Complaints: Vote and Vote Often
What do STV and Hugo Chavez have in common?
Everyone’s got a stimulus package these days. B.C.’s version seems to be ballot based. Last fall it was municipal and federal votes providing government-funded subsidies, and now the May 12 general provincial election looms, with its promise of rich harvests for those who toil in advertising, printing and property-rental fields, among others. It’s a wonder no one is running on a platform of full employment via monthly votes.
The recent blizzard of ballots is not the only reason for a sense of déjà vu. There’s also the return of STV. British Columbians must have assumed that STV was gone for good and for this probably thanked penicillin. But like a dormant virus that suddenly erupts into a fresh new rash, STV has returned after a four-year absence. Topical creams will not rid us of this topic. It’s beginning to seem as though nothing will.
A proposal to adopt the electoral system known as single transferable vote was put on the provincial ballot four years ago at the recommendation of the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform. It won majority support – close to 58 per cent – but fell short of the 60 per cent approval threshold set by the government. Apparently, the Liberals have decided to take a page from the eight-year-old’s handbook: if they say no the first time, just keep asking.
Under the STV system, voters do not simply cast one vote; they rank candidates in order of preference. The system is designed to prevent wasted votes. With the current system, a vote for the losing candidate is a vote that essentially never happened. Our elections are like roulette games where every voter gets one chip. Bet yours on red, the wheel spins, it comes up black – you lose. Hope your local roads get paved, loser.
If STV is adopted, you are almost certain to see some return on your bet and potentially some pavement on your street. “The number of seats that each party wins better reflects the popular vote they receive,” explains SFU political scientist Cara Camcastle. “The Green Party, which received nine per cent of the popular vote in the last election but won no seats, would probably win some seats under STV.”
I’m not sold on STV – not helped by the fact that, even after my nice chat with professor Camcastle, I still don’t exactly understand the process (which surely puts me in the electoral majority). But there’s another angle on this that worries me: What happens if the proposal falls short again? Will STV pop back up like a Popeye punching bag?
In 2007 Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez asked voters to abolish term limits so that they would have the luxury of voting for Chavez again and again. The voters said no to the president’s generous offer of perpetual service. So Chavez waited and asked the public again earlier this year. This time the measure passed with a narrow majority. Now he is free to faithfully serve the Venezuelan people until he is stuffed and mounted with his fists still gripping the reins of power.
Is that what awaits the voters of British Columbia? Is STV the Hugo Chavez of ballot plebiscites? Will STV rise from its cold, icy grave again and again to menace a terrified – OK, mildly annoyed – electorate?
If you support STV, by all means vote for it. But if not, it is possible that voting No in this month’s election will not be enough. When you go to the polls, carry a small hammer. Step into the voting booth and take up your pencil. Position it over the STV question and take out your mallet. Then drive the wooden pencil deep into the ballot’s little paper heart. Silver bullets might work too, but I don’t want to see anyone do time.
- Tags
Save over 50% off the newsstand price with a subscription to BCBusiness Magazine
