Single Transferable Vote is a Good Compromise

Although it has many detractors, I believe that the STV proposal on the May 17 Referendum ballot is a good idea:

• STV typically yields a legislature with seats much more closely aligned with the popular vote, whereas results of the traditional FPTP (first-past-the-post) system are always skewed in favour of the two main political parties (the major cause of BC political polarization)
• STV eliminates scenarios where a party that gets less than 50% of the popular vote still receives a huge majority of seats in the legislature
• A legislature distibuted more closely along the lines of the popular vote is more inclusive of a diversity of political opinion (good for alternatives such as independents and smaller parties)
• A legislature with more diversity provides a more accountable majority component and a stronger opposition
• A government that is more accountable/representational will help get society at large involved in civic affairs once again
• When people are more involved in civic affairs, special interest groups like large corporations will not always get their way automatically

The major strike against STV that most dissidents make is in regards to its complexity. Although I agree it is a somewhat complex system, why is this automatically a bad thing? Many things in the world today are complex.

STV supports the traditional Canadian electoral values of local representation, representation by population, and yields a legislative distibution in alignment with the popular vote. If the system works as well as it appears to, and provides the huge benefits listed above, is it not worth the effort to learn more about it and try the system for a few elections as mandated in the proposal?