Weighing the arguments on STV

Tomorrow’s the day! The BC referendum on STV. For those who still haven’t made up their minds, I recommend a little last minute reading to help you decide.

Over at rabble.ca, Dennis Pilon of the University of Victoria deconstructs the no campaign. He argues that their use of selective examples misconstrues the evidence to contradict the outcomes of STV.

Also at rabble.ca, Judy Rebick argues that STV will help more women get elected. She notes that some women believe that STV is not a good system of PR for women, a view shared by Doris Anderson (who passed away after the last referendum).

Doris had more confidence in our ability to pressure the parties to have balanced lists. I prefer to trust the voters to vote for women and minorities. If we lived in a country where voters were less likely to vote for women than men, then MMP might be better but that is not the case in Canada. Voters are as likely as or more likely to vote for a woman than a man. In fact, study after study has shown that the primary barrier to the election of women is the nomination process that is run exclusively by the parties today.

Finally, Maclean’s columnist Andrew Coyne has offered not one but two impassioned defenses of STV. For those who have the time, there is a longer version. For those who don’t, the shorter version. The crux of Coyne’s argument is that politics will be different with a different electoral system:

So if you’re frustrated with politics as it is, think of how politics could be. Imagine going to the polls on election day, knowing that the result was not a foregone conclusion — that you could actually have a hand in electing someone. Imagine that new parties, parties of ideas, could start up to challenge the tired old brokerage parties, without being told that it was a waste of time, that their supporters were just splitting the votes. Imagine a more civil politics. Imagine!