This is an interesting try out of BC-STV as it applies to a hypothetical result for the constituency of North Vancouver. I encourage all bloggers to continue to engage in the First Past the Post/BC-STV debate and education of this issue. Below are the reults so far at http://www.trystv.ca/ Please give the voting system a try at the link below.
Happy Voting!
http://www.trystv.ca/
Final Round
20.1%
Jim Stephenson (Green)
55
(20.1%)
Ralph Sultan (Liberal)
82
(29.9%)
David Marley (Indep)
48
(17.7%)
Janice Harris (NDP)
55
(20.1%)
None of these
34
(12.3%)
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Try BC - STV for the Constituency of North Vancouver
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
33 opinions/comments:
John, I tried that website, and is it not a "live" demo?
I voted for Jane Thornthwaite as my first choice, and Ralph Sultan 2nd... but it gave my vote to Sultan? My previous understanding of STV is that my vote would go to my first choice if they needed it... so why didn't it go to Jane?
I'm afraid that all this "demo" did was to show me that I don't understand the system and that NV Seymour won't get any representation at all! :(
That's pretty much it. We'd end up with three candidates that live in West Van, and one in upper lonsdale...
My community gets screwed.
So, voting only for conservatives (where is the Sex Party, the Workless Party, the Marijuana Party), I got this message:" In the final round of this tally, your vote counted for:
None of the remaining candidates "
Go figure.
STV is supposed to make every vote count. Clearly it doesn't.
Dennis Bevington
PS I only voted for three, ranking them 1,2,4. The system presumed to rerank them making them 1,2,3. What presumption!
I tried it - got 2 of my 4 choices - my 1st and 4th.
If this is indicative of what to expect then I shall CERTAINLY be voting for the status quo and encouraging my friends to do likewise.
I don't think anyone fully understands how STV will play out, and that's before strategic voting interests are thrown into the mix.
Seems pretty clear the current system is not broke enough to throw the switch over to this system.
Here are the newest results from the site:
Final Round Results:
Jim Stephenson (Green) 63 (20.2%)
Ralph Sultan (Liberal) 77 (24.8%)
Janice Harris (NDP) 63 (20.2%)
Joan McIntyre (Liberal) 54 (17.4%)
None of these 54 (17.4%)
Seems to me like its ideologically pretty representative of North Vancouver - but the key thing to keep in mind here is that THIS IS NOT WHAT THE RESULTS OF AN STV ELECTION WOULD BE. It is the results of an STV election if the 300 random people who have used this site were the only ones who had voted. That is obviously not how things would work in reality.
RePete, what will have happened is that your vote counted for Ms. Thornthwaite until she was dropped out because she was the lowest in that particular round and no candidate had a surplus over the quota to redistribute. That may sound a little complex, but all you need to remember is that your first choice counts until that candidate is either elected, or is at the bottom, at which point instead of becoming useless as it would in FPTP, your vote turns into your second preference.
Of course, if you choose to only rank a selection and not every candidate, than it is possible that all of your choices will be dropped if every one is at the bottom in a particular round. But this would require to only have supported candidates with very low levels of support. It's a tiny percentage of voters.
So, to recap, the easiest way to understand the preferential ballot in BC-STV is that your first choice counts until that candidate can't use it (elected or knocked out) than your second choice is used, and so on. It means that in every round nearly every single voter has a say. The way I conceptualize the rounds is that each round is similar to its own FPTP election, which then either elects or knocks out a candidate, and the enxt round is like what that election would have been like, had that missing candidate not run, because that candidates voters next preferences are used.
Sorry to double-post (I'm the same anon from above), but here is a great link from that site:
http://bc.demochoice.org/dcmultires.php
What's neat about this is not the results (although they are interesting in and of themselves) because they of course only represent the election as decided by the sites 3000 participants. What's great here is the numbers on the percentage of votes used to elect a candidate. On average 86.5% of votes in this election were used to elect a candidate. From riding to riding this ranged from 72.1% to 93%. When compared with FPTP, under which The number would barely break 50% if that, this is really important.
It is really, the key to BC-STV, that it is a proportional representation system. I think that to anyone who is trying to grapple with whether or not to vote for STV there are really two questions:
1) Do we need a PR system (% votes is close as possible to % seats)
2) Of the possible PR systems, is STV the best one; or is it good enough to be worth making the switch.
My contention is that it is obvious, to me at least, that the answer to 1 has to be a resounding yes. So the debate really comes down to 2. The problem is that there has been so much squabbling over the detailed disagreements created in a discussion of Q2, that we forget that the status quo doesn't even address Q1. I think it is easier to implement an impressive PR system in the form of STV, and then if we find it needs tweaking in a few years have that discussion, rather than give up on this chance to have proportional representation, on the hope of a marginally better option coming along in a few years - because I don't think that course of action would play out.
Huh???? I think that what Anon Thursday, April 23, 2009 3:46:00 PM
is trying to say is that your vote counts if you vote for a winner and doesn't count if you didn't for for a winner.
Dennis Bevington
@Dennis
Sorry I tend to be a bit long-winded, but if you want to simplify it to that degree than yes, that is basically it. In essence, your vote counts until every candidate that you ranked is either elected or knocked out by being at the bottom. So, if you rank every candidate, than your vote will invariably count. The only way for your vote not to count in the final round, is to only rank candidates who are knocked out at some point.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Repete,
Don't know why you would say, "no representation at all". I would say that North Van will get more representation. Maybe you are just not happy with the results. As I understand it, if Jane didn't get enough votes (in this pretend BC-STV try-out) then she wouldn't be elected and the votes go to your second choice. Seems simple to me.
Dennis,
I think you are over simplifying anon 3:46's explanation. There is no way to make "every single vote count".
Where have you read that?
There are many more wasted votes with FPTP, a fact you can't deny. For the past few elections the party I have voted for has not elected any seats so my vote is wasted. I want my vote to count as much as possible. STV gives me some chance of being represented in Victoria. As I've said before, get the system in and let's make improvements on it.
I also think that Anon 3:46's explanation isn't concise enough.
John,
It still prefers celebrity candidates over locally known candidates. West Van gets three of the MLA's with only 1/4 of our population... Is that fair? This is going to be entirely about money and celebrity.
The independant is dead.
Wrong! The independent is NOT DEAD! You guys just don't get it. If the Greens, for example, have 20 percent of the popular vote, as it stands now they get ZERO seats in parliament. If the BC-STV is in effect they might just have a seat or two in parliament.
Wendy, in fact they should get close to 20% of the seats. Also, anon 8:58 seems to not get it - these results are based on the limited number of voters who have visited the site, there is every reason to believe they are not a representative sample, and quite likely WV is simply over-represented. It in no way proves your point. I fail to see how STV awards celebrity candidates any more than FPTP. It is a sad reality that savvy marketing can influence voter behavior in any electoral system - how is celebrity status in any way structurally enhanced by STV?
Definitely an over biased statement from Anon 8:58. This model try-out can not be compared to an actual election with the number of participants.
I also believe the independent can and will do better in an STV election. There will be more competition for party candidates and candidates in general. This should raise the bar on the quality of candidates.
John,
Your attention is drawn to page 7 of the Final Report of the Citizen's Assemlby, where it is stated that " The aim of this system [STV] is to make all votes count."
Do you need more examples?
Dennis Bevington
"I also believe the independent can and will do better in an STV election."
Really? What do you base that on John? It's tough for an independant to win under the current system, but theoretically its quite possible. Under STV you would need to advertise to an area 4 times larger than the current riding. Doesn't that favour a party machine over an independant?
Dennis,
That may be the 'aim' of the C.A.S. but, in my opinion it would be unreasonable if not impossible to make all votes count. My understanding is that that there are some votes wasted at the 'end of the vote transfer process' where essentially there is not enough to elect a candidate. With FPTP there are many votes wasted once one candidate has enough of the vote total to be elected.
John
Sorry C.A.S. should have read just C.A.
Anon 12:34,
I'm not so sure this, "advertise to an area 4 times larger" is necessarily pertinent. This will be relative to all candidates, will it not? All candidates have to promote themselves and work hard to make themselves known. I don't see why a 'David O'Marley' or other couldn't do well with BC-STV if their values and platform are known to the community. If voters thought their vote would actually go to someone, they might get out to support those candidates who reflect their values. As it is now independents get quashed by the strategic party vote.
I give it the benefit of the doubt.
I'm uncomfortable with the whole idea of 'wasted' votes.
Is your vote wasted if your candidate isn't elected? Hardly - I've voted for all sorts of people who have not been elected.
If you're thinking 'if one of my choices doesn't get in then I've wasted my vote' then maybe we should make BC all one riding of 85 seats and the top 85 finishers get elected - that way SOMEONE you choose gets in so nearly 100% of the electorate gets somebody they like?
Obviously an absurd suggestion but honestly - if my candidate does not get elected I don't feel I've wasted my time voting.
My point is that the statistic that "75% of the votes cast elected somebody" is an irrelevant statistic and should be treated with the scorn it deserves.
Lyle,
If 12% of North Vancouver voted Green (and since 1991 it has been that at least)then the community should have a Green MLA. With STV that Green Vote might got to 25%. And it's not just the Green vote either. Obviously we would end up electing a 'Mo Norton' as well, or who knows? I would think being the community man that you are, you would want as much representation for as many as possible. That's democracy.
Those "uncomfortable" votes would give comfort to many in the community.
Regards, John
What a stupid system.
Yamamoto gets 9.8% of the vote and she gets 25% of the power?
Hey folks, I made a terrible mistake in my last comment and nobody nailed me. I am not impressed. I referred to our provincial "legislature" as "parliament".
However, I do stand for the STV and it should be accepted at all levels of government.
I think that the only reason it is not is that the Libs are so ensconsed in their own ideation that they cannot possibly fathom democracy.
John,
There is a lot of hype...errrr make that spin...surrounding BC-STV, not the least of which comes from the Citizens' Assembly itself. Here's another example from November 16, 2004: "BC-STV is designed to make every vote count"
John, I don't make this stuff up. It is all in the public record. I think you'll agree that there are two possibilities: either the Assembly didn't understand what it recommended or it did and is dissembling....errr make that spinning.
Dennis Bevington
Hi Dennis,
That's fine as far that goes. As I said, I do not believe for a moment there will be zero wasted votes.
Correct me if I am wrong but are you implying the C.A. has an ulterior motive for 'spinning' STV apart from the fact they are the creators of it? I would be interested to know just what you think this motive might be.
John,
Do be corrected. I am drawing attention to their actions, not to their motives.
Dennis Bevington
Wendy that's completely unfair - if you don't think Campbell convened the Citizens' Assembly who DO you think convened it?
I give him full marks for taking the initiative to start the ball rolling.
I don't personally LIKE what the assembly came up with (so you know which way I'll be voting) but that doesn't make the exercise without merit.
Again I fundamentally disagree with John on the whole concept of "wasted votes". No vote is wasted and both my daughters (who have both turned 19 since 2005) are registered to vote. At least one of them will cancel out my vote but that is how the system is supposed to work!
I’ve spent a considerable amount of time studying the STV proposal from a neutral perspective, perhaps seeking the electoral nirvana or panacea which addresses all voters concerns.
It has become quite clear to me that the current STV proposal is seriously flawed, in a number of ways, and the resulting prospective fix would create far more problems than the current ‘first past the post’ electoral system offers.
Primarily the STV voting system would significantly reduce the responsibility of individual representatives (MLA’s) to represent a specific area or region as the ‘super regions ‘ would be massive in size. Some ridings would have up to seven representatives, of every stripe. Each representative would then be a rival of the other, none concerned about any particular region, most pandering to largest population centre.
Squamish would be lumped in with the 80 thousand plus voters of the North Shore, among othe regions.
The secondary result of such a voting system would be a dilution of our provincial governments’ ability to effect change and improvements. Our province would be hamstrung by an endless stream of minority governments. As such, these governments would resort to making deals to ensure passage of legislation resulting in ‘pork barrel’ laws becoming the norm.
Finally the STV voting system is highly complicated, with no pre -knowledge of how ones vote will actually be counted. In fact, where your vote goes is so complicated that only a computer can actually calculate where it ends up. A completely unknown percentage of your vote will go to candidates you may prefer. An unknown percentage will also potentially go to candidates or parties you may not prefer.
Voting ought to be transparent and direct with transparent results, as it is now. Like a hockey game, if you score more goals in a riding, you should win the riding. Period end. STV does NOT increase the power of your vote whatsoever. In fact, it so dilutes your vote into the unknown that it’s unlikely your real voting intentions are even registered when the computer finishes its math.
Post a Comment