Single Transferable Vote vs First Past the Post

[Chronos]

Erm, for all intents and purposes STV vs FPTP is Proportional Representation versus the lack thereof. That’s sort of the main argument for STV.

I think I may have been misinterpreting STV: Could one or could one not apply STV to a single race where there’s only one winner? Because you really can’t get proportional representation in a single race.

[Cunctator]

@The_Flying_Dutchman

But this system is absolutely computer dependant and I suspect an auditing nightmare.

STV has been in use in Australia since long before the advent of computers. They make the count more efficient, certainly. They’re not a necessity.

[Captain_Amazing]

@Chronos

I think I may have been misinterpreting STV: Could one or could one not apply STV to a single race where there’s only one winner?

Sure. Then it’s similar to instant runoff.

[foolsguinea]

@Aspidistra

I don’t regard the “least worst candidate” as a problem. I’d far rather have a candidate 60% of the population kinda sorta liked that one 30% worshipped and the other 70% thought was an incarnation of Satan.

This. I would definitely go for STV.

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

@Attack_from_the_3rd_dimension

The more I think about it, the more I think this would work to the advantage of the more fragmented left in BC (Liberals / NDP / Green) than the more monolithic right (Conservatives).

How long have you lived in B.C. ?

The Liberals are left ?

They are at best centrist, with much of their membership taken from the old right wing Socreds.

And the Conservatives are monolithic ?

Hell, they are only fielding 24 out of 85 candidates, and the other right wing parties, WCC, Libertarian, BC Reform are fielding a combined total of 11 candidates.

What I’m saying is that in B.C. the option for small c conservatives is the Liberals .

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

@foolsguinea

This. I would definitely go for STV.

Seems to me that to solve your concern, “first past the post” would never allow the 70% Satan incarnate an office.

[Cunctator]

@The_Flying_Dutchman

Seems to me that to solve your concern, “first past the post” would never allow the 70% Satan incarnate an office.

It would if the 70% split their votes across the remaining candidates. Suppose the results are:

Satan incarnate 30%
Other candidate B 25%
Other candidate C 20%
Other candidate D 15%
Other candidate E 10%

A first post the post count would give victory to Satan incarnate.

[Laudenum]

@The_Flying_Dutchman

What ? They don’t have computers in Ireland ?

Your STV may not be exactly the same as what is proposed for British Columbia. Simple elimination rounds transfering the votes of the bottom candidates to second or subsequent choices until the full complement of seats are determined is easy enough.

But when your top choice in round one comes in at No 1 with an excess of say40,000 votes over the N0 2 who got 20,000 votes, here in BC it is proposed you get a second chance with a vote worth 0.66666666666666666666… votes for your second choice.

Suppose your second choice wins by say 20,000.666666666666… votes over the runner up who has 10,000 votes?

What is the value of your vote in the third round ?

We do it with paper:)

And its’ not possible under PR-STV to have someone win by less than one vote.

[foolsguinea]

@ruadh

Well, that’s the argument in favour of it. But there is at least potentially a problem with it if, for example, that 30% cannot be effectively represented by any of the candidates elected.

Consider the West Belfast constituency in the Northern Assembly. There are six seats, and in the 2007 elections all six went to nationalist candidates - although the sixth actually received fewer first preference votes than one of the unionist candidates had. This is, of course, because voting patterns are highly sectarian in the North and nationalist voters don’t transfer to unionist candidates and vice versa. But unionists in West Belfast, of whom there is a significant minority, understandably feel that the STV system has denied them representation in the Assembly. A first past the post system would have allowed the unionist candidate to take the last seat.

Obviously this is less of an issue in places where the electorate is less polarised, but arguably the more polarised an electorate is, the more important it is for that 30% to have their representation.

Um, in FPTP as practiced in the USA & UK, the unionist would not get in at all. Are you thinking of SNTV?

[foolsguinea]

@Attack_from_the_3rd_dimension

Incidentally, this electionsBC site (http://www3.elections.bc.ca/index.php/can/polparties/regpolparties/) shows all the many many parties in BC, to include the Sex Party, the Work Less Party and* the Party Of Citizens Who Have Decided To Think For Themselves And Be Their Own Politicians*.

I never thought the Marijuana party would look so staid and middle of the road.

Well, it is BC.

I am so forming a Missouri chapter of* the Party Of Citizens Who Have Decided To Think For Themselves And Be Their Own Politicians*.

[foolsguinea]

@The_Flying_Dutchman

Oh, since this involves computer calculations, it is possible that a candidate gets in with a plurality of less than one vote.

So what? It’s not especially likely; I’m not sure it’s technically possible with Droop ratio; & even if it happens, is there a big difference between winning by 0.4% of a vote or winning by one vote out of millions?

[Attack_from_the_3rd_dimension]

@foolsguinea

Well, it is BC.

I am so forming a Missouri chapter of* the Party Of Citizens Who Have Decided To Think For Themselves And Be Their Own Politicians*.

I just want a Work Less Party* t-shirt. And yet, for some reason, they don’t have any.

*Funny story- when I went to vote 6 months ago, the WLP was supposed to have an observer at the polling station, yet they hadn’t shown up. The jokes just write themselves. Ms. Attack wanted to go out and put commas on their lawn signs, but…there weren’t any.

[Attack_from_the_3rd_dimension]

@The_Flying_Dutchman

How long have you lived in B.C. ?

The Liberals are left ?

They are at best centrist, with much of their membership taken from the old right wing Socreds.

And the Conservatives are monolithic ?

Hell, they are only fielding 24 out of 85 candidates, and the other right wing parties, WCC, Libertarian, BC Reform are fielding a combined total of 11 candidates.

What I’m saying is that in B.C. the option for small c conservatives is the Liberals .

First: The real question is how long have I lived in Canada. I’m an immigrant and by the standards of my homeland, (the US) the whole freaking country is to the left.

Second: I’m not convinced that regional parties fit into a Liberal-Conservative axis. I was looking at the BC Refederation website, and don’t quite get how they would fit.

Third:
Right Fringe-
Libertarian 6
BC Reform 4
WCC 1

The Right-
Conservative 24

The Centre - Or the Centre Left or the Centre right, depending on your opinion
Liberals 91

The Left:
NDP 85
Green 89

The Left and Crazy Fringe:
Peoples Front 5
Communist 3
Work Less 2
Sex 3
etc. (I got bored around the YPP)

So I would call that a small, but monolithic right and large but fragmented left. Voting for STV would seem to help the left more than the right at this time.

[ruadh]

@foolsguinea

Um, in FPTP as practiced in the USA & UK, the unionist would not get in at all. Are you thinking of SNTV?

In a multi-seat constituency, SNTV = FPTP.

[DWMarch]

Vote for STV unless you want another God knows how many years of the Liberals ruling unchecked until brought down by scandal followed by the NDP ruling unchecked until brought down by scandal followed by Liberals ruling unchecked until… etc.

Although I’m supporting STV (mostly because it’s the less boring option) I don’t buy the argument that votes are wasted in FPTP. Statistics have been twisted to show that if you piled all the votes together for a particular party, they would have won but because the votes are all spread out they lost. Well no shit. I’m sure if you piled together everyone’s wasted ballots you’d have a pile big enough to get to the moon. That doesn’t make it a good way to get there!

However, the best argument for STV is this: I know we have short political memories sometimes but does no one remember the Liberals vigorously raping BC when they took 77 of 79 legislature seats? Now think of the same thing happening with the winning party being the NDP. Scared yet? Vote for STV!

[Hypnagogic_Jerk]

For those interested in electoral reform and electoral systems, I would recommend the excellent blog Fruits & Votes. The blogger Matthew Shugart does have his biases, being a leftist and a proponent of proportional representation, but the discussion over there is of a very high level and advantages and disadvantages of various systems are often discussed. There is of course a section about British Columbia.

Personally I would favour STV, but I’m of the opinion that greater diversity of opinion in a legislature is always a good idea, even if it’s at the expense of majority governments. I don’t know much about BC politics, but from this thread I understand the Liberals, NDP and Greens are the main parties, but the Greens currently have no MLA. If the current system were STV, those three parties would probably be represented in the Legislative Assembly and none would have a majority. Given Canada’s political culture, this would probably lead to a minority government, which I believe is usually a good thing. I don’t expect that it would lead to coalition governments for now as they are not common in Canada and the whole debate about whether they are constitutional and legitimate just divided the country a few months ago.

And if BC votes for STV, electoral reform may spread to the other provinces. We should be discussing it more.

@The Flying Dutchman

Sound beautiful to a mathemetican I suppose.

There you have it.

@DWMarch

Although I’m supporting STV (mostly because it’s the less boring option) I don’t buy the argument that votes are wasted in FPTP.

Votes are said to be wasted under FPTP because of the way “waste” is being defined. If you get 15,000 votes while your closest opponent got 9,999, five thousand people who voted for you “wasted” their vote and might as well have stayed home. And it’s quite possible that in this situation people actually do stay home and bring the participation rate down. (Whether that’s actually a bad thing is of course a matter of debate.)

[An_Gadai]

Computers and voting don’t mix in Ireland.

[DWMarch]

Well, I guess this discussion is pretty moot anyhow as we’ve decided to stick with the status quo here.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/bcvotes2009/story/2009/05/12/bc-election-stv.html

[Attack_from_the_3rd_dimension]

I voted for STV. Thanks for all the discussion, guys.

[Martini_Enfield]

I’m glad you guys in BC decided to stay with First-Past-The-Post. I’m very much against Preferential Voting (the system we have here).

The way I see it, if I vote for The Silly Party, then they’re the only people I want to give my vote to. If I wanted to vote for The Serious Party or The Ambivalent Party I’d have voted for them. I don’t appreciate The Silly Party taking my vote, not winning a seat, and then using their “Preferences” to give votes to The Cat Hating Party because of some complicated backroom deal.

MMP (The NZ system) does have the advantage of breaking some of the Labour/National stronghold on the Government, but it also leaves the balance of power with Tree Huggers, Extreme Religious Fundies, Special/Minority Interest Groups, and other people who shouldn’t be represented in Parliament.