Sunday November 21, 2004
“Horse race” voting broke and needs fixing
A familiar maxim says, “If it ain\’t broke, don\’t fix it.”
There seems to be a vague consensus in British Columbia that our present system of voting is broke and needs fixing.
That system is commonly called “first past the post,” a term derived from horse racing. Perhaps that\’s appropriate. In a horse race, no one expects the winning horse to do anything for society as a whole. The horse has no altruistic goals, no mission statements, no public policy platform.
The only purpose of a horse race is to pay off those who bet on that particular horse.
Just like our elections.
In B.C. in 2001, those who bet on the Liberals were rewarded with a 25 per cent tax cut. The cut applied to everyone, of course, but the biggest payoffs came to wealthier bettors.
It took the province three years to dig its revenues out of that hole.
In the U.S., George Bush\’s payouts plunged the world\’s richest nation into the world\’s biggest deficits.
Distortions and anomalies
The “first past the post” system effectively ignores the race. Only the winner matters – regardless of whether that winner romped home far ahead of a straggling field or barely nosed out a host of equally capable challengers.
As an electoral system, this leads to anomalies and distortions.
In B.C.\’s last election, the Liberals won 57 per cent of the popular vote, but swept 97 per cent of seats in the provincial legislature. The NDP, with 22 per cent of the popular vote, won just two seats. The Greens, with 12 per cent, won no seats at all.
At least the Liberals did win a majority of the popular vote. In the previous election, the Liberals actually gained 40,000 more votes than the NDP, but six fewer seats. So the NDP formed the government.
Similar distortions emerged in the recent presidential election in the U.S.
George Bush won a majority. But John Kerry – despite getting roughly three million fewer votes – could have ended up in the Oval Office if a single state, Ohio, had tipped its Electoral College votes his way.
In the previous election, of course, Bush received fewer votes than Al Gore, but still gained the presidency on Florida\’s Electoral College votes.
Independent reporter Greg Palast claims that had Republican officials rejected fewer spoiled ballots, Kerry would have taken not only Ohio but New Mexico too – winning the White House but still being 3 million votes less popular than Bush.
Bush-haters would probably hail such an outcome. But it would have been a miscarriage of democracy.
Imagining alternatives
B.C.\’s Liberal government implicitly accepted the premise that our electoral system needs fixing when they set up a non-partisan Citizens\’ Assembly.
The Citizens\’ Assembly consists of 160 members – two from each provincial riding plus two aboriginal members – who have spent the last year considering alternatives to the present system.
Last month, the Citizens\’ Assembly chose something called the Single Transferable Vote, or STV. The initials, unfortunately, imply either some new Sexually Transmitted disease or yet another cable TV channel.
But the principle is clear – instead of marking your ballot with a single X (for Yes or No) you would mark the candidates by order of preference (1, 2, 3…).
A referendum during the provincial election next May will give voters a chance to approve or reject the new system – ironically, by marking with a single X.
As regular readers of this column will know, I do not like the B.C. Liberal party\’s policies. But I have to give them credit. They not only started a process that could end the system that put them in power. They also allowed the Citizens\’ Assembly to define the referendum question: "Do you agree that British Columbia should change to the BC-STV electoral system as recommended by the Citizens\’ Assembly in its final report? Yes/No."
As pollsters know, the question often determines the answer. To stall changes indefinitely, the government would merely have to phrase the question in the negative: “Do you oppose the recommendation of the Citizens\’ Assembly…?”
With such a question, a “Yes” means No to a new system, and a “No” means Yes.
Regardless of returns, the inevitable confusion – and court challenges – would justify abandoning the issue.
Making choices count To receive this column regularly via e-mail, send a request to jimt@quixotic.ca. E-mail subscribers also get excerpts from correspondence about these columns. Please forward a copy of this column to anyone who might be interested in subscribing.
If you want to order my books, you can call 1-800-663-2775 in Canada, 1-800-328-0200 in the U.S., or order them on-line at the Wood Lake Books website.
For a lighter look at ethics, faith, and life, I recommend Ralph Milton\’s weekly e-newsletter Rumors. You can subscribe to it at the Wood Lake Books home page in Ralph Milton\’s Site, or by sending a note directly to ralphmilton@woodlake.com.
It\’s also worth pursuing Richard Fairchild\’s United Online site. Another site worth visiting is David Keating\’s \”SeemslikeGod\” page.
Personally, I support the Single Transferable Vote. Granted, it has problems. It will lead to more minority governments, with all the compromises that entails. By contrast, an obscure principle called Duverger\’s Law asserts that the “first past the post” process normally leads to a highly polarized two-party system.
Mainly, I support STV because it means that my vote counts.
I\’m an idealist. So I usually vote for fringe candidates. I haven\’t voted for a winner since John Diefenbaker in 1957. So my vote gets ignored.
No one asks who I might prefer to represent me if I can\’t get my first choice.
With the transferable ballot, my second choices also count. And my third choices, if necessary. Elected candidates have at least qualified support from a majority of voters in that riding.
Having made its recommendations, the Citizens\’ Assembly is being dissolved. It has no mandate to promote the Single Transferable Vote.
I expect the vested interests in the present system to start lobbying against STV. After all, they stand to lose if the rules of the horse race change.
If the referendum next May 17 is to change our system, individuals and small groups will have to promote it.
Don\’t leave it to the news media, who will always chase the latest firefly in the night. Don\’t leave it to institutions, who always put their own survival first. Don\’t leave it to political parties, who treat all issues as a means of attacking other parties.
Talk about electoral reform with your friends, your family, your buddies at the coffee counter. If you also think our system\’s broke, let\’s fix it.
=====================================
Copyright © 2002 by Jim Taylor. Non-profit use in congregations and study groups permitted; all other rights reserved.
=====================================
PROMOTION PLUGS
