Single Transferable Everything - A Response to Norman Spector
Reading the Globe and Mail today, I came across a Norman Spector article entitled Single transferable nonsense. As a long-time student of electoral systems and supporter of the STV model of elections, I decided to respond as best I could to the arguments made against the system. I find myself in the strange position of disagreeing with Mr. Spector, a commentator whose opinions often closely match my own. This article is not designed to attack Spector in any way, but instead to respond to his arguments, which I think represent much of the main arguments against this form of Proportional Representation. I'll be addressing the main arguments one by one.1) Nobody has ever done it before
Have I mentioned that STV supporters are asking us to try on for size the voting system used by only one of the Commonwealth's 53 countries? Now, it's possible that 400,000 Maltese know something the other 1.8 billion inheritors of British political traditions haven't yet grasped, but I wonder.Spector begins his editorial by raising a valid concern, the limited resume of STV. Unlike other electoral models, few countries have adopted STV, and it is true that many haven't done it very well. But if we are going to look to the rest of the world for inspiration for our electoral system, we must keep a few ideas in mind. Let us remember that we are only one of four countries who use a pure first past the post (FPTP) single member plurality (SMP) electoral system. Other countries, have since discarded this system once they realized its limitations and failings. In terms of world opinion, we are already lagging behind the pack.
It is also important to note that the British system was not exported uniformly across the Commonwealth. Instead, the system that a country inherited is tied to how early the colony was granted responsible government. Canada was one of the first to democratize (in 1848), and adopted the first form of Responsible Government created, virtually the same system we still enjoy today. Countries democratizing later adopted further electoral refinements as they were developed. Given that we have been using the current system for over 160 years, and that our societal composition, levels of education and means of communication have changed substantially since its inception, one could argue that its long past time that our system was allowed to evolve to meet these new realities.
Another thing that we should note is that Canada has always been a democratic pioneer. Canada gained responsible government only shortly after Britain, and this adventurous spirit invariably met with similar concerns as today. Commentators might have warned that responsible government would lead to anarchy, that it would invite American-style populist, democratic excesses or any other concern imaginable. Yet the experiment went ahead, despite having few other nations as models. In retrospect, it is likely safe to say that this experiment was mildly successful.
Just because nobody has tried it before, does not invalidate an idea. If we always shied away from new things, society would never develop. And I prefer my apartment to a fireless cave.
2) STV is Complicated
Proponents of this Rube Goldberg voting system say it's as simple as 1-2-3, but they're unable to explain how STV would work in practice.Nobody is going to argue that STV is not complex. While some might argue that simplicity is a virtue, there are serious problems with oversimplifying something as inherently complex as voting. Many of the current problems with the current system can be traced to its inability to accurately reflect society or and its diverse interests and needs. I cannot comment on the inability of other STV proponents to adequately describe the system. The system isn't complex, except for one key idea - the magical number. Even that is fairly straightforward. In a nutshell, the system allows electors to rank candidates based on preference. When counting, all the first place votes are compared. If the magical number (calculated by [[valid ballots/[number of seats + 1]]+1]) is reached by any candidate, then they are elected, and their redistributed proportionately across the remaining candidates. This continues until no candidate reaches the number, at which point the bottom candidate is dropped, and their next place votes counted. This continues until all the seats are filled. Definitely more complex then the current system, but not rocket science.
It should be noted that once the delegates to the constituent assembly understood the STV system, they overwhelmingly supported it. I would hope that we would give the BC electorate the same opportunity.
As well, complexity is not necessarily a negative characteristic of an electoral system. Complexity is necessary to better represent Canadians, and the trick is in finding the balance between as proportional a system as possible, and how difficult it is to understand. The simplest political system would be to reappoint a King and leave governing to a select few, but we chose long ago to reject such a model in favour of the complexities of Democracy. Allow the system to be as accurate and as fair as possible, and trust that Canadians will be more than capable of rising to the challenge.
3) Other Interests desire STV
STV advocates contend that only one country uses the system because it transfers power from politicians and parties to the people. I smell other interests at play.I'm not going to press the point about STV weakening parties (note weakening, not destroying), as I feel it is self-evident as one of the primary features of STV. What I am going to address is the idea that other interests. I don't know the specific interests Spector is referring to, but the implication is that these interests are negative, and do not have the best interests of Canada at heart. This is made clear in the implicitly suggestion that it is the religious right who wish this change in order to push their agenda.
It is obvious that there are interests involved in the STV debate, just as there are interests supporting the status quo. The business lobby loves the focused power centers of the current system which allow them to better able to influence key decision-makers. Our two major parties, both of whom have adopted relatively similar political stances, have created their own networks of interests, most of whom are insidious in their own unique way. In place of the corporate lobbyists, the interests supporting STV are those of average citizens who wish to regain the trust that they have lost in the system, as well as academics and other interested parties who have been promoting these ideas for years. If these interests coincide with those of the religious right, that does not taint the idea itself, but instead shows that the impetus for it is broad-based and crosses ideological lines. While Nick Loenen may have hidden motives, I would argue that if 15% of BC's electorate support his ideas, then they should be represented with 15% of the seats in the legislature, regardless of whether or not we agree with them.
(note: 15% is an entirely fictional number designed to make a point.)
4) STV will lead to minority governments, and this gives unbalanced power to fringe parties.
Like all proportional voting systems, STV produces minority governments. In the inevitable negotiation of a coalition that inevitably follows, the largest party normally gets together with third, fourth or even fifth parties.This is an interesting claim, especially given the current state of our Federal Parliament where it seems that minority parliaments are in many ways superior to majorities. The problem with the argument that PR empowers small groups is that it is anti-democratic in nature. The fundamental idea of the representative system is to construct coalitions that represent a majority of electors. In the past this has been done by individual parties who broker within their ranks to provide a "deal" to distribute resources and power, assisted by an electoral system that creates majorities where none exist.
If two groups of interests are similar and can come to a consensus over a shared agenda and this represents a majority of Canadians, how does that undermine democracy? Coalition partners are responsible for the other parties in the government, preventing minority parliaments from turning radical. The more radical ideas will not generate support. Instead, more moderate policies will be adopted, such as the informal coalition that produced national Medicare. In effect, coalitions create public majorities which Canadians can judge and vote on, instead of the closed-door deals that the major parties have been constructing for over a century. I have much more faith in the first model, and faith in the ability of Canadians to ensure that their parties do not succumb to radicalism.
Giving unbalanced power to minorities is certainly nothing new to Canada, either, as this is exactly what the current system does. When our FTPT SMP system allows minorities to elect sizable majorities, we already have a situation where we are giving unreasonable influence to certain groups. When you consider how few Canadians vote, partly due to the system itself, our majority governments begin to appear as merely minorities within minorities. Instead of pretending that the current system does not distort popular opinion, Canada should accept that dealing with competing minorities is an inherent part of our society and create a system that allows these minorities to interact in a balanced and fair system.
5) Political Parties are necessary for our Democracy
I'll grant you we've had a few doozies of our own out here. Nevertheless, political parties have been one of the few mechanisms that bridge our differences and make B.C. society work.Nobody is arguing about this. Canadians have said time and time again that they need parties to structure their politics. The question that STV asks, though, is not whether we should or should not have parties. It instead asks about the value of strong parties. Adopting STV will not abolish parties, but will merely loosen the stranglehold they current have on our system. Canadian democracy was never designed to have strong parties. The initial proponents of the system worried about strong parties, but felt that the nature of the Parliamentary system would hold back party powers. Instead, it has been the parties who have restricted the development of our democracy. Weakening their hold over nominations, access to funding, senate appointments, cabinet appointments, judicial appointments, executive appointments and other such powers will not destroy our system, but rather to give it a bit of air. STV forces MPs and MLAs to be responsive to their constituents, rather than to the party, and does not allow the parties to control who citizens have the chance to vote for. We will still need to aggregate opinion, to organize assemblies, to allow easy identification of political positions, and to form governments. Parties will continue to do all that. They will simply cease to control the entire process.
6) Fixed Election Dates and similar changes are bad
Fixed election dates are just one of the ideas, foreign to British Parliamentary tradition, that have recently been imported into our political system.I agree with this sentiment entirely and strongly oppose Fixed Election Dates. Why? Because they change the fundamental nature of our political system. They distort our responsible government and allow parties to always be aware of the next election date, and to focus on it instead of governance. We will move from five week campaigns to the four year Presidential campaigns in the States. Opposing FEDs does not mean that the current system is perfect. It is definitely not in the best interests of democracy to have the first minister able to call snap elections on a whim. But restrictions on this ability, such as requiring the legislature to agree with dissolution, would accomplish the same goal without undermining the system. STV, however, does no such thing. The method of selecting representatives is entirely separate from the Parliamentary system. Even picking legislators by random lot would be consistent within the Westminster Parliamentary system, so long as it was done at dissolution, and a new set of members showed up a few months later.
Changes that undermine the system are negative, but that does not make all change negative. STV does not change the parliamentary system, it modifies the electoral system, a system which has changed numerous times, even in England.
7) Nick Loenen is crazy
Indeed, Nick Loenen and Premier Bill Vander Zalm were seat-mates in the two-member Richmond riding and soul mates on several controversial issues.Fair enough, I concede this point.
But I have read Loenen's book that Spector refers to, and regardless of his social and religious positions, it is well-researched and well-argued. In fact, I was not even aware of his political leanings, nor did I care. As I said earlier, the support of an issue by crazy Nick Loenen does not invalidate it, nor does its support by crazy lefties undermine it. In a lot of ways, it strengthens it, due to the broad base of support.
Alternatively, it is entirely possible that Nick Loenen may have had an epiphany after leaving government and is now a committed socialist, working tirelessly towards justice and equality, and received his information about STV in a dream, and that this is not a malignant plot by the religious right to undermine our governmental institutions. This is unlikely, but goes to show that the personal backgrounds of the proponents of an electoral system is entirely irrelevant to the qualities and characteristics of its proponents. If the system is good, it should not matter if Loenen is crazy or not.
8) Better solution is to realign with Westminster
The better route to counter the friendly and not-so-friendly dictatorships that we've seen in Canada would be to align our system with the mother of parliaments at Westminster. More free votes, relaxed party discipline and a coequal role for caucus and the party in selecting the leader have worked wonders.All three of these suggestions are solid ideas for us to import into Canadian political models, and I commend Spector for raising them. But they are entirely separate from our electoral system. In fact, their adoption is likely impeded by the current electoral system. The reason that these do not exist today is that they dilute centralized party power, and this is anathema to certain Ottawa "interests." How can the PM control the agenda if his party is allowed to vote freely? If we wish to see such changes within Parliament, we either require a significant philosophical reorientation inside parties, or a changed political landscape that forces them to evolve.
STV embodies the type of change that we need. In the absence of a perfect system in a perfect world, this system is not only the best we have, it also meets the needs of Canadians. It is hard to expect much more than that.
And this article has not even mention the overwhelming positives that STV and PR provide, such as higher voter turnout, renewed political interest, freer legislators, and an invigorated Assembly. However you look at it, STV is a potentially vital new idea for Canadian democracy.
posted by MattyJ @ 12:30 AM
1 Comments:
I am slightly puzzled by the comment that STV is only used in one country; which it seems from the context is Malta. Well it is used by another country in the EU. The Republic of Ireland which has more or less (a bit over four million) the same population as BC. It is used for elections at all levels-local government, and parliament, and uses a parlimentary system.
My experience of it, is that it works well.
It is also used in N Ireland (which perhaps proves that STV on its own does not make your politics perfect!) and is being introduced in Scotland for local Government.
Post a Comment
<< Home