For some reason I can’t stop thinking about something called the Pareto Principle these days. I guess it has to do with my training in statistics, and the current referendum on BC’s electoral reform. I’m not going to tell anyone here on how I think they should vote, but I do encourage all eligible voters to get their votes in the mail in time. The deadline has been extended from November 30 to December 7 because of postal service disruption. There is of course a good civic responsibility argument to made for voting, but that’s not the primary reason why I hope the referendum will get a high percentage of voter participation.
Let me explain why the Pareto Principle is important.
The 80/20 rule
Often called the 80/20 rule, the Pareto Principle refers to a division frequently-found in many fields. It is not really a rule, as that would suggest it must occur. It’s probably best described as an observation that holds true in an approximate way in many circumstances. For example, the man who discovered it, an 19th Century Italian economist named Vilfredo Pareto, noticed that about 20 per cent of Italy’s population owned close to 80 per cent of the country’s land. A similar comparison was made by the United Nations in the late 20th Century that about 20 per cent of the world’s population controlled about 80 per cent of the world’s wealth. There have been lots of other similar observations. Generalized, these observations say that about 80 per cent of results come from about 20 per cent of the causes. As I mentioned, this is not an absolute rule, but this ratio does turn up in a lot of activities. So, will it be the case in BC’s current referendum on electoral reform?
BC referendum on electoral reform
I am hoping we get a large voter participation our province’s current referendum on our election rules. By this I mean, I hope a lot more than 20 per cent of eligible voters will cast their ballot. If we get only a small portion, say 20 to 30 per cent of eligible voters, and their vote determines the system which the large majority of us will then use, it doesn’t strike me as if the referendum for reform is any better than the election system that is being reformed. The reason we are having this referendum is that a lot of people think our elections typically elect governments which do not reflect the popular vote, that is the total number of votes cast. They point to the current system which is called First Past the Post as the problem. If you happen to be a horse racing fan you will recognize this term. In a race of say 10 horses, the one that passes the finish post first is the winner. That’s pretty simple to understand. In an election which has many electoral ridings, and various political parties represented by different candidates in each riding, it means the winner is the one that has more votes than any other individual candidate. But since there are typically more than two candidates in each riding, it is usually the case that the winner gets elected with less than 50 per cent of the popular vote. When this is extended to all the ridings across the province, then the party that forms the government often has the support of less than 50 per cent of the people who voted. Sometimes the governing party may have as little as 30 per cent or less of the popular vote.
The current Referendum is a vote on whether we should keep the First Past the Post system or if we should also have another way of adding more winners according to a method called Proportional Representation, or Pro-Rep for short. There are three versions of pro-rep a second question on in the Referendum and I am not going to attempt to describe these versions to you. I urge you to read the Referendum questions carefully yourself and make up your own mind. The important thing it that you send in your ballot. Let me explain why.
A spoiled ballot can be better than voter apathy
A big problem with all elections is voter apathy. When only 20 or 30 per cent of the eligible voters cast their vote, we don’t really know what the electorate wants. Regarding the current Referendum, I have heard many people say they don’t understand it and therefore they are not going to vote. For those who may feel the same way, I think it would be better if you mailed in a spoiled ballot rather than not voting at all. If you write on your ballot that you don’t understand it well enough to select from the choices offered, your opinion could still be publicly noted if officials informed the media. But if you don’t vote at all, it just leaves a big question mark about which system you want. A spoiled ballot may not be the best option as a general rule, but it is better than not voting at all because it can provide information on why people didn’t vote. It may not help with the final outcome of the election, but it would help to show that voter apathy was not the problem. It can show that don’t want the Pareto Principle to rule in the Referendum.
Thanks for reading!
Sibo Zhang, REALTOR®