Single transferable vote for BC?

[jawnbc]

With little attention the BC Electoral Boundaries Commission released its report on new provincial ridings here in BC. Which I found interesting for a number of reasons. In our most recent provincial election (in 2005), a plebescite was held on whether or not to change how we elect MLAs (the provincial equivalent of MPs) out on the Wacky Wet Coast™. With neither the Liberals or NDP taking a clear public position on the matter, voters nonetheless almost voted for a new system.

What is particularly impressive about the result was the bar was set higher than usual in advance: at least 60% of all voters, with 50% or in support in at least 60% of the ridings (49 of 71), had to support the change for it go forward. in the end the vote was 57% in favour--with 77 of 79 districts supporting the measure by more than 50%. Both the "no" ridings were in Kamloops--but even there the split was 50.5/49.5 in both ridings. Of the 1,749,339 votes on the proposal, 1,049,604 were needed for it to pass. In the end 982,364 people voted yes.

The proposal was for a Single Tranferable Vote system, where voters rank candidates in order of preference while electing several MLAs as their representative. Existing ridings would be grouped into larger ridings of between 4 and 7 seats, each with a quota for winning a seat [(total # of valid votes cast/(#of MLAs +1))+1]. After everyone's first votes are allocated those who make the quota are awarded a seat; those candidates with the fewest preferences get dropped and the second choice of those voters are awarded those votes. The process continues until all seats in a riding are allocated. Theres a bit more to it, but this is pretty much the system used in Ireland. Unlike places like Australia, a person can choose to only preference as few as one candidate; in other words, no "preference trading" deals between parties that could circumvent the democratic process.

The Electoral Boundaries Commission was tasked to propose any riding changess in advance of a 2013 election. BC's population is both growing and becoming more and more urbanized. Rural parts of the province are losing population rapidly, while places like downtown Vancouver have nearly doubled in the last 10 years. The non-partisan Commission holds meetings, does research, crunches numbers and then makes recommendations. With an STV proposal on the ballot in 2009 (which both parties are claiming to support now), they also had to take into account what an STV electoral map would look like in 2013.

They proposed that the:

+Current first past the post system: increase to 81 ridings, by eliminating 3 and creating 5. Vancouver, Surrey, Kelowna, the Fraser Valley, and Burnaby/New West/Coquitlam would each gain a seat; the North, Cariboo-Thompson and Columbia-Kootenay would each lose one.

+STV system: proposed ridings into 20 ridings, which are really amalgamations from the 81 proposed for the current system.Vancouver would be 2 ridings, one with 5 MLAs the other 6. Three ridings in the far North would each have only 2 or 3 MLAs: most ridings would have 4, 5 or 6.

Voters could then rank candidates from several parties. Parties could choose to field a full slate of candidates or as few as one. Independents would also have a better chance of winning seats, as would minor parties like the Greens. It may also mean the end of majority governments--fine by me, make the bastards cooperate.

I find this all very exciting! I hope it comes through!

Comments

[moonhot97.livejournal.com]

My favourite is the New Zealand system, by which half the MPs are constituency ones elected by FPTP and the rest are elected by PR from a party list. You get two votes, one for your constituency MP and one for a party list, then each party gets enough list MPs to make them up to their national percentage of the list vote (though you need a minimum of 5% to count).

[siobhan63.livejournal.com]

I like this so much more than the MMP thing proposed for Ontario. Party lists just don't sit well will me.

[jawnbc]

I think the party list thing works better in a bicameral system, like Oz's: all Senate seats are awarded by party lists there sort of by default. Under their system you either rank/preference every single candidate, else you vote for one party only. And if that party is about to be dropped from the count-back, they can give your vote to whatever other party they made a deal with.

[bluebear2.livejournal.com]

I was all excited about the STV thing and was disapointed when it didn't go through before. It's so strange to think of increased democracy in this continent considering the past few years but we gotta have hope. And action.

[beardoc.livejournal.com]

Actually, in Australia, although you are encouraged to mark all candidates on the ballot paper, you are entitled to only mark as many boxes as you are comfortable with, and if you mark no further boxes and all your preferences are removed, your vote is then "exhausted". So if you were adamant that you didn't want to give your vote to a particular group of two or more parties, then you just don't give them a number.

This is functionally like the Canadian system that you mention. It was brought in to allow votes that have ambiguous preferencing (for example, they wrote "5" against two candidates on the paper) to still be valid up to the point that it becomes ambiguous.

I think these systems are very good systems. Although even more complicated systems like the proportional representation systems as well (like the Australian Senate or Tasmania's Parliament), unfortunately no-one knows the results of the elections for weeks afterwards on these ones!

[jawnbc]

Not according to the Aus Electoral Commission.

For the House of Representatives you must rank them all or the vote's invalid: http://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/How_to_vote/Voting_HOR.htm

for the Senate: either one party above the line or rank every candidate below the line. Else your ballot's not valid: http://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/How_to_vote/Voting_Senate.htm

Since nearly everyone votes above the line for the Senate, that's how preference trading happens. The directions are reiterated here: http://www.aec.gov.au/FAQs/Voting_Australia.htm#How%20do%20I%20mark%20my%20House%20of%20Representatives%20ballot%20paper%20correctly

Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings...

[beardoc.livejournal.com]

I just learnt something new here that was interesting. In the Australian Federal Elections, what I mentioned was valid up until the 1998 election, but was changed in the 1998 election.

It still exists as an Optional Preferential System in NSW and Queensland, which are the two states that I have lived in (when I lived in Canberra, it was Proportional Representation, and completely different).

http://www.aec.gov.au/pdf/research/papers/paper1/res_rep_01.pdf - take note of pages 2-3 and page 10.

And in the NSW Senate, it's possible to vote below the line for 16 people only (although I insist and mark every box - it was over 300 on the last state Senate ballot paper!).