Will the Single Transferable Vote "power up your vote" or dilute your voice?
A small but engaged audience of 20 at the Adventure Centre Wednesday (April 29) heard representatives' arguments for and against the proposed Single Transferable Vote (STV) system, at a forum organized by The Chief and the Whistler Forum for Leadership and Dialogue.
The STV system, which is being put to a referendum in conjunction with the provincial election on May 12, would allow voters to rank candidates in their order of preference rather than casting a single vote under the current First Past the Post (FPTP) system.
There would be fewer ridings but multiple MLAs elected in each riding, with the same number of MLAs elected.
"No STV" representative Anita Hagen, a former NDP MLA, said she is not voting in favour of FPTP, but rather against the proposed STV system because the larger ridings would dilute local representation and the system is too complex, with long lists of candidates on each ballot.
"It was not designed for big geographies like B.C.," she said. "It was designed for smaller centers of population.
She said Squamish would be dwarfed as part of a North Shore riding with four MLAs.
"Local accountability with your own MLA makes a difference."
Hagen also said smaller parties like the Green Party would likely see no more members elected under the STV system because of the different quotas required in each riding to elect members.
"The idea that these minority parties will be elected is accidental. It's not guaranteed."
Pro-STV speaker, Craig Henschel, was a member of the Citizen's Assembly on Electoral Reform that first proposed the STV system.
"There were a great number of trade-offs" in the group's deliberations, he said.
The majority of the Assembly members supported a mixed-member proportional (MMP) system at first, which would see some MLAs elected directly in larger ridings and others elected according to the percentage of a party's vote province-wide, said Henschel.
But after public consultation it decided that system would reduce local representation far too much, and looked at STV as a way to solve that issue.
Under FPTP, typically 50 per cent of voters don't vote for a winner at the local level, whereas under STV up to 80 per cent of votes would go towards electing candidates, Henschel said.
He added the multi-member ridings would also be more likely to see members from different parties elected, which would allow for more points of view.
Members of the audience had a wide range of questions, from how STV worked technically to the chances of implementing other electoral reform if STV were rejected.
Carol Grolman said what she heard didn't address her situation.
"There's no doubt that Joan McIntyre is a wonderful representative for the people," she said. "but I do not want to vote Premier Campbell back in."
Both Hagen and Henschel admitted neither electoral system addresses that issue.
"How you elect people is important," said Hagen. "What happens after you elect people is much more important."
In response to questions about other systems, Hagen said NDP leader Carole James has stated that if STV doesn't pass in the referendum, she will still move to reinvigorate electoral reform.
"I believe there is a tremendous move for electoral reform, but this is the wrong system," she said. "[Voting no] doesn't close the door to electoral reform."
But Henschel pointed out that MMP would get a much lower response in a referendum because of the concerns over rural representation.
