I read an opinion piece that Bill Tieleman, the pro-First-Past-the-Post chief, wrote for the online magazine, Straight Goods. No, I am not going to dissect all his arguments that he writes against the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system. What I will do is question why he has nothing good to say about his beloved First-Past-the-Post voting system.
Tieleman criticizes STV by quoting former BC Green Party leader Colleen McCrory who stated that STV was not proportional enough. He doesn't offer any suggestions about which proportional voting system he would favour. There's the Pure List system and Mixed Member Proportional. The Pure List system would create one super-sized riding for BC. MMP would approximately double the size of the constituency seats and create list seats for the whole province. I don't think Tieleman would favour either model.
Tieleman loves the antiquated First-Past-the-Post voting system. However, he won't admit it. He writes, "STV would create enormous ridings of up to seven MLAs and 350,000 people that would take away local accountability and responsibility of MLAs to voters." Never does he defend First-Past-the-Post. Never does he promote First-Past-the-Post. It would be nice if Tieleman could say, "First-Past-the-Post maintains small ridings with only one MLA for 50,000 voters. That MLA is locally accountable and responsible to his/her voters (and the MLA will toe the party line according to his/her leader's demands thereby negating local accountability and responsibility)."
Tieleman complains about fractionalizing of STV votes. I wish I could understand his concerns about fractions. Maybe, he did not like doing fractions as a young boy in elementary school. I wish he could mention that under his cherished First-Past-the-Post voting system, someone's vote may be worth zilch if that person wishes to vote for a candidate who has absolutely no chance in winning. I would rather have my vote fractionalized under BC-STV than have it worth nothing under First-Past-the-Post. At least if my vote is fractionalized, its fractional parts are still worth a sum of one.
"If you want change, work for something better than STV," Tielman writes. I can understand someone who may oppose STV because he or she wants Mixed Member Proportional or honestly advocates to keep First-Past-the-Post. Tieleman doesn't do this. He just complains about STV.
Mr. Tieleman, I do not wish to know which system you are against. I want to know for which voting system you advocate. Besides your unmentioned First-Past-the-Post, which system is better than STV?