by Stephen Lesslie (Vice President, PRSA (NSW)

The result of the referendum in British Columbia for the introduction of the single transferable vote (STV) system was 39% in favour. This is a disappointing result for those of us who believe that proportional representation and in particular the single transferable vote (STV) is an ideal system.

British Columbia uses single member electorates with first past the post voting. In the past, election results have been badly skewed and have rarely given satisfaction, save to those actually elected.

The British Columbian parliament has an odd idea of democracy. In the previous 2005 referendum, the vote in support of STV was 58%. It was carried in all but two electorates (or ridings). The parliament had, however, decided that STV required 60% support to be carried.

Under pressure from such a strong vote, the proposal was put again to the electorate on May 12, 2009. The parliament also voted to give both the Yes and No campaigns C$500,000 each. This donation enabled the No campaign – which would otherwise have struggled to raise any money – the ability to run a strong negative fear campaign.

The No campaign must have taken note of the Australian republican referendum, as it followed the three successful techniques of our monarchists.

1. Never argue the benefits of your own position.
   The campaign material issued by the No campaign makes no attempt to justify the First Past The Post (FPTP) system or its skewed results. The only reason they gave for keeping it was that it is simple.
2. Attack the proposed model.
   The No campaign argued that STV was not proportional enough, ignoring that this is because it allows for individual choice of candidates. They argued that alternative models such as MMP would have been better – naturally, had MMP been the proposed model, they would have argued that STV was a better system. (Of course, either alternative is better than FPTP)].
3. Insult the intelligence of your own people.
   The No campaign claimed that STV was too difficult for British Columbians to understand – ignoring the fact that Tasmanians, the Irish and the Maltese have no trouble with the system.

At the same time as the referendum, an election was held for the British Columbian parliament.

The mathematically inclined will find it interesting to note that this result is a classic example of the cube rule. The cube rule predicts that in FPTP elections, the seats won will be in proportion to the cube of the percentage vote obtained by the two major parties. Naturally, minor parties and their supporters are completely excluded.

Cube Rule: (46.0)³ : (42.4)³   =   97336 : 76225

A ratio of  48 : 37

Actual results 49 : 36 (even worse)