Familiarity with STV is Key

I agree with Chris - a straight-up presentation of the CA's case for STV (and solid arguments pro and con) so that the general public is thoroughly familiar with their proposal will be the best thing for BC.

I hope the BC Referendum Information Office takes a cue from New Zealand - they ran an exemplary public outreach campaign that was widely recognized for being scrupulously fair and even-handed. If our RIO is prepared to adopt a similar proactive approach, I would advocate giving them even more support (I believe that New Zealand spent close to $4.5M in today's Canadian dollar equivalent on awareness campaigns for about 4M people - roughly the same as BC; we're only going to be at a third of that level).

As for fully explaining STV - the most important thing to know is that the vast majority of voters will end up with an MLA they voted for, in contrast with only half of us now. How that happens is easily explained (and probably best explained) with the help of a two minute video, so it'll be hugely important to encourage as many BC voters as possible to spend those few minutes figuring it out.

Yeh!

Let's be fair guys.

Please don't omit the fact that a ginger group of lottery winners who don't really represent anybody but themselves have decided that the only choice British Columbians have is between a broken system that is clearly NOT democratic and STV.

The people of BC deserve much better - STV will do nothing good to a province this big and one in which the needs of rural areas are almost always subsumed under the interests of urban dwellers. Not to mention the plethora of special interest groups that, under STV immediately begin to ‘game’ elections in cities and urban areas.

This is not an isolated and homogeneous society like New Zealand where there are more sheep than people - STV may well be a disaster here.

But you WILL vote for it

GWest (2 weeks ago)

G...

For someone who almost always takes the time and puts in the effort to provide sound analysis of a situation, this is a really short sighted comment. If you have an issue with the process, please, let's hear it, but when a randomly choosen group actually reaches a consensus it's really unfair to say that they're only in it for themselves. Also, whaddya got against gingers?

Another unfortunate comment. Since when is New Zealand a homogeneous society? Last time I was there (well the only time I was there) I found it anything but homogeneous.

I have considered and researched it

That's my considered opinion.

I don't think that 160 people (including only two members of the aboriginal community) chosen at random according to some kind of demographic formula (that doesn't include anyone who has ever been active as a member of a political party) is in any way representative of the wishes of this province. It certainly doesn’t represent me. I don’t think lottery winners are anything but recipients of random chance. Do you?

All evidence points to the fact that small-sample polls are horrendously inaccurate and deceptive and I think the Citizen's Assembly was a VERY small sample poll.

I think you'll find that New Zealand is nowhere nearly as diverse a culture as British Columbia. Both New Zealand and Australia had very restrictive and prejudicial immigration policies until the latter third of the 20th century. You can check it out.

I've written extensively on my problems with STV here at Tyee for years and I've been constantly surprised that no one has really come up with a satisfactory response to the rural urban dichotomy that lurks in multi-member ridings.

I certainly have been called a lot of names because I suggest that a choice between yes and no on a one-option dance card isn’t much of a choice.

As to the other thing, wait and see, I believe that between 10 and 15 thousand committed and organized voters in (for example) some lower mainland and Fraser Valley ridings could easily organized themselves and 'game' the system to get representatives of single issue groups elected; people who would then turn the legislature into an even less useful and more nonsense steeped institution than it is now. [Pls reference how religious groups whipsaw democracy in Israel]

The other point I have a real problem with is that the Citizens' Assembly folks have not just delivered their verdict and then melted away to become those wonderful, disinterested and representative citizens they're meant to be.

Instead, like a zombie they lurch along, presenting themselves as experts in a system of voting that almost no countries use and which the rest of us are made out to be forelock tugging ingrates because we don't happen to agree that their solution is the right one.

Let's have a real constituent assembly and bring some real democracy to this province.

Hope that makes my position clear. All that being said, I’ll vote ‘yes’ just like I did last time and I’ll be holding my nose as tightly in 2009 as I was in 2005 – as bad as STV is – and as much as I believe, truly believe, that it will be a disaster, it won’t likely be the unmitigated disaster that FPP is.

And, as I always do, I end these comments with my apologies to my rural friends.
Sorry guys and gals.

I notice you didn't disagree about the sheep!

Cheers.

Here we go again.

I imagine as I did the last time that STV will work in the large urban centers. I really want to know how the democracy will be improved. Who will select the candidates the party or the riding membership? Then what happens after all the votes are counted and the election decided. In a three member riding, how will I be able to tell who my one representative is, who do I hold accountable, how far do I have to go to see him/her and all those issues that urban folks don't have to contend with. How much extra will all this cost just to have representatives further isolated from the electorate?

If that doesn't happen or you leave too much to the whim of those elected, I will vote no again.

One more thing.

Since Bruce Halsor ran for the Reform/Conservative Party in Victoria some years ago is the $500,000 or any portion of it going to give him a platform for his political ambitions

Ireland also has the STV

Ireland also has the STV system and it works there just fine. I was there this last spring when there was an election on and the only complaints I heard was from some politians. The people are quite happy with the STV system cuz they can remember what it was like before.

Van Isle

Ireland is a very different kettle of fish than BC. Much less potential for the racial/ethnic/rural/urban splits that characterize BC...not to mention religion.

You're talking about the Republic of Ireland - again, a much more homogenous society than we have here.

There ARE other systems - don't get me wrong, I'm as dissatisfied with FPP as anyone - but that doesn't mean we should adopt an overly complex and largely untried method (in a situation like ours) without giving people some other 'choices'.

My view!

Learning Changes People

G West complains that 'the Citizens' Assembly folks have not just delivered their verdict and then melted away' - I say why on earth should they have? Learning changes people.

If a person is unaware of a problem, or unaware of possible solutions to a problem they recognize, they're likely to be complacent and uninvolved, but if they come to understand that there are reasonable and viable solutions, they'll start taking action to make sure that they're implemented. Virtually every British Columbian believes that our political system is not working well, but most people feel relatively powerless to change it.

In contrast, the CA had a remarkable opportunity - they got to study the problem for a year, and they came to understand both its scope and the kinds of advances and improvements that have been made elsewhere. They also saw that they had a real chance to make a difference here because their recommendation would go to referendum and not get buried in a committee report somewhere. Who can blame them for getting excited?

In the end, they essentially reached unanimity - only 7% thought we should stick with our current system, and a remarkable 95% of them recommended putting STV to the voters. I'm not at all surprised that many of these CA members want to spend their time sharing what they've learned with their fellow citizens. Remember too that they're all volunteers - none of them is being paid for any of the time they're putting in talking to the public about this. You see these CA members as upstarts who have no business making their views known, but I see them as our democratic future - citizens who have come to give a damn and believe that they can do something about it by engaging the public.

You also claim that the CA came to some 'horrendously inaccurate' conclusion because there were only 160 of them, which you consider to be a small sample. When there is this degree of unanimity, there's very little inaccuracy arising from the sample size - in statistics-speak, the 95% confidence interval for how many BC voters would still favour FPTP after learning what the CA did is 4-12%, while those who would favour recommending STV to BC voters is 91-98%. Would it really make a difference to you if the CA were 10 times bigger and the confidence interval was 94-96%? If you don't believe me, plug the numbers in yourself at www.causascientia.org/math_stat/ProportionCI.html.

By the way, I'm all for more citizens' assembly-type processes (or constituent assemblies as you suggest) to consider other issues where our politicians have a conflict of interest, perhaps starting with the question of how much MLAs should be paid or how much power the Premier's office should have.

New Zealand Demographics

BTW, G West - as a half-kiwi myself, I'd suggest that you look more closely at New Zealand demographics.

NZ is about 70-75% European, 15% Maori, 10% Asian, and 5% Pacific Islanders. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_New_Zealand#Ethnic_groups

BC is about 75-80% white, 10% Asian, 5% South Asian, and 5% First Nations. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_British_Columbia

Looks pretty similar to me.

Reply to G West

G West: so the CA was a small sample, so what? That's why there was a referendum. If you ask me though, the government should have just implemented whatever the CA recommended, whether it be STV or MMP or whatever (it would have been some form of PR as the CA voted almost unanimously to ditch the old system). The government makes decisions all the time without consulting the people, and the government is a small sample as well. At least with STV or any other PR system the government would be a more representative sample.

I hate when people favor PR over FPTP then bitch about the shortcomings of STV, MMP, etc... No electoral system is perfect. It's obvious to anyone with a brain that any of the PR choices are better than FPTP so let's embrace whatever alternative there is to FPTP.

If single-issue groups get elected it's because the people voted for them. I don't understand why you have a problem with that and I'm not sure why you equate that with "gaming the system." As for the potential for people truly gaming the system, do you have any evidence of this occurring in the past? I mean true gaming? Not starting a party, campaigning, and getting elected based on a percentage of people voting for you.

Reply to G West again

G West said: "Responsible polling requires a much larger group to come even close to having a chance to reflect the views of a population of 4 million people."

The CA wasn't an opinion poll. It was 160 people gathered together to determine whether or not to ditch the old system and if so, what the proposed alternative on a referendum should be.

We don't elect politicians based on polls. We have elections. We didn't select a new electoral system based on a "poll" (CA). We had a referendum.

G West, explain how BC's "racial/ethnic/rural/urban splits" cause a problem for STV? I fail to see how STV is better or worse in heterogeneous vs. homogeneous populations.

Because

A relatively homogeneous population will likely have much more of a commonly shared base from which to operate.

We already know that special interests are exploring the possibility of supporting narrow issue and racially-defined 'parties' or candidates; candidates which, in an STV atmosphere, would have a very good chance of getting elected.

Israel is an excellent analogy where differences (even among those nominally calling themselves Jews) between religious factions have created a fractious legislative atmosphere.

Because BC has relatively large populations of ethnically and racially defined groups in close geographical proximity you should be able to see why one might worry that such groups would game the system to get their particular flavour of candidate elected and why, in a province where there already is a big divide between rural and urban/ and aboriginal/ non-aboriginal populations that could turn out to be a recipe for big problems.

You see, I don't buy the theory that BC's many communities work all that well together now and STV will simply accentuate that.

In my view.

I've told you why I don't like small samples. I don't want a group of hothouse flowers deciding what options I ought to be able to choose from.

Is that so difficult to understand?

I much prefer strict Proportional systems with a threshold of somewhere between 3 and 4 percent for a party to get a member into the house.

I think the population deserves more than a single option to choose from and, while we're at it, I think there are a lot of equally disfunctional aspects to our current system - like transparency, the pervasive influence of lobbyists and the financing and running of political parties that the citizens ought to have a right to address.

Our current system is clearly broken and I don't think STV will fix it.

Clear enough?

By the way, where do you get off saying you hate the way I think?

Doesn't sound like much of a way to have a civil discussion to me.

As for the rural/urban dichotomy, I'm not going to waste any time addressing that - the shortcomings of multi-member ridings in cities balanced against single member ones in rural areas are a commonplace.

It's All About Representation

G West, thanks for being so candid about your beliefs. I agree that there are some strong ethnic divides in BC, particularly in the Lower Mainland, but I think that STV is part of the solution, not something that will exacerbate things.

The reason I think this is that I believe in the idea of representative government - I want my representative to be someone that I truly support and trust, and I want her to be empowered when she's in the legislature. I don't want her to be so afraid of not being a party player that she won't be willing to fight for what she believes in. More than anything, I want the legislature and the committees to be the place where legislation gets worked out, rather than in the backrooms of the executive of a party with only minority support in the population. Basically, I want these legislative processes to be open and transparent and to engage the public - it's the People's House, after all.

For all this to happen, as many voters as possible have to have MLAs they trust and support. If my neighbour disagrees with my political views, I don't want my MLA to agree with my neighbour - I want my MLA to share my perspective. That's why we need the multimember ridings that STV provides.

I can understand the frustration of many of the ethnic groups here in BC when they don't find themselves represented in the faces of their MLAs (not to mention the male/female imbalance). You have expressed concern that the CA was not sufficiently representative - how much less so our current legislature? With STV, I fully expect to see an increase in the number of East Asians and South Asians in the legislature. Their communities will then feel that they have a real voice in government and will likely become more committed to seeking common solutions to our common problems through political processes.

I'm not worried about small splinter groups forming under STV. This is far more likely under a purely proportional system with a low province-wide threshold. With STV, given its higher threshold of 10-15%, I think you'll find that ethnic groups will put forward candidates from the major parties so that they can have both representation (ie, an MLA from their community) and access to power (by working within the party structures that help forge policy platforms). With list systems, there's little incentive to stay within the party structure if you're not sure that candidates from your community will be placed high on the party's list.

Overall, I'm sure we agree about a lot of things and want a lot of the same things (transparency, limitations on lobbying, changes in how parties function, etc), but in contrast to you, I see most of those things getting better under STV. I also think that success in getting this reform through will encourage the true democrats out there to take hope and work even harder to address the remaining obstacles to open and accountable government.

Sheesh, the impetus for the

Sheesh, the impetus for the CA and their subsequent selection of STV arose out of two previous concurrent elections and their perceived unfairness:

1. 1996 - Liberals receive highest popular vote but NDP garners most seats;

2. 2001 - Liberals garner 77/79 seats with only 58% of vote;

These factors and the high-profile media exposure of the CA and its final selection of STV were all contributing factors in STV gaining 57% of the vote last time 'round.

For all intent and purposes, I believe those public unfairness perceptions of FPTP have probably worn off.

Apparently, most pro-STV voters voted "for change", not "for STV" itself.

http://www.nrgresearchgroup.com/media/documents/BC-STVSept2005.pdf

I actually prefer the FPTP system with its simple ballot and one choice as opposed to a huge ballot with upto 7 choices under STV. Even MMP is preferable 'cause it's simpler to understand for the public.

MMP, as proposed in Ontario, however went down to defeat with 37% approval last year.

This whole STV debate sounds alot like the perennial Vancouver "wards" debate, with the first ward referendum held over 25 years ago, initially having majority support but eventually dwindling down to 46% support in 2004.

Oddly enough, the proposed Vancouver change from "at large" to wards is "somewhat" akin to going from STV to FPTP in terms of selection.

In any event, will effective communication from both the yes/no sides in 2009 result in a majority STV vote? I doubt it.

Ireland and New Zealand.

I don't think we are talking about the same things. Is this a comparison of a provincial government and two national governments. Before you suggest they are the same, let me say that my national government effects me a lot less than my provincial government. Ottawa is something that happens in a far off place and rarely do they do anything there that really gets me worked up and I am not a Tory. Provincial government's are always "in your face". So maybe STP would be great for a national government.

Both Ireland and New Zealand are small countries. They have a uniform climate so likely there is not too much disparity in the needs of the population. They are also isolated by water. Maybe there are reasons that it works there and maybe the folks there also think that it does not work as well as it should.

So why did Van Isle and Tony leave the places they thought were so good? I am always cynical about someone who says they they do something so much better in the place they left.

G West, I don't see the

G West, I don't see the problem with narrow-issue or racially defined parties. I don't see the problem with the Marxist-Leninist party, the Marijuana party, or the Christian Family party. If they can garner enough votes to get a seat in legislature via PR they deserve a seat. I might not like them anymore then I like the Bloc Quebecois but I don't think we should keep the status quo just so we can keep these fringe parties out of the legislature. The current system is unfair.

How can STV make things make the legislative atmosphere more "fractious" than it is now? I would think that frequent alliances to form majorities would create a more cooperative atmosphere. How are other PR systems less fractious than STV?

Luke, thanks for reminding us of the impetus for the CA. Just a small point: as far as I know, you don't have to rank all candidates on the ballot in BC-STV, afaik, so it doesn't have to be that complicated. For some it can be as simple as ranking all Liberal candidates 1,2 and that's it with no other choices. I don't think simplicity/complexity should be an issue. People are required by law (if you owe taxes at least) to submit tax returns which are far more complicated. It's unfortunate that some things in life are complicated but for something as important as choosing our elected representatives every 4-5 years I'll take complicated over FPTP.

Skywalker, New Zealand has a uniform climate and is on an island so STV works better there? Dude, WTF!

Why do people claim STV is PR?

There is no mechanism in STV that ensures proportional representation. While, statistically, STV might produce a result that is closer to the proportional representation than FPTP on average, there is no guarantee that it will do so every time. You have to remember that people can make as many or few choices on their ballet as they wish. Can you see the disasterous result that would occur if a majority of voters voted for fewer than the number of candidates to be elected in their zone?

In order to really know what STV is, people should really look at the math. Heck, while highly unlikely in the extreme, you could have 100,000 people vote in an electoral zone and have a candidate win with just a single vote. What is very likely is a number of candidates that get elected with far fewer votes than the droop quota.

The fictional account of what might have happened in the 2001 election that was put out last time was just that: fiction. No one knows how British Columbians will mark a ballot where they rank their candidates. No one knows how many candidates they will vote for.

No matter what some misguided textbook may say, STV is a very poor cousin to any true proportional rep system. While I believe that there is probably a better system out there than FPTP, I can't believe that it is STV. And, while I respect the CA members for putting in the time, I do believe that when the terms of reference and organization of their work was done by someone with ties to the Fraser Institute, the result is suspect.

Again, all I ask is for proponents to fully explain STV, warts and all, to the general public. If it is too confusing for them to understand (as was proclaimed by some CA members) then doesn't that say something?

go proportional

With a bit of luck the voters will realize that a minority government is not such a bad thing!
Many countries have managed well without ever having a one party majority, all that happens is that the outrageous ideas get shelved and usually that is a good thing!
What is happening here is another example of a government trying to sit on the fence and appeal to both sides, good luck!

Our family is pleased to see

Our family is pleased to see that some cash has been brought forward so both sides can explain their positions. I'd hazard a guess that when Campbell had a masive majority and thumped anyone or group he didn't like, a lot of people voted for the not well known system hoping to get a little fairness in the voting system. His 77 members really trashed BC and we are still sorting out some of his biggest blunders.The current stage of the economy was not his to claim. No province controlls the other players in the overall system. My gosh, the price of oil went up , so did the pumps. next day the price of oil went down and of course the pumps didn't get around to showing the drop. so lets' get educated on the choices , then vote yes or no

I don't think people understand

I don't think people understand the complexity and difficulty of creating legislation in the modern industrial democracy - it's not a simple qustion of a few folks getting together over the back fence to nail together a new law - and that ain't gonna change any time soon. It is completely naive to assume that either STV or PR will change that. I'm sorry, but I've seen the system up close and it's not the kind of thing that friends and neighbours or ginger groups from the Christian Heritage Party (as well meaning as they might be) can master - ever.

Chris H: Some of your points

Chris H: Some of your points sound like they are against STV but really they are against FPTP and for STV (assuming those are our only choices).

PR - "STV might produce a result that is closer to the proportional representation than FPTP on average." If you think PR is good then you believe STV is better than FPTP.

Bizarre outcomes - "while highly unlikely in the extreme, you could have 100,000 people vote in an electoral zone and have a candidate win with just a single vote." In FPTP we regularly elect leaders and hand them majorities with less than a simple majority of the popular vote. Also, FPTP can often elect parties with a smaller percentage of the popular vote than other parties. Yet in STV neither of these situations would occur as often as in FPTP, as I'm sure you know, or else you would have pointed them out to us, rather than giving extreme example that you did. As for "a number of candidates getting elected with far fewer votes than the droop quota", you have not explained what the problem with that is? Yes it can happen when voters don't rank all candidates on the ballot but those candidates who didn't reach quota but were elected had more votes than those who didn't get elected so it still works out. Have a look at http://bc.demochoice.org/dcmultires.php for some examples. In fact I'm pretty sure you will rarely have all candidates get elected above-quota.

Yet you say that "while I believe that there is probably a better system out there than FPTP, I can't believe that it is STV"; however you've made a pretty good case that STV is better than FPTP.

"all I ask is for proponents to fully explain STV, warts and all, to the general public" - I think they've done a pretty good job of it. There is tons of information out there.

But that's the whole point d grant

Why is STV the ONLY OPTION other than FPP?

Such an important question deserves to have more than one possible answer - STV has lots of problems - many of which have been pointed out above.

On the other hand, strict PR is working very very nicely in some of the happiest, most egalitarian and successful countries in the world.

Why take a chance on a pig in a poke when there's a sure thing available.

STV, Power and Democracy

I fully understand GWest's conflicted view of STV. I would only vote for it, hypothetically, which I don't actually propose to do, for the sole purpose of letting folks try it in order to discover what a real, further manipulative crock of poop it is.(And I support the concept of a truly "proportional rep" system, even within capitalism. Which STV is not.)

The real issue needing resolution that lies at the heart of democracy is NOT some simple re-jigging of the "formal" electoral process. Rather, the real issue is the power relationships that lie at the very core of the capitalist economic and political systems. Until that is changed, fundamentally, starting from within the power relationships within the economy first, all talk of a serious democracy at any level is a sham, period. Bullshite.

Only on the day that working folks and their unions, or however they are otherwise organized, community and community interest groups, like environmental, consumer and poverty NGOs, are brought into the board rooms and management committees of, first and foremost, large scale, especially corporate enterprises, with equal voice and vote, will we have begun to seriously transform the character and content of a more real than simply "more sterilely formal" democratic system. Place that kind of "fully equal" economic control and power into the hands of working class citizens and community interest groups, in a class situation where it is economic power that really rules and holds the power of veto, then the needed more formal, "truly more democratic" political processes will begin to more naturally fall into place.

Until this takes place, all tinkering with so-called democracy within capitalism, known currently to me, is but mere playing musical chairs on the deck of the sinking Titanic.

We need to focus on the real inequality of power relationships within The System, rather than on the illusory, mere window dressing, propaganda serving formal rituals devoid of real content ways, through which it seeks to artificially present itself. It is otherwise only a simple and but further public relations exercise, designed to change the way in which those classic free market "suckers" that are born one every minute are fooled again, yet one more time.

(It is said that you can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all the time. Hence you have to keep changing how you do it. Enter STV.)

Irrelevant hand wringing

Ireland and New Zealand have a majority of white people and are surrounded by water. Surely that's why they can manage STV. But what about the elevation of mountain ranges and the taste of local apples and the annual rainfall compared with BC? I think we measure up rather well. (Yes, this is all irrelevant nonsense.)

Anyone who deplores that a party can fail to win a majority of votes (BC Liberals won 46% in 05) but impose an extreme agenda should support a fairer system. Anyone who deplores that 9% of voters have no representation in Victoria (Green voters in 05) should support a move toward proportional representation. Anyone who wants to stop having to vote for the lesser evil should support a system that wastes fewer votes. So STV may have some warts, but the current system is gangrenous. Carpe diem--otherwise the moment will pass and the status quo will prevail.

Yup, masters of the shell game.

I am very suprised that noone has commented on what seems obvious to me, that in holding a vote on STV at election-time, as well as providing seed money for both pro and anti campaigns during that time, Campbell has pulled yet another fast one on us.

The STV campaign will effectively split his opposition into opposing camps, while diverting attention away from the far more pressing and worrisome issues we and the public should be considering.

Since FPP favours Parties like Campbells, and since STV came close to winning last time, we can be sure that the antis will muster far more support - both overt and covert - than last time. This will provoke a lot of attention and news coverage.

And that's just great for ignoring the REAL and immediate problem, Campbell's selling out of our resources, institutions and marketing systems to the Corporations. He's almost there now, and after another four years of this, he'll be pretty well done, and he his cronies will be poised to reap the directorships and etc the business community always rewards their lackeys with.

And even if STV is voted in, that doesn't mean a swing to the Left, as evidenced in New Zealand, where Labour has supported the policies of the Far Right.

I don't know where Campbell has found his political strategists, but they sure earn their keep.

avandoc

I've come to the same conclusion and, as I wrote earlier, I'll vote yes to STV.

Nevertheless, I'm under no illusions about its appropriateness for British Columbia and I do resent the continuing games played on its behalf by the latter-day pied pipers of the Citizens' Assembly.

Promote the damn thing if you must - but please don't pretend we're talking about the second coming.

In addition, ME2, I don't disagree with your assessment of Campbell's tactics - I'm just not yet sufficiently jaded to think there's anything to be lauded in such manipulative and cynical behavior.

Maybe I haven't been around the block as often as some...but I still have a flicker of hope that there is at least a chance the scoundrel will be found out for what he is before it's too late.

Perhaps that goes with having a young family.

well said

Well said avandoc.

As for G West's comment "Why is STV the ONLY OPTION other than FPP." I feel the same frustration you feel. IMO, the CA's near unanimous decision to dump FPTP in favour of something else AND the clear failings of FPTP in this province (as mentioned by Luke above) should have led the government to hold a referendum asking which new system to use (among several options) rather than a choice between the gangrenous (nice word avandoc) FPTP and only one other choice: STV. However, I have moved as the upcoming referendum is all we've got and it's either STV or FPTP, period.

Secondly, is STV not also "working very very nicely in some of the happiest, most egalitarian and successful countries in the world"?

I'm confused why you are in favor of "strict PR" when you are so clearly against giving any power to narrow issue or racially-definied parties. Would you use "a threshold of somewhere between 3 and 4 percent for a party to get a member into the house"? Ah, but that would no longer be strict PR then would it?

Still proportional - just not slavishly so.

Of course it would.

Mixed member proportional can very closely mirror the electorate - the usual objection that party lists contain a range of political hacks can easily be addressed by setting up rules to govern the creation of the lists - rules which apply equally to all parties.

I see nothing wrong with establishing a threshold for obtaining a seat in the house - particularly since I'm also against the current method of financing political parties through donations from business and unions.

It would be entirely inconsistent for me to rail about the possibility of a small ginger group with 10 - 15,000 activist members managing to get a candidate elected in a multi-member riding and NOT recognize that there needs to be some minimum threshold which must be reached before a party (or an individual) can become part of the legislative process.

I still, after all, believe in representative democracy - just not the way we decide who those representative will be.

I'm not aware that STV is working satisfactorily in many places - in fact, the system is rare.

Btw, I also dislike the involvement of the inevitable computer programs and voting machines, which will come along with STV. Too damn many experts and specialists now - in my view - and not enough plain, honest common sense.

Enough from me though.

Quote:Mixed member

Careful what you wish for. If BC had MMP, it's likely that BC would never have had an NDP government.

1972 - Barrett NDP government

Popular Vote:

NDP: 39.59%
Socred: 31.16%
Liberal: 16.4%
PC: 12.67%

It's more than likely that a coalition government would have been formed between SC/L/PC with ~60% of the vote, equating to ~60% of the MLA's under MMP. Also consider that many Liberal and PC MLA's crossed the floor over to SC prior to 1975.

1991 - Harcourt NDP government

Popular Vote:

NDP: 40.71%
Socred: 24.05%
Liberal: 33.25%

Again, it's more likely that a coalition government would have been formed between SC/Lib with ~57% of the vote, equating to ~57% of the MLA's under MMP. Consider that many of those original Liberal MLA's sat/ still sit in Campbell's government.

1996 - Clark NDP government

Popular Vote:

NDP: 39.45%
Liberal: 41.82%
Reform: 9.27%
PDA: 5.74%

Again, it's more likely that a coalition government would have been formed between Lib/Reform with 51% of the vote, equating to ~51% of the MLA's under MMP.

That's how it's done under German MMP, with a 5% threshold.

The latest Mustel poll (with 500 sample size) has these figures:

Liberal: 50%
NDP: 36%
Green: 10%

Under MMP, the Liberals would now likely win an outright majority while the Greens and their voting base have been labelled as just "tories with trash composters" in some circles.

No NDP, so what?

Careful with your backtesting young Padawan Skywalker. I have no evidence on hand to back this up but if BC had a PR system during those elections people would have voted differently. In recent times, people tend to be afraid of wasting their vote on the Green party, for example, or in federal elections, on the NDP and the Green parties (unless you're in a strong NDP riding). The FPTP system causes people to vote differently.

You said "If BC had MMP, it's likely that BC would never have had an NDP government." and your point is?

Even if it were possible to accurately project PR results based on the results of FPTP elections, the fact that the NDP would have never had a majority seems perfectly fair. As you showed above they never got more than 50% of the popular vote, so why should they get a majority of the seats? We would have seen coalition governments between Lib/Soc/PC as well as NDP/Lib and all these coalitions would have governed from the center-left or center-right. We might have more frequent changes in government but with overall more stability.

To dgrant

Yes I would expect some southern urbanite not to understand that in the farther reaches of the province the burning issues go beyond traffic and translink. You see in the rural and colder places the issues become one of access to the representative. How far is one expected to drive, how often do you see them, then there are winter driving conditions. It is the myopic urban experts that really grate sometimes. I also mentioned size of the place and you conveniently forget the distance between places in rural BC. I also don't text message so Dude WTF back to you, whatever that means.

Denis Pilon's comments show problem with Yes side

Rather than debating the merits of STV, Dennis Pilon reverts to the form he showed in the losing campaign of 2005 - attacking those who disagree with him.

"During the last B.C. referendum the "no" side was "unscrupulous" in how it presented the issue, he said, adding the campaign spread misinformation about what was proposed and how similar systems work elsewhere."

And:

"While the "yes" campaign found support from a strong grassroots movement, Pilon said, the "no" campaign was run by a handful of political insiders. "Last time they had a difficult time coming up with money. This time they're being handed money."

And:

"The 'no' side has no broad-based public support."

Sorry Dennis - your side ran a poor campaign with more money, the huge advantages of the Citizens Assembly, a biased referendum question, a lop-sided Legislature and pro-STV government produced "information" - and you still lost!

If you keep on attacking your opponents the way you did in this article you will face the same result.

Bill Tieleman

Skywalker

How far would be okay?

And since the Fraser Valley has never had an NDP MLA since WW2 in spite of decent levels of support here and there I'm curious to know how many lifetimes I should expect to wait before I can drive to see an MLA interested in what I have to say?

Because with FPTP its likely that even my grandkids will never see an NDP MLA elected between Cloverdale and Chilliwack so even if they're willing to drive from one end of the valley to the other its a waste of time.

STV on the other hand would see NDP MLA's elected in the Fraser Valley in the very next election.

Tieleman

We lost with almost 60% of the vote.

Says a lot about Canadian democracy doesn't it?

And you'll still be using your column which is not subject to financing limits to attack STV I presume?

Pro-rep

The Marijauna-loving-Christian-Nazi Party (or whatever it is they call themselves) would only need about 25,000 votes province-wide to get elected under PR.

Very easy to do.

Raising the bar so they need 75,000 or 100,000 votes before being eligible to have a seat is simply undemocratic.

Maybe if

we`re holding a referendum we could hold an even more important one http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9076683/Statute-of-Westminster

I don`t pretend to be the smartest guy on the block but this sure reads to me that BC is a sovereign state.

Maybe we should hold the long over due referendum on whether or not we want to become part of Canada

It was

under the Statute of Westminster that Australia became a sovereign country. They drew up their own constitution and held a referendum on whether or not to adopt it. BC on the other hand has never exercised that right. So the question first off should be do we really want to join Canada or stay a sovereign state ??

demotto

Did the states of Australia get a vote as to whether or not to break away from Australia itself? I have never heard that they did.

If BC had such a vote do you think we'd vote to leave Canada? I don't. Most people in BC seem quite tied to the idea of being part of Canada. I don't even see any great push for a BC anthem to be sung at hockey games.

I would go so far as to say that BC independence seems to be pushed only by those who have let a strong dislike for Ontario cloud their thought processes. That somehow if BC separated we would be okay and those guys in Toronto would be really sorry which would sure make them sorry they broadcast all those Leafs games.

A thought process I consider to be pretty childish.

demotto

I see Western Australia voted against being part of Australia but the UK refused it and said that was up to Australia.

Doesn't sound like Western Australia was a sovereign state before or after the vote.