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.