STV's bias revealed
Dear Republic:
Though I had finally figured out more or less how STV (single transferable vote) works, it took Kevin Potvin's acute mind, once again, to show the inherent weakness in this proposed new polling system. Considering how much work the 160 strong Citizens Assembly went into studying this system, if their recent flyer in the mail is anything to go by, it is amazing they didn't discover this flaw.
As Potvin aptly points out, any riding that has few candidates, most of whom belong to one party, will automatically favour that party using the STV method. Though this is reversed in multiple-candidate ridings, the overall result will be skewed if the smaller ridings are numerous and similarly biased. In BC that would tend to favour the conservative vote. I wonder how many voters are aware of this, to say nothing of the rather abstract mechanism of STV itself. It would seem that at this point our best hope is that enough electors say no to STV (on May 17th) simply because they don't understand how it works.
- Charles Leduc, Vancouver
True, but STV still better
Dear Republic:
Kevin Potvin is technically right about the right-side lock factor. Small-riding STV in the North would reward extremely high support for one side with a few bonus seats, and the right has a better chance of cashing in on that than the left. But something bothered me about your argument. It took me a while, but I figured it out.
In typical elections, the left gets 40% support in the North, with 60% to the right. That's what they got in '96, even after a scandalous term in office by the NDP. So small-riding STV would typically give them 4 or 5 out of 10 northern seats (they would split all the two-seat ridings except maybe Peace River). The last election in 2001 was where your "right-side lock" would have come into play under STV. The left may have had 25% of the northern vote, but would have only gotten 1 out of 10 seats under BC-STV. They really deserve 1 or 2 more. But under FPTP they get nothing! Which system is unworkable?
The fact that BC-STV slightly under-represents the lefties in the North during right-wing majority governments can not possibly be a reason to prefer it to FPTP, which gives northern lefties absolutely no representation in the same situation. And that's not even considering the host of other advantages that STV brings. I've never seen any hypothetical situation presented where FPTP gives a better result than STV.
I hope this makes sense and that you can clear it up in a future column, or publish this as a letter. Thanks for keeping the STV issue on your pages.
- Ryan Fugger, Vancouver
Not even true
Dear Republic:
I think that Kevin Potvin is getting his arithmetic wrong (as well as over-using the word “lock”) in claiming that STV will disadvantage the left because of the overwhelming conservative majorities in some of BC's hinterlands.
Consider two constituencies that each have 60% conservative majorities. Under our current First-Past-The-Post (FTPT) system, they each elect a conservative candidate; combined and using STV, one conservative and one, er, non-conservative. If three constituencies with even 70% conservative majorities are combined, STV will still elect one non-conservative where none are elected now. Under the current system, a bare plurality of conservatives in each constituency will result in a conservative sweep of all of those constituencies; under STV, the leftist candidates will at least have a chance where there is none under FPTP.
On the other side, in urban constituencies with seven representatives (which I'd say is possibly a bit too many—most STV proponents think that five is a good number that balances proportionality and local representation), 13% of the vote (possibly after transfers) will indeed elect a candidate. But, in the example given, it won't be East Vancouver that has seven representatives under STV - there will be a much larger area, one that right now has two NDP representatives and five Liberals. The NDP would have nowhere to go but up.
Although a two-member district seems a bit on the low side, and a seven-member one probably on the high side, the STV principle is the same - it will reflect the proportionality of the voters' wishes, and remove the necessity of strategic voting. The only promise STV makes is to elect a legislature that best reflects the collective preferences of the voters. I submit that this is all that we really want or need in an electoral system.
- Howard Cherniack, Vancouver
Carney hit the GST trough
Dear Republic:
Minor fact correction and a little extra background on one small part of your piece on the Senate hearings: Senator Pat Carney hit the trough as an extra Senator in 1990, as you say, but Mulroney stacked the Senate to pass the GST, not the FTA. How she got there aside, she at least has some past-life background in the media - before she dashed off to become a Tory cabinet minister in the 1980s, she was one of the more popular columnists at the Vancouver Province in its pre-tabloid days. See Marc Edge's excellent book Pacific Press: The Unauthorized Story of Vancouver's Newspaper Monopoly for more.
Enough quibbling. Thanks for writing about the hearings—it's nice somebody did. I'm readying my own editorial broadside on them, which I'm sure will cause the immediate breakup of the Vancouver newspaper monopoly. Cheers.
- Tim Shoults, Squamish, BC, Editor & Publisher, The Chief
Evil lurks
Dear Republic:
In an otherwise pretty good review of Hotel Rwanda by Junius, I was surprised when he asked, “ How often are we faced with out-and-out evil? Not often . . . without practice, how would we react? ”
Hell-o! Just look south at the US of A. An evil empire with a heritage of genocide, slavery and racism; legal and extra-legal lynching; an evil culture of greed, arrogance and ignorance; supporting dictators and despots around the world; a history of state-sponsored assassinations; invasions of sovereign states and mass killings of civilians; bullying and throttling smaller and poorer nations; the only nation in history that has dropped atom bombs on people - on civilians at that!; lethal poisons dropped on people and forests; 150,000 soldier-killers in Iraq; at least 150,000 civilians killed in Iraq; imprisonment without charges or legal recourse - many of them minors; torture and abuse of prisoners; capital punishment - even for minors; total disregard of the Geneva Convention; refusal to join the international Criminal Court; dumping of Kyoto Protocol; and these are the evil deeds just off the top of my head.
How do we react to this evil? From each according to her/his ability (read the Republic!). Inform yourself. Interact with and educate friends, family and colleagues. Campaign for total Canadian independence.
Also, don't buy USA (checkout Boycott USA sites on the internet). Remember, we brought apartheid to its knees. As for me, I spent all last year happily not buying anything from the USA. My food items were Canadian grown, organic and not genetically modified. I ate seasonal crops grown on family-owned organic farms in Canada - unionised farm-workers, no child labour. For occasional treats, I bought organic and fair-trade items from places other than the USA (I did not buy Israeli avocados!)
Remember, many of the so-called organic farming operations in California rely on under-paid migrant labour, child labour, are owned by large agri-businesses and many of their crops are genetically modified. Some of these crops are so weird, not even bugs would eat them so, they call their crops organic!
After a year, I feel clean, healthy, happy and oh-so-righteous. Try it, you'll thank me for it and it will help chip at the evil empire!
- Safder, Vancouver
Kay's Iraq clear
Dear Republic:
A quick note to say how much I appreciate William Kay's “The hunt for the al Duri doctrine" article. It is very hard to get a bead on the true realities of Iraq. Mr Kay's research certainly helps me to better understand the workings of the insurgency. Thank you to The Republic for providing a home for Mr Kay and the other outstanding journalists who contribute to this fine newspaper.
- Rod Johnson, Vancouver
Why “labour” dispute?
Dear Republic:
I am writing with regards to your article in the January 20 - February 2, 2005 issue of The Republic , “They planned to bust the union all along.”
I basically agree with the considerations about the state of professional hockey in North America which you put forth. Good stuff in my opinion. I have one quibble. Whether it is minor or not, well, that's your call.
If a married couple are involved in an argument, a disagreement, it would seem ridiculous to call that situation a “husband fight.” That would suggest only one side had an agenda, was aggressive, was contentious and demanding. It would, perhaps, suggest an unreasonable, trouble causing, shit disturbing malcontent. It seems to suggest that everything would be sweetness and light if only that one side would stop screwing up the works.
So what's a “labour dispute?” It is common parlance and I know it's a corporate world, but must they own the language as well?
As a working class stiff who only gets attention from mainstream media when, every ten or twelve years, we go to the bricks, I feel a bit like those women whose gender identity disappeared when the human race was regularly referred to as “mankind.”
Outside of my quibble, keep up the good work.
- Vern Huffman, Vancouver
****
|
