The Hook

make sure, vote STV

It's not absolutely sure that if the referendum fails, we won't get a new voting system somewhere down the road but...

(1) there is a huge risk we'll get no change at all,
(2) any change that happens will necessarily be delayed well past 2013.

Besides, any attempt to reopen the process for selecting a new system is bound to become bogged down in a fight between people who believe that some other system will be able to get 60% in a referendum, and other people who believe that STV, having achieved 50% twice, is already the preferred choice. That could lead to a stalemate from which we never recover.

So if you support electoral reform, you really must vote for STV.

If the referendum does fail, the most likely scenario for electoral reform going forward is for Vancouver or some other city to adopt STV (which will of course require cooperation from the province).

If election reform doesn't

If election reform doesn't pass tomorrow the issue won't raise its head for at least another generation. If it does pass tomorrow then we won't be so scared to change again in the not too distant future to something else if STV doesn't fit.

No kidding

"not everyone agrees that a loss at the ballot box would mark the death of electoral reform for B.C."

In fact, reading the article, it rather looks as if the converse is the case, that everyone agrees it won't be the end, that we are not going to see electoral reform turn into the beauty that sleeps for a hundred years behind a hedge of thorns...

What is needed is a real people's process. A few years ago, when the ward system was on the table in Vancouver, there was a very good awareness campaign run by the city, where every vancouverite who had eyes and ears would be aware of the issues. There were lots of information material plastered all over the public media, people on the streets downtown and elsewhere, who were handing out information and were available for questions. You would have to be deaf, dumb and blind in order to remain unaware.

In comparison, the presentation by the electoral reform proponents has been incredibly lame, as some posters in these pages have said, bearing the mark of an elitist process, never meant to include the entire populus. Unfortunately, reaching everyone is the prerequisite for seeing anything happen. The strategy now being employed, hiding behind the mists, and then coming out at the last minute and trying to strong-arm people into compliance shows the utmost contempt for the elctorate. It gives me hope that people apparently give this approach its just desserts.

Next time, try R.E.S.P.E.C.T.

copy of the above

OK, I'll spare you that. Just kidding.

But cheap shot, Bison, to post double! Are you so frantic that your trigger finger slipped, or are you hoping people won't notice you're the same guy saying the same thing twice?

After the referendum

A The vigorous Tyee debate between the proponents of STV and FPTP has clearly shown the rest of us that these are two of the worst electoral systems. We rejected STV in the earlier referendum, and now our government is trying to stuff it down our throats again, without even the option of voting, 'Neither of the above'. This is happening because our rulers judge that STV is no threat. Although STV is approximately proportional for parties with large support, it is very unfair to small parties. Under it, government will pass back and forth between Liberals and NDP without interference from minorities such as the Greens and Conservatives.

Some Greens seem to be backing STV because they believe that their party will soon gain more support. They are probably deluded. The other parties will steal the more appealing parts of their program. World governments will fail to implement an effective system of carbon credits and will reject geo-engineering. The temperature will go up, or not go up, and in any case environmental disaster will threaten. The voters will not want to know, and the Greens will cry in the wilderness.

No matter what the outcome of the referendum, we must not give up the struggle for a better system. A mildly proportional version of MMP can retain the advantages of FPTP
while ensuring some representation of minorities. The additional members in MMP need not be chosen from party lists, but could be the best-performing, losing candidates in the constituencies.

A more interesting possibility is to modify FPTP by allowing electors to vote for or against candidates. Minority parties and independents could then be elected by 'coming
up the middle' between deadlocked major parties.

the conditions may not be there

When Glenn Clark formed a majority government based on a popular vote less than 40% and even though the NDP got less votes than the Liberals, it caused some on the "right" to think proportional representation might be worth considering. This memory is fading.

Many on the "left", dreaming of returning to power with a "majority" government, knowing they could never achieve the 50% or more support required to govern without a coalition under PR, reject PR. It may take decades of being out of power to change their minds.

The small party most likely to benefit from a PR system such as STV, i.e. the Greens, can be said to have provided the margin needed to defeat STV last time, as they allowed their leader to oppose the STV referendum.

When you can't even get unequivocal support from the people the system most clearly benefits at a time when it mattered the most, you have to think there is something in Canadians that doesn't allow them to change fundamental things, like their electoral system, or their constitution.

This is now the fourth PR referendum that has been held recently in Canada, i.e. PEI, Ontario, and two in BC. All have failed. If STV fails again in BC, its hard to see why there would be another referendum here for a long time.

Many will say a referendum is held to decide something. You can sum up the results of recent referendums on PR in Canada by saying Canadians don't want it.

You don't just have referendums because a minority want to have referendums all the time.

dorothy

Yes, I thought if I posted it twice, people would read it the second time and think "wow, I've heard something like this before, yeah, this guy must really know what he's talking about..."

Just kidding, it was a browser problem. Very astute of you to have guessed this.

New online polls suggest the

New online polls suggest the tide has turned in favour of BC-STV. As reported by CTV last night, the numbers are above 60%.

Speaking of predictions....

40 Liberal seats--38 NDP seats--7 too close to call

http://www.electionprediction.org/2009_bc/index.php

Despite best efforts to hang on to status quo STV is here now

Canada is one of the few democracies left not to shed the antiquated FPTP where less than 40 percent of voters can get a majority for their chosen party. Nearly 60 percent of us were ready for STV last election and it looks like we may have it this time - and all citizen powered no less, thus, I am kind of astounded at the question - will electoral reform survive? I think it has arrived. Quit arm-chair quarter backing reform and get your butts out and vote for STV!!!!

Another referendum?

I don't see Ontario and PEI having new referendums, electoral reform in those provinces died once it was defeated. I see no reason for BC to be different.

Carole James does not want BC-STV.

Carole James and the NDP Party do not want to see BC-STV instituted. If they are successful in forming the next government and the STV referendum is successful as well, watch for the NDP to do everything in its power to stop STV from being instituted for the subsequent election. The mentality of BC's two strongest governing parties is to bide their time until their time comes, and then to fully immerse their snouts in the trough like the party they just dislodged.

Carole is just trying to divert the voters who would support STV because they are concerned that if they don't support it this time, then electoral reform is dead for a long time. Any electoral reform that the NDP would come up with will be inferior to BC-STV and I doubt very much that any reform process would take place. It is simply lip service.

That is not to say that the Liberal Party are in favor of STV either. The only reason we are voting for electoral reform is that Gordon Campbell was very upset by the results of the 1996 election and in an emotional, knee jerk response, he promised to address electoral reform if elected in 2001. The formation of the Citizens Assembly was about the most democratic and non-biased method of determining whether there was desire for reform, and what method of voting should be introduced. BC-STV is the most sophisticated system available today to choose the representatives of the people. It is in fact, somewhat amazing that the CA actually chose STV rather than some other watered down system. The CA wanted a system that approached proportionality as well as weakening the non-democratic influence of the modern political party. BC-STV will do this and that is why the political parties present on today's stage, do not really want to see BC-STV instituted.

So if BC-STV does not pass at this referendum, don't expect any meaningful electoral reform for quite some time!!

STV Campaign Strategy

Dorothy, I don't think it's fair to characterize the reform campaign as hiding in the mists - we've run several conferences and public events over the past few years and have maintained a web presence continuously since the last referendum. For the most part, we've been a small group of incredibly devoted volunteers who have been doing as much as we can to get people tied in to our network well in advance of the referendum, but people have busy lives and there's only so much any of us can do. We're not a political party and don't have the same long-term visibility, and until recently we had virtually no fundraising ability. All these things mitigated against any highly visible and effective province-wide outreach strategy.

I agree with you that the Vancouver process was much more effective. It was also publicly funded and tied into a formal consultation process with many opportunities for public input and media coverage. When New Zealand ran their 1992 and 1993 referendums, they provided a total of about $9M in funding with a clear public engagement plan. In contrast, our government has provided nothing in the first round and $1M in the second; in my view, this was grossly inadequate - we couldn't send a full information flyer around to every home and no public debate was held on TV the way it was in New Zealand.

In any case, I'd certainly appreciate hearing people's thoughts about how to keep the pressure up for electoral reform at all levels - provincial, federal and civic. We've got a long way to go.

Thank you, Tony

"In contrast, our government has provided nothing in the first round and $1M in the second; in my view, this was grossly inadequate - we couldn't send a full information flyer around to every home and no public debate was held on TV the way it was in New Zealand."

Thank you indeed for making that clear. Now we know who it is that don't want to see this succeed, or any change in fact go forward. Perhaps I should have seen this somewhere, but as it happens, I haven't and I am shocked. This is so gross, and in view of that I am surprised anyone was even willing to try.

So here's my revision: The governement hog-tied the Assmbly through financial starvation - yech!

Maybe enough people will see this and realize these people are NOT ACTING IN GOOD FAITH, and give them the order of the boot tomorrow in that booth.

Thanks again.

Actually,

"Just kidding, it was a browser problem. Very astute of you to have guessed this,"

It may not even have been, but rather a server problem. When I sent my input, I had trouble getting it hrough, and had to reboot, and I figure it was more or less at the same time...so I owe you an apology here.

You can be snide right back some time, it makes the blog more fun, don't you think?

Oh hey, I guss you already were...

An unfair voting system will never be acceptable.

And once people have realized that our current system routinely and horribly distorts the results of every election, that genie can never be put back in the bottle.