STV in British Columbia?

Just a quick note to record the upcoming May 12 referendum on the single transferable vote in British Columbia. The pro side is running a good website at www.stv.ca. Here is the government’s page.

This is BC’s second referendum on electoral reform. In 2005, STV came within 2.3 points of winning, and majorities in 77 of 79 ridings (districts) supported it. The provincial government had set the threshold for passage at simple majorities (50% + 1) in at least 60% of BC’s ridings and a 60% supermajority province-wide. The same thresholds will apply this time. However the government is funding more extensive voter education, including recognized for and against groups.

The first referendum spawned this useful flash animation on how STV works.

District magnitudes will range from two to seven, with most in the four- to five-seat range. Surplus transfers will be fractional. Voters will not be required to use all rankings. It does not appear that the referendum will affect the number of members of the legislative assembly (MLAs); instead this number appears to be a function of population.

This is on the ballot because the province, like Ontario, convened a Citizens’ Assembly on electoral reform. Under that reform model, people not connected to politics meet, learn about electoral systems, decide whether they want reform, and adjudicate among the options. Some see the citizens’ assembly as a way to achieve electoral reform where self-interested lawmakers otherwise would not pass such legislation.

No poutine for the Queen

Canadian Prime Minister Steven Harper will not invite Queen Elisabeth II to Quebec’s quatercentenary birthday party, according to Le Devoir:

The Canadian government refuses to invite Queen Elisabeth II to the 400th anniversary of Quebec’s founding in 2008 for fear of of provoking the anger of certain francophone inhabitants opposed to the royalty, La Presse reported yesterday. (translation mine)

The Conservatives have an interesting relationship with Quebec swing voters. At any given federal election, the Bloc Québecois wins most seats, but a handful are roughly in play between the Liberal Party of Canada (LPC) and Conservative Party of Canada (CPC). Protest votes in pro-Ottawa ridings have put the CPC (and its PC predecessor) over the top twice in recent history: 1984 and 2006.

In 1987, PM Brian Mulroney (PC) negotiated the failed Meech Lake Accord, which would have extended Quebec veto power and constitutional status as a “distinct society.” In the following year, his party won 63 of Quebec’s 75 ridings. (The Bloc was not yet on the scene.)

Last year, the ten CPC pick-ups in Quebec bolstered Harper’s 21-seat margin in the Commons. The challenge now is to consolidate gains. Symbols must matter with this slice of the electorate. After all, the scandal that drove the Liberals from power involved their using tax dollars to hang Canadian flags up around Quebec. Snubbing the Queen is a good way to reinforce the CPC-LPC distinction. Unlike Meech Lake, though, this move probably won’t push confederal glue to its limit.

And now for Saskatchewan?

Just when you thought I was done blogging Canada’s PR movement.

According to the Ballot Access News, Saskatchewan’s Premier has pledged a Citizens’ Assembly if voters return him to office on November 7. And if the Assembly proposes proportional representation, he’s pledged to fund public education efforts about the proposal.

How might a Saskatchewan referendum end differently from Ontario 2007 (MMP) or British Columbia 2005 (STV)?

Premier Lorne Calvert is leader of the provincial New Democratic Party. New Democrats were key proponents of the Ontario measure. Though a viable “minor” party, the NDP regularly gets the short end of the winner-take-all stick nationwide and in provincial assemblies (from the perspective of strict seats/votes proportionality). And Saskatchewan is the NDP’s historical heartland.

A successful referendum on PR there would make an interesting point. Despite the above, the provincial NDP regularly wins seat shares far in excess of its vote shares. Is it naive to suggest the party would be ‘taking a hit’ at home to make a national rhetorical point?

The fate of Ontario MMP 2007

Having followed developments there, I should report that the referendum failed with 37 percent voting in favor.

Fruits & Votes has a good analysis of the vote in the wider contexts of the concomitant provincial election and other, past referenda in Canada. (The provincial Liberals won 66 percent of seats on 42 percent of votes.)

In other words, the systemic factors predicting a reform process in Ontario were always weak. But there was some partisan-interest factor at work for the Liberals. The problems with partisan-interest factors, of course, are that they (1) may make it harder to convince voters who favor other parties to think reform is also good for them, and (2) the very interest-based factors may shift if the party starts doing better…

MMP results trickling in

If anyone’s following, 4,588 of 27,669 polls have reported their results, and MMP is losing 37% to 63%. Here are the unofficial results in real time.

Needless to say, it doesn’t look good.

Thanks to Scott M. for the tip-off at Fruits & Votes. Incidentally, there’s an interesting discussion in the same thread as to whether STV would have fared better with voters. STV came within a point of winning in British Columbia’s 2005 referendum.

Why didn’t the Citizens’ Assembly opt for open lists?

Much of the opposition to Ontario’s election reform referendum has centered around the “unaccountable elites” who will occupy list seats. Why didn’t the Citizens’ Assembly opt for a more ostensibly democratic institutional design?
Read the rest of this entry »

Ontario just hours from MMP referendum

This is it. By this time tomorrow, Ontario will have decided whether to replace its single-member winner-take-all system with mixed-member proportional representation. It’ll be the second time a Citizens’ Assembly convened, studied the options and recommended a PR alternative. It’ll be the second time a ballot question on PR faced a threshold higher than the vote shares of the single-party governments that stoked interest in reform. Will it be the second time a referendum fails?
Read the rest of this entry »

Indicators from Ontario

In my last post on the upcoming MMP referendum, I highlighted some challenges the ‘yes’ side faces:

1. A threshold of 60% of votes province-wide.

2. At least 50% voting ‘yes’ in each of 60% of ridings.

3. Most voters don’t know what mixed member proportional representation is, and voters who don’t understand a ballot measure generally default to the ‘no’ position.

Canoe.ca has some numbers for us (emphasis mine):

Read the rest of this entry »

In two weeks, Ontario votes on fairness

The referendum about to happen in Ontario is important – and not just because it novelly challenges the hegemony of plurality electoral rules in Anglo-America. It could be a referendum on fairness.
Read the rest of this entry »

Allocation of list seats under Ontario MMP

WARNING: This post will be of interest to a narrow group of readers. My aim is to put the information into the blogosphere in an easily Googlable form.

Roy Rupert asks of my blogfather:

“What is the secret formula for apportionment? Hundreds of web sites – not one bit of hard facts!”

I believe I have found the answer in the final report of the Ontario Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform. See page 156 of the PDF aforelinked. The answer is Hare quota with largest remainders.