Single transferable vote

[jawnbc]

huladavid asked me to explain Single Transferable Vote (or STV). Happy to!

During our last (2005) provinicial election, British Columbians were asked to vote on a proposed change to the existing first-past-the-post (whoever gets the most votes in a riding wins, even if they only secure a minority of the overall vote). The system proposed was selected by Citizen's Assembly on Electoral Reform. The Assembly--which was not stacked with political appointees, or even politicians--examined various electoral systems around the world, held consultations across the province, and worked together to propose BC's new system.

It's worth noting that the requirement for passage in 2005 was unusually high: 60% or higher support province-wide, and 50% or more in at least 60% of the ridings province-wide.

We got 57.7% province wide, and a majority in all but 2 ridings (77 of 79). And this was with viritually no public debate. In fact, both major parties in BC (Liberals and NDP) refused to take a position. Many expect this willl pass next time around. I plan on campaigning for it vigorously.

BC Electoral Districts: Now and Under STV
Their proposal meant that allocations of seats across the province would remain the same. But these would be bundled with adjacent seats, allowing citizens to vote for several MLA (Member of the Legislative Assembly, our "state representatives" basically) at a time. Let's use where I live, Vancouver, as an example:

+Starting with our 2013 provincial election, there will be 14 seats in the City of Vancouver. I will be residing in the seat Vancouver-West End
+Vancouver West-End will exist, but it will be bundled with 6 other seats on the West Side of Vancouver
+I will be able to vote for 7 MLAs rather than one--if I wish




With me so far? Good. Now let's talk about how I will vote under STV

One, some or all
Under the proposed system I will be able to vote:

+Exactly the same I have always: for one candidate only
+Rank every single candidate in those 7 seats from my favourite to my most loathed
+Rank only the candidates I like, ignoring the rest

Propotional systems in places (Australia is an example) aren't this flexible. In Oz, I either rank all Senate candidates in my state or I give one vote to my preferred party. I don't have the option of voting for just one candidate or for ranking only some: it's all candidates or one party. Period.

So that's how to vote. How are they counted?

Bottoms up
Each ballot is entered as data and all the first preferences--the first candidate listed on each ballot (or the only candidate if I voted for just the one--is given a vote. The threshold for winning a seat is usually total number of votes cast divided by number of seats plus 1 V/S + 1. So any candidates that cross that threshold win a seat. They're done.

O+f the candidates, the one with the lowest number of votes gets dropped. Now, every ballot that had that candidate first is redistributed to that voter's second ranked candidate (or the vote goes dead of there are no other preferences).

+Everyone who had the first seat winner as their first choice now gets their second preferenced vote distributed at about a .5 value.

+Anyone new candidate(s) cross the threshhold? They're in!

The process continues until all seats are allocated.

Why this is awesome
We had our national leaders' debate on Thursday. I was impressed with the Greens' Elizabeth May and the Liberals' Stéphane Dion. But I hate my local MP, Liberal Hedy Fry. The Greens don't have nearly enough support to win my seat, so I don't want to "waste" my vote on them.

But under STV I could preference my preferred party for, say the first 3 places. Then I could put a Green, then a Liberal. I could even put an Independent. So I get to spread my support around a bit. Under STV minor parties will almost certainly start winning seats, which remains elusive under our current system.

STV will reduce the likelihood that a party could win a "majority" of the seats in BC with less than 50% of the popuarl vote--something that happens all the friggin' time. It will also mean coalition and minority governments will be the norm, so the huge pendulum of ideological differences we experience in BC will have to be tempered with cooperation across party lines. It will make for a messier legislative process--but I think consensus is preferable to fiefdom.

Is it perfect? Probably not. But I've not seen a better system.

Comments

[greytweed.livejournal.com]

I genuinely envy you your political system.

[jawnbc]

I genuinely envy your hawtness, so we're even.

[greytweed.livejournal.com]

As Laura Dern would say, you're hotter than Georgia asphalt, Dr. Jawn. So there! ;-P

[jeneration.livejournal.com]

Not everywhere in Australia is the same when it comes to voting. In Queensland state elections, the voting is optional preferential (you can just vote 1, or you can preference as far as you feel like down the list). I'm not entirely sure how this differs from STV.

In slightly related news, STV just fell over the line to win the referendum just held on the method to elect Wellington City Council. Given that almost all current councillors were campaigning against it, I'm relieved.

[jawnbc]

Well I did say the Australian Senate....... :)

[jeneration.livejournal.com]

OK, I officially fail reading comprehension.
*holds hand out for smack*

How does STV differ from Optional Preferential? Is it to do with the way the ballots are distributed?

[huladavid.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the info. I may be doing an article on Instant Runoff--which Minneapolis will switch to next year--and now I'll be able to sound all smart and everything!

[jawnbc]

You already do

[bluebear2.livejournal.com]

Spiffy. I hope it happens this time. It will mean the old farts will have to take ideas from new parties that will pop up around issues but that's good.
I think cooperating will be tough for some of the old type politicians but they'll all die off eventually and the relatively younger folks will be able to finally have some say in things.


I agree that the Green Party is so needed but when it might mean that Harper gets in again or (Yikes!) gets a majority then it's too risky to vote for them IMO. It ends up who writes the questions for the opinion polls that have the biggest influence if the whole country is voting strategically. This Harper guy is so unpopular in this country and Canadians are ready to throw him out but just how?

What's the criteria?

[wrascalism.livejournal.com]

+I will be able to vote for 7 MLAs rather than one--if I wish.

I have to wonder how the bundling of seats would be distributed. Living here in Port Moody-Westwood, I could potentially be voting for candidates as far away as Mission. Do the other ridings have to share a border with PM-W or you just pick a n/s/e/w and keep going?

If that were the case voters in Vancouver-West End could also be voting for candidates in West Vancouver-Capilano and Burnaby North. Considering that voters tend to concentrate on party leaders and not especially local candidates why wouldn't they vote a straight party line across 7 seats? It takes no effort and the matter is done with, time to go to a movie.

Given that scenario I don't see how it would benefit smaller parties, like the "Work Less Party" unless there were conditions that the voter could not vote for more than 4 MLAs of the same party and the remaining 3 had to be from other parties, just as an example.

I think we need a practice election just to see how it would work out.

Re: What's the criteria?

[jawnbc]

Adjacent ridings only. Details here. Yours would be:

+Port Moody-Coquitlam
+Coq-Maillardville
+Coq-Burke Mountain
+POCO

Some would choose to put all their support for their preferred party. Great. Others won't. But almost everyone I talk to would like to have some Greens in Parliament. The Sex Party probably won't get that support.

Of course nothing is guaranteed. But the current system is fooked.

Re: What's the criteria?

[wrascalism.livejournal.com]

The nature of any political system is that we get fooked either way!

Otherwise...
How you doing?

Re: What's the criteria?

[realrep.livejournal.com]

To get a feel for how STV works, try the Demochoice virtual STV election at http://bc.demochoice.org. It's still showing the 2005 simulated election, but check back early next year for the 2009 one.

The proposed STV boundaries are shown at the Electoral Boundaries Commission website: http://www.bc-ebc.ca/final_report/regions_bc-stv/lower_mainland. Port Moody is part of the Tri-Cities district which includes Port Moody, PoCo and Coquitlam, electing four MLAs. The EBC opted to simply join together several single member ridings. The North Shore will be its own STV district - no overlap with Vancouver or Burnaby.

STV benefits small parties because an MLA gets elected if they win a certain number of votes - about 20,000 on average in BC's model. In the Tri-Cities, voters were pretty evenly divided between the Liberals and the NDP (both at about 45% support), so STV would probably lead to 2 Liberals and 2 NDP MLAs being elected there, but voters would get to choose which candidates from each party get elected, so there are no safe seats - voters get to compare incumbents to other candidates from the same party. A smaller party like the Greens could win a seat there if about 20% of the Tri-Cities voters support them, either as their first choice, or as a backup if their higher choices don't get elected. The Work Less Party would need to have considerably more support than they now have to get elected.

[pythagorarse.livejournal.com]

STV was first used in Australia. Tasmania to be precise. I grew up with it and we were taught how it worked in primary (elementary) school. It is certainly a little complicated but I understood back when I was 11 so it's not that hard.

[jawnbc]

Ja mon, but you're a mathemagician.