An Animated Explanation of STV

Here is a nifty flash cartoon that explains the proposed change to our voting system that we will be voting on in this election.


http://citizensassembly.bc.ca/resources/flash/bc-stv-full.swf
---------------------------
Not the way to go

By Richard Rolke - Vernon Morning StarPublished: May 05, 2009 7:00 PM

As someone who has followed politics for years, I know there are flaws to the first-past-the-post system. A government can be formed simply because it captured the most seats while the party that topped the popular vote is left on the sidelines. So the concept of reforming how we elect MLAs and governments is intriguing and something worth serious consideration. However, I am not convinced that the single transferable vote is the answer to our problems. First off, B.C. would go from 85 to 20 constituencies, which contradicts the concept of representation closer to the people. Looking at an STV map, some of the constituencies would be huge and not take into account common community interests. What does Quesnel have to do with Princeton or Trail with Golden? Right here at home, the North Okanagan’s two constituencies would be absorbed into a single area with Kelowna.

Yes we share the same geographical valley, water, highway and some industries, but there are also some significant differences between our more rural landscape and the urban mass to the south. The new Okanagan-Shuswap constituency would elect four MLAs, so who would a resident turn to for help — all of the politicians, the one they are more aligned with politically, or the official they believe will do what they want? While you may have not voted for the MLA under the first-past-the-post system, you at least know who to go to.

And perhaps my greatest fear is that all four MLAs will come from Kelowna and their activities will be focused on their home turf and not Vernon, Lumby, Armstrong and Enderby. Will they have a sense of who we are and what our needs are? There’s also the possibility that all four MLAs could be from the same party, so how would representation be improved? The other concern is the entire voting process under STV will be complicated. Voters will rank as many candidates as they wish in order of preference and those choices will be transfered through further rounds of counting until somebody rises to the top. Will people actually understand what has happened to their X once they have left the polling station?

It should also be pointed out that there could be 12 to 18 candidates on the ballot in a constituency like Okanagan-Shuswap. I have a hard enough time finding my Cheerios on the long, cluttered wall of cereal. How am I going to make an informed decision on something important like who will represent me when the ballot paper is as long as my arm? And as been seen before in civic elections, dozens of names on a ballot may look like democracy in action but voters have a difficult time getting to know the candidates and what they stand for, so they go for those with brand-name recognition. The election becomes a popularity contest and not one based on ideas. Proponents of STV are quick to point out that the system works well in a number of countries and that minority or coalition governments are common. Sure it may be successful in New Zealand and Switzerland but minorities are a fiasco in so many other places. Do we want to become the next Italy or Israel?

Ultimately, I am not married to first-past-the-post and another electoral system that is more open and democratic is welcome. But instead of endorsing STV May 12, I think B.C. needs to go back to the drawing board.