The Hook

It's about damn time the BC NDP did likewise, but it's clear by their leadership's failure to give direct answers to direct questions that the party elite favours the present system.

After all, they've done well by our non-proportional Single Member Plurality, haven't they? - obtaining majority government status on the basis of sub-40% of the vote.

Fairness for voters? Bah!

Better to keep election spoils to only two parties. Let them volley power between them, thus successfully squeezing out representation for any other parties.

I will vote NO again for this. I want full proportional rep. Anything less won't do.

...has a whole arsenal of anti-STV articles, including one published on February 18: http://www.strategicthoughts.com/record2009/stvstuff.html

Both sides of the issue have funding to the tune of 500,000 bucks each. Sure there will be for and against adds. We are supposed to be adult enough to listen to both of the sides and vote for the deal we think is best. But let's check those sides out before voting yes or no. It's amazing that we have a federal government where a much greater percentage voted for someone else.
Denise is our MP, and she is not shy in declaring what she thinks is best. Maybe the no side might ask her a few questions on the subject. And some yes folks do the same with David or Bill. A lot of folks voted for the deal last time, in my view because Campbell had a stranglehold on government in BC and some of his supporters back then decided there was too much power in one guys hands. I'm sure the parties mentioned are quite ready to debate such issues, and we are the winners when such discussions take place.

Denise, thanks so much for doing your part to build public awareness of this critical issue. As we move forward in this 21st century, we need a modern voting system that offers us a firm foundation for our democratic processes that is based on accurately representing the voters' wishes.

Dan, I encourage you to not let your quest for perfection get in the way of a substantial improvement. STV is just as good on proportionality as most list PR and MMP systems (see http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/pubs/pops/pop34/c04.htm which shows that the 'disproportionality index' for STV in practice is between 2.5 and 3.5, vs about 12 for Canada and 18 for BC (not listed)). Even most PR advocates think that there should be some effective threshold for representation; most advocate for about 5% to exclude single issue candidates such as those who win election in Israel and the Netherlands. In any case, BC-STV is far, far better on proportionality than FPTP.

Crawford points out Schreck's arguments. I suggest you check out http://www.straight.com/article-201582/bcstv-simply-no-better-our-current-electoral-system and http://www.straight.com/article-201581/single-transferable-vote-would-break-down-political-barriers-bc for responses to his and Tieleman's claims. Also check out the proponent website at http://stv.ca.

Hey Tony were you writing the comment toward me? My name is not Tony. I don't expect perfection in anything to do with politics but to just sign an x and hope for the best is what got us stuck with King Gordo and down in Ottawa, Harper. I never voted for either of them . A family friend sat on that group that ended up proposing the STV. I listen to her, I also listen to David S. and Bill T. Isn't that the reason blogs exist?

I like the fact that Denise Savoie is taking a clear and intelligently articulated public position on this matter. The NDP needs a lot more of that kind of thing, and a lot less of the "resolution passed unanimously" type of stuff.

I don't support STV because of the greatly increased size of constituencies it would impose, and becuase the voting formulas are complex, not transparent. If we move to STV, we will have to automate all voting in provincial elections, something we have only had to do municipally to this point. Voting machines are viewed by many people with suspicion that may be unfounded, but it's there.

I read cocean's link to herself and was totally unimpressed by the self-righteous denunciation of Carole James, who sent cocean a clear and courteous reply. For cocean to give James and the NDP the gratuitous and cheesy BC Liberal smear treatment tells me all I really need to know.

Here's something people ought to think about. If BC had the same electoral quotient in its own legislature as Alberta does, we would have about 105 MLAs in the provincial assembly. Think of what that could do in terms of adding more talented people into public life, bringing representation closer to people, communities and neighborhoods, and in bringing more representation to Aboriginal and immigrant areas?

At one of the early public hearings held by the BC EBC panel I asked what provisions there were to create ridings with smaller populations in areas with large proportions of Aboriginal and immigrant residents. I was told by the Commission representative that there was no provisions for that in the BC Act, but there was such a provision in the Alberta statute.

Quickly another member of the audience identified himself as a former BC Citizens Assemblyman and made it crystal clear that the Alberta approach should be rejected out of hand. It's STV or bust. He was not at all interested in minority representation.

I wonder if cocean is, or if she's only concerned with advancing women in politics, rather like the NOW members in the US who were furious that Obama got the nomination instead of Mrs Clinton, and who actually had the brass and the dishonest to denounce Obama as a "the less qualified man".

Anyone against STV is for being ruled by cabinets who can count on the support of their party's majority in spite of the fact they rarely have over 50% of the popular vote.

Anyone against STV stands for opposition parties and government backbenchers having absolutely no say in how the province is governed.

Full pro-rep strengthens parties and magnifies current problems.

I didn't know Ireland even had computers before WW2.

Excellent points and well expressed. The zealous nature of the STV lobby worries me too.

For a group which claims to have the best interests of the public at heart, they have approached their promotional tasks will a good deal too much fervor and far too little humility.

Before dumping on those who don't necessarily drink the STV Kool Ade, they ought to look to their own somewhat cult-like attitudes.

I'll vote for STV while wishing we had a better option and a more comprehensive say in the structure of our governing institutions.

What we have now is thoroughly broken - and on that point, I have little sympathy with Bill Tieleman's honest, but I think wrong-headed, efforts to hang onto FPTP at all costs.

Frank
I didn't know Ireland even had computers before WW2.

Frank, if you're suggesting in any way that BC could adopt STV without adopting automated voting, you're making an argument that sounds like the kind of thing we have all come to expect in the blogosphere.

If BC goes to STV, it will have to be computers. Period.

G West
Before dumping on those who don't necessarily drink the STV Kool Ade, they ought to look to their own somewhat cult-like attitudes.

The STV Man at the EBC hearing was quite clear. There is only one issue. STV. Nothing else counts. Minority representation wasn't to be mentioned one way or the other. Just STV.

Don't hold your breath waiting for these people to hang loose and start listening to other ideas. For you see, they know in their hearts that there is only one true thing. STV.

"If BC goes to STV, it will have to be computers. Period."

You seem pretty certain, but I'm used to that kind of certainty in the blogoshere.

I for one happen to believe that most people in BC can do the counting without computers, just like the Irish.

The Americans use first past the post, they also use computers to tally their results.

I guess that means we in BC will have to adopt computers to do our counting for us after STV goes down to defeat in May.

Fortunately on that same day Mr Campbell will win his third straight majority, albeit with less than 50% of the vote and will continue to do whatever he likes to the province since the majority of our MLA's will have no voice. But its all good according to Shreck and Tielmann.

STV wasn't perfect enough for the Green Party either. They too wanted full-PR or nothing and they too will be waiting for a very long time.

"In Alberta, personal bankruptcies soared by 27 per cent year-over-year in the 12-month period ended December, 2008, the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy Canada said yesterday. That was nearly double the 14-per-cent increase for the entire country.

In December alone, personal bankruptcies in Alberta rose 106 per cent from the year before. They were up 51 per cent nationwide."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090210.reconomy10/BNStory/crashandrecovery/home

Wrong thread, enlightening as it is.

Frank
I for one happen to believe that most people in BC can do the counting without computers, just like the Irish.

The Americans use first past the post, they also use computers to tally their results.

I guess that means we in BC will have to adopt computers to do our counting for us after STV goes down to defeat in May.

In the Canadian context manual counts lasting several days would not be acceptable. The delay would not be tolerated, nor is there a sufficient level of trust for ballots and partial tally sheets to be stored overnight, several days in a row.

The Americans use voting machines because they have so many offices to fill, plus additional ballot measures to consider, all on the same day, once every two years.

"nor is there a sufficient level of trust for ballots and partial tally sheets to be stored overnight, several days in a row."

So what does this say about recounts? That they've probably been tampered with and we shouldn't allow them?

I think taking a full day or two to do the counting would be fine with most people if they see it as a trade-off to get a more accountable system.

And if there is a current security issue as you suggest then that should be fixed.

As for America, they do have lots of elections on the same day but they could still do the counting by hand for each of those if they wanted to. (After all, less than half of them even bother voting in most of those elections)

They made a choice to go to a system with no paper trail and where the code is not open, we don't have to make that same choice regardless of what system we have.

Frank
I think taking a full day or two to do the counting would be fine with most people if they see it as a trade-off to get a more accountable system.

The public in this country would not accept several days of uncertainty about the overall seat count. Nor would they be willing to go to bed several days in a row with partial results, enhanced by network projections based on the partial results plus polling on likely second, third, fourth choices, etc., only to have those projections reversed on day three by the actual count, etc., etc.

The trust issue is major. People may have said they wanted STV, but I am sure that's totally bogus. If it were ever actually implemented you'd be hearing endless whining about how complicated the counting process is, and what kind of fuzzy math is involved.

The alternative is what we have now and I think the trade-off is worth it to get a better system. If others believe speed of results is more important than what those results give us... well that's why we're having a referendum.

In May the vote is for the status quo or for STV. NDPers such as Tielman and Shreck will vote status quo because STV means the NDP will never again form a majority government. Others will vote status quo because they like the Socred/Liberals being able to do whatever they want 44 years out of 57. And of course others will vote status quo because STV isn't their perfect system.

The defeat of STV in May will make everyone happy I'm sure.

Frank
The alternative is what we have now and I think the trade-off is worth it to get a better system. If others believe speed of results is more important than what those results give us... well that's why we're having a referendum.

Why are you denying the need for voting machines to make STV workable in Canada? Are you afraid that if people are told up front that voting machines are a necessary and integral part of the package they will be less likely to support STV?

If you're still suggesting that people would tolerate manual counting, complete with the inevitable errors due to the intricate counting schemes and the need for recomputation of previously declared results, a process lasting several days, with lots of overnight stays in hotels for election officials and party observers, and last but hardly least, the worrisome sight of exhausted election officials mumbling incomprehensible explanations to the TV news cameras, ... fine. It's your baby!

But the public will not in fact stand for this. If STV is implemented with manual counting, it will soon be revoked in a follow-on referendum.

Quote: "The December political crisis in Ottawa further convinced her that the current system leads to political games and poor representation."

I assume the "political games" mentioned in the article were related to the minority government. My concern with STV is that is would frequently produce minority governments with the attending "political games".

"Why are you denying the need for voting machines to make STV workable in Canada?"

Because, as usual, its a straw man. STV predates computers.

"But the public will not in fact stand for this. If STV is implemented with manual counting, it will soon be revoked in a follow-on referendum."

Fine, bring it in for one election and let the people decide. But you and Tielman and Shreck wouldn't stand for that either so I know you put it forward in jest.

By all means vote instead for the status quo where we end up with less than even a one party state as even government members are nobodies.

Thank you Frank, I will indeed vote for FPTP, and I don't actually require your permission to do so.

I do find your refusal to acknowledge the need for voting machines to be a bit annoying. Rather like the reluctance of STV supporters to acknowledge the size of the ridings needed. Or rather like the STV Man at the EBC hearing who didn't want to hear about Aboriginal and immigrant representation, which would in most cases be swamped in the larger STV ridings.

Fine, bring it in for one election and let the people decide. But you and Tielman and Shreck wouldn't stand for that either so I know you put it forward in jest.

Frank, if you read Carole James's letter to cocean you'll see that she said explicitly that if STV wins, it wins. It will be implemented by any government she may be asked to form.

"I do find your refusal to acknowledge the need for voting machines to be a bit annoying."

Of course, it would be the same for me if my objection to something wasn't true no matter how much I wished it was. What I would do in that case is rethink my objection.

"who didn't want to hear about Aboriginal and immigrant representation, which would in most cases be swamped in the larger STV ridings"

And how's that representation thing working out for you under FPTP? Happy with the results so far? Because I was under the impression we weren't doing very well on that front but I'm glad to hear I'm wrong.

"Frank, if you read Carole James's letter to cocean you'll see that she said explicitly that if STV wins, it wins. It will be implemented by any government she may be asked to form."

That's nice because I think 50% should have been enough. However, it won't get 50% this time as all the Campbell supporters have forgotten about the Glen Clark victory and will see no reason to upset a system that works very well for them.

I was disappointed when BC, Ontario and PEI all voted down electoral change after decades of thinking that people wanted a better system but never had a chance to show their support for one but obviously I was wrong and I accept that.

I think a valid case can be made for voting yes in the referendum even though there are plenty of warts on STV.

The fact, at least I see it as a fact, is that STV (and I don't like the CA addicts and their enthusiasms any better than you do) is the only game that has a chance of getting this province out of the miasma of FPTP in the near future.

I'd rather the choice was different and I hate the idea of the CA trolls who'll do nothing but preen and show off if the vote goes their way but, we live in an imperfect world and STV is, on balance, more than marginally better than FPTP.

Even if that means we'd need voting machines....I actually think that computer tallying is more essential than actual voting machines but that's another argument and a bit of a fine distinction.

On the other hand, the Irish comparison Frank makes isn't without merit and the population differences aren't all that significant either. I think we'll manage.

On the other hand, I don't think we'll manage very nicely for another 20 years under the current system.

And I don't disagree with your interpretation of Carole James's position either. I think the woman is doing a very decent job in a decent, moral and ethical way.

I wish she and her party would make more specific proposals about how they'd approach the province and its problems when they form the government, but, given the level of political discourse in BC and the way the CEO is self-destructing at the moment, why not wait a little until the campaign really gets rolling.