More on STV...

I finally got a response! Hooray!!!


Anonymous wrote:
Hi, New to the forum, and relatively new to the issue and debate... I count myself as 'undecided' but leaning towards being a 'yes' vote. I feel as though there are a lot of elements of the issue I still need answered for myself. I am concerned by the huge numbers of people who know very little about it. I have been vaguely aware of the referendum for... I don't know how long - ages. But the specifics have not been well distributed - despite the CA report being delievered to every household. In the three days it has been since I took it upon myself to figure out what the details are I have also taken it upon myself to talk to as many of my friends and peers as I can to discuss the merits and problems with the proposed system. I have yet to have a single person be able to talk about it straight up. Most have needed to be directed to information explaining the proposed system and in a few cases the response has been the equivalent of "There's a referendum?" At this point I am more concerned by the lack of awareness (let alone understanding) than I am by any declared weaknesses in the STV voting system. Actually so am I. One of the main reasons I set this site up was to get more open debate about it, rather than simple cheerleading or denunciations even the more 'informed' public has so far received. Short time line of seven months after year long committee may have been another of the CA's weaknesses, but can't blame members for that either.
Quote:
So... on to other concerns... Playing devil's advocate here. All possible weaknesses aside, it seems to me that the detractors are regularly leaving out a significant piece of information that makes all forseeable and unforseeable consequences less dire. If the referendum passes favourably then we are committing to three elections under the STV system. 12-16 years maximum, depending on how you count it. By which time, the advantages and disadvantages of STV politics will have been given a good opportunity to show themselves in practice. Yes, there are several examples of how the system works in other democracies. It is fair to assume that the results will be similar. But similar is not the same. We will really only know exactly how the system works for British Columbia by putting it to the test. Having said that, I must admit that I would like to be reasonably assured that we're onto an idea that has SOME merit. Now, am I misunderstanding circumstances? If STV is a dismal failure, are we really stuck with it? The way I read the circumstances, we are at the very least going to have an opportunity to ammend the system. I appreciate your approaching this with an open mind. This is an essential question I should get into further. After a lot of waffling back and forth, what finally decided me to actively campaign against BC-STV is the fact that CA members, I'd been discussing and debating this with elsewhere, seemed quite happy to stick with STV (which is a bit much for an MMP supporter being asked to support this in hopes of further reform) and three more elections minimum before even a 'review' is considered is just too much time lost to me. Proponents often argue that electoral reform is either 'dead' permanently, if STV fails now, or will be at least a couple elections before it gets back onto the table, complaining that would be too much for them...well. But, voting for STV will, again, mean a guaranteed delay of several more elections (and who knows what politically, in the meantime) while already present disatisfaction with SMP/FPTP will likely ensure the issue will stay very much alive. Carole James has recently reaffirmed the BC NDP's support for ER, whatever happens this referendum, and the Greens and other smaller parties will also continue pushing for it, as will a lot of people like myself.
Quote:
The report by the CA paints STV as such a positive point of change that it comes across as a no-brainer... which ought to be a red-flag for any cynic. Certainly my inital response was that it sounded too good to be true - I figured that Senator Palpatine had to be waiting somewhere in the wings. I can't deny that the report's various broad claims such as that it will improve local accountability and deter partisan obediance are specious, but so far I have yet to find an argument against it that amounts to more than an equally specious 'Oh no it won't!' I'm afraid some of arguments against it haven't been well put either, true enough, too unfocused to begin with for sure. STV of differents formats apparently means different results in different places at different times, and too many people too often just choose the examples that best suite their own arguments. (except for ME, of course! ) How it would play out in BC can't be predicted for sure, but again, it's really up to proponents and CA members, who have supposedly studied this in depth, to demonstrate why we should take the risk of supporting a new and barely tried system with mixed results, why these benefits are in fact likely in BC, and why these would in fact be beneficial. And if they still can't, then what was their decision really based on...? I personally believe that corruption is more likely among candidates who are running mostly for and by themselves, or for a particular locale alone (and I suspect historical records would tend to show that) and have less reason to conform to party discipline and platforms. So the theory goes, that is. Ireland OTOH indicates that party discipline could become even more rigorous in other ways to compensate, so it may again depend on how parties again approach this. Another thing that I don't like about it, adding yet another level for parties to manipulate results....though I'm sure propenents would dispute that too. = Mostly I don't like this approach because I want to have an decent idea what members actually stand for, something they can always lie about in any system but which there is at least a general party position now to call them to account on. My support for all forms of PR was originally conditional on some effective nomination process for grassroots members. (yet another issue)
Quote:
The system is rather confusing on the surface. The complexity of the formulae is rather exaggerated. There is no way that the public as a whole is going to wrap their heads around the mechanics of it until it is in use. That is unfortunate, but I doubt that a system could be proposed which wouldn't ultimately suffer the same problem. This has more to do with the intellectual laziness of humanity as a greater whole than the 'X times Y plus ones' of it. Hate it all you like, it's a probelm that will only be avoided by sticking with the current system, or by adopting an even more basic solution, both of which have myriad problems of their own. Despite what others say STV is much more complex than others in ways that really count, and, though the basic idea of it can understood by most with use, I don't believe the myriad of possible outcomes can be predicted and therefore elections themselves become far more difficult to predict, which is a real potential problem when we have a system that will demand more than ever from parties on how to alocate their resources. It's fashionable to trash parties nowadays (often for good reason, yes) but this shouldn't be the basis on which their effectiveness should be judged or elections decided. Also an added problem for voters like me trying to guess who best to support in my much expanded 'constituency'. Don't think that's an exaggerated concern on our part.
Quote:
Another major argument against STV that I'm having trouble buying is that it fails to provide effective proportional representation. Actually, let me rephrase that. I believe I see exactly how it can fail to provide effective proportional representation, but I look at the representation currently in the Legislature and have to wonder how staying with the FPTP system does a better job? The claims in the report that show the Marijuana Party managing to procure a seat are dubious - particularly considering that the sampling votes that it was based upon (the last election) didn't include second voting preferences, let alone third and further. But it seems to me that a greater balance between the established parties would be all but inevitable, and while that may not be the ultimately desired outcome, it is better that what is in place.I really don't know if that's true though, and as I've argued before, I don't know that voting STV will bring about more truly proportional systems sooner, I doubt it for a variety of reasons. The issue isn't the Marijuana Party or whoever, but whether a PR system should have such high minimum thresholds, and how such high thresholds could effect the political balance. Unless or until all party structure starts to fragment further, BC-STV would mean a three party system which would either give a structural advantage to one end of the political spectrum or another, depending on which way the third party shifts, or it gives the lucky third party a huge amount of bargaining power over its coalition partners, by virtue of nothing more than being in the enviable position to negotiate with either front runners as sole arbiters or 'king makers'. That is the opposite of 'proportional' in my opinion, danger to all PR system but particularly with this form.
Quote:
I could give creedence to the argument that STV should be voted down because passing it would give value to the process of the CA and simply encourage further usage of it as a political process and further wasting tax-payer's money. But I don't hear anyone making that claim. Interesting angle, some might be making that argument amongst friends, but doubt it would win many others over. Citizens' Assemblies aren't wrong because of cost or even in principle IMO, this particular process was just flawed the way it was set up and therefore came to a flawed decision -in my opinion, yes.
Quote:
I still feel unconvinced in either direction, but if I were voting tomorrow, I would be voting 'yes' as it seems to me that while the proposed system does leave something to be desired, staying put is likely to solve less. We can not make improvements if we don't make changes, and we will NEVER make a change that solves all the problems at once, our best bet is to make an educated guess and take a leap of faith, see how it sizes up, and make further tweaks from there. I currently believe that the educated guess that has been tabled is relatively sound, but I'm feeling tentative. David Schreck's claim that if we're feeling uncertain we should vote 'no' falls apart for me in the face of the term for review after three elections. Am I missing something? Please, I'd rather feel confident in my choice and the in the arguments I will be making in the next ten days with my friends and peers.Hope that helps a bit but up to you of course. Either way you decide I appreciate your intelligent questions, if you want to discuss this further please do. Raised some valid points that should be considered more.


Next... my response in return.