Answers to Common Myths about BC-STV

Myths - Comprehensive Answers(.pdf)
FAQ/MYTH - Cheat sheet (.pdf)

Myth: STV is too complicated for voters to select candidates.
Fact: Voters only need to put a ‘1’ beside their first choice and may rank additional choices if they wish.

Myth: Voters won't know where their votes went.
Fact: Your vote can only be transferred to candidates you chose on your ballot. Elections officials publish results showing how votes were transferred. You can see exactly how much of your vote went to your first choice (usually most) and how much, if any, was transferred to your next preference.

Myth: STV makes politicians less accountable.
Fact: STV increases accountability. Our current system allows voters limited choice between candidates. BC-STV improves competition by allowing voters to switch their vote to another candidate from their party or a smaller party. The presence of viable alternatives creates greater incentives for accountability.

Myth: STV is worse for women.
Fact: The potential for the election of women is far higher. Our current system places barriers for women seeking a party nomination. Under BC-STV, parties nominate several candidates - they can balance their slates to attract more voters. In Australia, women do much better in the elections that use STV than in winner-takes-all elections.

Myth: Voters would have to rank dozens of candidates.
Fact: In some votes in Australia there is a requirement to rank all candidates, but in BC a voter could rank as few as one. Voters could rank 2 or 3 candidates from one political party or vote across party lines if they wish -- whatever they choose.

Myth: BC used STV in 1952 and it created problems.
Fact: BC used a ranked ballot, but not STV. The results were not fair and two parties still dominated the election.

Myth: STV is not proportional.
Fact: BC-STV was designed to give fair results and local representation. That makes it the best form of proportional representation to match our system of government -- for many years, the term `proportional representation' simply meant STV in most English-speaking countries.

Myth: STV is used in Israel & Italy.
Fact: Israel and Italy have completely different systems. Voters choose party lists and extreme fringe parties only require 2-4% of overall votes to get in. BC-STV is a stable system where each candidate is directly elected, accountable to voters and needs significant local support to be elected.

Myth: STV will elect fringe parties and candidates.
Fact: With BC-STV, each candidate will still need moderate community support (slightly more votes than they need now), but they can get them from across a larger voting district.

Myth: STV would result in more elections.
Fact: Ireland and Malta have had fewer elections than either BC or Canada in the last 50 years. BC-STV will result in less wild seat changes, so there is less incentive for a party to gamble on an election.

Myth: STV would not be stable.
Fact: STV is as stable in terms of longevity and more stable in terms of policy formation. This is because legislation will need the support of MLAs representing a majority of the population, thus avoiding dramatic policy shifts that occur when government changes hands.

Myth: STV would create more expensive elections.
Fact: The same parties would still be trying to reach the same voters. So the primary campaign expenses --office space, staff, mailings, TV and newspaper ads -- would be exactly the same. Independents may need to campaign harder in a 5-seat riding than in a 1-seat riding -- but they would also have a chance of winning.

Myth: BC-STV removes rural seats.
Fact: BC-STV does not change the number of seats per region.

Myth: STV creates giant northern ridings that are too big.
Fact: BC-STV ridings in the North have about the same population and area as a current federal riding -- but with 2 or 3 representatives. Greater competition creates strong incentives for MLAs to be more responsive.

Myth: STV results in no local MLAs.
Fact: Every MLA will be accountable to the voters in his or her district. In Ireland, the MLAs who jointly represent a district often open offices in different parts of the constituency. If a district has more than one population center, voters in each one will tend to support their `local' candidate, even across party lines, making it likely that each population center will be represented.

STV is a tried and tested system that has been used for nearly 100 years in English speaking countries around the world. It is easy for voters and it a tried and tested method for counting votes. In Ireland, voters have twice rejected attempts to remove it.

That being said, the powerful political elites in BC do not favour STV because it shifts power away from political machines to voters. Instead of debating STV, the critics have been trying to confuse voters by using words such as "it's complicated", "you will never know where your vote went", or "your vote will go to people you did not vote for." These are all falsities designed to obscure the problems with our current system.

Similar to how John McCain's campaign ran advertisements making false accusations against Barack Obama, a similar campaign is being run against BC-STV by experienced campaign strategists.

We will try and address many of the opponents of electoral reform's claims.


1. The opponents of electoral reform say that political parties will be too powerful under BC-STV.

FALSE.

British Columbia and Canada already have political parties with some of the strictest discipline and most centralized control in the democratic world. It is simply impossible for any system to give political parties any more control than they have at present.

First-Past-The-Post gives political parties an unbalanced role. Many British Columbians feel that political parties take their votes for granted, as most elections in their district aren't competitive, therefore the real choice has been made before the people have a chance to vote. Moreover, because there is only one candidate from each party, voters have no power to choose the best candidate in each political party. However, with BC-STV:

• Voters have the final choice at the ballot box. By ranking their preferred candidates, it is the voter, not the political party, who decides which candidates (from all political parties) would provide the best representation. Voters will no longer have to accept a candidate they do not approve of if they want to vote for that particular party. They can choose their preferred candidates from all political parties in the district.

• Districts will often have both government and opposition represented, making both the government and the opposition responsible to the voters in the district.

• It is easier for independent candidates to get elected. MLAs from all political parties know they will have to take their constituents' views into account when they vote in the legislature because they could lose the next election to an independent candidate who is focused on the local issues that are important to the region. Even if independents are not elected, MLAs, from all political parties, will at least be more independent minded, as opposed to simply towing the party line as they do today.

2. They say BC-STV will not elect as many women to the Legislative Assembly.

FALSE.

In fact, the existing system has the worst record in electing women of all electoral systems. In British Columbia, only 23% of MLAs are female and at a federal scale, in the House of Commons, women make up only 22% of all MPs.

There are only two countries that use STV, Ireland and Malta, that have a lower proportion of women elected to parliament than we do. This is due to the fact that the political parties themselves do not run as many female candidates as we do in British Columbia. This is a result of cultural and historical, not the electoral system.

In the STV jurisdictions where parties run a similar proportion of female candidates as British Columbia does, far more women get elected to public office.

The following are some examples depicting the percentage of females elected to political office through the STV electoral system:

• Western Australia Legislative Council is 44% female;

• Legislative Assembly of the Australian Capital Territory is 41% female;

• Ireland's contingent in the European Parliament is 39% female;

• 36% of Australia's Senators are female;

• 31% of New South Wales' Legislative Council are female; and

• 30% of the Australian State of Victoria's Legislative Council is female.

All of these jurisdictions use STV, and they all elect more women than British Columbia does under First-Past-The-Post.

3. They say under BC-STV, MLAs will be elected with unequal levels of popular support.

FALSE.

Supporters of the current system often argue that MLAs under BC-STV will need a different percentage of the vote to get elected in different districts.

It is true, that in a two-member district a candidate will need 33.3% of the vote to get elected and in a seven-member district a candidate will need 12.5% of the vote to get elected.

This use of percentages obscures the simple fact that some districts will have more MLAs than others. So while the percentage of the vote necessary to get elected differs, the actual number of votes does not.

If voter turnout is similar to the 2005 election, the vast majority of MLAs will need the support of approximately 20,000 voters in order to get elected. In the predominantly rural districts they will need less (just like the current system) as exceptions to representation by population are made for northern and rural electoral districts.

For the first time in BC we will see most MLAs elected to the Legislative Assembly with reasonably equal support. This is a stark contrast to the flawed current system.
In 2005, Shirley Bond was elected in Prince George-Mount Robson. Shirley Bond held only 5,885 votes, while John Nuraney was elected in Burnaby-Willingdon with 8,754 votes. In the same election, Andrew Black lost in Comox Valley with 13,261 votes and Virginia Green lost in Vancouver-Fairview with 12,114 votes.

How is that equal?

4. They say BC-STV is too complex and complicated for British Columbians to understand.

FALSE.

If you can list things in order of preference, you can understand BC-STV.

Suggesting that BC-STV should be rejected because people cannot understand anything other than placing a single "X" beside a single candidate insults the intelligence of voters.

To say that British Columbians aren't capable of using a system that the Australians and Irish have used for almost 100 years is ridiculous. British Columbians are just as smart as voters in Scotland, Northern Ireland, Australia, Malta and the Republic of Ireland. If they can do it, we can too.

5. They say under BC-STV, political parties who "lose" the election will have too much power.

FALSE.

In fact, it is our current defective system that gives too much power to "losing" political powers.

In 1996, the political party that lost the popular vote nonetheless won a majority government. With First-Past-The-Post only 40-50% of voters have an MLA for whom they voted including those who were forced to vote strategically. Why is throwing away half the people's ballots sensible? Our electoral system shouldn't be about creating losers; it should be about giving as many people as possible an MLA. That way the legislature truly represents the province. With STV, 80-90% of voters will have an MLA they voted for, now that makes sense.

6. They say we can't risk being fair to the voters during the economic downturn.

FALSE.

People who want to preserve the status quo imply that we have to sacrifice fairness to the voter in the interests of good government. They are wrong. By more accurately representing the voters' wishes, STV greatly improves accountability, makes local representation more responsive and will shift us from the extreme policy swings of our current First-Past-The-Post system to consistent and stable policy formation that represents the wishes of the majority. Fairness to the voter leads to better government - we simply can't afford to go without either of them.

This is why we need BC-STV, now more than ever.

7. They say local representation will be reduced.

FALSE.

Rural voters told the Citizens' Assembly that they liked the idea of local representation but that there is plenty of room for improvement. This wish was a key reason the Assembly recommended STV. Currently 50-60% of voters are not represented by the MLA for whom they voted. With so many votes wasted MLAs can concentrate on the largest centre/group in their constituency and ignore everybody else.

With STV, no rural district will be larger than the current federal riding, but there will be more than one MLA to represent them. In addition, over 80% of voters will have an MLA they voted for, so it's not possible for all MLAs to be concentrated in the largest centre. With no safe seats and increased competition, MLAs will only be re-elected if they are responsive to their electorate. If you want your local representation, both rural and urban, to be responsive and effective then vote for BC-STV.

8. They say that all the MLAs in a district might come from the same town.

FALSE.

Under the current First-Past-The-Post system only 40-50% of voters elect an MLA of their choice. This is why MLAs are almost always from the largest community in a constituency. By comparison, 80-90% of voters have an MLA they voted for with BC-STV. Political parties can't afford to waste votes, so in an effort to appeal to as many voters as possible they choose candidates from across the whole district. With almost every voter electing an MLA, the votes in surrounding communities finally count. As with the example of Ireland, MLAs will be spread across the entire district rather than clustered together.

9. They say STV isn't proportional.

FALSE.

Proportionality is not something we have to be subjective about. There is a measurement called the Gallagher's Index that measures disproportionality. Anything with less than 5% disproportionality is considered a proportional system.

STV, which nicely balances proportionality and local representation, scores between 3.5 - 4.5% and is considered a proportional system.

Our current system has a grotesque average of 20% disproportionality. If we want proportional representation, we need BC-STV.

10. They say they're not against electoral reform; they're just against STV.

FALSE.

Actually, the only thing they are for is preserving the status quo. The most vocal opponents of STV have consistently come out against electoral reform. This cynical attempt to divide those citizens who want electoral reform should be seen for what it is -defending the status quo at all costs. Voters from across the country are looking to BC because they know if BC-STV doesn't pass then electoral reform is off the table for a generation. Different systems work best for different jurisdictions; Canadians may well find that, like the United Kingdom, we will end up using several different systems at the provincial and national levels. But in order to keep the promise of electoral reform alive in BC, and in Canada, we have to pass BC-STV on May 12th. Even in BC, electoral reform will still be open for discussion. The Citizens' Assembly required that BC-STV be reviewed after three elections.

Opponents to STV are against electoral reform because the distortions of the current First-Past-The-Post system work in their favour, rather than working for the voter.