#1558 - 05/05/09 05:47 PM
Single Transferable Ballot = Real Change
|
Katherine Wagner
enthusiast
Registered: 09/04/07
Posts: 253
Loc: British Columbia
|
BC-STV would mean real change
School Watch by Katherine Wagner
The Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows Times, May 01, 2009
This week I made up my mind how I will vote on the Single Transferable Vote (STV) ballot question on May 12th. Recent events solidified my decision.
I consider myself a responsible voter. Every election I follow the candidates and issues closely, discuss the options and carefully consider my choices. Since turning eighteen, I have cast a ballot in every election and referendum.
In addition, I joined political parties, worked for candidates, took part in nomination processes, attended policy conferences and sat on riding committees. I ran for and held political office (school trustee) three times.
I devote particular attention to education policy and politics, in part because it is the foundation of a functioning, healthy democratic political system.
Over the years, I find myself increasingly appalled by four aspects of our political system.
First, citizens (including politicians) are generally cynical and apathetic about existing political structures. Voter turnout is in free fall and the trend shows no sign of turning.
Second, government at all levels hides much of its decision-making and implementation behind closed doors. It is near impossible for the average voter to form a clear picture of everything undertaken on their proxy and with their money.
Third, other than partisan political involvement and expensive lobbying efforts, there are few levers available to the general public to accomplish significant change in provincial or federal legislation or policy.
Fourth, the state of civics education in Canada is deplorable. The consequences are difficult to quantify but there is no doubt they are significant and impact at least two generations of voters.
Next Monday (May 4, Thomas Haney Secondary Rotunda, 7pm) the District Parent Advisory Council is holding their usual education focused all-candidates meeting.
I am moderating the forum and the format is non-partisan. In the interests of fairness, questions will be asked randomly to random candidates. Voters will have a chance to hear local candidates explain how they will represent the needs of local schools and students….or they would have if all candidates were attending.
Maple Ridge – Mission BC Liberal candidate Marc Dalton did not accept the invitation. DPAC president Kathy Froelich spoke with the candidate’s assistant and was told Dalton has received many forum invitations and decided to accept only two.
Maple Ridge – Pitt Meadows BC Liberal candidate Ken Stewart originally accepted the invitation to the education forum but later withdrew citing a last minute opportunity to meet with another group the same evening.
I spent some time reviewing the positions of the three major parties on education issues and came across confirmation Carol James and the NDP are still refusing to take a position on standardized testing and FSAs until after the election.
It was then I realized both major parties continue to get away with this nonsense because they know they can under our current electoral system.
I went back to the BC-STV websites (both sides – www.powerupyourvote.ca and http://www.nostv.org ) and again reviewed the various arguments for and against.
Under the STV system of electing representatives to the BC Legislature, everyone is a potential supporter even if they have already committed their first, second and even third or fourth choices. It makes it very difficult to dismiss entire groups of voters as unreachable.
Under the STV system, I predict all forums will be attended by candidates from every party, no matter who is organizing the event. With multiple candidates from each party in every riding there should be more flexibility and visibility both during and between elections.
Power up your Vote describes the current electoral system, “When 40% of the votes can win 60% of the seats and 100% of the power, the government believes it has a mandate to do what it likes, when it likes.”
I am reasonably confident that under an STV system we would not be subjected to the political arrogance of a major party telling voters to wait until after the election to find out their position on a contentious issue.
I am now convinced a reformed electoral process will prove a catalyst for positive change. I expect the STV system to result in more transparent government as it will narrow the margins to gaining and holding power.
I like the idea of multiple representatives within one larger riding. It has been useful for the school district to work with two MLAs, particularly when one is in opposition and one is in government. I like the idea of six or seven local representatives working hard for four years to convince voters they should have their contracts renewed. The
relative effectiveness of individual representatives will be obvious to the community and should provide incentive for all representatives to improve their performance.
Under STV every voter will have a chance to influence the outcome of an election, not just those who reside in swing ridings.
Currently, neither of the two main parties will risk proposing or implementing significant change to our two major public institutions – health and education - for fear it may be misunderstood and cost them an election. STV should alter the balance of power to the extent reform is actually achievable.
Finally, STV is more complicated than the first-past-the-post system currently in place. By necessity a change in electorial process should prompt more attention to civics education in school. A more politically engaged population may even demand better civics education!
I look forward to casting my referendum ballot on May 12. I believe it may be the most significant "X" I ever mark.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
Moderator: Katherine Wagner
|
|
The Schools We Need
