Why politicians should love the single transferable vote. (BC-STV)

In the electoral reform movement, we have an old joke that turkeys never vote for an early thanksgiving.

This basically means that no politicians would ever want to give voters additional tools to hold them accountable and that political parties would prefer to maintain a system where one or two parties dominate the system and where real competition fails to exist.

From a simplistic point of view this may be true. Political parties are very reluctant to pursue electoral reform because it will fundamentally change the rules of the game and will reduce the influence of the strong political machines that have taken decades to build. The two main parties are afraid that it will open the door to competition from the left and right of center and that they will wake up one morning without a support base and reduced in influence.

It is very likely that the immediate election after BC changes from a plurality to a personalize proportional system will be a time of uncertainty for political parties and politicians, but this should not be a point of fear but an opportunity to embrace positive politics.

Political parties, under first past the post, have developed in such a way that no one really benefits from their behaviors or their campaigns.

For a political party to compete in an election in BC, they must raise millions of dollars, recruit 85 candidates and keep them on message (even though most will be running in areas where they do not have a chance), run a mainly negative campaign, and focus their entire messaging on winning a handful of swing seats. To get their supporters out, they have to make broad and expensive promises which they often cannot realistically keep, make equally broad attacks on their opponents that are often based on half truths and generalization.

Once elected, politicians are pushed to make all of their decisions behind closed caucus door so that they can emerge with a unified party stance and thus project an image of strength. Politicians are encouraged to often ignore local issues unless they are in a riding where the local issue may be substantial enough to cause greater electoral effects in the next election.

So why would I suggest that politicians should "love" the single transferable vote.

The truth is, with a few exceptions, most people get into politics because they believe they are doing the right thing. Most people feel that they can make a positive difference and that they have skills to add. Like their constituents, they love their communities and they love their province. While people obviously have a difference in political ideology or different views on how the province should be run, these difference are rarely as inherently divisive as they appear.

With the single transferable vote, those politicians that speak up for their communities, raise issues that people care about, and respond to needs are rewarded. Those politicians that are poor politicians, fail to stand up for local issues and fight for community issues will be dropped.

There is less disincentive under a transferable vote system to bite your tongue and follow the party line completely. I don't think that political parties actually like having a party line, but if they don't they open themselves up to attacks from their opponents for "flip-flopping" or having "weak leadership".

Thus politicians will be able to more vocal about issues that they care about and they will be more empowered to speak up for issues. This does not mean they vote against their political party, it means that political parties must become more dynamic and address members concerns so as to keep them within the fold.

In Ireland, for instance, we see that it is quite common for their politicians to leave a political party and run as an independent, and as such that constant threat means that political parties have to be always ready to address the concerns of their elected members.

As such, under STV, every politicians once elected knows that they have a responsibility to stand up for their community.

Political parties will also quickly realize that in order to be successful, they can no longer depend on outmaneuvering their opponents, but must embrace local issues and allow their MLAs a certain freedom to personalize their issues and increase their presence in their communities. This means allowing MLAs to raise their concerns outside of caucus and to give them the opportunity to bring forward more private member legislation.

This will require political parties to change how they behave. However, this change should be seen as upgrade rather than a displacement for electoral organizations.

With BC-STV, parties will no longer be a large tent, inviting people from all backgrounds in, only to close the doors and muzzle them. They will be more like a campground, in which they can attract people with similar ideas, but still allow to maintain their independence.

Instead, political parties will exist not as a melting pot of ideas, but as more of a mosaic of perspectives. The success of major political parties will no longer depend on putting on an unified front against each others attacks, but will be more dependent on their ability to recruit a wide range of skilled candidates and to maintain the image of being responsive to the changing needs of the province.

For the major political parties, they no longer have to worry about running a candidate in every riding (win or lose) but instead have to focus on running candidates from different backgrounds to ensure that each candidate can attract as many voters as needed. While parties can run as many candidates as they like, its likely they will only run as many candidates as they figure they can win seats, because otherwise they risk diluting their votes and would incur greater campaign costs.

If they decide to run more candidates, it would likely be for the purpose of recruiting star candidates to bring in new voters or to put forward a more diverse slate from which voters can choose from.

Political parties would benefit from the ability to easier refresh their ranks and attract excellent candidates. Under our current system, each election a political party can only attract a limited number of new candidates to replace retiring candidates, or else they must recruit candidates to compete in an opponents ridings. It is very difficult for members of a political party to displace a sitting member of their party, even if they are not happy with their performance. Under BC-STV, a party can allow new candidates to compete in the multimember districts. Star candidates can be recruited to try and increase a parties seats in a district. These candidates may result in a gain in seats for a party, or they may displace an existing unpopular member. Thus, if a party wants to refresh its ranks, they can do so by running additional candidates in a riding rather than by forcing an existing member out. In some ways, the party can benefit by giving the voters more choice.

For a government, this could be a very valuable step. If there is a skilled individual that would be beneficial to a riding, a political party could find a riding for them without forcing a local candidate to step aside. While there is no guarantees that the candidate will be elected, (the voters hold that power) it does reduce the barriers to running.

The nature of a multimember system allows parties to run more diverse candidates. A party is not limited to running only candidates who "can win a riding". They can run a broader spectrum of candidates who can win over voters. This would allow the NDP to run social activists and labour members in the same district, thus becoming more broad base. It would allow the Liberals to run more women and minorities. Again, the voters would get the final say, but it is likely our MLAs would better reflect the broader society.

Ultimately, what STV will do is reduce the disconnect between political parties and the average voter.

One of the biggest challenges currently is that to win under a first past the post system, political parties have to engage in behavior that drives up voter apathy and turns off many voters.

It is hard to imagine that creating a greater satisfaction rate amongst voters and an image of being more responsive would have a real downside to political parties. What they lose in terms of stability and predictability, they will gain in regards to creating a more loyal voter base and a sense of empowerment amongst voters.

Political parties behavior will change, but creating a less adversarial form of politics should be embraced as being good for voters and politicians. No one benefits from a broken marriage, disfunctional work place, or from having a bad neighbour, but in politics the constant fighting, bickering, and positioning means that almost everyone looses out.

The only people who benefit from our current system are the power brokers who can peddle influence and the pundits who feed off of bad politics. STV will be good for voters, and good for politicians... well, at least the politicians who are in it for the right reasons.