Last week, British Columbia held an election for its provincial legislature. The two major parties in British Columbia elections are the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party. Before the election, most observers expected the New Democratic Party to win a majority in the legislature. However, instead, the Liberal Party won. Because the Green Party had candidates in 61 of the 85 districts, and because the New Democratic Party is considered to be “left” of the Liberal Party, some commentators wrote that the Green Party had “spoiled” the election for the New Democratic Party.
Canada, like the United States, does not have proportional representation and does not use ranked-choice voting.
Chad Skelton, writing for the Vancouver Sun, here reports his research into whether Green Party voters would have supported the New Democratic Party over the Liberal Party, if the Green Party had not been in the race. To his surprise, he found that the Green Party campaigns did not cause the defeat of the New Democratic Party.
Is C.S. a mind reader ???
Do folks LIE to moron reporters — to be politically correct, of course ???
The Greens would likely have done better under Top 2 or a runoff system.
Would have been, might have been. A flight of fancy, as far as I’m concerned. It’s easy to SAY how one might have voted if given only two choices, and even easier to dispel some personal guilt (yes, Nader voters in Florida, I mean YOU!!!) by saying “Hey, I wouldn’t have voted the way you think I might have anyway.” But what would the vote have REALLY BEEN if they stepped into the voting booth with only two choices instead of three?
“Hmmm…Pat Robertson, Ralph Nader or Hillary Clinton? Ralph, absolutely!”
“Huh? Wha? Robertson actually WON? Doesn’t matter. If you only gave me Hillary and Pat – I DEFINITELY would have voted for Pat. So don’t blame me.”
Not saying there shouldn’t be three or more choices, mind you…just that the results of these sorts of surveys are highly suspect, speculative, and impossible to validate.
OMG! I agree with Demo Rep!
Demo Rep and TruFoe CLEARLY did not read the article because the article compares the current election results to the past election results. At no point does he ask voters what they would have done with fewer choices and yet that is what you are both accusing the author of doing. Two prime examples of why I regret reading comments on the internet.
Now, to my actual point of posting… Here are two blog posts discussing the same subject:
http://bciconcoclast.blogspot.ca/2013/05/some-other-interior-ridings-to-consider.html
http://bciconcoclast.blogspot.ca/2013/05/comparing-results-in-various-victoria.html
Also, Jim’s point is not true. The Greens came in first in one riding and second in another riding. They placed third or lower in the other 83 ridings meaning they would have only gotten into two runoff elections. The riding they came in second was 49% NDP to 33% Green so they clearly would not have won that riding even in a runoff election.
5 –
Tell me Nader voters weren’t asked who they might have voted for had he not been on the Florida ballot in 2000. Tell me posters in on this blog over the years have not made assertions to that effect.
Are those your contentions? If so, you were asleep in 2000 and 2001, and you haven’t been reading this blog.
I stand by the contention that the analysis in the article is highly speculative, as were the conclusions reached in 2000. “Speculative” because Nader WAS on the ballot, and speculative because the premise of the “analysis” starts with a “What if” that “Wasn’t.”
I’d love to see Canada adopt an equal-ranking IRV.
Sample ballot: rank the candidates in order of preference; you may give an equal preference to more than 1 candidate if you wish.
Green candidate
NDP candidate
Conservative candidate
Liberal candidate
You could easily have the ballot go 1-2-3-2 or something.
#6 The Greens likely got squeezed.
Potential Green voters would be told that it was about who was elected premier rather than who their local MLA was. They might be encouraged to vote with their head, not their heart.
Potential Green voters who did have a strong preference for NDP over the Liberals, are more likely to switch to the NDP.
Just picking a relatively close electoral district: Burnaby North:
Liberal 47.35%
NDP 43.48%
Green 6.86%
It looks plausible that the Green’s cost the NDP a seat here. In actuality, 75% of the Green voters would have had to vote NDP, which is a pretty strong share of the vote. But this also ignores that some “Green” voters voted NDP because they didn’t want a Liberal MLA or Premier. If they could freely vote Green they would have.
And in Saanich North and the Islands, this sort of calculation might have cost them the seat altogether. Though the Green candidate finished 3rd, he had 31% of the vote, only 2% behind the Liberal and NDP candidates.
TruFoe, please do not put words into my mouth. It is irresponsible on your part and just proves you have nothing to contribute to the conversation.
Jim, I agree that if the voting system were different people may vote differently. However, changing to a runoff system seems unlikely to change the first round voting. Likewise, the analysis so far seems to suggest that the NDP is not the natural home of Green Party voters in BC.