You can also download this as a .pdf

WHEN IT comes to electing women, Canada ranks 52nd in the world. Of the 51 countries ahead of us, 46 use proportional voting systems. British Columbia currently uses a voting system that consistently produces the worst results for women across the democratic world. Our flawed system marginalizes new voices, re-enforces the status quo and generates male-dominated parliaments.

Proportional systems key

Proportional voting systems, used around the world, produce much better results, giving women their deserved place in government. BC-STV is a modern, well-tested proportional model designed specifically to increase diverse representation in government. Members of the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform, half of whom are women, overwhelmingly chose STV for its accountability and stabilizing effect on BC politics.

Multi-member ridings an advantage

The math is simple. BC-STV uses multi-member districts in which parties can run more than one candidate. That offers parties a greater opportunity to present both women and men to the electorate.

Other facts

The Australian Capital Territories has one of the highest rates of women being elected in the world, using STV.

Ireland, using STV, elected 38 percent women to the European Parliament while the UK, using a regional party list system, elected only 23 percent women.

The negative nature of political campaigning can discourage women from participating in elections. BC-STV encourages more constructive debate, as candidates try to secure the “second choice” support of their opponents’ supporters.

In Australia, suffragette Catherine Helen Spence and women’s organizations such as the Federation of Women Voters campaigned for many decades for the adoption of STV.

We deserve better. It’s time to end politics-as-usual in BC. We are a growing grassroots movement of people from across the province uniting to define a new vision for BC.

Women who support BC-STV

• Denise Savoie, MP, Victoria BC
• Deborah Grey, former Reform Party deputy and interim leader
• Jane Sterk, leader, BC Green Party
• Jean Crowder, NDP MP, Nanaimo-Cowichan
• Cara Camcastle, SFU Political Science
• Adrianne Carr, former leader, BC Green Party
• Elizabeth May, leader, Green Party of Canada
• Sylvia Bashevkin, former president, Canadian Political Science Association
• Judy Rebick, Ryerson University, former president, National Action Committee on the Status of Women
• Lois Wilson, former president of World Council of Churches, former Senator.
• Andrea Horwath, Leader, Ontario New Democratic Party
• Blaize Horner Reich, SFU Segal School of Business

Scholars argue that women are likely to be elected in greater numbers under STV because it will encourage parties to change their nomination practices to put forward gender-balanced slates. That, along with more readily available childcare and other supports, would make it easier for women to serve as MLAs. – Donna Stewart, former southern BC representative on the National Action Committee on the Status of Women (1984-6), former federal NDP candidate for North Vancouver-Lonsdale.

Briefing Paper by Shoni Field, Citizens' Assembly Alumnae

The following is a briefing paper written by Citizens' Assembly member Shoni Field for the assembly's internal discussions. Shoni notes the following two points:

1. Every electoral system has large ranges in results around the world:

- FPTP: 8% (India) to low 20's (Canada) to 32% (South Australia)
- STV: 9% (Malta) to 41% (Australia)
- MMP: 6% (Albania) to 32% (Germany) to 50% (Wales)
- Party List PR: 6% (Algeria) to high 40's (Sweden, Rwanda)

Something else is clearly a factor besides the system. Research suggests that cultural will and political party will are key factors.

2. While electoral systems are not the sole factor, there is a big difference between the Canadian experience of FPTP and the experience with proportional systems such as MMP and STV in countries Canada considers our cultural and economic peers (40-50%); such countries generally have about 50% more women than Canadian legislatures do. So, when cultural will and political party will exists, more women will likely be elected under STV than under FPTP.

Preamble to Briefing

As a member of the BC Citizens’ Assembly for Electoral Reform improved women’s representation was one of my top priorities in desired outcomes from an electoral system. Early in our work I realized that the question of women’s representation was far more complicated than most discussions of electoral reform acknowledged.

Knowing the widespread interest our members had in the issue I shared my findings with others in discussions during our weekend sessions and online through our discussion forum. Following our decision I summarized some of my findings in the following briefing to assist members in responding to inaccurate statements that were being made regarding women’s representation.

Women’s representation under STV

Shoni Field, Citizens' Assembly member for Vancouver

Critics of STV claim that it is bad for women’s representation and cite Ireland (13%) and Malta (9.2%) as examples – but they consistently fail to reference the five Australian states (3 upper houses and two lower) and the Australian Senate where, using STV, women achieve from 24 up to 41%.

Too often the discussion around gender and STV comes in a simplistic “Germany good, Ireland bad” format. It is necessary to look far deeper to understand the relationship between electoral systems and women’s representation.

Clearly as the Australian example shows, STV in itself does not create a barrier to women. The Australian Capital Territories (41%) has one of the higher rates of women being elected in the world. We can see that under STV, women can get elected in relatively high numbers.

Critics will say that STV is dependent on pro-active measures ie/ party quotas to deliver these high rates – but in fact when you look to other systems that can deliver high returns you will also see pro-active measures being used.

The critics also fail to note that other systems also experience both the highs and lows of women’s representation. Our current first past the post system ranges from India (8%) to Canada (21%) and BC (24%) and up to 32% in South Australia. PR List Systems range from Algeria at 6.2% to Sweden at 45% and Rwanda at 48.8%. MMP ranges from Albania at 6% to Germany at 32% (Wales 50%).

Clearly, something besides the electoral system is responsible for determining the rate of women’s representation. A survey of the research will show that the two factors that are incredibly important in determining the rate of women’s representation are culture and political party commitment.

Critics will focus on the “culture” factor and not acknowledge the “political party commitment”. They will state that it can’t be cultural in Ireland because women have achieved levels equal or higher to Canada in leadership positions in industry, professions, university degrees etc.

However this conclusion overlooks the fact that women’s rise in Ireland has occurred within this generation and that politics for the most part tends to be a “second career”. Therefore it would be reasonable to expect that once these women have succeeded in their first professions: doctors, lawyers, accountants etc. we might start to see more women in Ireland entering politics as their second career. The fact that Irish women are doing well in the European Parliament (see below), which being a newer institution has attracted a different group of candidates than the traditional power structures, shows that women from Ireland can do well under STV.

Critics will say that in South Australia women actually score better under FPTP in the Lower House 32% than under STV in the Upper House – 27%. Therefore, they conclude that STV is worse than FPTP.

However the fact that both systems score at higher levels than ever achieved in Canada merely supports the argument that the political system is not the deciding factor. In both of these cases, parties have institutionalized a commitment to getting women to run in greater numbers. A possible explanation for the difference is that some studies have shown that women are more likely to run for lower houses than for upper houses– this difference seems to be linked to women’s motivation for running and that lower houses offer more opportunities to effect health care, education etc.

It should be noted that under MMP there are also examples where more women have been elected on the constituency side than on the list side (ie/ under the non proportional part of the system). It is worth noting that once parties have made an institutionalized commitment to nominating more women in a proportional system it can spill over into the non proportional part of the system (or in the case of Australia, to another level of government). In countries where use of MMP is fairly established (past the first couple of elections), whether more women are elected from the list or from the constituency side often now simply reflects which party got the biggest percentage of votes. For example, if a party which has institutionalized equal nomination of women does well then they will be electing more constituency members, while list seats might be filled by parties who have not made the commitment to nominate women.

Considering that many of the critics of STV have some background in our traditional FPTP party structures one has to wonder whether focusing on the question of culture or the electoral system is just a smoke screen to avoid addressing the issue of political party commitment.

In all instances where you see relatively high levels of women’s representation you will see that parties have made an internal commitment to nominate more women – often it starts with one party making a commitment to nominate 50% women, which creates pressure on other parties. Of course, under our current first past the post system it doesn’t matter much how many women the Greens and smaller parties nominate because they are unlikely to get anybody elected.

You will notice that the upper end of women’s representation is higher in proportional systems. This is because proportional systems like STV offer parties a greater opportunity to follow a formal gender nomination policy. In our current first past the post system, when only one candidate is nominated by a party for each riding – the logic is to nominate the “safest” candidate – this generally means the one that most fits the stereotype of a politician – middle aged white male. Exceptions to this rule are what get noticed. But, in proportional systems where parties are putting forward multiple candidates, it becomes more obvious which parties DO NOT have a diverse slate. Also, it is easier for the party to say that they will nominate equal numbers of men and women in multimember ridings rather than dictate to one riding that they must nominate a female while another riding must nominate a male.

Critics will say that unless you have ridings of five to seven members you will not see good returns for women under STV – but if you compare the European Parliament elections for Ireland and the UK you will see that not only does STV compare extremely favourably but also it does so in a system based on four member ridings. Ireland, using STV elects 38% women to the European Parliament while the UK, using a regional party list system elects 23% women.

Clearly, under BC-STV, the Electoral Boundaries Commission has defined boundaries with an average district magnitude of 4.15 and only two 2 member ridings there is an opportunity to see similarly positive returns.

Critics might also reference: bigger ridings in STV mean more expensive campaigns – claiming that more money = more barriers to women. In response, from the Irish figures it actually looks like campaign spending is pretty equivalent to here.

Critics might also say that the negative nature of campaigning (where you are pitted against your own party) will dissuade women. But actually because a candidate needs to gain second preferences from the other candidates from the same party, STV can inhibit negative campaigning (if you bash them indiscriminately, their loyal voters won’t put you second) – you differentiate yourself from your other party members based on the positives that you have to offer. This is a much more constructive campaign model than our current first past the post system.

Also, given that you are likely to have situations where one party may have two or more candidates elected in a riding you have a situation where it is in the party old guard’s best interests to mentor junior politicians who will bring them second preferences. Having mentorship roles will help bring new people into politics regardless of gender.

STV, as a proportional system offers parties a greater opportunity to put into effect their commitment to increase women’s representation. It can not guarantee high results because no electoral system on its own can do that – an electoral system is a tool to reflect the voter’s intentions. Some, like our current first past the post system, distort voter’s intentions and have institutionalized barriers, but proportional systems like STV reflect them fairly accurately. If the voters and the parties wish it to happen, then women will achieve higher rates of representation under STV.