World

BC Election: Libs Could Win Majority with Only 47% of the Vote?

by Tina Kells | May 8, 2009 at 05:39 pm

241 views | 28 Recommendations | 4 comments

It seems undemocratic but if the most recent numbers in the BC Election polls are accurate the Liberals could win a majority of the seats in the BC House of Commons, as many as 52 of 85, with less than half the popular support.

The most recent Ipsos-Reid poll shows the that the BC Liberals have 47% of the popular vote compared with 39% for the NDP. But with the current first past the post system a party can win a majority of the seats in the House without earning the support of the majority of British Columbians.

As things stand now voters in larger ridings have less voting power than those in smaller ridings even though voters in each constituency only have one seat to fill. For this reason a losing candidate in a heavily populated constituency can actually earn more votes overall than a winner in a smaller riding.

The first past the post system is something that British Columbians have had to live with for some time and in the 2009 election voters have a chance to push for change. It is not just the Liberals who stand to rule with a minority of popular support; NDP governments have won on the same first past the post technicality.

Along with a new government British Columbians can elect to pass a Single Transferable Voting system to replace the first past the post system that has produced so much inequity in previous elections. It is not democratic to have a party, any party, rule with a majority of votes in the governing body when they have a minority of the support of voters.

Learn more about the Single Transferable Vote, it is a complicated sounding system in practice but it is actually fairly simple in principle. Basically each party will be awarded a number of seats in the house based on the percentage of the vote they win in each of 20 "super" ridings.

The candidates in those ridings are ranked by voters in order of preference 1, 2, 3 with those votes weighted to reflect the positioning. The full and weighted votes are then combined and added up and the candidates are ranked based on who has the most combined support in their riding. A candidates is elected by reaching a certain number of votes and that candidate's remaining votes are then redistributed to the next preferred candidate on their ballot.

All the talk of votes measured differently and complicated fractions is simply untrue. The STV system will insure that the power in the House matches the popular support in the province. It is no more difficult for voters to navigate than the current system and allows you the ability to be able to vote for candidates by ranking them rather than having to pick "the lesser of an evil." The elected officials will be those who have the most broad support in their region.

You no longer have to throw your vote behind one person who may not represent all of your beliefs; you can rank your votes based on who you like the most while still offering support to other candidates who share your views. More importantly an STV system of voting will end the cycle of electing majority governments that represent a minority of provincial voters.

5 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend This comment thread is now closed

albertacowpoke

at 18:40 on May 8th, 2009

I petty you if the Libs get this kind of majority. We have Ed Stelmach with 72 seats in this province. They can do as they please. Imagine a Health Minister saying What's your point to a valid question. Why did he do it, because he can.

The system you talk about in your post is what is used all over Canada now. We need to go to a system that takes into account the every vote cast. Seats get allocated in accordance with the percentage of votes won by a political party. Those with less than 5 per cent don;t get a seat.

I would like to hear some opinions on that.

Paschen

at 20:15 on May 8th, 2009

Has that not always been the case? Did most Government through out Canada not govern with less then 50% and yet held the majority in the parliament?

I know BC made some electoral changes wish where suppose to stop this sort of disproportional representation, however I do not know for certain what the constitutional rights are. Would it be Germany they could not govern with 47% unless they go into a coalition with another party.

Roy C

at 21:30 on May 8th, 2009

The "first past the post system" stinks. You win and the majority didn't want you. Run-offs of the top two or a system where you indicate preferences so that the winner is not the "least preferred".

Tina, you have a real sense of justice.

Tina Kells

at 10:08 on May 12th, 2009

Jonathan M (not verified)

at 07:29 on May 20th, 2009

Yes, FPTP might be unfair in that the Government might not hold a true majority of public support but at least it ensures a strong government able to pass legislation due to its parliamentary majority.

STV does not ensure a strong majority in the government and can force coalitions between parties, inevitably leading to a clash of manifestos - whose do we follow?

Sure FPTP might seem unfair at first, but when you look at the negatives of STV it is clear that the current system is far easier to understand and ensures a strong government; contrary to the latter.