As a former member of the BC Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform, I remember listening to a presenter during one of our Consultation Phase public hearings. He said:

“Everyone can’t win an election. Someone wins and someone loses. That’s how it works.”

Old Style Democracy: The point of FPTP and MMP constituency elections is to find a single representative for all the voters in your geographic area, even if the MP doesn’t represent the point of view of 40% to 60% of the voters.

STV Democracy: The point of STV is to make sure that as many voters as possible actually have a representative that they want, and that every voter has an equal say in the laws and policies which affect them. This is a completely different concept. All voters win, not just those who vote for the plurality winner.

Representation doesn’t have to be only for those who vote for the single winning candidate in a district.

Democracy can, and should be available to all of us.

Equally.

Some Fun Things about STV

STV reduces “False Representation”.

On average in FPTP & MMP, about 50% of the voters in a local district don’t vote for the winning candidate. This results in constituency representatives that falsely represent half their voters. It means that only half of the people in every single-member district are actually getting “Local Representation”.

STV, by providing local proportionality and MPs who are each elected by the same number of voters, results in much less false representation and a significant increase in the number of voters who are actually represented in the way they would choose. The effectiveness of local representation increases everywhere with STV, including sparsely populated rural districts.

Multi-member districts make local proportionality possible. This ensures that several points of view will be represented from each district to Parliament. This is especially important in remote areas which aren’t very well understood in other parts of the country.

Even in large rural districts, adding three districts together makes it possible to add a significant component of local proportionality and dramatically reduce false representation.

Independents have a real chance to get elected.

In Ireland, almost 8% of their MPs are independents.

Well known local people can get elected, especially with “next preferences”. Extremist candidates will have difficulty getting elected because of the need for next preferences, which they’re unlikely to get due to their extremist nature.

This provides a practical way for MPs to dissent from their party’s policies and not commit political suicide at the same time. They will be able to leave their party and still get elected as an independent in the next election. They won’t have to go to another political party right away, if ever.

Communities have more than one point of view; they need more than one MP.

As a group, your local MPs will form a (formal or informal) “Local Caucus”, taking a basket of ideas from your district to Parliament. Communities are built by all of its members. To be successful, all of these ideas need to be expressed and heard, so that the policy that helps build and protect the entire community is chosen, rather than the policy that only serves a plurality of the voters.

This caucus will be able to forcefully represent local interests in both government and opposition.

Local, Multi-Party Caucuses may take a united stand on important local issues.

MPs from different parties, but from the same district, might come together and take a united stand on issues that are important to the local area; for instance, the closing of a hospital.

No more disappearing MPs.

During their term of office, it won’t be possible for your MP to just take off to Ottawa and re-appear, back in your riding in four years, for the next election.

When one MP goes back to the district to discuss issues in the local papers, or in public forums, the other MPs will have to scurry back to the district to get their faces in front of the voters. They are going to be discussing local issues. What they learn, they will take back to Ottawa.

Sometime, they’ll be cooperating on issues that are important to everyone in the district, sometimes not. But there will be a discussion about local issues, something that doesn’t happen now.

With Single-Member Districts (FPTP & MMP): There’s very little discussion during the term of office because there’s only one local MP. With MMP, the regional MPs will be spending time where it counts for them, with the party power brokers, not with the voters.

With Multi-Member Districts (STV): MPs are going to be in your neighbourhood, discussing issues, because they’ll be running their campaigns for the four years in between elections; not just in the few weeks before the election.

Getting things done with your MP.

If voters have a particular issue that needs to be addressed, there will usually be an MP from the government and MPs from opposition parties that they can go to. They can make their case to both sets of MPs.

With STV: Voters will almost always be able to find an MP who has a sympathetic ear, to address their concerns.

The STV counting system tries its best to make sure your highest preferences get elected.

STV doesn’t just look at your ballot, throw it in a pile and then forget about you.

Almost all voters in Canada would get representation they find acceptable in Parliament.

After stacking all the ballots up with the first preferences, the counting system picks up your ballot and ask how you would like to proceed.

If your candidate has received twice the votes she needs, the counting system uses only the amount of your vote needed to elect your candidate, freeing up a portion of your vote to help elect subsequent preferences. In this way, your vote is not wasted and you don’t have to vote strategically.

If your first choice doesn’t stand a chance of winning, the counting system will ask who your next preference is, and your vote will be transferred to that candidate.

This counting process continues until all the seats are filled and the most preferred candidates in the district are elected.

Because STV electoral districts have multiple-members, even if your ballot gets stuck on a candidate who can’t get elected, it’s reasonable to assume that you will have an MP available to represent you from a party that reflects your point of view, and that you can support.

The STV counting system is more involved than that of FPTP’s and MMP’s. However, the added care and attention given to your ballot is worth the extra algebra that a computer handles so easily. You don’t have to know exactly how your car works to drive it 100 k/hr down the highway.

Strategic Voting – Not needed.

The best strategy for a voter, is to vote honestly, because strategic voting doesn’t work in STV. There is no strategic voting except to vote for your first preference first, your second preference next and not actually voting for someone who you don’t want to get elected. Strategic voting is difficult and prone to errors because it requires you to know how your neighbours are going to vote, in advance.

There will be more female candidates and a greater diversity of candidates.

Political parties can’t do the same thing that happens in single-member districts right now, where they put up the most likely person they think will win; who too often happens to look like a middle aged white guy. They’re going to have to put up more people from diverse backgrounds and more women, or they will lose votes.

Multi-member districts make it possible for political parties to adopt voluntary quotas, or for Parliament to require a quota.

STV reduces systematic discrimination against women and others, in all districts, for all candidates.

Female candidates won’t be stuck in districts in which they don’t stand a chance of winning. They’ll be running in all districts, where they actually can get elected, without the need for closed zippered lists.

STV doesn’t discriminate like FPTP & MMP against women and others who want to become constituency or government MLAs.

Because MMP systems retain the single-member constituency districts, they also retain the discrimination that single-member districts create. Most government members come from MMP constituency seats. This combination hurts women. The women MMP adds will likely end up in opposition.

In STV’s multi-member districts, the major parties will have the greatest requirement to provide diversity in each district. They will also be the most likely to form government. This helps women to get into government and into Cabinet.

Under STV: All MPs are the same type. All STV MPs from each province will represent essentially the same number of voters. All STV MPs are elected using the same electoral system. All STV MPs are equal.

STV creates the possibility of different kinds of constituencies.

Right now, constituencies are just geographic. With STV, there can be different types of constituencies. They might relate to the environment, the arts, health care, cultural relations, social or business issues. If women’s representation is important to a voter, they can select all women, from different parties, or even zipper their own vote.

Instead of portraying yourself as a one dimensional, right-wing or left-wing person to the voting system, voters can portray themselves in a multi-dimensional way.

For instance, a person might portray himself, or herself, as fiscally conservative first, an environmentalist second, socially progressive third, and a health care advocate fourth. These preferences can either be with one party, or across party lines.

This multi-dimensional sketch of who you are will be put on your ballot and then counted. The counting system will take this into account when it counts your ballot.

“Next Preference Votes” are important and will be sought out by most candidates.

This means that there will be a tendency to avoid attack ads and confrontational election campaigns which will turn off voters whose second preferences a candidate needs. Candidates will have to rely on issues more than smear tactics.

Extremist candidates, who cannot gain second preferences, will find it more difficult to get elected.

More stable investment climate.

With reduced severity of policy swings, home grown and external investors will have less risk and will be more willing to invest in Canada. Unpredictable changes of business, labour, resource, and manufacturing regulations scare away investment.

When a government uses incentives to attract investment and then those programs are discontinued by the next government, jobs leave the country.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Because the Prime Minister will have to reach across party lines for support, and there will often be more than one party represented in Cabinet, it will be less likely that ill considered ideas that pop into the Prime Minister’s head will actually see the light of day.

There will be someone else in the room to add balance to the decision making process.

Through coalition governments and increased MP accountability, STV will tend to reduce the power of the Prime Minister’s office and the political parties in determining what government and party policy will be.

This power to influence policy will tend to devolve to MPs and to Parliament, where increased levels of discussion and deliberation can lead to better policy development.

Fewer “Follow the Leader” politicians.

With coalition governments, there will often be at least two party leaders who will have to discuss and agree on policy. This will be a much better environment for discussion and deliberative policy making, much better than just following the Premier’s unconsidered whim.

Parties will retain strength to provide structure to political system.

Political parties will still remain strong, continuing to provide a useful structure to our political system and culture. However, they will have to be more in touch with the voters.

Political parties will lose some power, especially around the final candidate selection process, but even this will allow the parties to clear out the dead wood, with help from the voters. This will actually help the parties.

If a party is to remain dynamic and relevant, and in power, it will need to change with the times. Unfortunately, it may be difficult, within a party, to get rid of powerful people who are holding the party back. The voters can help the parties in this rejuvenation processes.

More dynamic political parties will lead to a nimbler policy development process which is important in a rapidly changing world.

MPs will have more power.

MPs run for office because they want to work constructively for their communities, but find, once they’re elected, that their ability to make a difference is curtailed by party and government pressures.

MPs will be under increased pressure by the electorate to perform for them. All MPs will have to be more forceful within their party. As a result, party policy will be modified by MPs to better reflect voter’s values and desires, rather than the thoughts of a few back room party officials or their party leaders. Giving voters more power will force MPs to stand up for themselves and their constituents.

Voters will have more power.

When voters have more power, MPs will demand more power within their political parties and in Parliament.

STV is simple to use.

STV is different and it’s new to us. But we learn about new things all the time. Microsoft is bringing out a new operating system. We will all learn how to use it. Most of us have figured out how to use cell phones. We don’t have to know exactly how a compressor works to use a fridge. I have no idea what’s under the hood of my car, but I am comfortable driving 110 k/hr down the highway, in the rain.

People who want to keep our current system, or who prefer a system which keeps power in the hands of the political parties (MMP & FPTP), often characterize STV as too complicated. These are usually clever people who are being disingenuous. They are using fear to accomplish political goals.

Those who prefer plurality systems have been critical of STV. They will also be critical of MMP.

If people in Ireland, Malta and Australia can understand and use STV, people in Canada certainly can.

Preference voting is simpler to use than plurality voting because you don’t have to figure out how to vote effectively and accurately in a strategic way. STV is a simpler system to understand than MMP.

Neither STV nor MMP are too complicated to understand. However, if you think MMP is straight forward, take a look at the Ontario Citizens’ Assembly Submission # 1249. MMP is definitely not simple.

Building an MMP system is very difficult. How easy will it be to explain it to voters?

An STV system can be designed in a morning. It will be easy to explain to voters.

If you think FPTP is straight forward, try to explain how a party that doesn’t get the most votes can form a majority government and why that’s acceptable. STV will increase voter turn out.

Without the need to vote strategically, voters will better know who to vote for, to get their desired result.

Preference voting accurately reflects how we normally think about things. This is my favorite, this is my next choice, and that is last. We do it all the time. It makes more sense to us than plurality voting.

When you know your vote won’t be wasted and that you’ll actually elect someone, you’ll be more likely vote.

Democracy is served when more of us vote. This will happen when we expect, and actually get, the representatives we voted for.