The Green Party is part of an international movement, with parties in many countries around the world. Green parties are organized around the four pillars of the greens: nonviolence; social and economic justice; grassroots democracy; and ecological wisdom.
Under the “grassroots democracy” banner, many green parties have platform items encouraging voting reforms such as Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) and/or Single Transferable Voting (STV).
On Tuesday, May 12, 2009 in British Columbia, Canada, voters will be casting votes to decide if they should change from traditional, first-past-the-post voting, to STV voting. The Green Party of British Columbia has come out in support of the proposal, and in support of STV.
(excerpt from) The Delta Optimist
Still much indecision on question about STV
Green candidate in support but others undecided
by Sandor Gyarmati / Saturday, May 09, 2009
The proposed STV voting method is getting a mix of responses in Delta South.
The public is to decide if it wants to switch to the single transferable voting system through a referendum question on next Tuesday’s provincial election ballot. The voting system will be adopted if at least 60 per cent approve.
Still trying to decide if STV is the way to go, independent candidate Vicki Huntington said she’s in the process of gathering information about the pros and cons. However, she said, it does seem to be a major improvement over the current first-past-the post system in which winning candidates are then muzzled by their parties…
The Green Party [of British Columbia] has come out in favour of STV, stating it gives a chance to all candidates — including women, independents and those from smaller parties — on the ballot. Duane Laird, who’s the Green candidate in Delta South, said, “I think it’ll be a welcome change in the way we do politics. If you look around the world, there’s lots of ways of doing things, there’s a lot of other cultures that have taken the same sort of issues we’ve had and fixed them … STV does change the landscape and bring in a different sort of democracy.”…
The Langley Advance also has an article for the Canadian public with a FAQ on the history of STV and some pros and cons of passing it.
BGB, it’s actually Tweedledum and Tweedledummer. Which is which simply varies by what day of the week it is. 🙂
However, that doesn’t really answer my question, which is more of a contrast in the number of parties involved with the mechanics of it.
Your perception of our system is also flawed. The D and R parties are on the ideological extremes of statism, and they only talk to the middle to gain votes.
Many Canadians have a pretty good insight into US politics. Your’ domestic politics has a big impact on Canada, so we pay close attention. In addition, we’re not hobbled by the same partisan filters that are omnipresent in US mass media outlets. There’s no need to pretend that differences exist where there are none, because we don’t have such immediate partisan interests to promote. We have our own unique problems, but our political spectrum is not as static, because the Parliamentary system, and electoral finance laws both mitigate against a monolithic elite. Historically, your system has been adequate, but you really have to do something about the pernicious influence of moneyed interests. I doubt that you will though, because it suits the ‘establishment’ to purchase influence at the highest, and lowest levels. Again, I apologise for standing 1,000 miles away and criticising, but I believe the criticism is constructive and valid.
If only more US citizens were as perceptive as you are about the two-party scam.
Michael,
In response to your question, STV would work very well in a two Party system, by immediately providing you with more than two Party’s! In most countries, electors have a number of choices. I’m afraid that the USA is pretty unique in it’s duopoly. It’s not very courteous, but I’ve heard the two referred to as tweedle dee, and tweedle dum. If it were actually your’ choice I guess you could be blamed for it’s shortcomings, but your’ ‘democracy’ has been captured, and you’re not likely to have any choice in your lifetime. The fact is that whatever is the comfortable centre is where the two Parties can be found clustered. It’s innately conservative. I guess that’s OK when bold policy isn’t called for. Certainly it serves the elites nicely, or there wouldn’t be such strong barriers to change.
Can anybody compare and contrast how STV works with only two major parties vs. more than two?
I think that might be a good way to explain the process to those of us who don’t quite get it.
Last time it was up to the voters about 58% voted for it – just barely less than the 60% it needed to pass. I think they’re pretty hopeful it will pass this time.
STV is a great voting system, and it would be a very reasonable move in Canada, where there are now 4 major parties. Its passage may be jeopardized by the timing – apparently voters will decide on STV at the same time that they elect their provincial government. The two established parties in BC, the NDP and the Liberals, are staying quiet on STV, which may lead their party-line voters to vote against it come election day.
This is actually one of the bigger election reform stories that’s currently going on, as far as I can tell. It’s a huge advancement for an alternative voting system and proportional representation, and it’s also a big deal because politicians did not come up with this system – a committee of citizens did.
Thanks, Ross.
I did a brief survey of articles this morning, but not enough to make me understand the geography of Canada!
I fixed the post.
It is only for British Columbia.
This is just for British Columbia, not all of Canada.