#1554 - 05/04/09 02:12 PM
In favour of BC-STV
|
Karin Litzcke
member
Registered: 09/04/07
Posts: 187
Loc: Vancouver, BC
|
I’m going to vote in favour of BC-STV.
It would be dishonest of me to do otherwise, as I addressed the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform in 2004, and the system they came up with does exactly what I spoke in favour of: an electoral system that de-emphasizes political parties.
In my presentation I gave five reasons why I think parties are needed less, and not more, in modern democratic politics, and the fifth reason is my most pressing one:
“Finally, and most dangerously, by attaching party labels to candidates I think political parties are making the electorate stupider by relieving us of the necessity of informing ourselves about candidates. The very landslide nature of the last provincial election, followed in Vancouver by another landslide, makes it clear that … people are voting more by label and not by considering the decision-making capacity of the individuals for whom they are voting. Political parties have become like corporations jockeying for candidates and market share, offering voters no better information about their “brand” than we are offered about our beer. Our current status renders eerily prescient this 1944 quote from another opponent of parties, George Bernard Shaw: “…political ignorance and idolatry will produce not only Hitleresque dictatorships but stampedes led by liars or lunatics…”.”
The day I addressed the Assembly I also listened to the rest of the presentations, and I have to say it was a day to absolutely revel in the capacity of the citizenry. Not only did many of my fellow speakers come up with really impressive and thought-provoking presentations, but also, the members of the Assembly were responsive, thoughtful, and took what they heard really seriously.
My interest in electoral reform and my interest in public education intersect at the issue of preserving and promoting exactly that citizen capacity.
For that reason it alarms me hugely that the most pressing reason given by the anti-STV voices is that the system is too complicated. Whenever we say that something is too complicated for people to understand, we lower the bar, and in doing so, we take away the very challenges of day-to-day life that build the capacity of our people.
For fifteen years I’ve lived in Vancouver’s inner city and have met a plethora of people who would, by superficial standards, count as low capacity. They would never have the nerve to present at a Citizens’ Assembly or any other public gathering, finding even a PAC meeting intimidating. These are the kind of people for whom the anti-STV voices believe that they speak. But the actual capacity of most of these people - to understand situations, to evaluate options, and to do the right thing rather than the easy thing - has impressed me over and over again.
It is both ridiculous and counter-productive to even suggest that the complexity of a voting system is an issue. Having a complex voting system is a good thing, something that gives us a reason to make sure our children become literate and numerate.
Besides, STV isn’t complicated. The ranking of the candidates is a matter of 1-2-3 and as for the counting of the votes, dropping off candidates with the lowest numbers is something to which people have taken quite well in the Idol franchise (with forty-seven million votes cast last week, quite a few Americans seemed OK with the idea). As for percentages being used to redistribute the leftover votes of elected candidates, it should be noted that percentages are simple math that anyone who’s ever shopped for groceries seems to grasp quite readily.
If we preserve a high-capacity citizenry, they will elect high-capacity candidates, who in turn should be able to make good decisions whether they are working with a large majority or with representatives of several parties in a coalition.
Another aspect of STV that is being used against it is the matter of large ridings. This objection has merit only if the present system is looked at through rosy lenses.
People look at the new larger ridings and wonder how much they will matter to their MLAs, and how they will be able to get to know the candidates well enough to select them. The truth is that under the present system, most of us elect a candidate without ever meeting them, and also that we don’t matter very much at all to the people we elect.
In the present system, capturing something like one third of the votes in a riding can be enough to elect a candidate. Given the intense negativity of partisan politics, anyone who thinks that the thusly-elected candidate is going to reflect the views of the opposition parties - views endorsed by some 70% of their constituents - is ravingly deluded. Or they haven’t had my MLA for thirteen years… but I digress.
Furthermore, given that your one vote elects the person, the party, and the premier, your elected representatives and their party can take any message from your vote that they darn well please. You may have voted for them because you like their beliefs on education, but they may take your vote as a statement of support for some of their other policies that you don’t like as much.
I think that having multiple-member ridings will make the electoral process into a much more nuanced conversation, even if those ridings are bigger. And in between elections, you’re more likely to have a representative you can talk to under STV than you are now if you didn’t vote with the majority.
When it comes to finding someone you can talk to, I don’t actually think I’ve encountered a more receptive and responsive panel than the Citizens’ Assembly itself. The electoral system they designed reflects not just my comments but the best of what was said in that room the day I presented. All the presentations made to the panel can still be read on line to evaluate how good a job they did.
The appointing and selection of the Assembly is probably one of the most under-appreciated democratic achievements of the past century. I closed my presentation with the remark that, given a choice between almost any government elected in BC in recent memory and the Citizens’ Assembly itself, most of us would probably prefer to be governed by the Assembly.
Unfortunately, that was not an option. Voting for the outcome of their work - BC-STV - is the closest we’re going to get.
Edited by Karin Litzcke (05/11/09 08:33 AM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1559 - 05/06/09 12:02 PM
Re: In favour of BC-STV
[Re: Karin Litzcke]
|
Karin Litzcke
member
Registered: 09/04/07
Posts: 187
Loc: Vancouver, BC
|
There has been quite a lot of attention paid to the STV question in various media and on-line, but I just discovered what I'm going to go out on a limb and describe as the best coverage of the issue I've seen, bar none.
To my surprise, it is to be found in the current issue of the CCPA-BC publication, BC Commentary.
The coverage is factual, informative, balanced, and offers historical context through a selection of excellent articles. The ED of CCPA-BC, Seth Klein, does add his two cents worth in favour, but even that is not ideological nor blinkered, and it is refreshingly free of vilification of opposing views or of anyone else for that matter. So I think I would recommend checking out this series of articles regardless of his recommendation.
Here is a link directly to the newsletter, which is a fairly large PDF file; the STV section starts a few pages in.
http://www.policyalternatives.ca/~ASSETS/DOCUMENT/BC_Office_Pubs/bc_commentary/bccspring09.pdf
In case that link causes anyone problems, the preview page is here:
http://www.policyalternatives.ca/reports/2009/04/reportsstudies2199/?pa=4B59033D
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1564 - 05/09/09 07:36 AM
Re: In favour of BC-STV
[Re: Karin Litzcke]
|
Karin Litzcke
member
Registered: 09/04/07
Posts: 187
Loc: Vancouver, BC
|
Christy Clark did an editorial in favour of STV, which is available here on Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhccpzI4lbQ
Having been on the other side of the electoral fence from voters, she has a couple of interesting points, one in particular that I missed: that candidates from the same party will in fact be in competition with one another under STV. It seems logical that this will change how they campaign, and that can only be good! What this also does is enable voters to influence the evolution of parties as they can preferentially elect hard-liners or new perspectives as they wish on both sides of the political spectrum.
STV might also have an interesting impact on the whole arena of third-party involvement in elections. Again, as I think we are really scraping the dregs of ideas in this area, that can only be good.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1568 - 05/11/09 06:34 PM
Re: In favour of BC-STV
[Re: Katherine Wagner]
|
Karin Litzcke
member
Registered: 09/04/07
Posts: 187
Loc: Vancouver, BC
|
Thanks for those links, Katherine.
Today on CKNW I caught a segment with the former Citizens' Assembly members who are promoting STV, and some interesting points were made - I think this was in the 11-12 slot if anyone wants to catch it up. One thing that struck me was the reminder that STV is the system being recommended by citizens to their fellow citizens, while the no-STV side is... who? The spokespeople are well-known political commentators and movers and shakers, are they being paid; and what is the rationale behind opposing the citizen recommendation? I think people are welcome to vote against what their fellow citizens recommend, but there is something peculiar about organizing a campaign against it. That aspect hadn't really struck me until I heard the Assembly people saying how taken aback they were to be facing a No campaign that was using all the dirty tricks, such as misrepresenting information, that are common to the political arena. They had expected this to be an information campaign, above politics, and not a smear/shred/attack campaign (my words, not theirs, but their point).
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
Moderator: Karin Litzcke
|
|
The Schools We Need
