6
Feature
March
2005
What
do
party
insiders
have
against
BC-STV?
by
Peter
Ewart
'eah
ITV.
J
Interesting
fellow
travelers
Bill
Tieleman,
in
a
recent
article
circulating
online
entitled
"Democracy
Denied
With
STV
Propaganda",
once
again
attacks
the
Single
Transferable
Vote
electoral
system
(STV)
that
the
Citizens'
Assembly
has
recommended
British
Columbians
adopt
in
the
May
17
provincial
referendum
(1).
To
bolster
his
argument,
he
quotes
favourably
B.C.
Liberal
MLA
Christy
Clark,
who
criticizes
the
Citizens'
Assembly
members
for
having
no
"actual
experience
in
politics"
and
who
also
attacks
the
STV
system
because
it
will,
according
to
her,
"make
it
much
harder
for
women
to
actually
be
represented."
Interesting
fellow
travelers.
Tieleman
is
a
long
time
NDP
insider
(former
director
of
communications
for
the
NDP
government)
and
Clark
is
a
long
time
Liberal
insider.
Yet
they
are
making
common
cause
against
the
STV
system.
What
is
getting
these
two
so
agitated?
Why
are
they
so
opposed
to
the
voices
of
160
ordinary
British
Columbians
who
have
worked
hard,
in
a
non-partisan
way,
to
choose
an
electoral
system
that
works
for
the
voters
of
this
province?
We
will
come
back
to
that
a
bit
later
in
this
article.
Cherry
picking
method
of
argument
In
the
meantime,
it
is
interesting
to
examine
the
"cherry
picking"
method
of
argument
that
Tieleman
uses
to
slander
STV
in
his
article.
Tieleman
argues
that
Malta
and
Ireland,
which
both
have
STV
systems,
have
a
lower
percentage
of
women
elected
than
BC.
According
to
him,
Malta
has
just
9.2
women
in
parliament
and
Ireland
just
13.3.
Indeed,
he
alleges
that
"STV
is
one
of
the
worst
electoral
systems
in
the
world
for
electing
women"
and
that
countries
with
the
Party
List
Proportional
Representation
(PR)
electoral
system
have
a
much
better
record.
What
he
fails
to
mention
is
that
the
two
examples
he
has
given,
Malta
and
Ireland,
have
particularly
male-dominated
political
cultures
(for
that
matter
so
is
ours).
He
could
just
as
easily
cherry
pick
countries
with
Party
List
PR
that
also
have
a
dismal
record
for
women
getting
elected.
For
example,
look
at
another
European
country
with
a
Party
List
PR
system
which
also
has
a
male-dominated
culture
-
Italy.
In
1990,
the
percentage
of
seats
in
parliament
held
by
women
was
13
(lower
than
Ireland).
By
2003,
the
number
had
actually
gone
down
to
12.
The
Italian
Upper
House
was
even
worse,
with
8
of
the
seats
held
by
women,
which
is
actually
lower
than
Malta.
Spain
is
another
example
of
a
country
with
a
Party
List
PR
system
which
also
has
a
low
percentage
of
women
parliamentarians
(14.9)
(2).
Women
led
the
campaign
for
STV
in
Australia
While
Tieleman
suggests
that
Citizens'
Assembly
members
deliberately
ignored
the
Malta
experience
with
STV,
he
himself
ignores
the
fact
that
Australia
has
jurisdictions
that
use
STV
which
have
better
percentages
of
women
getting
elected
than
here.
For
example,
Tieleman
makes
the
misleading
statement
that
the
percentage
of
.women
in
the
BC
legislature
(22.8)
is
"significantly
better
than
under
STV."
That
is
true
regarding
Malta,
but
it
is
not
true
regarding
the
Tasmanian
Assembly
in
Australia
which
prior
to
the
1
998
election
had
31
.4
women,
compared
to
26
in
BC
at
that
time
(3).
The
Australian
senate,
which
uses
STV,
as
of
2003,
had
28.9
women
members
(4).
Indeed,
guess
who
championed
the
adoption
of
STV
in
Australia?
It
was
the
suffragette,
Catherine
Helen
Spence,
and
women's
organizations
"such
as
the
Australian
Federation
of
Women
Voters"
who
"campaigned
for
many
decades
for
the
more
general
adoption
of
STV
in
Australia"
(4).
Were
these
women
blind
for
all
these
decades
or
perhaps
could
they
see
something
that
Tieleman
and
Clark
are
unwilling
to
acknowledge?
First
Past
the
Post
system
discriminates
against
women
and
minorities
What
Tieleman
and
Clark
are
both
ignoring
is
that,
as
stated
in
the
American
women's
magazine
"Ms",
there
is
"compelling
evidence"
that
the
current
First
Past
the
Post
System
(FPTP)
(which
is
in
place
in
British
Columbia)
"discriminates
against
women",
as
well
as
"racial
minorities"
(4).
The
same
article
praises
the
proportional
system
in
m:u
Australia
for
increasing
the
number
parliamentarians.
Yet
Tielema
defends
the
First
Past
the
Post!
attacks
STV,
which
is
one
of
thepg
systems
used
in
Australia.
Proportional
systems
like
STV
a
forward
for
women
and
mln
fi
The
fact
of
the
matter
is
that
there
a
ber
of
factors
which
influence
this
women
in
getting
elected
to
including
what
kind
of
electoral
m
place
and
what
kind
of
political
cut
As
Australian
researchers,
such!
Sawer,
have
shown,
both
Party
I
STV
are
better
systems
for
allow
ticipation
of
women
and
minoritie
ical
culture
plays
a
big
role
(5).
are
a
step
to
greater
empowermei
a
step.
Yet
Tieleman
would
ratha
current
FPTP
system
with
its
"grc
tortions"
than
move
to
STV.
Why1
i
STV
weakens
the
power
of
pa
but
strengthens
power
of
y
1
Why
are
Tieleman
and
Clark
about
the
Citizens'
Assembly
Could
it
be
that
both
of
them
are1
ers"?
Adoption
of
the
STV
syste
en
the
power
of
party
insiders,
asl
hated
Party
whip
system
that
-I
backbench
MLAs
like
a
Damodd
keep
them
in
line.
STV
will
give
and
choice
to
voters,
and
it
wil
MLAs
more
opportunity
to
repra
constituents
rather
than
be
pup
party
headquarters.
Tieleman
party
pundits
try
to
throw
every
s
can
at
the
STV
system,
that
i
women",
"impossible
to
understa
the
regions",
etc.
etc.
-
accords
STV
is
worse
than
the
bubonic
r
throwing
this
mud,
Tieleman
isdM
the
nub
of
the
issue
for
both
thf
Liberals
-
that
under
STV,
party
8
party
headquarters
will
have
a
r
time
to
muzzle
MLAs.
Under
ST
the
MLAs
interests
to
represenj
stituents
rather
than
be
puppets
o
brass.
This
is
a
very
big
issue
in
II
especially
in
the
Interior,
where
the
BC
Rail
scandal
loom
large,.
keenly
aware
that
their
MLAsj
stand
up
to
the
Premier
when
hen
promise
not
to
sell
the
railway.
polls
have
shown
that
the
vast
maj
ers
in
Prince
George
opposed
t
the
MLAs
meekly
parroted
the
die
peddled
by
the
Liberal
Party
i
one
exception
was
Liberal
Nettleton
and
he
was
punished
t
by
being
thrown
out
of
caucus.