header image

Was the STV referendum set up to fail?

By Stuart Hertzog
May 22nd, 2009

Complex voting system and huge electoral areas sealed its fate

Power Up Your Vote - BC-STV logo

victoria, bc — Although it missed its 60% majority goal by a hair’s-breadth in 2005, and despite the provincial government handing out $500,000 each to the ‘Yes!’ and ‘No’ camps to spend as they wished, the 2009 BC referendum on proportional representation went down in flames.

Only 38.74% of valid votes were cast in favour of BC-STV, missing the mandated threshold of 60% by a country mile. Just seven of British Columbia’s 85 electoral districts cast 50%+ of the valid votes in favour, when at least 51 50%+ electoral districts were needed for it to pass.

BC-STV almost made it in 2005 (big PDF) when it received 57.69% of the 1,749,339 total valid votes cast. 77 of the 79 areas topped the 50%+ support threshold. The 2005 STV referendum failed by only 40,454 votes—a mere 3.85% of the total.

Even Yes-Man couldn’t save them

The magnitude of this year’s rejection of BC-STV is somewhat staggering. With almost $750,000 spent on 14,000 lawn signs and buttons, using radio and TV advertising, a web site that received over 100,000 views, dedicated speakers, and 5,000 volunteers, the ‘Yes!’ side attracted only 583,494 (38.74%) of the 1,506,040 eligible votes, compared to the ‘No’ side’s 922,546 votes (61.26%).

Why the enormous drop in voter support? What went wrong for BC-STV?

It’s easy to be critical after a loss. Any campaign, however well-financed and professionally run, can still go down to defeat. Certainly Fair Voting BC, which headed the BC-STV campaign, introduced its share of hubris, as campaign organiser Dan Grice reveals in exhausting but honest detail on his blog.

Grice points to the constant fight over slogans caused by the over-control of messaging by the Fair Voting BC board of directors as being responsible for too many missed deadlines. An unwise decision not to use print media or produce a printed information package meant that many people had no way of learning how STV worked, or even what the 2009 referendum was about.

“If there is one lesson to learn from internal organisation, I suggest that any future campaign avoid death by committee,” Grice concludes sadly.

Handicapped by complexity

Leaving aside the inevitable self-important idiocy that passes for intelligence in any strongly-opinionated group, the Fair Vote campaign was handicapped by the sheer complexity of the task of explaining how the Single Transferrable Vote (STV) system works. They created this simplistic video to do the job:

The problem was not just that computer illiterate voters had no way of seeing this information, as Grice suggests. Those that could began to realise that STV broke the link between a vote and the value of that vote to a candidate. There was no way of knowing where each fraction of a vote ranking went in the final calculation, a fact gleefully seized upon and exploited by the ‘No’ side.

“If (your first choice) vote (is) for the absolute loser, your second choice will probably get counted, and if you vote for the first winner, (only) a portion of your second choice will get counted,” wrote ‘No’ campaign’s David Schreck in Reject BC-STV, a November 2008 article on his web site Strategic Thoughts.

“It’s no wonder that supporters of STV want to talk about how votes are cast but not how votes are counted,” Schreck gleefully pointed out.

Flawed referendum process

It wasn’t that the ‘Yes!’ side had any choice in the matter. STV was nominated in 2004 by the Citizens Assembly as the proportional representation (PR) system British Columbians had to accept or reject, willy-nilly, even though it has been used consistently only in Ireland, Malta, the Australian Senate and Tasmania, according to the ‘No’ side often with very mixed results.

Mixed Member Proportional (MMP), another form of proportional representation, was considered by the Citizens Assembly. I understand that MMP was the overwhelming recommendation of those people who presented their views to the Assembly, but the majority of the 159 members favoured STV.

“We looked at it for the entire last weekend,” Assembly alumni Wendy Bergerud told me after one of her many pro-STV talks. “But we rejected it in terms of the choice it gave to voters. STV offered more choice, and we wanted that.”

But the primary process problem wasn’t the choice of STV over MMP. It was the fact that the BC government mandated that the system recommended by the Citizens Assembly would be the only one offered to the province’s voters. Instead of the referendum question being whether British Columbians wanted some form of proportional representation or keep the First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) system, as happened in New Zealand, it was: “Take STV, or keep FPTP.”

Ostensibly given the power to chose, BC voters in effect were being subtly democratically hobbled. The Citizens Assembly was turned into a $5.5 million focus group that the politicians could hide behind. With just a little manipulation, the Assembly could be pushed into recommending an unpalatable PR system.

Can anyone say, “Tilt?” Or am I being just a wee bit cynical? (See new information in the sidebar added below)

Gargantuan electoral areas

One thing in all this is clear: BC’s political élite doesn’t want proportional representation. Both the Liberals and the NDP like the present system and believe that they can make it can work for them. The 2005 referendum came within a hair’s-breadth of passing. Something had to be done to stop STV.

The show-stopper was delivered, perhaps unwittingly, by the BC Electoral Boundaries Commission, set up in 2005 to redraw BC’s electoral regions. This exercise takes place from time to time as the population changes.

This time, the Commission was ordered to prepare two maps: one for the existing single-member plurality (SMP) system and another for BC-STV. The resulting Preliminary Report, delivered August 15, 2007 alarmed both the NDP and the Liberals. It added four new Lower Mainland constituencies to reflect the increasing urban population, at the expense of rural representation.

The resulting rural rage forced the government to allow the Commission to increase the total number of seats to 87, which enabled it to add in its Amendments the three new electoral districts it had removed in the North, Cariboo-Thompson and Columbia-Kootenay regions.

Proposed boundaries under STV

The proposed new electoral map gave people their first glimpse of how the province would be carved up politically under proportional representation. It was a shocker: 20 electoral regions, some huge, covering vast regions larger than many European countries, some stretching over the Georgia Strait. The Capital Region electoral district around Victoria would be represented by the most MLAs, with no less than seven to be elected from a possibly huge list.

It quickly became obvious that the claims that STV would deliver a more balanced result and would allow independent candidates and small parties to be represented in the legislature, were hollow. How could a small party or an independent afford the huge expense of campaigning in these gigantic areas?

“In a system that combines from two to seven current ridings into large multiple-MLA regions, the costs of campaigning for MLA would exceed the million dollar plus cost of running to be mayor of Vancouver,” wrote Schreck.

Is BC electoral reform dead?

More than anything else, the sheer size of the new electoral regions and the illogical areas they covered, killed BC-STV stone dead. This bird would never fly. The rural/urban balance still rankled rural voters, and the preliminary results show that BC-STV won more than 50% support only among the better-informed, Internet-conected, inner-city voters of Vancouver and Victoria.

So what now? Is electoral reform dead for ever in BC, and perhaps in Canada? With a mailing list of 5,000 frustrated volunteers, Fair Voting BC may be tempted to lie low and lick its wounds for a while, then come back to worry the bones of what increasingly is looking like a stale and unpopular political system.

Although it cannot be proved that BC-STV failed by design, not even the ‘No‘ side won this referendum. With a participation rate of only 52.54%, the absolute winner in 2009, at an overwhelming 57.46%, was Political Apathy.

We desperately need a democratic system that everyone can support.


Where they pushed or did they jump?

[Added May 25, 2009]

According to long-time BC environmentalist Paul George, who observed the entire process, a concerted effort was made by Assembly chair Dr. Jack Blaney and director of research Dr. Kenneth Carty to steer Assembly members away from MMP towards STV. George’s wife, Green Party of Canada deputy leader Adriane Carr, is strongly in favour of MMP. According to some reports, Carr had to be dissuaded from opposing the STV referendum this year.

“”Every time MMP came up, these guys shut it down,” Paul George told me. “It was a done deal from the start that the final choice was going to be STV, and they made sure that it happened. I was disgusted with what went on.” However, Kenneth Carty claims to have been surprised by the contrast between the public support for MMP and the Assembly’s choice of STV. In a June, 2006 paper The Shifting Place of Political Parties in Canadian Public Life he wrote that:

“Many anticipated that (the group’s conclusion) would be some form of mixed member proportional (MMP) electoral system… recently adopted in New Zealand, Scotland and Wales and enthusiastically endorsed by the Law Commission of Canada. And while the Assembly carefully considered an MMP system, it ultimately opted (by 4:1) to recommend the far less well-known single transferable vote (STV) electoral system, whereby people can rank their choices among candidates and parties. Few countries use STV to elect their national legislatures, and it is worth reflecting on why these citizens ultimately chose it, by 20:1, over our current, familiar single member plurality system.”

Why, indeed. Was it pushed, or did the Assembly turn away from MMP due to the fact that the BC government initially refused to allow any increase in the number of seats in the legislature, as ‘No’ proponent Bill Tieleman points out in his comments? (See below) Because of this, the two academics could inform the Assembly that choosing MMP would mean that the new electoral areas would have to be huge.

“MMP was DOA thanks to that restriction,” Tieleman concludes.

That MMP could not be made to work in BC when many European countries about the size of BC in population happily use it, is puzzling. Interestingly, Tieleman also comments here that many of the ‘No’ side members support MMP. Could there be a future for proportional representation to return as a BC-MMP referendum question?


Posted in BC, democracy | 8 Comments »

Tags: , , , , , ,

Share this link

Print This Post Print This Post Email This Post Email This Post

8 Responses

  1. greenpolitics.ca » Was the STV referendum set up to fail? | welcome2green.com Says:

    […] is the original post:  greenpolitics.ca » Was the STV referendum set up to fail? var addthis_pub=”welcome2green”; Posted under Green Politics Comments […]

  2. Wayne Smith Says:

    The “flaws’ that you point out in BC-STV are actually misrepresentations.

    BC-STV is good for independents and small parties. There is no extra expense for campaigning. There are the same number of MLAs and tne same number of constituents per MLA.

    The difference is that every vote counts.

    Under BC-STV, you need 20,000 votes to get elected. It doesn’t matter where they are. In a large riding, you can probably get elected with 10-15% of the votes. But a candidate doesn’t have to campaign over the whole riding. If you can get all your votes in one city, you can get elected. BC-STV gives excellent local representation.

    It is very clear where your vote goes. It goes where you decide. Your vote counts for your first preference until that candidate is either elected or eliminated. Then the unused portion counts for your next preference. That keeps happening until your vote has counted fully.

    With several MLAs in each riding, almost everyone will be represented by somebody they helped to elect.

    The problem is that people did not have enough information to understand how the system would work in practice. An extra 5 million dollars for the education campaign would have been very helpful.

    But I think people are going to have to see it in action before it catches on. Getting the first victory is the hard part.

    Vancouver or Victoria city elections would be a good place to start.

  3. Skinny Dipper Says:

    While more people made submissions in favour of MMP than STV, many of those submissions came from Green Party supporters who participated in an organized campaign to support MMP. The CA members were able to see this happening and essentially discounted the opinions of the Green supporters. Had a wider range of people supported MMP, it might have received more traction.

    I will agree with Dan Grice that the STV campaign suffered “death by committee.” People who support voting reform tend to be consensual when working with others. This works in situations where you need your own supporters onside. When you need to get support from outside the movement, you need a strong charismatic leader. This didn’t happen.

    I don’t think it will take a generation to get voting reform on the agenda again. I do think different approaches will be needed. Wayne Smith mentioned getting the people of Vancouver and Victoria to use some kind of reformed voting system. I will agree with him. We need to get private organizations that have elections to use better voting systems that suit their needs. Mountain Equipment Co-op could be a good start. Many young people supported STV. We need to concentrate on building new support in this age range. I don’t know if we should start a political party that can syphon a few votes away from an existing pro-FPTP party just so we can tick them off. Heck, I’d go after NDP supporters because NDP sympathizers Tieleman and Schreck led the NO STV campaign. A new party would not need to try to win seats, just make another party lose seats. Finally, as I look at Tamil-Canadians protesting on the streets of Toronto and Ottawa, I realize that sometimes the voting reform movement will only get attention if they become more outwardly defiant and activist. Back in 1989, I don’t think the former East Germans had a referendum which required 60% approval to start bringing down the Iron Curtain including the Berlin Wall. They protested in the streets.

  4. Richard Lung Says:

    I can’t improve on Wayne Smith’s corrections and I also generally agree with Skinny Dipper until the end where wastefully venting one’s energies on the NDP or in public is like telling people your cause is


    Voting method is still a primitive science because there is too much of a vested interest in the stupidity of FPTP when there are more than two


    BC-STV is “complicated” means “completed” where FPTP is incomplete.

    Saying BC-STV’s constituencies are too big is saying that Federal single member constituencies are too big. It’s the same mentality that believed democracy impossible outside the ancient Greek city state.

    And so on.

    If I may say so, an essential objective of proper electoral reform is to understand the basic principles of voting method that cannot be denied, however hard opponents try to ignore them.

    The simplest voting system gives one choice (a single order of choice) for one of two candidates decided by a single majority of over half the voters.

    This is FPTP but it fails when there are more than two candidates, because this requires a vote that gives more than one choice of one candidate over another. Instead, many candidates require the voter to give a multiple order of choice (not just a single order of choice given by the X-vote).

    This is the Alternative Vote, or Instant run-off voting, but electoral reform cannot stop with reform of the vote. The same logic applies to the count, where one majority of over half the votes generalises to two majorities of over one third the votes each in a two member constituency. That is a PR of two-thirds the voters. Three member constituencies likewise give a PR of three quarters the voters, and so on.

    The point is that logical voting method generalises FPTP from a one-preference X-vote for a one-majority count to a many-preference, number order vote to a many-majority count. This generalised system of greater choice in the vote and greater equality in the count is STV, sometime called “the super vote” in Joe Rogalay’s book Parliament for the People.

    It’s quite right that the Yes to BC-STV should go over their failed logistics and tactics, the battle for people’s minds, which the No-campaign won, at least among the less informed.

    I hope to remind you about the basic right and wrong way of conducting elections, based on irrefutable logic of choice, which is what must be carried, or allowed to recommend itself, to the popular mind.

    On that basis, the public then can decide for themselves whether they want to keep the simplistic FPTP, which doesnt properly do the job for multiple choices. If the public want another system for multiple choices, they should at least be made aware that there is one basicly right way and innumerable wrong ways.

    Of course, the final choice is up to the people, no matter how perverse it may seem to students of voting method, like myself.

  5. J ohn R. Bell Says:

    Contra Richard Lung democracy is either direct or it is not worthy of the name. The Athenian polis excluded women and slaves and yet it offered ongoing participation to all male citizens while the participation of Canadian ‘citizens’ is limited to voting every few years to allow a very small percentage of the population to make all of our decisions for us. We should be trying to improve upon the model bequeathed to us by the Greeks–which you would think would be easy to do, given its limitations cited above–but instead we get excited by a model that would have continued to exclude the vast majority from meaningful participation in political life.the STV was a pathetic squandering of energy and naive idealism to no good purpose. It had nothing to do with creating real democracy.

  6. Bill Tieleman Says:

    Very good analysis overall Stuart but I really can’t see any conspiracy to undermine the STV referendum here.

    You have clearly outlined the big challenges STV supporters had to convince voters such a flawed electoral system was worth trying.

    Notwithstanding the true believers postings here, the reality is that the more voters heard about STV the less they liked it.

    If there’s any conspiracy theory to be explored, it’s why the Citizens Assembly recommended probably the most complicated and obscure system on the planet.

    But you did miss one important point – the BC government did insist on one iron-clad rule – the CA was not allowed to recommend an increase in the size of the BC Legislature.

    As a result, MMP was a non-starter, as the pool required in addition to the single member ridings for MLAs would have meant huge ridings. MMP was DOA thanks to that restriction.

    Given the Ontario rejection of MMP, it may not have made a difference but many of our NO STV members support MMP.

    As to whether electoral reform is dead, I think the jury is still out.

  7. Stuart Hertzog Says:

    Thanks for the compliment and the point that I missed, Bill. I asked Paul George about this at the BC Green Party AGM last weekend, and have added an additional sidebar that you should check out.

  8. Richard Lung Says:

    Bill Tieleman follows Bernard Shaw’s advice on debate: never argue, just repeat yourself.

    Such debate is no debate at all. It is dogma. He merely repeats STV is complicated, obscure and the constituencies are too big.

    However often falsehoods are repeated that doesnt make them true, tho it may succeed in indoctrinating the uninformed thru superficial mass media.

    So, let’s put the record right.

    The STV count is *complicated* in that it is completed, unlike FPTP. But complicated tho the STV returning officer’s job is, it is not nearly so complicated as the Boundary Commissioner’s job of continuosly redrawing single member constituency boundaries that gerrymander themselves, even without the help of politicians.

    I know which job I would rather have to do.

    FPTP continuously rubs out local boundaries and stable community identity. And all to artificially restrict elections into monopolistic locations for place-men.

    BC-STV constituencies were about as big as federal single member conbstituencies. Not too big then. The No-campaign’s minimalist mentality is the same as those who claimed that democracy was not possible outside a city-state the size of ancient Athens.

    As to the claim STV is obscure, in the sense of not widely used, even in political elections, STV has some use in many English-speaking countries all over the world.

    What is more, it has a widespread use in non-political elections.

    In Britain, many professional bodies use STV. It is the system of choice for mathematicians, statisticians and computer scientists, for the medical profession, teachers and students, and many others.

    These bodies are not *true believers*, as Bill would characterise people like myself but eminently qualified to judge for themselves his claim that STV is *such a flawed electoral system.*

    The No to STV campaign is a self-fulfilling prophecy that democracy is too hard.

Leave a Comment

Add your voice to the ongoing discussion:

Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.

About democracy cover

Now available as an eBook!

It's All About Democracy

By Stuart Hertzog

This intriguing collection from greenpolitics.ca offers a much needed and iconoclastic view of Canada’s Green parties.

Activist Stuart Hertzog’s lively, insightful, and often wry commentary shows just how far Canadian Greens have drifted away from the original Green political principles.

Its profoundly democratic vision offers a practical cure for our dysfunctional political system and a way forward on urgent global issues.

Vital reading for all Greens!

Paperback 196 pp. $25
ISBN 978-0-9691159-2-2
Annotated PDF $10
ISBN 978-0-9691159-3-9
EPUB e-Book format $10
ISBN 978-0-9691159-4-6

Click here for more information

Join us on facebook

greenpolitics.ca group on Facebook

Follow us on twitter

greenpolitics on twitter

Support greenpolitics.ca

PayPal logo

This site listed on:

  • Green Bloggers
  • Best Green Bloggers
  • Blogging Canadians
  • Grokodile BC blog directory
  • Progressive Bloggers
  • Vote Green

Support democratic media in Canada:

Support democratic media in Canada

Progressive Bloggers

Creative Commons Copyright ©