Civic election post-mortem

An independent’s experience leads to a simple reform everyone can support

by Kevin Potvin <kpotvin@republic-news.org>

An analysis of the 2005 civic election in Vancouver on November 19 reveals the mechanics of the unhealthy stranglehold the party-dominated structure has on Vancouver civic policy.

The so-called “at-large” system grants each voter 10 votes and awards the top ten finishers seats on council. Each winner is then expected to represent the whole city.

While totally disenchanted voters don’t show up at the ballot stations at all, those who do are not required to use all their votes. A less than full ballot sheet therefore measures partial disenchantment among some voters. The City counts all those who show up regardless of how many votes they use, and therefore declared a 32% turnout this year. But since not all of those who turned out could find ten councillors to support (the average voter left two votes unused), a better measure of voter dissatisfaction, which is what looking at turnout is supposed to reveal, would be to compare the total number of votes cast to the total number that were allotted.

On Saturday, 4,070,400 votes were up for grabs, but only 1,083,681 were actually used. This amounts to only 27%, meaning that a whopping 73% of Vancouver’s votes were thrown away for lack of interest or charm.

That 27% is the lowest level yet. But given the lack of issues, charisma, or effective campaigns in this election, it probably measures the benchmark figure of the number who will always vote no matter what—a useful figure with which to begin an analysis of the election.

Using the results of the last place NPA finisher from the last three elections as the benchmark for what an NPA party affiliation earns a candidate who has no personal campaign at all, we see that 10% of allotted votes will always go to NPA candidates even if they run a dead fish in the tenth spot on their slate. Similarly, 8% of allotted votes will always go to the left-side party (or parties if they cooperate by nominating partial slates as COPE and Vision Vancouver did this year, and as COPE and Green Party did last election). And 2% will always go to other fringe parties and independents even if some are occasionally campaigning from jail.

That leaves 7% of allotted votes that are truly up for grabs. This 7% is in fact the target of all the campaigns. So, how did the campaigns do in getting their share of that 7%? How did they appeal to what is the equivalent of those 28,500 registered voters who actually do vote, read the news, go to meetings, get out of their house, ask questions, and arrive at open-minded and fully considered conclusions about how to vote?

The NPA candidates as a slate picked up an extra 2.2% of allotted votes, COPE and Vision candidates as a whole picked up an extra 3.8% of allotted votes, and an extra 1% of allotted votes went to others. That is, if the whole campaign is really all about just those 7% who can be campaigned to, the results are as follows: 31% to the NPA, 29% to Vision, 26% to COPE, and 14% to fringe parties and independents.

An even more revealing figure is produced by dividing the results by the number of candidates sharing them on each slate. Each NPA candidate on average garnered 3.1% of the available votes, each Vision candidate garnered on average 5.8%, each COPE candidate garnered on average 5.2%, and each fringe or independent garnered on average just under 1%.

By removing from the equation the effect of the party slate, we can also see who personally ran effective campaigns. Suzanne Anton, the top finisher and an NPA candidate, picked up 7.3% of truly available votes. Raymond Louie, the top Vision candidate and elected to the third spot, picked up 6.2% of truly available votes. David Cadman, the top COPE finisher and elected in the overall number six spot, picked up 5.5% of truly available votes. The last elected spot went to BC Lee of the NPA, who got 3.5% of truly available votes. The top independent, myself, got 3.8% of the truly available votes, good for ninth spot and a seat at Council—if only.

Some independents this year, as in previous elections, appeared more qualified than some of the party-nominated candidates, and this is the case even when there isn’t even a fighting chance for an independent to win a seat. If independents were generally at least in the running, many more qualified people would likely be putting themselves forward, which can only be good for the city.

A simple and probably widely applauded reform suggests itself: instead of allotting each voter 10 votes for council candidates, why not allot them just one vote? Gone would be the confusion over too many names to remember, gone would be the act of voting for people one never has heard of (which to any honest commentator cannot be healthy), and gone would be the wall called the slate voter effect, opening up real chances for quality independents.

The reform does not remove or even diminish the positive role that parties play in nominating candidates who back a common platform. It does not change the essential character of Vancouver politics, wherein at-large candidates run for election throughout the city, and represent the whole city at council.

But it does remove the negative role that parties play in electing candidates who personally waged ineffective campaigns, and who have little experience to offer. And this simple reform encourages qualified independents to step forward, since there would then be a fighting chance for them.

Best of all, the reform makes voting day far less arduous for voters, making a civic ballot and the voting process much more similar to the provincial and federal processes, which also only require one vote. This simple reform may as a result produce a higher turnout on election day as well as a result more in keeping with the intention of the Vancouver voter.

In my discussions with candidates nominated by parties during this campaign, there was a universal acknowledgement that the automatic slate voter armed with 10 votes made it impossible for independents to even imagine having a chance, without being completely delusional. All party candidates I am sure agree with me when I say that campaigns of the future would benefit if they attracted independents who were not all delusional to start with.

****