[Fwd: STV and the Eagleridge Bluffs]
Antony Hodgson
An excellent article by Nick Loenen on STV (forwarded by David Marley):
==============================
The accompanying superb piece by Nick Loenen was published in today's
NSNews, the North Shore's community newspaper. I thought you'd be interested
in it. I suggest you forward it to all who might be inclined to follow the
electoral reform debate.
dom
> Arbutus trees and STV meet on Eagleridge Bluffs
>
> The current standoff in West Vancouver between environmentalists and Kevin
> Falcon, minister of transportation, contains an object lesson confirming
> the wisdom of the Citizens Assembly's recommended voting system - STV.
>
> Dennis Perry, chief spokesperson for the protesting citizens, is portrayed
> by the minister as contemptuous of democracy. Falcon's position is that
> the 2005 election settled the issue, the people spoke, Green Party
> candidate Perry lost, Liberal Joan McIntyre won, end of story. Clever
> politics, no doubt! But how truthful is Falcon's claim?
>
> Under a democratic voting system, where the results reflects the will of
> the people, Falcon's position would be justified. Flacon's flaw is that
> votes for local candidates are not what they pretend to be. British
> Columbia needs a voting system that registers the will of the people
> accurately. It is here that the Citizens Assembly's recommendation shows
> its practical usefulness.
>
> Our voting system limits choice. Voters can vote for the local candidate
> or the government, but not both. Given such constraints, most voters
> prefer using their vote to select the next government, rather than help a
> local, save-the-trees project. In our provincial and federal elections,
> votes for candidates are but proxies for party and leader. Falcon's
> suggestion that last May's election was a confidence vote for blasting
> arbutus trees has all the solidity of hot air.
>
> The claim that a particular local issue was decided in a general election
> is almost always false. The reason is: a vote for the local candidate is
> mostly not a vote for the local candidate.
>
> In contrast, under STV the act of voting is what it pretends to be - a
> true expression of the will of the voter. STV gives voters choice. It
> makes voters intentions unambiguous. Had the last election been conducted
> by STV, four or more Liberal candidates would have presented their
> platforms to the citizens of West Vancouver. The diversity of those
> platforms would focus local issues. Voting for anyone of these would have
> been a vote in support of the government, but in addition, voters would
> have selected candidates favouring cutting or saving arbutus trees. Such
> elections allow voters to register a preference for government as well as
> local concerns.
>
> There is more. Voting is more meaningful, but also, representation in the
> legislature can become effective. Currently, MLAs, being but proxies for
> party and leader, become, not surprisingly, party property the day after
> the election, voters lose their voice and full deliberation of alternative
> public policy issues is stifled.
>
> The present voting system makes West Vancouver a safe seat for the
> Liberals. Consequently, the official opposition has no incentive to speak
> for the citizens of West Vancouver, their chance of gaining that seat is
> zero. As Hansard shows, no one in the legislature speaks for arbutus
> trees in West Vancouver.
>
> Imagine how different it would be under STV. With STV there are no safe
> seats. Someone in the legislature would speak for those residents of West
> Vancouver opposed to the government's policy. Genuine debate would ensue
> and local concerns would be represented in the legislature. Why? Because
> with STV winning a local vote is never merely a proxy for something else.
> A seat won means voters represented.
>
> Without electoral reform, general elections are not about local issues and
> saying so is political spin. But it need not be thus. The Citizens
> Assembly pointed the way to a more robust democracy where MLAs are elected
> on their personal merits, not only on their brand name, and voters have
> someone speaking for them in Victoria. British Columbians do well to
> remember this when they vote in the upcoming referendum on electoral
> reform.
> Nick Loenen, sessional lecturer in political science at UBC and former MLA
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>