Ballot reboot
Province eyes new way to vote.
The provincial government is considering changing legislation that affects municipalities.
There are so many possibilities that I will discuss them over several columns, but today I’ll focus on the highest- profile change — single transferable voting.
Currently when we vote for mayor, we each cast one vote and the candidate with the greatest number of votes wins, even if the first person past the post captures fewer than half the ballots cast.
There are frequently a number of candidates for mayor, so it would not be far- fetched to imagine someone being elected with 24% of the votes cast.
If you assume the voter turnout is 40% ( unfortunately, this is a realistic, even somewhat optimistic, figure), then the mayor would be elected with the support of fewer than 10% of eligible voters.
That’s not exactly a ringing mandate.
Single transferable voting, or STV, would allow people to cast votes for their first, second and third choices for the office. ( The province has not spelled out the details so this could be any number, but three seems to be the most frequently cited example.)
If no candidate receives more than 50% of the votes cast, then the last- place finisher is knocked out and his supporters’ secondplace votes are cast for the remaining candidates. This continues until a candidate achieves greater than 50% of votes cast.
The details of this are still being considered. It seems unlikely voters would be required to use their second and third choices. It also seems unlikely a voter could vote for the same candidate in first, second and third positions since that would negate the idea of transferable voting.
The benefit is that the winning candidate will have the strong mandate that comes from receiving a majority of votes.
It also gives voters an opportunity to register their support for more than one candidate. This avoids the strategic voting problem: What do you do if you want to send a message by voting for someone who has little chance of winning?
In an STV system, you can send a signal with your first vote, but use your second vote in support of a more popular candidate.
This could increase voter turnout because it will reduce people’s concern that voting for their favourite candidate will amount to wasting their vote.
Another side effect could be a reduction in negative campaigning and advertising. The public dislikes a negative approach to campaigning, but it is very difficult to prohibit it without trampling on freedom of expression.
With transferable voting, a frontrunner can extol her virtues but she would be wise to avoid alienating her opponents’ followers, because she would benefit if some of those people selected her as their second or third choice.
It is difficult to identify negative effects of STV.
The individual voter’s decision is not particularly complex. We usually have a pretty good idea of who our favourite is, who is acceptable, and who we would not support under any circumstances. Tabulation of votes will be a bit more complex, but this might add some drama to election night.
I have heard some concern that the frontrunner on the initial ballot might not ultimately win the election. If there were not some possibility of that happening, then there would be no reason to have STV, but let’s think about these numbers.
If the first two candidates received 49% and 20% of the ballots, it would be difficult to see how the second- place finisher could overtake someone with a commanding lead.
However, if the first two candidates received 24% and 23% of first- choice ballots, then there is no definitive winner and the redistribution of subsequent ballots will help determine the winner, who will have a stronger mandate as a result.
STV can also be used for multi- member elections, such as at- large systems, but the tabulation is a bit more complicated.
You have a chance to make your views known to Queen’s Park about this proposal. Don’t forget the important date of July 27.