MLA who shared my views, even if s/he were farther away in terms of distance.

Thanks Chris, I couldn't have said it better myself.

The comment banter intrigues me and it is refreshing...many moons ago in my Poli-Sci Carleton University day...A rather rough Professer said " to be Political you need two people"...well this is sweet and I like it! ( My apologies to Dante Germino)sic

Albeit, this current topic is a Provincial Electoral process....our Country Canada's Population needs a wake up call; as it is woefully misrepresented when forming elected Governments; hence in my humble opinion I salute those that promote any form of change, MMP, STV,...the key is moving forward and promoting and explaining it to people....Dan hits the nail on the head on his prior post..... use the media/medium to promote electoral change in non-complicated terms to the POTENTIAL voters........