BC's options for electoral reform explained

Confused about electoral reform? We break down the three proportional representation voting systems proposed by B.C. Attorney General David Eby: mixed-member proportional, rural-urban proportional and dual-member proportional.

British Columbians will be voting in the referendum on whether they wish to switch from first-past-the-post this fall.

---

Written and explained by Megan Dias
Video by Christopher Cheung

Music:
“Backed Vibes Clean” by Kevin McLeod, CC by 3.0.

Sound:

[JXS.]

Great job on the video, I think it gets the information across well!

[missmayette]

Thank you for this. My attention span isn't long enough to sit through 25 minutes of detailed explanation. This gave me enough of a base to understand what it is I'm deciding between!

[MrVnotniv]

I'm sorry. I do have a coupla brain cells, but this totally loses me. I don't think I'm alone.

[jazzkid]

Thanks for the video. But I found Elizabeth May's TEDx talk "Electoral Dysfunction and Reform" more informative - it answers the "why" question, which is more important for me.

[ralimba]

BC deserves proportional representation.

[Masaru_kun]

beautiful! whatever kind of policy we promote, we have to acknowledge better democracy is the key to having those views heard!

[Daniel]

Canada, the U.S., and parts of the UK are the last hold outs of all major democracies to keep the antiquated system of FPTP. Alll other democracies use some form of proportional voting because it is fairer, and represents the people better. Big parties with big money will buck proportional representation, but it you want a better democracy, vote for Proportional representation. This referendum for proportional representation allows you to go back to the old system if you don't like it after two elections.

[alanboreham]

My reading on PR vs FPTP has led me to some interesting opinions. Here is one from famed philosopher Karl Popper, in an article to the National Post by Peter Shawn Taylor on October 19. "Popper fiercely opposed proportional representation because of its “detrimental effect on the decisive issue of how to get rid of a government.” Allocating seats by gross vote totals makes coalitions nearly inevitable, allowing unpopular leaders to cling to power through guile rather than popular support."

This supports my view that with the proposed PR options, it is very difficult to get rid of a government. That may be why the NDP/Green coalition is so keen on these options.

And second, a quote from columnist Andrew Coyne who has come out in favor of the BC PR vote. And yet, in an At Issue discussion on CBC television he said of the process being followed by the federal Liberals for election reform:

“You have to have some degree of all-party consensus even on the process of the referendum itself if this is going to be viewed as legitimate, and it has to be. We have to have a system that both is and is seen to be legitimate and fair or we’re going to do some damage to the democratic system.”

I have to wonder why Mr. Coyne is so opposed to the approach used by the federal Liberals, but okay with a similar approach in BC. I would be interested in others' views of these opinions.

[brendaguiled]

Sigh. Nearly all of this is framed up in terms of fairness to parties. We need a system that's fairer to voters, i.e. people, putting the 'demos' in democracy.

Go to 2:07 minutes in the video. The urban electoral system just talks about which candidates the voters prefer, without confusing this with which party lines they follow. This system allows people to rank their preferences within a party's platform, if that's what they want, but also across and between platforms. It puts good personal representation ahead of party politics. Imagine that!

Please vote for this option, if true democracy appeals to you. Otherwise, vote for greater fairness to parties and their politics, which is what options 1 and 3 offer -- what I call "kommatocracy", from the Greek word for parties.

There's much more to this conversation, but deciding between fairness to voters and fairness to parties is what's key.

[paullecomtenz]

Please BC, vote for MMP - it's fair for the people

[qualicumwilson]

what happens if a party wins 60 seats but only 50% of the vote? which 10 people "lose" their seats?

[chaunceystewart]

They are arguing for a complex form of a direct democracy. For someone with a MA in political science, she should know that direct democracies are bad!!!!

[krandyking]

are all options assuming same overall number of MLAs and same boundaries for ridings?

[DrEhrfurchtgebietend]

In summary. All either have partisan voting or IRV. IRV IS NONMONOTONIC(google arrows theorem). A score voting system with consensus government formation would solve all issues but give parties less power. PR gives parties power so it is what we get offered.

[antoinettehalberstadt]

Thanks! I have some news, and a couple of minor corrections: News: Dual Member Proportional (DMP), which is a variation of MMP, HAS actually been tried. It's in use in the German state of Baden-Württemberg. Wikipedia on DMP makes this comment...
“Of the various forms of MMP, DMP has most in common with the "best near-winner" system used in the German state of Baden-Württemberg.[23] Whereas most implementations of MMP provide electors with two votes, both DMP and the Baden-Württemberg system employ a one-vote ballot. The number of votes candidates receive determines their eligibility for both the first set of seats (based on plurality) and the 2nd set of seats (based in part on the popular vote).”

So hey, all 3 systems on the ballot-- Dual Member, Mixed Member and Single Transferable Vote -- are in fact tried and tested. (Rural-Urban just being a tailor-made mix of MMP and STV)

Corrections: 1. Under DMP the second seat (in the two-riding region) doesn't quite go to the secondary candidate of the same party. In fact that would be quite a rare occurrence. Most frequently, it would go to the primary candidate of the party that came in as a strong second, or maybe the party that came in third if the party that came in second has already been assigned all the seats coming to it.

2. Although I myself don't know how STV ballots are counted up, apparently the way this video shows the assignment of seats is the "Alternative Vote" (AV) way, not the STV way.

3. My understanding of the top-up (secondary) seats for the rural -- i.e. MMP -- areas in Rural-Urban, is that there would be fewer of them than there would be if the whole province used MMP (which is also one of the three referendum options). And that they would be calculated per Provincial proportionality, similar to the way DMP is calculated, rather than by Regional proportionality as would be the case if the whole province was MMP.

[fxsparrow]

The legislature is supposed to be the house of the people no the house of the parties. BC needs to reform the party system not the electoral system

[PracticaProphetica]

I actually like the idea of one party winning, even if they don't win "the popular vote" and determining policy for the next number of years. Gridlock and bartering with minor parties just to pass a few basic bills results in waste of time and taxpayers money. If the majority party messes up real bad, they get knocked out in the next election. But at least they had a chance to do something, and now everybody knows what doesn't work.

Also, the idea of "the popular vote" seems to me, to circumvent the careful balancing you need between rural and urban areas. Rural areas would get stomped on if elections were just based on the popular vote, as the choices of the city folks would win every time. Rural areas need more representation because they have fewer voters over a large area. Therefore, they need more resources to take care of that larger area, and must be given a greater voice so their needs can be heard. This is what binds a country together, taking care of each other.

[bananian]

I wonder how many voters would actually go through the trouble of learning all this?

Most of us don't even know a referendum is coming up let alone what it's about.

My bet is that nothing changes since most voters wouldn't be able to make informed decisions at the voting booth.

[ChillyDippers]

Ditch the whole concept of being "fair" to parties.... leave parties off the ballot !

[paulthompson]

I really wanna like PR...I dont want Canada to be a hold out...but i just cant get my head around it...if you dont win, you shouldnt get a seat...why would small fringe party who didnt win get rewarded any seats? but I guess it is good that they get some seats to represent those that voted for them even if they cant have much influence in the parliament. Im still torn...ug.