We live in an age of...............

............grand deceit.

The government is corrupt; the courts are corrupt; and the laws are corrupt. Add all three together and one gets the recipe for revolution.

The public realizes that BC/Canada government and bureaucracies are corrupt and run by despots who treat what ever shreds of democracy remain with absolute disdain and they will not change, unless the public rises up and forces change.

But how?

The political process is dead in Canada as MP/MLA will do little to change the current mess because they have dreams of absolute power if they gain power. The only way to change is to force change and sadly to force change needs a revolution and revolutions start with riots.

The Stanley cup riot and its much bigger cousin, the very recent London riots will usher in change as the ruling elites are deathly afraid of the "peoples" insurrection. The voice of the mob will dictate how government operates in the near future and with the financial markets crumbling due to friends of current government leaders raping profits from the public at large under the guise of "free Enterprise", social unrest will be inevitable.

Just how strong social unrest is, will determine how our government will change. Sad to say, it will take a few martyrs to gain more freedoms from government, the question is; "Who is willing the sacrifice for such change?"

I agree

Well said. I'm tired of voting but feeling like it doesn't change anything. STV got me excited but idiocy and FUD destroyed that opportunity. Every election I encourage strategic voting while being consistently told to simply vote for your preferred local candidate, which as you said, do their leader's bidding if they want to keep their job.

All great points - let's implement them and see what happens. Perhaps democracy?

The sad thing is that we

The sad thing is that we 'need' to make these changes just to get back to where we should be in the first place.

Penalties for parliamentarians for abuse of office or failure to represent the majority view of constituents should be severe.

Corporate influence of politicians should be a criminal offence with severe penalties as well.

I don't think so.

"The voice of the mob will dictate how government operates in the near future."

Nonsense! The mob is simply opening up more opportunity for profit-making! Fixing or replacing the broken stuff; lawyers and reps to sort out liability; putting the rioters in the slammer (can private ones be far away?). Mobbing does diddly to change things. If these same people sat down on their behinds and formed co-ops to knock out corporate monopolies, now that would be something...

By the way, Rafe,

Now that we have you here throwing up the quest for effective democracy, how about getting rid of the lobby system? To me, that is just about the most un-democratic thing in the picture. The Queen's antechamber, where the heavyweights are vying for 'consideration'. We should pitch it altogether, or we won't have democracy. Do you agree?

Citizen Assembly

As you all know but to review British Columbia held a citizen's assembly on electoral reform a few years back with roughly 160 citizens 2 from each riding selected at random. The process took a couple of months, many hours of sittings and the members were paid a stipend. At the end the assembly came together with a large majority voting in favor of the STV (single transferable vote) system used in Ireland.

In two subsequent referendum's, STV was rejected in a general vote after obviously most politicians and big media lined up against it.

The STV mechanism was apparently too complex for the populace to understand after watching a 1 minute commentary from Keith Baldy on the 6 O clock. Confused they turned it down.

No surprise to me.

One polling company is finding when doing polls for companies on things like product acceptance they get much more accurate results using a paid group of randomly selected well paid deliberators than random polling.

Here's an article which does a good job arguing the Citizen's assembly model

http://bostonreview.net/BR31.2/fishkin.php

The only way it would ever happen is if a political leader instituted it as a backup to legislators, letting it grow from there.

Given the current electorate, spends less time on political decisions, than they do on determining their next beer purchase, there is little tinkering with our current system is going to do. Our current Fascist governments like an electorate that makes its voting decisions on Keith's last one liner on the 6 O'Clock.

There is some indication that compulsory voting as in Australian, actually make some of the idiots spend a moment trying to learn something but...

The Old STV was rejected...

...because it had some constituency's represented by more than one MLA. In rural BC you could have up to 4 representing one constituency. It was an abortion. Change it to one constituency one to be elected, require a run off so a winner gets 50% plus one and I will go along. It would also open the door for independents.

@ Dorothy

History shows that all great historical social change had been preceded by public unrest, riots, leading to either a "quiet" or "violent" revolution.

Leaders do not want change and change is forced upon the ruling elites by the fear or more active means of the mob.

It will be the same in BC, where the charlatans of "Free Enterprise" will be forced to admit that our current fiscal and banking systems are absolutely corrupt and our kept on by equally corrupt ruling elites.

Change is needed and change is demanded, but is falling on deaf ears by the pompous leaders of major countries.

When the current recession hits, and it will big time, we will see a lit fuse that will bring change, for good or evil, because our ruling elites were too damned afraid of real democracy and real freedom.

I certainly didn't vote to bomb Libya

and only 17% of Americans think the government has the consent of the governed.

While you are at reforming Parliament, let's get out of the criminal organization called NATO and make sure we can't join anything without a referendum.

BTW, Cynthia McKinney will be speaking on Tuesday, Aug. 9
7pm
Heritage Hall
3102 Main Street at 15th Ave
Vancouver, BC

Organized By:
Mobilization Against War & Occupation
(MAWO)

Arab Spring Overdue In Canada

A timely and well written essay by one of BC's greatest journalists. Everywhere we look democracy is bubbling up. It has reached Israel now:

http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1312551971/

And Iceland:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/01/1001662/-Icelands-On-going-Revolution

If Israel and Iceland can resurrect their democracies, why can't we? Rafe has some great ideas. Of course, you won't see ANY of these stories covered by Canada's corporate media...which is why so many of us read the Tyee!

I do hope the wonderful Tyee sends somebody

and interviews Ms McKinney. She's certainly a real heroine.

I just did a search for Cynthia McKinney on the Tyee search box and amazingly there were only two mentions, (2006 and 2010), and both were in the comments. So you have never covered this brave woman at all.

Now that I think about it,I am no longer confounded by the lack of coverage for tomorrow's event on this site.

She's even a Green Party candidate. I would think there would be much more coverage of her here!

Bad drugs Rafe

You missed the point Rafe. According to Harper minority and coalition government are the worst thing that could happen. He is after all a Torey, not the leader of some coalition formed between the Reform party and the old Conservatives, so he should know what is best. His majority speaks the loudest and the people be dammed. Is that not the way of government these days?

I agree with 'grumpy'. I

I agree with 'grumpy'.

I hope the line in the sand will be drawn the second that Enbridge attempts to disturb one particle of earth on BC soil.

Just a strong show of force, similar to the way way they use our courts and police, will be enough to make these bullies turn tail and run for home.

Who is "representative democracy" supposed to represent?!

My objection to Rafe's recipe is that MPs would then represent only one political party or another...I thought the idea of representative democracy was to represent the citizens. Political parties don't represent the citizens in any way, from my experience of working within one. They are about power-brokering, selling a brand, and they are divisive, even internally.

Political parties are about concentrating power into the hands of a few supposedly "superior" professional politicians, rather than empowering the citizens and keeping power distributed equally to all. Decentralized power is the only way any meaningful democracy can operate, in my opinion. There is no need for political parties.

What we need are real communities, where diversity and healthy collaboration can actually happen. People have different needs and different strengths and abilities to contribute to their community. They need to work together and complement each other, not polarize into groups and factions with clearly defined names and logos.

Creative and positive solutions to problems don't come, in my experience and observation, by fighting for power over others who disagree with you, which is what political parties embody, inside and out.

A different alternative...

A different alternative would be to make the representative (MP/MLA) actually represent his/her community and be directly accountable to them, all of the time. That would encourage listening by the representative and speaking up by the citizen. If we build permanent local community electoral offices and allow citizens to place and change their votes when they choose, genuinely representative democracy would be a possibility. Voters would be motivated to participate.

Citizens in every community need to be empowered in this way. Interacting with each other and with those who are willing to take on the job of representing them can only happen effectively if the infrastructure and system support interaction. The current system only supports playing citizens against each other and is controlled by one-way communication through blatant advertising campaigns, not intelligent dialogue between voters and with their representatives.

We will get much better solutions to the question of "how shall we organize ourselves and our communities?" if the creative input of all citizens is welcomed and encouraged all of the time and they have a practical and accessible means of giving it.

Participation is essential to any meaningful democracy, under any electoral system. It is something we don't have now, in my opinion, because the system we are using is totally dysfunctional.

The question is, how can citizens become confident enough to demand THIS change in the system?

Suggestions?

Real Democracy

Rafe is correct to raise the issue of democracy in Canada/BC. The major problem is that we have NEVER had real democracy. We have inherited the British system that was designed, from the very beginning, to retain power by the few, first the monarchy, then the landed gentry and now the rich.
All of these rulers hate the very idea of democracy - not only will their own influence (and privileges) be significantly diminished but the opinions of the majority, who are deemed by our 'rulers' to be not as smart or deserving as them, will play a major role.
So, what's to be done?
Firstly, drastically reduce the power of parties by forbidding anyone to be a paid (by the public) politician for more than 20 years - career politicians are a curse because getting re-elected becomes their number one concern. Secondly, reduce the cash flow to parties: no government 'grants' & a limitation of $100 per year maximum donation by any individual (no funds or in-kind contributions) from corporate organizations: companies, unions, associations, etc. Thirdly, secret votes by ALL elected politicians (vetted by an auditable, randomly selected, independent body of citizens - like a jury but consisting of retirees picked for 2 year terms). Fourthly, referenda on all major issues to inform OUR representatives of how WE feel. I could go on but you get the idea. The point here is that this is revolutionary and will NOT happen until our society has gone through a major financial collapse (say, about 2015). Until then ...

@freebc, regarding initiatives and referenda

By the way, the best way to facilitate citizens' initiatives and referenda, which I agree with freebc would really enhance self-governance at every level, is to have the permanent local electoral offices I mentioned in my previous post. One of the things I saw in the Citizens' Initiative about the HST and the Recalls attempted was how much fund raising was necessary and the enormous cost in time and effort, as well as money, that citizens had to put out for a relatively small impact on their government.

The key is making the process accessible to all citizens equally and making it affordable. With local offices (or community halls in which citizens can meet, exchange information and ideas, and do all of their electoral "banking") every level of government could be dealt with in one place. This would also help citizens integrate the various levels of governance (organization) that impact their lives. The actual amount of time each citizen would need to put in, in order to participate effectively, would not be unreasonable.

Communities and community-consciousness have been fragmented, and in some places nearly destroyed, over the past hundred years or more. I think implementing these improvements in our way of governing ourselves would also improve our relationships with each other and the quality of life in our communities. It would also focus local attention and actions for the protection and rehabilitation of our ecosystems in the most effective way, which is right in our own back yards.

Of constituencies and preferential ballots

Don't dismiss constituencies altogether. In Australia the effect of preferential voting (alternative votes in the Lower House, STV in the Upper) is to reinforce a two party system, but in such a way as to force both parties to take a wider swathe of the citizenry into account. That would be a step forward, and should be acceptable to many who dislike pure PR and party lists.

A more modest version of the BC-STV proposal would have fit the bill--call it semi-majoritarian or semi-proportional.

FOr example, if we had 15 3 member seats in VAncouver and Victoria; about a dozen 2-member seats in the smaller cities and the interior; and 10 or 11 single-member alternative vote single -member constituencies in the North, and there would have been a susbstantial improvement in voter choice and proportionality, without the extremely long ballots or huge multi-member constituencies that turned people off BC-STV.

Anarchy?

I seriously doubt that anything that is done will be any worse than the current system that allows the representatives of 40% of 1/2 the people to rule like god.That our systems are in the hands of the corporations is so obvious and unpalatable that nothing will surprise me.I'm afraid that things will have to get seriously broken before we see any real meaningful change.We may all die off from climate deterioration before much longer anyway.I hear Mr.Harper wants to increase the tar sands rape of the north by 10% or more every decade.A pipeline to PR will assure us of a major oil spill as it would be the only place on the planet dumb enough to allow super tankers to dock at the terminal.I hear there are two 90 degree turns in the entry and exit.Brilliant.Broken.Oh,it's very broken,and in total disdain of the public.We are seen as stupid sheep and are treated accordingly.They keep taking and taking and good on em.Take till we just can't take anymore.Please.Political change?I'd say it was a pipe dream but I can't because we're under a government prohibition.No pipe dreams allowed.

fundamentally flawed thinking

Rafe has mistakenly implied that there is a "party system," one that he doesn't like. But there is no party system: parties are not even mentioned in the Constitution and they are not essential to the New Westminster parliamentary system. What is essential, and the main task of the Governor, is to ensure legislation can pass by a majority vote in the House or in the Assembly, regardless of party affiliation. The Governor recognizes as government any group of elected members that make a convincing commitment to vote as a block to ensure legislation passes. Individual candidates make that commitment to parties to avail themselves of the party machine which helps them get elected. The Governor recognizes parties only insofar as they are a group of members who have committed to voting in a block. Nevertheless, individual members are free to break that commitment without losing their seat. If they are punished, it is a party matter, not a parliamentary one.

As to secret votes: I want to see who is voting for what. Too many bad things fester in the shadows

As to abolishing political parties (suggested above): Each and all of us citizens has a Constitutional right to associate and assemble with whoever we want and those associations are sometimes called parties. Again, the Governor only sees members of parliament as the building blocks of a government. It is circumstantial that a majority of members belongs to one party and is recognized as government. Another circumstance is more than one party forming a group of members that commit to voting as a block to ensure the passage of legislation. Parties in and of themselves are non-essential, there is no "party system" and no amount of fiddling will affect how legislation is passed or which group of members is recognized by the governor.

As to Independents: Almost every ballot features Independent candidates and any eligible voter is free to vote for them. It is hard to imagine a group of Independents convincing the Governor that they will commit to voting as a block to ensure the passage of legislation without them looking for all the world like a party. Moreover, they might agree to support one piece of legislation but not another. A parliament made up of Independents would either become one made up of parties or one that faces confidence votes that would lead to frequent elections.

This sounds like what Rafe wants: almost direct democracy over every issue. Only in your dreams, Rafe.

Naive

Secret votes in Parliament? Then how will electors ever know how their MPs voted?

That just opens the door for even more backroom wheeling and dealing and vote-buying.

Minority governments? Yeah those are sure working well for Spain, Greece and Italy, aren't they?

Pro rep

I like most of Rafe's suggestions. I haven't elected a member in 40 years!

As for freebc's idea of recall. I have thought the same until one day it hit me that if you had a really good MP, and the government in power wanted him out of the way they could organize a "grass roots" faction to have him or her recalled.
If the Kochs get away with (secretly) financing the Tea Party, why not financing a faction to dump a good MP?
I don't know how to prevent that. Any thoughts?

Burn UK Burn

The youth, the disadvantaged, the dispossessed are rioting in the UK. Britain has created the ultra class system. As the poor get poorer and shuffled off into 'high density slums' to fester, the wealthy live a life of luxury, with summer homes in Ibeza, etc.

As the UK is engaged once again in foreign wars that have little to do with the country, its Treasury is greatly depleted. As schools are being down graded and its medical system trashed, the poor have been left to wallow is squaller.

The fuse has now been lit and it looks like they can't put it out and only time will tell if the Arab Spring will turn into the European Summer, again turning into the North American winter.

Greed and deceit has fueled our economic system for too long. Banks are no longer banks but revenue generating centres, where customers are fleeced for every transaction.

The government has turned into a corrupt cadre of people who seek wealth and standing, squandering taxpayer's money on questionable projects or over inflated projects, where friends of the government make billions on over design and over engineering.

Our society is a complete fraud, where the powerful, who control the courts, are smashing the poor and there is no recourse, except fight back.

I expect the UK style riots will hit Canada and the USA within 6 months (the USA sooner) then watch hell.

It is too late Rafe for change, the politicians have squandered precious time to enrich their friends and now its payback time.

Hang on folks, it is going to be a wild ride.

lots of good ideas, but .....

- as RM notes at the beginning, the only people currently able to make such changes are the very ones with a vested interest not to - a very large vested interest. Highly, highly unlikely they're ever to do so. If we want changes - we take back the country and make them. Or let the current oligarchs continue their march into the new feudalism. A Democratic Revolution - Now or Never -http://www.rudemacedon.ca/vgi/backgrounders/revolution.html .

Many good ideas but sadly

Many good ideas but sadly future generational decades from now will be discussing the same thing..Nothing will change. Politicians won't change anything and to be honest most Canadians are lazy sheep where what fast food special and what game is on is more important...

Parliamentary Democracy

Most of us can agree to Rafe's first proposal, and that his second and third proposals merit serious consideration as well.

None would require a constitutional amendment, and all are consistent with the basis principles of a parliamentary regime.

referenda

Someone stated above that stv was rejected twice in BC. But the first time over 57% voted for it. It is a sad fact that many people are so mathematically challenged that they cannot understand that 57% beats 43%, no matter what the king with no clothes says.
I hate it that the "stv was defeated twice" lie gets repeated so much. There is no such thing as a "supermajority". Instead a 43% superminority overrode the majority but people are too stupid to realize that they were hoodwinked

"all great historical social

"all great historical social change had been preceded by public unrest, riots, leading to either a "quiet" or "violent" revolution."

History is full of holes. In fact, it is worse than a fishing-net in need of repair. It is first and foremost written by the warmongers and rabble-rousers with the agenda being to justify the trouble they made, as in 'see, it led to those great changes'. The changes would more often than not have happened anyway, for if the idea had merit, we would ultimately act rationally and so the changes would happen. We evolve progressively, as much or more than we move in leaps and bounds fueled by shouting and throwing or burning things.

The STV was rejected because it was 'viel geschrei und wenig wolle', as in overthrowing the system without actually achieving proportionality. Why not go for the best and choose the same system used in Denmark? Maybe that is part of the reason why people there register so darn much happiness - some things actually make sense, such as voting.

Great ideas - Implementation?

How do we get it changed, given that powerful people rarely give up power voluntarily?

BrianWhite

Challenges? Yours is a semantic quibble - the rules of both STV referenda were clear.

The only challenge is to those who apparently don't understand the facts of the deal set out in the rules regarding the referendum.

Those of us who wish to change the system shouldn't assume the 'rule of law' is going to get tossed out into the bargain.

Fact is, as FrankLee points out, there is no reason some kind of proportional representation couldn't have been brought about WITHOUT a referendum or a citizen's coalition.

In fact, that was the thesis of a long report by the Law Reform Commission.

Maybe you should read it.
http://web.archive.org/web/20040413222506/http://www.lcc.gc.ca/en/themes/gr/er/er_report/er_report_toc.asp

It makes a lot more sense than the Citizen's coalition report did

Party Leadership

Party leaders should be chosen by the Caucus not the Party at large. Who knows potential candidates for leadership more people who have worked with them or party members relying on photo ops and fancy brochures.

Relying on party members gave us Stockwell Day who looked good in a wetsuit but didn't know that the Niagara River flows from Lake Erie into Lake Ontario not vice versa.

The old adage goes "He who hires 'em also fires 'em." This would make party leaders (PMs) directly accountable to the elected MPs of his or her own party thus giving real power to the MPs.

You may recall when the UK Conservatives determined that the "Iron Lady" was a political liability. Within 2 weeks she was gone as PM.

Our quasi-Republican system of choosing party leaders makes the party leader accountable to the party membership at large not to the caucus. Therefore it is only the party membership to whom they are accountable.

Would the BC Liberal Caucus have chosen Christy Clark. No. They had worked with her and recognized how she conducted business - "off the cuff." Now they are being saddled with internal divisions (garbage burning), ministerial incompetence (Harry Bloy), fundamentally ignorant public comments on Constitutional reform.

Some will view such a move as anti-democratic but it will give real power to the MPs allowing them to carry out their representative function and in fact will bolster democracy.

@ Dorothy

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to make the same mistakes.

I am quite confident that the posers that be, have not learned from history and equally confident that they are making the same mistakes.

Those who deny history, deny themselves, as history has made us what we are today.

well history tells us

For all of the numerous complaints I have read on the Tyee about Harper and his majority…in the last federal election ………..

With first past the post voting system;

Conservative: 167 NDP: 102 Liberal: 34 Bloc

Quebecois: 4 Green: 1

With proportional representation Prime Minister Stephen Harper would have won a minority government, with these seat totals:
Conservative: 122 NDP: 95 Liberal: 59 Bloc Quebecois: 19 Green: 13

Look around the world; do you see governments and the elite reacting to civilized protest? No, they ignore them.
Only when the protestors gird up their loins and go to the barricades do you witness any movement at all. And this is in countries that are relatively small; do not have good militaries or law enforcement systems…..

Well, the military and the para-military systems in this country are well armed and are prepared to inflict pain and suffering on the people if the APEC situation at UBC and the Riot at the Hyatt are recalled. How about the G-20 in TO?

The only way now to enforce change is by force. Many will be bloodied, many will die. It is the way freedoms are won. There are many examples in history where the only resulting and lasting change rose from this exercise.

The elites in the western world give you just enough so that you won’t rebel….that is the theory anyways….. But will continue to shove it down your throat until there is rebellion….

No I don’t like to post this anymore than you like to read it.

If there ever was a let-them-eat-cake government it is the present liberals in BC.

Getting a modest dose of improved proportionality

I see the problem of the Citizens Assembly as one of deliberation in isolation, without having a deliberative system. The track record of citizens' juries getting validated by the wider electorate is dismal because the wider electorate is not engaged in much deliberation at all.

We saw this in BC when virtually every member of the political elite avoided discussion of the referendum, killing it with silence. A better process would have been one which --like the Oregon health care reforms--would have kept legislators in the deliberative hotseat.

Imagine if BC-STV had had the status of a legislative intiative that would have to be voted upon by the Legislative Assembly. THen each MLA would have to defend their position to the public. IF the Legislature could agree to an amendment to propose to the Citizens Assembly , the Citizens Assembly could then either accept the amendment or go to the people with the referendum.

(FOr example, if I had been an MLA I would have proposed the "STV -lite" that I described above; if I were a member of the Citizens' Assembly, I would have accepted that as a "step in the right direction" with respect to the 3 criteria that they had adopted.)

The result would not be highly proportional, but it would be majoritarian in the northern ridings without having to create monster ridings; and it would be mildly more proportional in the southern ridings without having to create monster ballots. There would be a more level playing field, with the elimination of most "safe seats" and the creation of constituencies that more closely resemble real communities like Richmond, Surrey, and Cariboo. While it is possible that few Greens and Independents would actually get elected, they would nonetheless be certain to become more influential as the candidates of the larger parties battled for the second preferences of voters. Something close to a true majority of voters would be reflected in the calculations of the government--even if it remained a two-party legislature! And the artificial exacerbation of political polarization by the electoral system would normally be greatly diminished.

While few educated people would regard this as an ideal system, few would deny that it would be an improvement over the status quo.

STV vs pro rep

I don't like the STV as well as Pro Rep. It seems to me that with the former you are likely to get second best most of the time.

We looked into it in some detail in the National Party, as ther was a strong proponent of it there. It seems to me that it does not guaranteed the popular vote will be reflected any more than the current system. Whoever directed that citizen group to select it must have been a darn good salesman!

The best of both worlds

Primaries where the party members have the opportunity to put forward names to go on a list of 36 candidates across the whole of BC? But we don't have to lose local constituencies to get proportional representation; we can have both. The Law Commission of Canada held 15 public hearings in 2004 and hired top experts to draw up the model they recommended for Canada. We still elect local MPs. Voters unrepresented by the local results top them up by electing regional MPs. The total MPs match the vote share. When BC has 43 MPs, it would likely have 27 local constituecies and 16 "top-up" regional MPs from three regions. On the regional half of your ballot, you vote for the regional candidate of your party you prefer. Every MP is accountable to the voters. Every vote counts equally. You have both a local MP and several regional MPs competing to serve and represent you. No huge constituencies; three present ones might become two larger ones. That's why political scientists call the mixed-member proportional system "the best of both worlds."

I like WIlf's suggestion too

Although I have warmed up to preferential ballots as a way of giving parties an incentive to reduce polarization, I have also advocated regional top-up lists, as Wilf does. SUrely in the light of the Law COmmission recommendation, we don't have to have another natiojnal referendum on electoral reform? All the NDP has to do is commit to adopting the LC's recommendations (or putting it to a free vote in Parliament) if it forms the next government

A similar proposal that I

A similar proposal that I had in mind would go back to having 55-57 single member constituencies in BC , like we had when I was in high school. The remaining members could be allocated to 6 different regional districts of 4-6 members each. The beauty of this system is that as the population shifted, you wouldn't have to constantly increase the size of northern ridings; instead, you would just add members to the fastest growing regions. Having separate regional nominations for party lists would mean that you couldn't simply control the lists from party central or stack the nominations with boatloads of ethnic voters from a particular riding. Again, the proportionality gains would be modest, as with STV-lite; but I think that we want them to be modest. Modest could still be significant enough to allow 1 or 2 Greens into the House, or prevent the aberrations of 1996 and 2001.

Thread drift

We were talking about Parliament, Frank. However, if you want to talk about the BC legislature, BC-STV was a good system, but MMP would be too. I did a simulation with 51 local MLAs and 34 regional MLAs in six top-up regions, very similar to your numbers. On the votes cast in 2009 it gave the Greens six MLAs. The Green Party would have won seven seats, not six, under a perfectly proportional system with province-wide lists. Losing one seat, to get every MLA democratically accountable in a model that voters will accept, is a good trade-off.
http://wilfday.blogspot.com/2010/04/what-would-british-columbia-legislature.html

WIlf: Absolutely! Great

WIlf: Absolutely! Great minds think alike. And if one feared excessive party fragmentation, one could always make the regional lists non top-up. The basic point is, it is clearly possible to raise the bar for majority government, and improve proportionality without harming local representation, and if done in a modest fashion the vast majority of people would have to consider it an improvement.

I understand why people fear province wide lists and the idea of professional hacks being above the fray and controlled by party central, etc. But the more you regionalize the lists the more that fear would dissipate.

But we may need to let go of a zealous desire for pure proportionality in order to build a consensus for reform.