Updated: Wed May. 13 2009 20:18:19

British Columbians voted down electoral reform for the second time Tuesday night, decisively rejecting the referendum on Single Transferable Vote.

Voters were asked whether or not to abandon the First-Past-The-Post voting system, also known as the "winner takes all" method, in favour of proportional representation in the form of the Single-Transferable-Vote, or STV.

The referendum required 60 per cent support, and at least 50 per cent support in 51 per cent of ridings, in order to pass. As of 11:00 p.m. local time, fewer than 40 per cent of British Columbians appear to have embraced the reform.

It's bad news for Jane Sterk and the BC Green Party. The Greens were pinning their hopes for a historic first seat in the B.C. legislature on a 'yes' vote on the STV proposal, which would have all but guaranteed representation for the party.

While neither Gordon Campbell nor Carole James publicly supported STV, the Green Party went so far as to fundraise in favour of the reform, sponsoring television advertisements to counter what they branded "misinformation" coming from the NO-STV campaign.

Some political scientists say without a proportional system, the Greens -- or any third-party candidate, for that matter -- don't stand a chance of getting representation.

"The Green Party's chances are nil, zip, nada, nothing," University of Victoria political science professor Dennis Pilon said. "That's the way it works. Our political system is not very competitive. It's hard to break into the system."

Supporters and detractors of the new method spent months waging a public relations war over STV, using advertisements, internet marketing, public appearances and debates to rally support for their side.

The NO-STV campaign called the new method too confusing for voters to understand, and criticized the larger ridings required for STV to operate.

The BC-STV campaign countered that larger ridings are a small price to pay to have a legislature where almost all voters can potentially help to elect at least one candidate - as opposed to the roughly 50 per cent who manage to elect a candidate under the current system.

A previous referendum in 2005 was lost by a hair's breath, less than three per cent short of the quota required for adoption.

Comments are now closed for this story

Jabroney
And why would fewer ridings with more seats HELP the Green? The libs and NDp's would just field more candidates - who would still get more votes. More complicated, same result. No thanks.

H Gill
You can't field more candidates than there are seats. The Greens would have been guaranteed at least 6-8 seats under STV.

VanIsle Cattle Rancher
Well typical, befuddle the electorate against proportional representation and then throw it out there. I will tell you all that without PR or the STV, what continues to occur is the overwhelming majority of voters in urban ridings continue to ride roughshod over our rural ridings. I always voted Social Credit, and basically have to vote for, God forgive me, the liberals now, as the only other choice in my riding on the Island was the tree huggers (can you believe we have them on our Island?) or the new dumb party. With an STV system, I believe all parties would have a fair chance at establishing their voice and the voice of the voting public.

Mark -Vegreville, AB
I think proportional representation is a great idea in theory, but in practice it would more than likely end up being a disaster.

Look at federal politics. For over three years now we have had a minority Conservative Government. What has this brought us aside from weekly threats to force an election, diluted acts being passed and general infantile behavior on the part of all parties in the House.

Like it or not folks, majority rule by a minority of voters in a multi-party environment is the most stable means of governing a country so divided. I hate it, and you might hate it, but until we can find mature leadership and cooperation among our chosen representatives who can set aside egos for the good of the nation, the way we have it now is as good as it gets.

Disgruntled
Jabroney, it's simple.

The greens are centrist, while the Libs are right and the NDP are left.

The multiple candidates from the same party would split their percentage of the riding that supports the party, so the surpluses of the victor and the unelected low end would likely end up with NDP and Liberal votes both transferring to Greens to get some of the last seats.

Not to mention green supporters no longer having to be afraid to vote green as their primary choice, and rather voting for one of the other two to try to prevent the one they do not like from winning, as they could then account for that with their secondary choices under STV


Not passing this is the true disappointment of the night.

MikeGower
Jabroney, your statement shows how little you understand the process. It would make no sense for the Liberals or NDP to field that many candidates. They'd cannibalize their own vote.

J Keddie
STV is used successfully in many other Countries.

It's extremely unfortunate for the fairness of BC politics that BC-STV did not pass.

VanIsle Cattle Rancher
Jabroney...just for a simple explanation...I would have voted 1. Conservative 2. Liberal 3. BC Refed 4. Green 5. NDP....here in an extended Northern Vancouver Island riding.... Mark in Vegreville (home of the giant Ukie Egg)...nice cattle up there...PR works in a number of other countries, namely the big one to our south...Federally the Tories would actually in all likelihood have gained a majority with that system or in other times the Liberals would have too. How? Well, blue Liberals would select Tories 2nd, red Liberals maybe 3rd...red Tories, would take Liberals 2nd, and control would be vested in the hands of where 82% of the voting public placed it in the last federal election. It can also allow for independant and regional parties to have their voices heard within the larger parliament. CORRECT...voting this down in British Columbia was a dissapointment for all the people even the ones I disagree with.

Mo
Low turnouts in this election is because of lack of STV, this is a sad sad day for democracy that minority of people's opinions would decide for majority of people and those who weren't motivated to vote because their vote would have been wasted.... Sad sad.

Peter
Thank god this issue is DEAD.
While it may seem lke its good for us urbanites, how would you like to campaign that north riding.Going from the Charlottes to Fort Nelson candidates would go broke. Of course we all know how much Skidegate has in common with Fort St. John. This would be a STUPID system

mike from BC
I can't believe the STV didn't pass. Now we won't be able to have the BC Teacher's Party, or the BC Nurses Party, or the CUPE party, or the Communist, Facist, or Marijuana party.

Did anyone who actually voted for the STV bother to find out what a disaster proportional reapresentation is in every other country where it's utilized? Or even read our own history (federally) every time we have a minority goverment?

For the unaware, take a hard look at places like Italy, Israel, Germany or even India. In order to get a working majority, coalition governements are formed with groups that represent the fringe element in society (fascist, communist, or marijuana party as an example) or worse they are formed with single issue parties (BC Nurses, BC Teachers, BC Doctors, CUPE).

And again for the unaware, this is EXACTLY what happens with proportional represenation. 2-3% (in most cases) of the popular vote is all that is required to get someone elected. Fortunately for BC over 60% of the population figured this out.

Cyril
STV would not increase voter turnouts. Higher purpose people get your heads around the idea that abstention means approval. If people don't like the present system, they should at least be making the effort to get out and spoil their ballots. That is not happening. There is no evidence to suggest that STV will increase voter turnout. The people staying away now would stay away under STV.

Claude Tardif
What I find most depressing is the type of arguments people used against BC-STV: Anything to show they don't understand a thing about democracy, basic arithmetic, or how backwards we are.

The argument of Mark -Vegreville is way above the rest, but still it is false: Proportional representation CAN work in a divided country; in fact it HAS worked in a divided country. Germany reunited in 1990. The rich, democratic west with the ruined, totalitarian east. You don't get more divided than that. Yet they made it work with MMP, and even met their Kyoto goals while maintaining better health care, education and public transportation than we could ever dream of. All this while we had the Bloc Quebecois at the house of commons.

Bill at Comox Lake
Neil Swainson of the Poli Sci Dept at Uvic onece said, " The people have spoken and the people are always right."

driids
For all the comments lamenting the loss of STV:

Could someone explain to me exactly how the the various votes (that is, first choice votes for losing candidate, extra votes for first place candidate, etc...) were to be weighted when being counted?

Bill in BC
STV (Still sounds like a sexually transmitted desease to me!) is one of the dumbest ideas I've heard in a LONG time. The present system isn't perfect but it WORKS. This herpes system wouldn't. Enough said. Let's not keep revisiting this every election like it's a clone of the Quebec referendums.

Derek
To H Gill:

True, you can't run more candidates than there are seats, but Liberal and NDP supporters are just going vote along party lines. That wasn't going to put the Green Party into the legislature.

Marcel
I stand for STV but not the system proposed as it was impossible to know where one vote would go. Even a UVIC professor could not figure it out,a man whom I know is a fine political analyst. We just need to find the STV model that will be simple enough for people to understand and trust. To whom is my vote going to when calculating the votes. Anyway, it is not a dead issue, it is alive and will come back in the next election for sure. We will find the right combination.

Ian K
The failure of STV to pass is a very good thing because it will inevitably creat 'wag the dog' politics.

In ‘wag the dog’ politics small splinter parties are able to hold larger parties hostage and thereby force through policies that only a small minority of citizens want.



Israel is an excellent example of ‘wag the dog’ politics. Small religious parties force their programs on larger parties in return for support in crucial confidence votes. This has been one of the main stumbling blocks to peace in the Middle East and makes it difficult for governments to pass necessary legislation if it is opposed by small minorities. These splinter parties sometimes play off one major party against another to get their way, in effect, selling their parliamentary votes to the highest bidder. This leads to on-going instability – and sometimes paralysis – in government. Consequently, the whole democratic process is distorted as small minorities foist their policies on the majority. Is this what we want in B.C?



The STV will also encourage the formation of splinter parties and could even lead to the formation of parties on ethnic and religious lines. Instead of uniting British Columbians, this would divide and polarise them even more than they are now. This does not bode well for the future of our politics or social fabric.



The STV may look like a good recipe – but what looks good in a recipe book doesn’t always work out well in the kitchen.

DDC
Killing STV was the best thing of this election. I am a (former Socred) Liberal but would rather have an NDP government than STV.
Majority governments have a mandate to get things done and they do. Think of Whistler and the Coquihalla, both done by Bill Bennett. Majority governments then have to stand or fall on their record. Saying that other countries have STV is one thing, but do they give good government? Not as good as majority governments.
Secondly, if rural ridings think they have things bad now, think what it would be like with STV, especially in the hinterlands of rural ridings. Multiple MLAs in large ridings would almost for sure come from the large centres of those ridings, and everyone would want to deal with the most popular of the MLAs while the least popular would be able to play golf all the time.
STV is the dumbest thing that ever could have been proposed, especially after we just got rid of dual member ridings in the '90's. The next dumbest is all the redistribution that has gone on with the Lower Mainland getting a lot more MLAs compared to the interior, while it is the interior where the wealth of the province comes from. The postage stamp sized ridings in Vancouver have no agriculture issues, no highways issues, no forestry issues, and their MLAs are a thirty minute flight from Victoria. The interior MLAs have ridings that are huge, have issues that deal with every ministry, and have 4, 6, and 8 hour commutes to Victoria.
Most people don't know much about how the province is governed, but since they turned STV down, maybe they are much smarter than I thought. Good for them. STV would have been an absolute disaster.

Doug
If "H Gill" is correct,and the Greens would have had 6-8 seats if this election took place under STV,I am glad I voted against it.
While I agree that our current system has it's share of flaws,trading one poor sstem for another poor system would be an exercise in futility.
I think "J Keddie" is wrong to say STV "is used successfully in many other countries".In fact,I think it is used by very few,and none of those countries are any more stable successful than BC is.
In my opinion,the real problem is extremism.We don't have a centre right and a centre left option.We have a far left NDP,we have right wing Liberals,and a single issue Green party.We can't make measured changes in BC.Any change in government is a radical shift from right to left,or vice-versa.
Notwithstanding some valid complaints regarding the flaws in our first past the post system,I think the voters made the right choice.Change is only good if it makes thing work better.I do not believe STV would do that.In spite of the flaws,the most successful democracies in the world still use first past the post.I believe it's because,when the election is over,we NEED a government with enough authority to actually do something.STV would create endless debate on every issue,and action would be impossible in a legislature populated by single issue independents.
The party winning enough seats to form a minority government would be at the mercy of the parties who actually lost the election.

Oh Happy Day
I voted for good, responsible government. And, wonder of wonders, I got it!
We wouldn't have it under an STV regime.

Cathy
"mike from BC"is mixing up non-elected parties with those who won election seats. If this election was based on STV (44% Liberal, 43% NDP, and 10% Green party), any of those 3 parties who WON/HOLD seats would NOT be able to form a coalition with a "fringe party" who NOT win seats.

STV is **proportional**, so if no one or hardly any citizen votes for any fringe parties, these parties would NOT be able to form a coalition because there aren't enough votes to win seats.

Your numbers and logic don't add up.

--------
mike from BC wrote:
"In order to get a working majority, coalition governements are formed with groups that represent the fringe element in society (fascist, communist, or marijuana party as an example) or worse they are formed with single issue parties (BC Nurses, BC Teachers, BC Doctors, CUPE)."

Sad day for BC
Why is it that people believe the only "effective" form of government is a majority government. The majority government is very dangerous. Only a minority government must be accountable for it's laws. Some of the best legislation in Canada was passed under a minority government. Personally I think both sides of the STV debate did a horrible job.

cathy
To driids:

See the video, explaining how STV works. It's no where near as complicated as the fear mongerers would have you believe. Basic, weighting of voter preferences, that's all it is.

When you were a kid, think of how you picked (ie. voted and prioritized) your best friends from 1st to last among all your friends. Or, choosing your favourite candies at the corner store on the day that you got your allowance.

As an adult, what process do you go through to judge which wines (or beers, or whatever) you love, like, or dislike and based on which and what number of criteria?

The basics are not much different to that of STV.

--------

driids wrote:

"Could someone explain to me exactly how the the various votes (that is, first choice votes for losing candidate, extra votes for first place candidate, etc...) were to be weighted when being counted?"

Steve from Kamloops
We spoke, I spoke, STD supporters get over it you lost.

Gam
STV in my opinion is too open to vote manipulation and fraud behind the scenes. I want my vote to go where I put it, not where somebody else can tweek the numbers by moving votes around that can't be traced back to the origin. Just how would you do a recount in that sort of system?

Amar
Please don't ask us to vote on STV for at least another 10 years.

Craig
Don't know why BC chose BC-STV this time and the last time STV. It is a complicated system and easy for those who do not wish the system to change to throw mud at it. MMP would be a much better system for any Canadian province as it has both PR and FPTP elements in it.

I'm very disappointed that the NDP or the Liberals take take up the cause, which in the end I would say killed reform. BC has always had the best chance of electoral reform passing.

As for STV not changing the system, I think it would. If I was choosing my top three contenders, being a NDP supporter, I'd make my first candidate a NDPer and and maybe the second as well. But then I'd feel i might take a chance with Social Credit or perhaps the Green party. Anyhow I think the Average person would not pick just the party they prefer as there three main choices.

Paul
I suspect BC voters are smarter than many of the pundits: STV would result in Parties running multiple candidates (under multiple Party banners, if necessary).

Those voters who favoured a particular Party's policies would vote for a particular slate, in a particular sequence in order to effect a particular outcome.

A Party with (say) five popular candidates would be less successful than a Party with two popular and three unpopular candidates.

Why the pundits don't seem to understand this is beyond me.

Stephanie
I did not understand what STV was in the last election, and I think the 59% vote was a result of this misunderstanding. This time I did understand it because the literature that arrived at my door explained it and compared it to the present system. I think the 39% vote shows BC finally understands the STV and does not want it.

Nathan Banks
It's fascinating that about 10% of voters who voted "yes" for BC-STV last time voted "no" this time despite a slight increase in publicity.

Why did they change their mind? Probably these reasons:

1. Last time BC-STV was portrayed as the only road for electoral reform.

2. The media and most of the literature tried to say what STV would do instead of explaining how it worked.

BC-STV is quite easy for me to understand because I'm a computer scientist, but I believe it's not too difficult for most people to understand in about half an hour. It's far far simpler than the algorithms used for MP3's, internet banking, and income tax.

If you voted differently on BC-STV 4 years ago, I'd love to know why you changed your mind.

cathy
STV didn't lose, BC voters lost. It's already been acknowledged by pro- and anti-STV debaters that BC needs a new & better system.

You still don't get it.

--------

Steve from Kamloops wrote:
"We spoke, I spoke, STD supporters get over it you lost."