I'm with Norm on this one--you can't simply re-write the rules to change the outcome after you've lost the game fair and square in the agreed context within which everyone participated.

Some people voted "yes", not because they understood or supported STV, but simply to send a message that they weren't happy with the status quo, knowing full well that there wasn't a chance of the STV option receiving 60% support. They may well have abstained or voted no if the approval threshold was 50%.

The suggestion to explore this further in another referendum makes the most sense to me.

The fundamental problem lies in how this was set up--i.e. giving a select group the task of making such a critical decision on behalf of the entire electorate. The Citizens Assembly should have been charged with supervising the process of exploring and developing options to present to the electorate, not with making the decision for us.

Here we go into the abyss of debating electoral reform. It's not good enough for us to take the word if those who chose STV that this is the best system. We will debate this endlessly to no end.
It's a pity that the people won't get what they want. The big political parties will go to the end of the earth to make sure this doesn't go through.
Modern politicians don't have the guts to listen to the people. So lets not hold our breath waiting for any changes to the status quo, which should please most Canadians as the hate change.
I guess the Supreme Court Ruling that our hopeles healthcare system is unconstitutional wil really rattle the sensitive Canadian liberal view of the world.

I like the idea of having two referendums: first, to keep or throw out the current FPTP system, and second (assuming the first says to throw it out), to offer a choice between two alternatives, NOT including FPTP. If enough voters say no to it on the first referendum, it shouldn't be on the second ballot. If you don't like it, stay home and don't vote in the second referendum, which brings me to my second point: there should be a requirement that some percentage of registered voters participate in each referendum. It's my hope that such a requirement would increase the amount of educational campaigning that would be done on each side, and an informed electorate is always a good thing. Plus, it would give a lot more teeth to electoral reformers claiming they have a mandate for change (if they win the first referendum, of course).

When the polls start tracking voter education then you may compare it to STV education. The average voter doesn't have a clue why they vote for a certain party, period. It certainly has less to do with education and more to do with media buzz. The polls give one party a 4 point lead with a percentage error 9/10 times. Great, now we have a pretty good idea who's going to win, too bad we don't have a clue why. The need and want for reform grows stronger as more people educate themselves. Good for us, bad for politicians.

The average voter doesn't know, doesn't care, and therefore doesn't vote.

Sounds like Campbell isn't going to sit on his laurels about STV:

http://www.cknw.com/news/news_local.cfm?cat=7428981912&rem=11429&red=80198123aPBIny&wids=410&gi=1&gm=news_local.cfm

...for better or for worse, maybe we'll hear something sooner than anyone expects.

"Name," just because the threshold wasn't reached doesn't mean the game was lost. The threshold was a test for whether or not the referendum would be binding. The current problem is that STV failed to become immediately binding, but that it received more votes than any other idea ever tested through the ballot box (including mandates).

To simply dismiss that kind of support for something is a pretty unsophisticated approach to public policy and governance.

I think that's exactly right Salishsea. Not juch more votes - but a majority throught the province! Electoral reform is now in limbo. It could possibly be ignored, but at a political price. Or, the opportunity in presents might be seized by the Campbell goverment

Having now had the benefit of the Citizens' Assembly and a broad endorsement from the public, and with an opposition saying they wish to do things differently and more cooperatively, I think Campbell has another option - he can have the legislature take the project on.

I don't mean simply imposing STV necessarily. I mean debate and deliberation by our government, with the understanding that this is a non-partisan initiative, with lots of opportunity for and proponents and critics for change to be heard as our MLAs hashed this out. Maybe changing STV, maybe adding more mix proportional elements, or looking also at questions beyond the CA mandate include number seats, political contribution reform, &c.

Simply by taking on a project like that, he would for very little if any political cost acquire a whole new image for government, and an approach more in keeping with his rhetoric on the practise of government as opposed to how it was actually practised in term 1. He would seem modern and selfless and statesman-like. What is the downside for this approach?

There is ample precedent for requiring more than a simple 50% + 1 majority to approve important changes, such as changing the constitution, recalling elected officers, etc. If the Citizens Assembly felt that 52% or 55% or 58% support was ample, that's where they should have set the threshold. Obviously, they didn't and it's simply not reasonable to change the rules because you don't like the outcome. For a start, I doubt that an attempt to do so would survive a legal challenge by STV opponents.

That doesn't meant that reform or STV is dead, as suggested. There are sensible and perfectly legitimate proposals to pursue electoral reform by offering more choices to the electorate in future referenda.

Name,

I imagine there are precedents for requiring more than 50% plus one - but I doubt they are ample. Simple majorities often decide important things, infact simple pluralities are by far the norm.

Of course it wasn't the CA as you say that decided on 60%. This was a threshold imposed by Government after that CA was formed and deliberating. I believe certain passages of the Companies Act were cited as inspiration for the threshold.

I don't have any particular problem with government setting the threshold at 60% or 75% or whatever: it is entirely within the purview of government to decide how to fetter themseves. I suppose that they could change the rules, as it were, by having a couple more referenda as you suggest - but I don't think that desirable or likely.

This is not to say though that Government is not free now for it to take a view of the remarkable result and consider the sensible and perfectly legitimate avenues for reform in the house. I can't think of what sort of legal challenge you have in mind should the legislature legislate in this area. What did you mean when you said (if I understand you) that STV legislation would not survive a legal challenge?

I must agree with you, John, that Gordie would seem "selfless and statesman-like" if he aggressively tackled this issue. Hell, I'll go one step further: I'll forgive the man for all his sins if he actually finds a way to implement any system with a measure of proportionality. I hate FPTP. I'd prefer a system where drunk monkeys spin skillo wheels to determine the next government.

Biologically speaking male and female brains are different and process information in different ways. In nature human gender ratios at birth are slightly over 50% female and slightly below 50% male.

If an electoral system doesn't take into account these biological realities, I am not certain that it can act in the best interest of our species. If women do not have 50% of the seats in government, then government will always have a male bias. Since male-brains process information differently a male-majority government will prioritize government policies differently than if females had an equal voice.

Dividing the seats on a biological basis is wading into some dangerous waters, but also raises some interesting questions about how such a hypothetical system would work. Would women vote only for women and men for men? Would we have each riding represented by one woman and one man? Would we have two separate ballots? How would cabinet be chosen? One woman and one man for each post? Or keep the system as it is, which tends to assign "soft" portfolios (health, women's issues, education) to women and "hard" portfolios (finance, AG, forestry) to men. Already this sounds suspiciously close to having two classes of MLAs, and we all know which group is traditionally second class.

Much as I would like to see an equal parliament, I don't think that legislating it is the answer. I think that would entrench the differences rather than celebrate the potential for working together. A better solution might be to make parliament itself less male-oriented (i.e. aggressive). For example, a zero tolerance policy for talking/making noise until an MLA is finished speaking, especially during question period. Turn question period into answer period and compel cabinet ministers to answer the question or face parliamentary discipline. Choose a group of "regional" ministers and a group of "professional" ministers - the former to handle regional issues (i.e. Island, Lower Mainland, North, Interior), and the latter to handle the management portfolios. Merit, experience, and competence should determine who gets to be a minister. Choose ministers from other parties! If the opposition has a judicial star, or an agriculture professor, or whatever, and you just don't have anyone qualified ... give 'em the job! Make it work - nothing says that we have to stick to party lines.

Davey-Boy,

He doesn't have to aggresively tackle it to reap kudos. All he needs to is get a bill in the house and have a committee take it on. I'm all over your drunken monkeys (D.M.S.S.W) proposal!

Here we are in a pickle, STV passed the 50% margin but not the 60% mandated by Campbell. In fact, it was very close to the 60% number. Spector, et al, is afraid of a loss of power in our winner take all system, problem for him is that the public hold everyone associated with politics in high odor, akin to pimps and pushers.

Campbell should do the right thing and implement STV for the next election, lest the public really throw a tantrum an toss the Liberals out, a la the NDP as in the 2001 election. Spector and his lot would rally pee his pants if that happened.

Let get on with it and do it because when the Quebecois win their next seperation referendum by 52% they will leave pronto ( no 50% there)and we need a more honest political system when BC leaves the fold in about 20 years.

If I were in charge I would look at tweaking the system we have now. Don’t change the way we vote just change the way we pass laws. Take a look at the federal system and look at how I would change the way we pass laws. Don’t vote by number of seats but by popular vote. Popular vote make sure the majority of people that voted get to be heard.

In this last federal election the Liberals got 36.7% of the popular vote and 135 seats; the Conservatives got 29.6% and 99 seats; the NDP got 15.7% and 19 seats; the Block got 12.4% and 54 seats. By dividing percentage of the parties popular vote by seats you get Liberals with .272% per seat; the Conservatives with .299% per seat; the NDP with .826% per seat; the Bloc with .230% per seat. Now you see that the Liberals with the help of the NDP have 52.4% of the popular vote. So if certain laws needed 50% of the popular vote they would have it. But if you needed 60% for major changes they wouldn’t. In free Vote situations you would add up the percentage of each individual seat. When we look at minority governments you have to work with other parties. But lets look at the Liberal majority government of 2000.

The liberals had 40.85% of the popular vote with 172 seats or .237% per seat. Canadian Alliance had 24.49% with 66 seats or .371% per seat; the Block had 10.72% with 38 seats or .282% per seat; the NDP had 8.51% with 13 seats or .655% per seat: the PC’s had 12.19 with 12 seats or 1.016% per seat. As you see with a majority the Liberals would still need around 10% from the rest of the parties to pass laws. With more free votes you would have to have the majority of the people of Canada on side and each Member would represent their constituency like Chuck did.

One thing that happens when government has to listen to more parties is that the budget may have to be broken up into pieces and voted on individually. This stops bad laws been bundled with good laws.

Benevolent Dictator: I like this idea (incredibly unworkable in practice, but fun to think about) ... but what about assigning votes on a per-seat basis? That is, the vote amount for a given seat is also based on how many people actually voted in the last election in that particular riding. It'd never pass federally, of course - certain provinces that currently enjoy far too many MPs per capita would scream bloody murder. But it'd be a big incentive for get out the vote campaigns.

I guess my major interest is just in trying to get more people informed and voting. Being a younger voter myself, it is amazing how few of my age group realize just how much influence government has in their lives. There is this overwhelming conviction that "it doesn't affect me". I don't think that any new voting system is going to change that. Only changes to the education system (or mandatory voting, ala Australia) will have any effect. Personally, I'd go for the idea of paying people to vote and denying them services if they don't have a damn good reason for not voting.

--To respond to Budd Campbell's questions earlier, I know that the Electoral Boundaries Commission is supposed to begin work on its recommendations in the fall, so my guess is that it will start working with the 2001 census figures. Assuming that it reports in June 2007, it might be difficult to do all of its work based on the 2006 census figures. If it could be allowed to report later, then it could incorporate the 2006 census data.

The current legislation only allows for a maximum of 81 seats---and two more seats won't accommodate half a million more voters without stretching some boundaries in the interior and shrinking some in the lower Mainland.

As for the format of the next referendum on electoral reform(which could be held in conjunction with municipal elections in the fall) I would suggest a two-part ballot, the first of which asks whether voters wish to change the electoral system, and the second which asks them to choose between two or three alternative reform models. I would suggest that there are three potential models that would be consistent with the rsult we saw on May 17: (1)BC-STV (on the theory that voters were actually understanding and voting for the Citizen Assembly's recommendation); (2) a less proportional "STV lite" that would divide most of the province's seats into 3-member districts(on the theory that people voted for STV but found BC-STV too complex and radical to embrace fully); (3) a version of MMP that still keeps between 2/3 and 3/4 of the seats as single-member SMP seats and distributes the rest into 5 regional open-list districts. (On the theory that the Citizens' Assembly criterion of proportionality needs to be relaxed in order to make MMP work--and in any case only a modest dose of proportionality is needed to prevent the aberrations of 1996 and 2001 from recurring.) Voters could rank these 3 options; ideally I would want a run-off, but I am not sure voters would have an appetite for a second referendum.

A bit cumbersome, but I think that such a dual ballot would cover most of the reasonable interpretations of the May 17 result. The big assumption that the Citizens Assembly had is that the public does not countenance increasing the number of ridings (e.g. 1 for every 50,000 new British Columbians), so local representation is going to take a hit under just about every scenario.

That is one reason why extreme MMP (half SMP and half provincial party list, as promoted by Adriane Carr in her failed initiative in 2002) was rejected by the Citizens' Assembly as well.
Such a system would need many more seats preserve local representation as well as BC-STV.

http://markcrawford.blogspot.com

Mark, in your suggested referendum, what would you do with a result where, say the support for change over status quo was in the high 50's, and the options you've outlined received split? Say there was 58% for change, followed by 37% for STV lite, 33 for BC-STV and 30 for MMP?

This is why I womder about hashing in out in the Leg, following by a ratifying referendum - though I don't think that could be done by November.

Just off the cuff, if STV did go through in BC, does anyone here think the federal system would eventually follow?

STV is not only a flawed electoral system which favours urban over rural ridings, but the process of implementing the referendum was flawed as well.

First, there was no funding of 'Yes' and 'No' camps, and no monitoring of publicly registered lobby groups who influenced the debate (if you can call it that) over STV.

Second, at polling stations, there was only one information pamphlet available for voters to read about the merits of STV - a document influenced so heavily by the Citizens' Assembly recommendations, as to be perceived by any objective observer as a promotional piece for STV. There was no signage at polling stations informing voters of the availability of this information.

Third, I scrutineered at both the advance poll and on voting day, and I can tell you that most people voting were perplexed at receiving the second referendum ballot, and had no idea what STV was all about.

The entire process of electoral reform was engineered for failure. The terms of reference laid out by the Campbell Liberals did not allow the Citizens' Assembly to consider or recommend any change to the number of elected seats in the legislature - which prejudiced the entire process away from Proportional Representation.

In any serious discussion of electoral reform, the Citizens Assembly would be an advisory body which would be free to make recommendations on a wide range of issues around electoral reform - including the number, type and formation of elected seats in the legislature.

The recommendations of this Assembly would then be vetted by constitutional and legal experts, as well as an all-party (elected) committee of the legislature, which would make recommendations that would form the basis of a referendum legislation Act.

Then proper public funding, registration criteria, monitoring and spending limits would be put in place, ensuring a full, honest and balanced debate of the issue well in advance of the elecion.

None of these things happened. Most people will tell you that they know very little about STV, but that they voted for it because they felt it had to be better than the present system.

Ignorance does not an informed democracy make. Electoral reform is necessary, and overdue, but this government blew it in setting out the terms of reference for the electoral reform process. Perhaps now, with an invigorated and fully funded opposition in the legislature, we'll have a truly informed debate on the merits of electoral reform, instead of having it rammed down our throats by a paternalistic premier who doesn't understand the meaning of the word 'consult'.

Krispy,

All 3 major parties: Libs, NDP, and Green agreed on the process, and consultation was taken very seriously.

"The entire process of electoral reform was engineered for failure. The terms of reference laid out by the Campbell Liberals did not allow the Citizens' Assembly to consider or recommend any change to the number of elected seats in the legislature - which prejudiced the entire process away from Proportional Representation."

Thank you Krispy. This is exactly what happened.

"The entire process of electoral reform was engineered for failure. The terms of reference laid out by the Campbell Liberals did not allow the Citizens' Assembly to consider or recommend any change to the number of elected seats in the legislature - which prejudiced the entire process away from Proportional Representation."

ANd it certainly wasn't just an oversite.

If I have to make a choice between FPTP and MMP I'm joining Norman Spector

The amount of misinformation that I read on STV by proponents was incredible. If you have to lie about the system you are proposing to the public, and you still can't meet the threshold, doesn't that say it all?

That said, electoral reform is an important issue. Here are some future guidelines I would lay out:

1. Choose new members for the next Citizen's Assembly. A new fresh look is needed.

2. Don't put someone from the Fraser Institute in charge (i.e. Gordon Gibson). Try to find someone who is as unbiased and middle of the road as possible. It should be someone respected by the urban, rural, left-wing, and right-wing population.

3. Don't limit the debate. Let them look at every possible way of electoral reform, including increasing the numbers of seats. Hey, democracy costs something and it's worth the price of admission. Maybe they'll find a way to decrease the seat number. Who knows, but don't hamstring them from finding a new and creative solution.

4. Have a referendum that asks the question about what changes people want to make and not a confidence vote on the CA. Yes, Mr. Gibson, we are smarter than that and that is why we know why you asked the question like you did. Hey, no one said that those Fraser Institute guys were dumb.

5. Be resigned by the fact that electoral reform may take time. A couple of referendums may be required before we find out what people think is the best system. Everyone has their own interpretation of the confidence vote on the CA. I can only conclude that people were pissed that we had such a lopsided government. By their own admission, the majority didn't understand STV.

6. Properly fund an information campaign on the proposed systems. The mail out from the CA was a joke, and there were few people to counter the misinformation coming from past Assembly members and STV stakeholders.

The process was flawed right from the beginning unfortunately, but that is what you get from Gordon Campbell. Shoot, ready, aim! LOL!

I was scruitneering, and spoke to a few people on eDay.

A friend of mine - former cabinet minister - said the same thing most of these people did.

"I didn't understand it, so I didn't vote"

I suspect a lot of people who might have voted no, didn't vote at all. Most who voted yes, in this case, are on the activist side of things and were highly motivated to do so.

james,
Presumably, you think stv is not PR?
Thats just games with words. Here is what the economist online says about Irelands electoral system:
Universal direct suffrage over the age of 18 using the single transferable vote system of proportional representation in 41 multimember constituencies
and here is where they say it.
http://www.economist.com/countries/Ireland/profile.cfm?folder=Profile-Political%20Structure
Electoral system
I will not accept your propaganda here thank you very much.
Name your system, not its alledged attributes, please.
A lady from fair vote canada was on the same crack when she argued against STV in a local paper here. Rather than your loose pr letters, define your system. Which PR system do you mean? And how proportional do you want to go? The most "perfect" is just a straight party vote with no ridings at all.
You want to go there? Or some mmp where most people get less locally represented (more people per mla) by a mla of a different party than they favour. DUH, whats the point?
MLA's are supposed to be representing the people, NOT the bluddy party leadership.
But wait! You want more of them? And ones that represent the leadership even more. BRILLIANT
Try selling that to the public now.
james post below
commentor: jamez
posted: 59 Minutes Ago
"The entire process of electoral reform was engineered for failure. The terms of reference laid out by the Campbell Liberals did not allow the Citizens' Assembly to consider or recommend any change to the number of elected seats in the legislature - which prejudiced the entire process away from Proportional Representation."

ANd it certainly wasn't just an oversite.

Mark crawford posted"(On the theory that the Citizens' Assembly criterion of proportionality needs to be relaxed in order to make MMP work--and in any case only a modest dose of proportionality is needed to prevent the aberrations of 1996 and 2001 from recurring.)" I think Mark should look again at 2001. A modest dose of proportionality will not make up for the bc libs winning almost everything in single seat ridings.
And it could easily happen again and again. This kind of skewed result happens all the time and all over canada.

Mark crawford posted"(On the theory that the Citizens' Assembly criterion of proportionality needs to be relaxed in order to make MMP work--and in any case only a modest dose of proportionality is needed to prevent the aberrations of 1996 and 2001 from recurring.)" I think Mark should look again at 2001. A modest dose of proportionality will not make up for the bc libs winning almost everything in single seat ridings.
And it could easily happen again and again. This kind of skewed result happens all the time and all over canada.

Campbell should send the issue to a bi-partisan Legislative committee. The committee could then come up with a non-partisan solution that both NDP'ers and Liberals could support. The committee could hold meetings across BC and hear what the people have to say about electoral reform. The committee could use these public deliberations to come up with a MMP system since that was the choice of most of the people who made submissions to the Citizens' Assembly.

We could then have a referendum ballot with two questions:

1. Should BC maintain the current FPTP system?

2. Which electoral system should BC adopt if it chooses not to maintain the current FPTP system, MMP or STV?

The government could finance an educational campaign so the voters wouldn’t have to vote once again on something they didn’t understand.

I'm still trying to figure out the difference between the drunken monkey solution and the one we have now.

Perhaps Ranbir doesn't remember, but we came by this way about 13 years ago during the vote on the Charlottetown Accord:

"If women do not have 50% of the seats in government, then government will always have a male bias. Since male-brains process information differently a male-majority government will prioritize government policies differently than if females had an equal voice."

In BC, the Cabinet Cttee on the Constitution was headed up by Surrey's Joan Smallwood. She convinced Premier Mike Harcourt to add in an additional requirement to the proposed elected Senate. In BC the elected Senators would be half male, half female, by law. This legislated gender parity helped to sink the Charlottetown Accord as this formula, added to a House of Commons representation formula that did not respect "rep by pop" rendered the entire package totally unacceptable to BC voters, who shot it down by a two to one margin. I will never forget this, since I was on the losing side, and looking back, I can see why the proposal lost. In retrospect, it was also pretty much the end for Mike Harcourt, as no one took him seriously after he was nicknamed "Premier Bonehead" for his role in the Charlottetown negotiations and the Accord lost more heavily in BC than anywhere else in the country, including even Alberta and Quebec.

All those voters the scrutineer mentioned, who didn't know what the other ballot was about, must have been living in isolation for the previous month.

We are no gluttons for the punishment that the current electoral system delivers. Not knowing the intricate workings of the STV was not sufficient obstacle, I'm sure, to the majority voting "Yes" to change.

I'm surprised that one could vote otherwise given the four-year dictatorship we had just endured - a dictatorship of knuckle-draggers that from the day of its election treated the two-member "Opposition" with absolute contempt.

Given complaints of polling procedures and questionable media commentary while the polls were open, the silence from Elections BC is deafening. This is the same body that is overseeing the disenfranchisement of 71 voters and may be costing the NDP a seat.

Krispy got it right -- the whole process was set up to fail. Electoral reform should be pursued, but let's not compound the failures by making assumptions about what voters meant by sending a strong message that came just short of the required threshold.

The search for a recipe for reform should continue, with direct voter education and real voter choice.

Excellent suggestions re: legislative committees, educational campaign and ratifying referendum, JKR! Although re" the referendum a straight forward yes/no question of whatever the house puts forward for ratification is far preferable in my view because its less murky. In a two step (1. yes/no reform, 2. Which of three options?) the "winning" option is bound to be a minority postion. But let's have our MLAs take this question up too, along with other ones like political contributions, proceedural questions and other reforms, and then put a package before us to ratify or reject...

Ranbir, I can appreciate your concern about gender equity, but I don't think imposing such will work.

Will gays and lesbians then also have a specific number of seats set aside for them?

If we divide the world on a gender basis, why not allow race or other factors equal consideration?.

I don't support either suggestion, but if we are to move from the one person, one vote system why should gender be the only divide?

I can just as easily argue that I share entirely with my (female) partner a set of political beliefs and values and we don't want our votes negated because we can't vote in a bloc for the same candidate.

Sometimes simplicity really is the better road to travel.

Te Aro, I thought it was a drunken premier.

How's that tune go again?

Of course the failure of electoral reform was engineered. For the same reason campaign finance reform is engineered to fail. Or at least connected reasons. Without a strong majority government to pay off the promises made to big campaign 'contributors' the huge money machine might just dry up.

Why else, I mean what other imaginable reason could there be for the willingness of these people to lie through their teeth in order to get elected, lie about the past and about their opponents, promising to behave and do what the people want, then consistently act against the best interests of those people, to enrich the contributors beyond all reason?

I personally would like to demand an immediate doubling or tripling of the Auditor General's staff, and a thorough audit of all money transactions, contractor payments, work orders, expense accounts, pay and bonuses for every cabinet minister and his staff members, including all personal transactions between the minister's family members and anyone with connections to the government, the Parties or their contributors. Retroactive for as far back as can be reached.

When these things are brightly lit and everyone can see them, then we might see some meaningful electoral change. Until then, the only hope we might have would be for a minority government, where the parties might keep each other honest out of malice.

I agree with eveything that has been said about how flawed the CA/referendum process was. Absolutely. But isn't the result an opportunity for those who really do want reform?

Do you mean "Pop, goes the weasel"?

A vote is not worth much in and of itself. What is important is the process which the vote represents. Thus, a vote in Stalinist Russia was not a democratic vote, nor is one in contemporary Zimbabwe, as they lack the support of an open process. It is the same with STV. The bar was 60%, which influenced the way in which people voted. To say, after the fact, that the bar is different now throws all the votes into question. I appreciate the comments from those who suggest further process (not necessarily arduous) to clarify the result. Otherwise STV will only lead to further alienation, which is exactly what it was designed not to do. Given that our province is quite divided already, this is a result to be avoided strenuously. Unless, of course, we do wish to become two provinces, but disregarding process on STV is not really the best way of going about that.

Brian white, are you sure you're talking to me and not another poster?

Yes it's true. More people voted for this than anything in the history of the province. Those who denigrate that vote by saying people didn't know what they were voting for etc. are just expressing that fundamental undemocratic impulse that seems to be everywhere these days.

Many may not have known exactly what they were voting for, but most knew what they were voting against, which was a system that makes it impossible for their votes to have much effect. People want a real democracy.

I think it is a possibility, as mentioned in the article, that the politicians, not knowing how to deal with this, will just send it into committees to languish. I sincerely hope that doesn't happen, but I can feel how the public's interest in this is rapidly fading.

Unless those who want electoral reform start acting soon, we may be facing another undemocratic first past the post psuedo-election in 2009.

I’ve written my MLA twice on this, the second time telling him that his bland “thank you for your input” response was not good enough. Over 61% in my riding voted in favour of electoral reform. I want to know what the hell they are going to do about this and I want to know NOW!

If you voted YES, then quit posting on internet forums and demand that your MLA tells you how exactly how they will deal with the majority who voted against our unfair voting system.

Is there a web page where one can get the email addresses for the MLA's?

http://www.bein.com/fathers/contact/bcmla_emails.html

This is an old one, from before the election. I think that they all follow a formula (first name) dot (last name) dot mla at leg.bc.ca

I Cc:ed my email to carole james using that convention and it didn't bounce back.

The STV system was foisted upon the Citizens Assembly by a small group of zealots from Fair Vote BC and the hired academics who were "teaching" the citizens. Their mantra was that the STV system was beyond political party control. They had no proof of this nor could they demonstrate where this bastard system was used other than Ireland and Malta, yet this was still enough to convince the CA of its superiority.
When the time came for true public input into the CA process, through online submissions and the meetings held around the province, over 80% expressed support for Mixed Member Proportional Representation. The Citizens Assembly, the oh so noble and democratic paragon, declared that this input was not valid, that it was some conspiracy to stack the feedback. They knew better anyway, because they had become the enlightened and educated ones. So they disregarded the true will of the people. Yes, 80% of submissions supported MMP.
Now we are told by these very same people and their supporters that a 57% yes vote, despite not meeting the threshold, means we should adopt STV. Aren't they the democratic ones!
STV lost, it was rejected, and it is time for you losers to accept the result of this democratic vote and move on. Your pathetic excuses are getting tiresome.

Oh Vera, I seem to receive 10 times as many e-mails from Viagra spammers, than I do from my own friends. So I feel sorry for the CA and their experience with zombie machines promoting a system which creates a new class of unelected MLAs. MMP is no better than a penis enlargement kit, designed to enhance party patronage, to give parties who field crappy candidates than extra 4 inches of topped up seats, while maintaining a fundamentally lopsided FPTP system for a majority of the seats.

Ahh, so 57 ain't big enough, pump a bit more, take the little blue pill, and we'll a better electoral system.

STV may have been foistered on the CA by Fair Vote. (Its true) But this was because when put to the test, you don't need seat enlargement, or party list top offs to make sure parties get their fair share. (boo hoo, representation is about voters, not parties). You need to create the grounds in which the best candidates in a region bubble to the top, to ensure that voters from across the political system have an equivalent chance of having their vote count no matter where they are. It took the CA a while to realize this, but when they worked out the scenarios, and actually looked at the dynamics of the system, at that point they overwhelmingly chose STV.

If you or someone can tell us why MMP is no more better than putting a dirty "proportional" bandage saturationed with pork barrelling, over a gangrene electoral system, then they deserve the right to mention MMP. But so far, MMPers like to pop out of the dung, and disappear, without showing how it is more advantageous than the CAs recommendation.

dangrice.com, both STV and MMP have their pluses and minuses. Most of the objections you have against MMP can be solved through open lists.

MMP has some advantages over STV.

- MMP is more proportional.

- MMP maintains the link between the voter and their local representative through single-member ridings. On the other hand, STV has huge multi-member ridings that weaken the relationship between the voter and their local representative.

-MMP ballots are simple to use. They require making one or two selections. STV ballots often requires voters to rank upwards of 20 candidates, many of whom the voters don't like or even know much about.

- STV can allow the party that comes in 2nd place to win an election, just like the NDP won in 1996 when they came in 2nd. This happened in Malta in 1981. A party received a majority of the votes but lost the election to a party that received a minority of the votes! The party that won the most votes refused to accept the result and created a constitutional crisis. Because of this, STV in Malta has been changed. An MMP style top-up has been added to it to insure fair election results.

There would not be a single riding in BC under STV that would require 20 selections. That's a little bit of mud-slinging.

In regards to the key criticism of MMP, yes, its the party controlled lists that stand out. How would an "open-list" work?

What would voters actually vote for on an MMP type ballot. Don't say "it would be simple", what are the actual choices?

A 7-seat STV riding could easily include well over 20 candidates. To get the most out of an STV ballot it is best to rank ALL the candidates. Otherwise a candidate you don't like can "sneak in."

Open lists require voters to select candidates not parties. Open lists can even allow voters to select candidates from different parties.

If people are going to judge MMP they should understand it first.

MMP is not a controversial system. PEI, New Brunswick, and Quebec are in the process of adopting it.

DanGrice has been humping STV so long he seems to have gotten an STD and it has clouded his thinking. Oh, well, not an uncommon disease for those blinded by the STD, er STV, those who have swallowed the sweet milk of Citizens Assembly propaganda.

STV must be allowed to wither and die here in BC lest some other unfortunate province adopt it. I will gladly wait for MMP to come rolling across the country and enter BC like the triumphant winner it is. STV is a stone cold loser.

Woah! What kind of MMP system are you doing talking about here? The whole point of the "party list" is just that, to vote for a party and determine the proportion of seats each party should get. How could that possibly be done if voters can cross party lines when choosing their "party" candidates?

You can check it out at:
http://www.aceproject.org/main/english/es/esg03.htm

So lists can be "closed", "open", or "free". Free lists would function almost exactly as STV.

Vera, at least JKR, tried to put on a defense and showed he actually almost had an understanding, so enough with you, Zombie.

"- MMP is more proportional."

1) MMP is not more proportional, even if it is designed to be. STV has actually accidentally come out closer to the popular vote, than MMP (w/ 5% thresh hold) does in comparisons on popular vote versus seat comparisons. And its proportionality is fake, it presumes parties deserve something regardless of who they field, even though 95% of BCers are not members of a political party.

2" - MMP maintains the link between the voter and their local representative through single-member ridings. On the other hand, STV has huge multi-member ridings that weaken the relationship between the voter and their local representative."

What relationship? The love/hate one? In most ridings, half of the people voted for someone besides their MLA. Even those who did vote for them, had real little choice. MMP still preserves the rotten system in which you have only Liberal representatives in East Fraser Valley, Richmond, Burnaby, Okanagan, North Shore, Peace River, and other areas that are only NDP. So you have regions polarized between parties, and have places where there is no government rep to address constituents issues, and others where there is no opposition rep to air them. To make matters worst, MMP reduces the number of local representatives, and add 30%-50% of MLAs who have no direct relationship with anyone but the party leaders. Rather than wasting money on them, MMP is just like having the exact same system we have now, and making Carrs vote worth 10, James worth 8, and leave Campbell as one because he cam ahead. MMP preserves all the flaws of the current system, but just creates a new batch of seats reserved for party brass. STV maintains the exact same regional representation, but allows for a diverse representation within the voting district. Actually solving problems.

"-MMP ballots are simple to use. They require making one or two selections. STV ballots often requires voters to rank upwards of 20 candidates, many of whom the voters don't like or even know much about."

STV allows you to rank those who you like. You can rank 1, 3, 4. Simple. However MMP, is still one of those systems that try to shove voters in a box at poll time. While it may be two checks, it takes more than two secs. Choose 1 local, you still have to be strategic about it, as you waste your vote if you go for anyone but the two contenders. Then vote party. But, in voting for the local MLA, you have to realize that if the candidate you want gets elected, then it can actually hurt your party in the top off section. Then there are the problems, where parties run really crappy local reps, don't even concern themselves with local issues, but market the party as to win big in the top off seats. And to make this worst, there is also party collusion, where one party supports another parties local candidates, in ridings that they know they are going to win, in turn, while parties convince their voter to vote for another party. It would be like the BC Liberals, knowing they would max out on seats in local ridings, telling their supporters to vote BC conservative, or unity, to make sure that the right gets more top off.

Anyways, here is the link to Germany's reults to see how the Grens and the PDS elect 0 local candidates, but get nearly 100 seats given to them.
http://www.electionresources.org/de/bundestag.php?election=2002

Thats the true reason why MMP supporters exist, they want their party to win seats without having to run a campaign

commentor: JKR
posted: 9 Hours Ago
"MMP maintains the link between the voter and their local representative through single-member ridings. On the other hand, STV has huge multi-member ridings that weaken the relationship between the voter and their local representative".
Well, I lived in a 5 seater back in ireland. In no way does having a representive or 2 of YOUR party in almost every riding weaken the link!
It STRENGTHENS the local link. An ndp voter in a single seat liberal riding in unrepresented. NO Question. The MLA will be at best slightly antagonistic towards the voters views and needs. In a 5 seater, there might be 2 libs, 2 ndp and a green.
Even at 3 libs and 2 ndp, about 90% of voters in that riding have their views represented DIRECTLY.
That is a powerful improvement on the current situation.
What percentage is currently unrepresented in BC?
About 50%? You got to remember that in a town like victoria, it isnt a long way from one end of the 5 seat riding to the other. Nobody is more than a 45 minute bus ride away from a representive of their party.
People should get over their obsession with single seat ridings. There is a huge turnover of politicians in single seat land before they can even learn to be good politicians.
Your party falls out of favour by a couple of percent and you loose even if you did a great job for your constituencents.
So,It is unfair to politicians too.
MMP with single seat ridings just perpetuates the most unfair part of first past the post.
Jeff Bray is an example of how mmp would work. He is the bosses favorite (so he gets in high on the list)
just like now he gets a big appointment from campbell.
And I dont have anything against jeff Bray, in stv, he would probably have taken one of the liberal seats in victoria. But he would have done it without party patronage playing such a huge part. He would have done it on merit as a good mla for his liberal voters, in cooperative competition with about 3 other bc libs.
People who call stv archane and confusing should really waken up. We have used it for 80 years.
It is not perfect but it has a bunch of neat features that ensure healthy political partys and party policys that are driven much more by voters, not by party insiders.

Vera North said:

Thanks for the courteous and compelling argument, Vera. Your hostility has convinced me now for sure.

Don't know if you noticed in your haste to dish out insults, but I didn't demand in my post that STV be implemented, but I sure want to know what my MLA wants to do about the huge YES vote. You claim to be a PR MMP supporter. While I prefer STV, I will accept MMP or almost anything over our current undemocratic system. I actually think this is why a lot of people voted YES. Maybe there's some combination of the two or other forms of PR that can work.

I'm just sick of throwing my vote in the trash can in every single election. I don't want another first-past-the-post election.

DanGrice, you are so sweet, maybe we can make zombie love. Just don't bring your STD's, oops, I mean STV's with you.

But really danny boy, how does a northern riding of twice the current size with 2 MLA's as is necessary with BC-STV break the 2 party hold? It doesn't, it solidifies it.

And it isn't MMP that reduces local reps. It's STV that reduces local reps through the large sized ridings.

The fallacy that STV adherents keep re re repeating is that we will be governed by independents, and political parties will lose their grip. Not so and you cannot present a single example of this. It is pure fi fi fi fiction. I do suppose that if one were rich enough it would be easy to buy a seat in a 7 member riding, thus ensuring that rich independents could populate the legislature.

Real Proportional Representation works in ma ma many countries. Too bad the Citizens Assembly got sold such a bill of goods and bought this BC-STD. I say we must keep it from spreading.

Germany, Bolivia, Italy, Hungary, and Venzuala. Wow, these are great examples of MMP systems work wonderfully. Lets adopt the Bolvian model for BC! For every Malta that STV has, take a look at wonderful Italy.

And Vera, I'm sure under any system, Peace River is going to elect a diversity of representatives. Because the Green party had such a high vote in the Peace. So why not throw in more real lame examples of why STV is bad. The only reason a 2 seat riding was even proposed, is there are some regions that cannot be combined with others due to their size. As for the rest of the province. Lower Mainland, Vancouver Island, Okanagan, Prince George and the "heartlands", even the Kootenays, there will proportional ridings. Everywhere there will be room for more diversity, if BCers want it.

I don't like STV simply because there are too many variables in it that make it so confusing to the average voter.

Answer these questions under STV to see what I mean:

If 100,000 people voted in a 5 candidate riding, what would be the minimum number of votes a candidate would need to win a seat?

In that same riding, would it be possible for some of those seats to go unfilled?

How do you calculate the popular vote?

What do they mean when they say, "every vote counts," and is that in fact true?

What difference does it make if there are two or seven MLAs in a single riding? Was it harder to get elected in the two MLA riding or the seven MLA riding?

Does the last election under FPTP give us any real indication of how many seats the Greens or other small parties/independents would win?

Will some voters that have ranked the entire ballot of candidates have a hand in voting in many candidates while others who did the same vote in no one?

Answer these questions for yourself, and if at the end of it, you still like STV great. I don't because of some of those factors. I wish that we could look at something other than STV, but it looks like there are a lot of people who think it is the ANSWER to all our problems. That is too bad.

JKR, it doesn't matter if there are 300 candidates. You don't rank all the candidates on the ballot.

Vera North, MMP got what percentage of the vote in the referendum? 0% I believe it was. STV got 57%.

So anyone claiming STV proponents are "losers" would do well to remember we got more votes than you.

Vera said : "And it isn't MMP that reduces local reps. It's STV that reduces local reps through the large sized ridings."

Lets do some math. There are 79 MLA's. Under STV every MLA is elected locally in a particular riding. So under STV there are 79 local reps. Now under MMP, the ridings are twice as large but still have only one MLA. So we now have say 40 local reps and 39 other MLA's selected from lists that do not represent a local riding. My math says that STV does not reduce local representation but MMP does.

Chris H, the formula is population divided by seats + 1. So it would basically be 1/6th of the 100,000 (who vote), anyone who gets over about 17,000 votes by either first choices or transfers from 2nd or 3rd choices gets automatically in. All the seats will be filled, as one by one you knock off the candidate who has the least total votes at a point, until 5 remain. It is possible for someone to get in with less than the bar, but only if everyone else has been eliminated. The popular vote is calculated similar to now, but the popular vote is really what you make of it. As voters could rank across parties, it is possible that the first place votes and party seats don't exactly align.

When they (or we) say every vote counts, it should be every vote CAN count. If you rank candidates who don't get elected, or only mark 1 off, then your vote could be exhausted. However, under most cases, 70% of voters have their first place candidates elected in other jurisdictions, with another 25% having their 2nd or maybe even their 3rd. This really depends on how you vote. If your first 10 choices are independents or no names, then it could be your 11th choice. Rarely likely anyone but a Libertarian would vote that way. (tempting though eh).

In a 2 MLA riding, its harder to get elected. The preference is to have as many ridings as possible in the 5 to 7 member range, as the more seats, the more option for diversity in representation and the more room for proportion allocation of seats. However, unless the number of seats is increase or the population booms in remote areas such as the Peace, the CA realized it would be impossible to have a 7 seat Northern riding, it would be Geographically half of the province. There may only be one or two 2 seat ridings in the province.

Its hard to tell under FPTP system how many seats the greens would get. The thing is, a lot of people may support the Greens, but voted strategically for one of the other parties. We know they got 9% of the vote, and you have to look at how many people would have voted them 1st if they knew they weren't splitting the vote. You would have to look at regional support. I think the Greens would have a good chance of getting 6 or 7 seats across the province. But under STV, there would be a burden on them to field strong candidates, there were a lot of ghosts fielded by them in the last election.

I can't imagine anyone voting for the whole Ballot. There is no point ranking candidates who you don't like. You would have to do some really wonky things, but there is tons of theoretical scenarios under STV. Of course one person could go through and guess which 5 people whould get elected in which order, and try to have a fraction of their vote go here, there, and there, and another person could purposely vote for those same people last, but if you are trying to pull of either of those, I don't think you really care whether your vote counts or not, you're just being a goof. I've had civic elections where I didn't like either party, so I voted for all independents. But that was a personal statement, nothing more.

Its not that STV is the answer to all the questions, it was the system that when tested against the values that the Citizens' Assembly heard during their consultations and discussions, came to the top. In the start, it wasn't their favourite, but when they went through creating mock elections, testing the scenarios, it showed its strenghts far out numbered its weaknesses.

In choosing an electoral system, you must be careful not to jump head long into something, until you set up you criteria and values.

Only like 5% of countries use either STV or MMP, so neither is shown to be hugely popular, but popularity has nothing do do with it. 2 billion people use FPTP, although, take away India and the US (the beacons of democracy), and suddenly only about 700,000 people use FPTP. Germany uses MMP, but it was designed to prevent a Nazi take over by adding the top off seats, and they have have almost spent half of the last century banning parties from running. Whereas Italy, which hasn't been as aggressive on banning parties ended up having one of the worst records of stability in the Western world.

MMP can have small regional lists. There's very little difference between MMP regional lists and STV multi-member ridings. They both provide local representation.

MMP and STV can be made to be very similar to each other when MMP has regional lists and open lists.

The major difference between MMP and STV is MMP's single-member ridings. If a person prefers a system where a single MLA represents their community they will favour MMP over STV. If a person prefers to have a few MLA's represent their region then they will favour STV over MMP. The best way to determine what BC'ers prefer is to have a referendum where both MMP and STV are on the ballot.

If we, jkr, if we could ensure people took the time to fully inform themselves, to try out mock elections, and to see how this works, i think it would succeed. i would have loved that opportunity when vancouver had the wards debate, but i guess it comes down in part to the role of the CA.

i fear if we put both to a referendum, we could:

• risk having the status quo win
• allow selfish partisan interests to subvert the choice.

--by this i mean certain electoral systems benefit some parties more than others.

• we would trivialize the work of the ca. think about pressuring china to have a ca of there own, or american states having the option to reevaluate their system. the ca was a great process. (i didn't know what stv was until i began hearing their recommendations)

I think the CA tried MMP with open lists. But then it takes away the argument that MMP is simpler. and regional lists would still limit proportionality without raising the number of seats, and if you raise the number of seats, stv will be fairer as well.

I have no problem with regional open lists like they use in denmark, but prefer stv because if I vote for an independent as my first choice, I'm not wasting my vote. but ultimately open lists or stv is 6 of one, half dozen of the other.

I always said I would have preferred other choices being on the ballot JKR, no argument.

And I don't know anything about regional list versions of MMP. I had never even heard of STV till the CA came out with it.

JOhn: Thank you for articulating what I feared in the back of my mind. Yes, under my proposed referendum we could easily end up with another confusing, divided result along the lines you describe.

THe problem with sending it to the Legislature to hash out is that it could involve accusation of conflict of interst--whicih is why we had the Citizens' assembly in the first place. But I would say that the only way that a majority of MLAs could stand up in the Legislature and vote down a BC-STV that a majority of their constituents had just voted for would be if they had meaningful alternatives to propose. That might simplify the second half of my dual ballot--just two choices instead of three, i.e. MMP lite or STV lite.

It bears repeating that we really cant improve representation per capita andimprove proportionality without increasing the number of seats.

WOuld MMP lite like I describe really have made no difference in 2001? I believe that two 5-member districts in the Lower Mainland would have returned 4 New Democrats, even with 57% of the vote. THe other three 4-member districts would have returned 1 r 2 NDPers and maybe even a Green. With 1 or 2 SMP MLAS , that would make for a a 5-9 member opposition. Not exactly 42% of the Legislature, but far from a wipe-out.

But it would be better to have a 90 seat legislature with 5 5-6-member districts and 60-65 smp constituencies.

Dangrice, for all your love of STV you don't seem to grasp the basics of how it works. You have merely taken information that others have provided and spit it out.

Here are the answers:

Q: If 100,000 people voted in a 5 candidate riding, what would be the minimum number of votes a candidate would need to win a seat?

A: The minimum votes you need to win a seat in that example is one. The droop quota is what you need to be gauranteed a seat, but many candidates will win with numbers much lower than the droop quota. Remember, you don't have to vote for 5 candidates. While it is highly unlikely that a candidate would win a seat with a single vote, it is mathematically possible under STV and not under FPTP.

Q: In that same riding, would it be possible for some of those seats to go unfilled?

A: Yes, it is possible. Although highly unlikely, imagine if everyone only voted the same four candidates. Who would win that fifth seat? STV makes this result mathematically possible.

Q: How do you calculate the popular vote?

A: The popular vote should only be calculated by people's first ranked candidate. Remember, although there may be more than one MLA seat in your riding, you only get one vote.

Q: What do they mean when they say, "every vote counts," and is that in fact true?

A: Blaney and friends like to throw this statement out all the time to make it look like in STV everyone's vote will elect a candidate. This is an outright lie. The scary thing is that some people in Ireland still think that everyone's vote elects a candidate. They've been using this system how long, and they still don't understand. Wow!

Q: What difference does it make if there are two or seven MLAs in a single riding? Was it harder to get elected in the two MLA riding or the seven MLA riding?

A: The droop quota is way bigger in a two MLA riding. No doubt it would be much more difficult to get elected there, and the benefits of STV (statistically closer to PR than FPTP on average) pretty much is gone. You gotta wonder why they would even bother with a 2 MLA riding; you might as well just keep FPTP.

Q: Does the last election under FPTP give us any real indication of how many seats the Greens or other small parties/independents would win?

A: No, not really. No one can know for sure how STV would change how people would vote. Maybe people who voted Green under FPTP would put them as their 3rd or 4th choice now. Maybe NDP voters would only vote for one candidate on their ballot because they mistakenly believed that it was a good strategy, thereby giving the Liberals extra seats (oops!). Don't be fooled by the CA's pie graphs; they are fiction.

Q: Will some voters that have ranked the entire ballot of candidates have a hand in voting in many candidates while others who did the same vote in no one?

A: Yes. The worst case scenerio is that you voted for the sixth place finisher in a five candidate race as your first choice. Oops! Your vote is never counted in electing a candidate and I don't think you can say it was a fringe candidate. Other (lucky) people will be happy to see that they had a hand in voting in most of the candidates.

I suggest people play with the numbers when looking at different electoral systems. It tells you a lot about it when you find the crazy results that are possible.

Mark,

there is pressure internally in germany to remove the smp seats and go straight to regional lists. one of the issues is that about 2/3s of those who run are on both an smp ballot and a list. the other issue is that a lot of the safe seats are decided (as here) by who the party members appoint as their candidate.

we need to eliminate all smp seats in bc, and stay as far away from any system that presents them.

Chris H.

Oh, thats right, I forgot about you. You're so full of Hypothetical Crap its not even funny. For some reason in a riding with 100,000 people the winner would get one vote, everyone would vote for the same for candidates. Your examples don't show one ounce of anything but being fear mongering. Take a look at Ireland, Australian Senate, Tasmania, New Zealands local, Malta, election results and you'll find your way off the ball. You've mentioned this about 4 or 5 times on other forums, and everytime you've managed to have your theoretical mathematics used a toilet paper. You have never even bothered to defend it, you just reiterate word for word your irrational attempt to misguide each other. You would be better served trying to prove the existance of alien life based on cloud formations, or by warning man kind of the impending danger of spontaneous human consumption. Yes and under FPTP, if everyone ran as a candidate and only voted for themself, then the winner could theoretically win with 1 vote and a coin toss.

In a riding of 100,000 people, everyone would vote for the same 4 people. BS man. Look at civic results in vancouver, even the 50th lowest candidate for park board managed to get about 20 votes.

We know SMP gives us 77 to 79 majorities. I can prove that. Try proving one of your little white lies.

And Chris H, before you accuse me of re-iterating someone else's thought. You go down to the library and poor over results from hundreds of past elections, including STVs usages in Manitoba in the 20s and 30s.

You point out one example where I misunderstand STV. I listed all your points in my answer to your questions, however, that doesn't mean that your examples are utterly irrelevant and realistically impossible.

You didn't answer my questions, dangrice, you just spit out what you wanted everyone to hear. The minimum amount of votes needed to win? You couldn't even answer that one! And, why so silent on the poor sucker who has a "wasted" ballot because he picked the 6th guy in a 5 person race as his first preference. Every vote counts ... ya right! I'll tell you who is full of crap. It's the Citizen's Assembly and their fearless ruler, Gordon Gibson. I wonder if he got them all to donate to the Fraser Institute. It's funny how you think my examples are utterly irrelevant and realistically impossible when the CA's examples of how STV works are so simplistic to be equally unrealistic.

I may have fun punching holes in STV with my "hypothetical crap", but I am not married to any particular system (unlike you seem to be). Everything I've said about STV is true. Too bad you can't say the same about the members of the CA who went out there to try and push STV on a confused public.

Chris H, candidates vote for themselves, and there is never just 5 candidates for 5 positions. (why bother have an election then)? So the minimum is greater than one.
+ there are transfers. It is an incredibly daft example.
Why not check back over 50 or 60 years of results before making a fool of yourself? If your mathematical theory deviates from reality, clue in man, U made a mistake.
Why not make up an advantage of single member ridings instead of making up disadvantages for multi member ones?
While you are counting wasted ballots, count them for the last provincial election please! I am guessing about 50%.
Try defending that record! It is truely horrible. It goes from low 40's to high 50's.
http://nxtwave.tripod.com/gaiatech/voting.html shows the last irish election compared graphically with one of the best (more than the average number represented) BC elections. Ireland and BC have almost exactly the same number of people. So, how come so many more irish people vote? Thats 266 THOUSAND more people in comparable elections! And all this stuff about young people not voting? Ireland has a way younger population than BC!
Maybe, if voters in BC were offered the breadth of choice that the Irish have, 2 to 3 hundred thousand more of them would get off their buts and go down to the polling station and actually vote! And take a look at the percentages. In an average irish election the percentage of unrepresented voters is HALF that of one of the best BC first past the post elections.
The voters are not stupid. No wonder they voted to get rid of first past the post.

This CKNW story on STV only confirms the obvious - voters had no idea what they were voting for when they cast their ballot on STV.

"VANCOUVER/CKNW(AM980) - A new survey says people who voted in favour of the failed "STV" system in the provincial election did so because they're fed up with the status quo.
The survey was conducted by NRG or Nordic Research Group.

Among those who voted in favour of STV, 45 percent indicated they did so because it's "time for a change".

A total of 27 percent said they voted for STV because they feel it would foster better representation through small parties.

Only 15 percent said they felt "very informed" about STV.

Just over 800 British Columbians took part in the survey between May 31st and June 5th.
Overall results have a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percent, 19 times out of 20."

This story underlines the scary part of referendum politics in a post-literate society - popular sentiment, driven mostly by mass media culture, is generally under-informed and often wrong.

If we had referendums on capital punishment, human rights and the like, we'd continue ot live in the 19th century. The referendum on aboriginal treaties only confirmed the racist sentiments of those who participated in that sham vote.

Electoral reform is long overdue. But there is a better way than STV to achieve equality and proportionality in our electoral system.

The poll on the referendum you cited didn't say "there is a better way than STV to achieve equality and proportionality in our electoral system"

It said "Electoral reform is long overdue." and that not funding an information campaign was the wrong way to go about it.

When the STV crowd gets over the "denial state" and realizes that STV and 58% had nothing to do with one another maybe we as a province can move towards "real" electoral reform that can and will make our democracy better, If they put as much energy into "reform" the public asked for instead of putting it into STV, we would be talking about a new way to elect our governments in 2009, a lesson learned, an opportunity missed, so sad.

June 13, 2005

Robbins Sce Research (1998) “Post Election Poll (B.C.)”
robbinssceresearch.com

Highlights:

1. Government should not sell or otherwise dispose of significant Assets without the approval of the people of the province through plebiscite or referendum (71%).

2. The people of British Columbia want fairer and better representation in the legislature (inference from Question #6). Considering STV vote outcome and this poll, slightly more than (40%) of British Columbians actually support the status quo voting format (dangerously low).

3. The people want easier Recall Legislation; (59%) of respondents would accept (40%) of eligible voters as a threshold rather than (40%) of registered voters.

4. The people don’t want to hamstring government’s ability to get work done during the course of its term in Office (Question #2-(31%) ‘Yes’- Question #3-(58%) ‘No’.

Question #1-Do you support new legislation that would restrict MLA’s to be Recalled by their constituents based exclusively on a threshold of 40% of those who actually voted in the most recent general provincial election?

Yes-37%
No-63%

Question #2-Do you support clearly defined provincial ‘people’s initiatives’ that would compel and legally bind every successive BC government to do the wishes of the people of British Columbia throughout the term of each government based on a reasonable formula of voter authority for so doing?

Yes-31%
No-69%

Question #3-Do you support empowerment of the citizens of British Columbia to access power through initiative over significant legal statute or public policy enacted by this or any other BC government, during the course of Office of a particular provincial government?

Yes-42%
No-58%

Question #4-Do you believe that any proposed sale or otherwise relinquishment or disposal of an undertaking or any significant Crown Asset, including but not limited to the sale of Crown Assets or legal property, should first be ratified by the citizens of the province via referendum or plebiscite prior to the ratification or completion of the proposed ‘deal’?

Yes-71%
No-29%

Question #5- In your opinion should eligible voters in BC who do not vote in a preceding BC Election be restricted by law from registering their vote in a Petition for Recall of their MLA?

Yes-41%
No-59%

Question #6- (Preamble) BC voters selected STV a new voting format, to the extent of 57% in the overwhelming majority of the provinces 79 ridings. Yet, 88% voted for one of BC’s two main parties, namely the BC Liberals or the BC NDP. Which of the following choices BEST depicts and explains this apparent voter dichotomy?

Voters believed that the May 2005 provincial election would be the last vote for what is essentially a two party system-(11%);

Voters are happy with either the BCL or BCNDP, they were just venting some frustration through the STV vote-23%;

Voters wanted to send a proper message to government that they want fairer and better representation-46%;

Voters did not give that much thought to STV, it was new and different so they voted for it-16%;

None of the Above/Other-04%

Commentary- In this poll the citizens of British Columbia through ROBBINS establish the boundaries of the BC Liberal government’s second term mandate.

It is abundantly clear from this poll that British Columbians (despite a recent provincial election) are not satisfied with the present system of government. As it is with federal politics, British Columbians at the provincial level are experiencing a sort of “submissive apathy” ® when it comes to provincial political
matters.

Respondents in this poll don’t want to hamstring elected officials, but clearly lower thresholds for Recall are on the table, as this appears to be the only perceived mechanism for voter control over politicians. The message to elected Officials in this poll is look out for your riding first, and your political party second.

The more immediate message to Gordon Campbell is be very careful whom you make a Cabinet Minister.

Please read this:
Methodology- What we did in this poll was to divide the province into four distinct regions, which covered all 79 ridings. These regions included Vancouver, Vancouver Island, the Lower Mainland of BC, and the northern and interior ridings. Our standard procedure is to collect the data overall (‘province-wide’) and to determine a median average and a mean average for that data. We than calculate the data from the (regional areas) and determine a median average and mean average for that specific regional data. These second groupings of data are than factored with the original ‘province-wide’ numbers to produce one total (the provincial global total), ‘the first calculation’. We than consider the data from the second grouping and than weigh these numbers based on the numbers of seats in a region (with the lower mainland numbers having the greatest weight because of the greater number of seats). These numbers (the weighted regional numbers) are added with the ‘first calculation’. These two numbers are than averaged and denoted as a percentage, ‘the second calculation’. Margin of error is conducted through compiling the aggregate deviation from median average and mean average and dividing by the number of ‘polls’ within that calculation to achieve an average. These two numbers are than averaged and thereafter usually rounded to the nearest (.25%). “Margin of error” averages are calculated individually for each question and than compiled and simply averaged. Throughout the initial calculations median and mean averages are used equally, however final calculations reveal a greater emphasis on mean average. This is a general application of statistical science as PhD mathematics is not required for a poll with less than 5,000 respondents and with a margin of error greater than 1.75%. This poll is constituted on a basis of random digit dialing of 850 (original) BC respondents throughout the regions described between June 2nd and June 12th, 2005. This survey has a margin of error of 3.95%, 18 times out of 20 @ 98% competency. This survey is considered a scientific poll for legal purposes. ROBBINS has developed a proprietorial ‘formula’ exclusive to ROBBINS Sce Research for aiding in the successful predicting of public opinion from polling data. This polls features a value to cost ratio of 6 to 1.

Glen P. Robbins
(604) 942-3757
-30-

Glen P. Robbins has a Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science from Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, British Columbia, is a former independent newspaper publisher, has participated in equities markets for over a decade, and has legal standing at the BC Supreme Court level. Glen P. Robbins is considered to be an expert in public opinion based on a legal standard.

As someone who voted in favour of the extremely flawed STV option I am completely happy with the result. My vote was in favour of electoral reform and to keep it on the government's agenda. I was willing to live with STV if it passed but my bet was that it wouldn't pass the 60 per cent.

We have very blunt tools with which to work in this system. I protest any efforts to rewrite the rules. Had a different threshold been in place my vote may well have been different.

The task now is to put forward significantly better reform options to replace FPTP.

The minimum is one, dangrice. Maybe the candidates forgot to vote for themselves that day? Candidates have been known to do that before. LOL! While my example is very hypothetical and admittedly not very probable, it is mathematically correct given the rules and method of how STV works.

Anyways, check out the new poll results which confirm that the high vote (58%) for STV does not equate to support for that system. Are people happy with the status quo? Nope. Do they see STV as the answer? Not necessarily. Time to have a real referendum with some real questions. The the Fraser Institute and the CA shouldn't be allowed to highjack electoral reform yet again.

Krispy, you are a spin doctor and so is the story.
You didnt bother to learn about stv,
and it is a solid stable system so you attack the CA.
The CA did the independent study and testing for the rest of the population.
The referendum is the only poll that counts. It is a legal document. People did not know if it would get more than 60% before people voted so people who say they voted
yes and meant no are talking through their butts.
And, there is no way of knowing the truth of what they say anyway. I think they voted no. (I mean, u and allan and others were so dead set against stv), and then, finally, a conversion on the way to the polling booth! Yeah right. And then you are still fighting a propaganda war against STV afterwards!
Who do you think you are fooling?
I lived for almost 35 years under STV. I was in shock when Campbell got 77 of 79.
Wow! First past the post is like a one armed bandit.
Nobody ever knows what to expect. If Campbell did one good thing in his life, it was the CA.
If he impliments its recomendations, I have no doubt that he will go down in history as a great Canadian, regardless of all the other negative stuff.
After a year of study of electoral systems, an expert committee of your countrymen and women chose STV as the most suitable system to protect the voters of BC.
What makes you think that you know better? I would have trouble explaining stv but if you compare it and its effects to other systems, you will find that it is very stable, the public like it, most voters cast a vote that elects someone and it produces compromisers who get the job done without assaulting one or another sector of society. And that is good business. Good business isnt labour unions and employer organisations rubbing each others noses in the mud every chance they get like what happens here.
commentor: Krispy
posted: 5 Hours Ago
This CKNW story on STV only confirms the obvious - voters had no idea what they were voting for when they cast their ballot on STV.

I wouldn't put a lot of faith in some of the polls. NRG Nordic's pre-election poll estimates were over 10% off. There is one thing discerning, nearly 40% of those who voted against STV did so because they didn't know enough.

Chris H. The minimum, under any plausible circumstance could never be 1. The minimum is votes / seats + 1, to be automatically elected, and then a process of elimination with as many rounds as there are candidates more than seats. When a candidate is eliminated their votes are transfered.

But I will give you that there is the possibility that one candidate would have voters who never had their vote transferred. The maximum number of voters who could possibly have their vote not counted would be voters / seats. (I may be a little high, but my algebra is rusty) Now there is no way to predict whether the party they voted for was represented.

Now if this ended up causing problems to any extent. Ie, if the green party ended up only achieving 10% in the ridings, but did this consistantly throughout the province, then we could consider a few top off seats as has been done in other jurisdictions. However, modifications to the system should only be considered after we see how the results actually play out in 2009. The key is to increase representation as much as possible, no electoral system can give everyone who runs an automatic seat, and everyone who votes one way or another their exact first choice pick.

Whoever wins under STV in BC will be the best supported candidates, under as proportionate districts as can reasonably be created. When the world comes to Vancouver in 2010, they will probably see one of the most qualified and representative governments in the world.

Are you being represented?

(voters / (seats + 1)) - (seats - 1)/2 ... this may be it. any other takers?

I want to see a poll about electoral reform generally, as well, such as this one:
http://www.cric.ca/pdf/cahiers/cricpapers_jan2005.pdf

At p. 7 it shows 71% supporting seats being proportional to votes. Why did BC-STV get only 58%? Would support for any specific model inevitably be less than 71%? Or was it fear of the unknown, and STV would have gotten 71% if more people had understood it? Or what? Speculation is worthless, we need another poll.

I think all the comments by both the Yes side and the No side have validity, and can't be ignored by the other side, and that fairness and objectivity needs to prevail.

Given that *so* many people voted Yes to STV in order not to have our current system, and so many who wanted electoral reform voted No specifically *to STV*, about the only thing we can conclude (and we can conclude it decisively) is that British Columbians have overwhelmingly rejected our current system.

Given the referendum results, it would be unethical to hold the 2009 election under our current system. The only thing we need to know now is what system British Columbians prefer.

We have an opportunity, without much cost, to gather that information from the electorate in a (simple majority) referendum at the time of the civic elections in November, 2005--and in plenty of time for the Electoral Boundaries Commission to get going on its work.

This approach has several advantages. It saves money by blending a badly needed referendum with an already existing electoral process--the civic elections. Second, it ensures that the Electoral Boundaries Commission will be able to do timely work in preparation for the 2009 election. Third, only such a referendum would and could be conclusive enough to quiet the raging debate about what the recent referendum meant, and what would be fair. Fourth and finally, no one (including within the Liberal Party) could fault the Premier for being unfair or playing favourites by throwing it back to the electorate where the decision belongs.

An acquaintance and I are starting a Victoria chapter of Fair Vote Canada to help address these issues and make principled recommendations to help this government out of its current quandry--and ensure we get the electoral system we deserve in 2009. This chapter will also help address electoral reform at the national level as well.

We welcome everyone's involvement and support. Please contact me at

to get involved, and/or go right now to http://www.fairvotecanada.org and become a member (only $10 for the first year).

As this is a non-partisan, multi-partisan initiative, we strongly encourage people of all political stripes to come get involved.

Orion Carrier
Interim Co-chair
Proposed Victoria Chapter, Fair Vote Canada

To Orion Carrier: Really, ... who voted No to STV? If you mean the 42% that didn't vote Yes ... it's a matter of fact that people who don't know about an matter on a referendum will opt for Status Quo if they vote at all. The Evil you know over what you don't know and all that.

If you meant that 42% voted NO and that's a mandate ... if that was the Yes vote we wouldn't even be talking about it ... the issue of Electoral Reform would have died in the gates.

All I'm saying is that 42% voting No is not a rejection when 58% voted Yes!

For another interpretation of the referendum results, look at what Thomas Berger said in June 2004 in his report on electoral reform for Vancouver (available online at http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/erc/pdf/verc_report.pdf, footnote 186 on page 135):

"The 60 per cent threshold is that which would legally require the provincial government to make the change. It may well be that, if the Assembly's initiative results in 57 per cent support in 90 per cent of the districts, the government might decide to adopt its recommendations in any event. In other words, below the 60 per cent threshold the results of the referendum are advisory only. . ."

Thomas Berger must have had a crystal ball!

As such, talking about another referendum in November is premature. I'm sure that the Victoria chapter of FVC will provide an opportunity for many different points of view to be discussed in a constructive manner. I am looking forward to it.

And, I believe, membership in FVC is $10 each year, not just for the first year.

The Nordic poll found that 47% said the referendum failed so STV should be rejected, 39% said it was close enough to go ahead with STV, and 14% didn't know or refused to answer.

The politican who is willing to impose STV anyway would be foolish indeed. Clearly, as several have stated here repeatedly, we have a ways to go yet in pursuing electoral reform and should just get on with exploring the other options.

Just a clarification of my meaning to Takeda999:

I was not suggesting all 42% of the no vote was for electoral reform, but voted no because it was STV. However, anyone from the Know STV campaign I heard quoted claimed to have wanted STV. And while I'm sure many voted no due to being uninformed, I personally know many who voted no *because* they would have preferred MMP.

I have also talked to countless people who voted Yes to STV with a sense of disappointment they were not voting on MMP. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that everyone who voted Liberal viewed the Liberals as their first choice, or everyone who voted NDP considered them their first choice, which we know is not true in our system, where people vote "strategically"--an educated gamble on how to get the best results with the least risk of "wasting my vote".

I'm not casting judgement on either group or their strategies here. Nor is my opinion on this matter scientific. But due to the points I raise here, none of our views are truly scientific, and all are subjective.

The Yes to STV campaign (in which I was very *actively* engaged) cannot proclaim far and wide the wisdom of voting yes to "make sure we get *some* reform", as was done, and then pretend that everyone who voted Yes did so out of a first-choice preference for STV.

As a result, I'm not taking sides here. I would far prefer to vote between two reformed electoral systems, and see *for certain* what is wanted by all citizens, including those who voted no.

This would demonstrate more respect for all voters, and perhaps, more importantly, give the Premier a way to implement electoral reform in 2009 without the hot water. In my view, the current approach of screaming at each other and the government will give the Premier, who may not particularly trust STV's effect on his political fortunes in 2009, a *perfect* reason to say: "We obviously don't have a mandate to choose right now; we'll have another referendum in 2009". I'm not saying the Premier would be right to do so. I'm just saying I think it's entirely possible or even likely he would do such a thing.

A principled, objective, unemotional approach to this issue by an organization of repute, backed up by a *large* number of grassroots members, would be much more difficult for the Premier to resist, and stand a far greater chance of success, in my opinion.

I'm open to feedback. Here's that website again: http://www.fairvotecanada.org.

Another note to Takeda999:

Sorry, I just reread your post. I wasn't clear on it the first time.

I totally agree with you that the 60% threshold was and is unjust. My only points here are that the rules were set, fairly or not, and that arguing about changing them after the fact (while possibly just) will at best likely be ineffective, or at worst destructive to your cause.

I hope that makes sense.

I feel in this instance, 60% was just, this was echoed by some of the vocal C.A. members, when you have almost every newspaper, radio and t.v. station in B.C. pushing this thing, it should have garnered far more than 60% support, If dollars and coverage where equal and FACTUAL 50% + 1 is ok with me.

The whole problem boils down to the nomenclature.

They called it "STV".
Sounds too much like "STD"

I haven't had time to read all the posts but I have always been concerned about unintended consequences for e.g. could something like the situation in Texas when the Republicans redrew the district maps so that they would have 3 extra votes. The Dems stalled and even left the country to try to stop this action as it was illegal because they have certain timelines (boundry line changes permissable only once in a decade, I think it was) and the Republcans were violating these rules.
Also I figured if Campbell was endorsing it and the Fraser Institute's Nick Loenen as well, there is probably ssome catch that makes it not good for Canada - sure enough on June 1st when Michael
Campbell was subbing for Jannifer Mather on her talk show he was busily Canada bashing with his National Citizens Coalition vice-president buddy and during the course of their lower than a maggot bitching and complaining and trying to promote Western alienation by all kinds of half truths and charges against Ottawa and the east,etc. He suggested if they could get STv passed they could get a Separation Party with a meaningful amount of significant supporters to get it started and end up with a significant amount of seats in the Legislature. And of course he threw in how angry Quebec was as well - so, is that the old Neocon plan to divide and conquor?\

ooo..that's interesting rebel.Anything that Gordo and his brother support should always be questioned...I agree, it's bound not to be good for Canada. I think the two Campbell Bros. operate on the deceitful principle of making very intended consequences look like they were quite accidental... or unintended, as you say.

Lynn and Rebel, dont forget David Sazuki, that evil capitalist tree hugger. And that redneck Korkey Day.
Yeah, there is a plot for sure!
Lets read the foundation books by asimov to find out what happens in the end.
Its so obvious! Now why didnt I see the conspiracy!
Yeah, and that thing where Campbell changed the referendum rules from 50% to 60% JUST FOR THIS ONE REFERENDUM. Genius!!!
What more proof do you need!
Ah, yeah, about that last piece, when you have finished congratulating each other,
could you clue yourself in again?
And explain that last litttle goodie?
Cos it screws up your entire conspiracy theory.

Do you know why Gordo is attempting and making some headway in getting "cozy" with the Greens? (before and after the election) when you find a brain it will be clear.

To OrionCarrier: Na' worries Mate.

Personally I think a blend of MMP and STV could work well. Various places in the world use a blend. MMP in one house and STV in another ... that sort of thing. I couldn't begin to list the finer details of this ... but it could begin to give us the best of both worlds instead of the worst of all worlds like we do now. FPTP is a total joke and does everything to give a semblance of Democracy but nothing to achieve it.

I'm certainly not spouting that STV would be the bee's knees or anything like that. Just that it would have been a damned sight better than FPTP. I'm really sorry this initiative didn't pass ... but I for one won't let this whole Electoral Reform initiative die!

I haven't been able to post. Just testing if my new settings will let me.

still testing

Aaah, it's nice to have figgered out why this wasn't posting. It's never too late to fight ignorance.
OK, here we go.
For those of you who still think STV = STD is funny, well, I'm glad you are getting some enjoyment out of that. It's just a bunch of letters for crying out loud. Assembly members discussed giving it a catchier name, but decided that BCers have enough BS targetted at them this way. We simply wanted to say what it is, BC (the province it was tailored for) and STV (the system that it is). What you end up with, BC-STV, is an honest nomenclature that was passed by real people. A bunch of ad-execs or big party PR guys would never leave it at that. OK, is that settled? Great.
STV is not a perfect system, we always knew that. In fact, it was not the first choice of the Assembly, but after considering the implications of MMP, particularly as complicated by the MLA seat cap, we began exploring its merits.

Rick wrote: "I feel in this instance, 60% was just, this was echoed by some of the vocal C.A. members, when you have almost every newspaper, radio and t.v. station in B.C. pushing this thing, it should have garnered far more than 60% support, If dollars and coverage where equal and FACTUAL 50% + 1 is ok with me."

Rick, is that you man? I've missed you, but not your straw arguments. 60% was the figure that the AG dropped when it was stated that there would be a change, just not what. It was the figure that was said would make this binding legislation. In actuality, the Liberals overstepped their bounds in the Constitution (again- if you remember the first nations referendum), as no referendum is legally binding in Canada according to the Constitution. It was only "accepted" by CA members in that it was an arbitrary bit of mandate that they could not oppose anyway. Some members thought it was fair, and some did not, it does not matter. The government did what it wanted.
Having erased the "legally binding" aspect of the 60% referendum finding, the only thing left to do is to realize that 57.4% overall and simple majority in 98% regionally is as strong a mandate as you are likely to see in a major referendum.

To Takeda999:

>I'm really sorry this initiative didn't pass ... but I for one won't let this whole Electoral Reform initiative die!

Good! Then join Fair Vote Canada, get your friends and acquaintances to join, and get really involved. Numbers speak volumes, and we need numbers to back up even the most logical, fair recommendations.

If you live in Victoria, I'd love to see you out at our AGM on July 9. Since I've started doing this, literally dozens of BC'ers have joined, a few dozen are really keen on the chapter, and two new chapters are discussing constituting themselves.

If you live outside Victoria and Vancouver, consider starting a chapter in your neighborhood. You might be surprised just how many people feel the same.

Be part of the fire! Now's the time. :)

Cheers!
Orion

Cheers to you too!! But NO NO NO its a good thing it didn't pass - its a bad idea - now is the time to not be hoodwinked into a notion that would be very bad idea that could have some very undesirable consequences.

Hey rebel,

You truly are a rebel. Just kidding.

Are you saying electoral reform is a bad idea, or STV? I note that Takeda999 was not willing to let "electoral reform" die, not "STV".

Be sure to check out my 2 other posts above. I have never said that I am pro-STV or anti-STV. I think STV could be superior to MMP in some ways and inferior in others.

If you don't like STV, and you are in the Victoria area, and like the idea of electoral reform, I would really like to see you in our chapter as well, so that we can have a balanced view on the matter in the chapter. Consider that your official invitation as well. :)

To join and get notified of our meetings, go to http://www.fairvotecanada.org and join.

Thanks!
Orion

Rick, I just noticed your post in response to mine.

I must demure. The only time I saw mention of STV on the news, the announcements contained anything but substance. And, further, I think both sides got pretty much equal coverage from all the news sources I followed.

Cheers...

Orion

Thanks for all the great comments. I even read those from people who won't use their real names. I usually skip those. Even you people mistaken about electoral reform must be learning a little--and your hearts are in the right place. Got a laugh out of "BrianWhite" jokingly calling me a redneck. (He misspelled my name, though.) You who voted no so we can have MMP were sorely naive. You just made it harder to get any improvement in our lifetimes. Now you must pay the penance of working all the harder to pressure the government to remove single member plurality before 2009. --Korky Day,

korky.ca