Empowering the Voter

Whatever Electoral Reform process we go to, it needs to EMPOWER THE VOTER, and to reduce the POWER of the POLITICAL PARTIES AND POLITICIANS.

It is with our present system that we are experiencing a steady decline in VOTER TURNOUT - over the past 30 years we have gone from a high in 1983 of 77.66% to a low 55.14% in 2009. The question of our FPTP system of not being acceptable is not an opinion that is based in theory or by just a few individuals. Every VOTER is aware of this and more and more VOTERS are just not bothering to VOTE, they see the uselessness in the process.

There are a number of problems with the current FPTP system;

1. If the VOTER does not VOTE for the candidate that WINS, there VOTE is completely wasted, as if they did not VOTE. A candidate can WIN a seat with less than 40%* of the VOTERS voting for the candidate, as if the 60% that did not VOTE for the candidate does not even exist. The WINNER with a MINORITY of VOTES is treated as if the candidate received 100% of the VOTES. THE MINORITY IS REPRESENTING THE MAJORITY!
2. Due to how this system works the VOTER does not feel free to VOTE for who they wish to SUPPORT, they need to VOTE for the WINNER. So the VOTE goes to who the VOTER thinks will WIN, as opposed to who the VOTER wants to SUPPORT. 
3. If one cannot see themselves VOTING for who they think will WIN, they VOTE for who they think can STOP the probable WINNER. IT BECOMES A NEGATIVE VOTE.
4. It becomes a POLITICAL GAME with the POLITICAL PARTIES playing on the VOTERS. The VOTERS feel like PAWNS in a GAME.

* 2009 - Vernon/Monashee riding the Liberals won 37.27% PV -  Boundary/Similkameen riding the Liberals won 37.45% PV. With only 55.14% of registered voters voting.

The current system of FPTP may have been okay at some point in our history but it has out-lived its usefulness and is now deteriorating our voting system to a point that it is sabotaging our DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPALS.


We need to re-establish the VALUE and the POWER of the VOTE & BALLOT BOX. Reforming our VOTING SYSTEM is vital to keeping our DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPALS and our system of government. Without this change the relationship between the CITIZENS and their GOVERNMENT will continue to grow APART, this can be nothing short of disastrous.

When we are REFORMING our VOTING SYSTEM we need to put the POWER OF THE VOTE back in the hands of the VOTER. This can only be achieved by returning the requirement of the candidate running for office must receive a minimum of 50% +1 of the VOTES CAST. Anything short of this requirement is not acceptable, as anything short of 50% +1 diminish the power of the VOTING SYSTEM. When we diminish the power of the VOTE we empower the POLITICIAN and DIS-EMPOWER the VOTER.

This requirement of 50% +1 is what gives the POWER TO THE VOTER. It is our VOTING SYSTEM that is the only POWER our CITIZENS have in telling our GOVERNMENT how we wish to be GOVERNED. It is the POLITICIANS that need to convince the MAJORITY of VOTERS to support them. When we lower or remove this requirement of 50% +1 we are telling the POLITICIANS that they do not need to convince the MAJORITY of us, a MINORITY is fine.

I think it is ironic that if the issue to be VOTED ON, threatens the POLITICIAN'S POWER we need something called a 'SUPER-MAJORITY' to pass it. We seem to like to PICK & CHOOSE when a MINORITY is okay and when a MAJORITY is required. The CITIZENS do not pick this the POLITICIANS do. The 2005 referendum on the STV is a case in point, where the STV received 57% of the Popular Vote and did not pass. I support the requirement of the 'SUPER-MAJORITY' but I also support that every VOTE decision needs to have a 'MAJORITY' that is why we VOTE. You cannot PICK & CHOOSE these type of things.

It is this issue of requiring Candidates for office to receive 50% +1 of votes that is a challenge. The probability of a Candidate receiving 50% +1 on a first ballot is slim. It is not feasible to have a number of different ballots when electing governments, just too time consuming and having voters returning to cast another vote is not reasonable. We need a system where the VOTER can list a number of choices on a single ballot in order of preference. If a Candidate is dropped from the list, the VOTERS that voted for that Candidate can VOTE for their SECOND CHOICE.

This TRANSFER of VOTES does TWO THINGS;

1. It allows a process where one Candidate can reach the mark of 50% +1 on a single ballot.
2. It also means that the VOTER does not waste their VOTE. They can actually VOTE for who they SUPPORT knowing that if that Candidate has not a chance to WIN, their VOTE will transfer to one that may. It FREES the VOTER to VOTE for what they truly want, without FEAR of wasting their VOTE.

This is not rocket science and we are in the 21st Century, not the beginning of the 20th Century, we can do this. The 'Single Transferable Vote' voting system does both of these things. STV returns the requirement of 50% +1 before a Candidate is declared a WINNER, plus it permits the transfer of votes from a Candidate that is dropped to one that is still running.

STV EMPOWERS THE VOTER!