I'm so worried that we are so stupid in BC that we'll never be able to understand this new voting system even though other countries have successfully implemented it. A riding from Spuzzum to Pt. Grey, that sounds crazy, not only will we not be able to understand the voting system but the people in charge won't be able to set it up properly because we are all so stupid and incompetent in BC.

I sure do hope we maintain the status quo, another overwhelming majority provided by approx 50% of the popular vote. Now that's the way to go.

I've never supported one single action by the current Liberal regime but I will give them credit for taking on electoral reform.

This article is a piece of drivel, we have nothing to lose by implementing a new voting system. I would even call it flame bait.

So what are we supposed to do, vote against STV in May? Then what? We cannot afford to go back to this right/left shift any longer. Most of the pundits I have read so far are against STV. I ask them then to come up with something better.

it's disheartening that what should be a productive discourse about our democracy is instead a barely-coherent satire, forced to play with acronyms and hyperbole for cheap laughs. maybe i should take comfort, though, in the system we've built, seeing that this is the best its opponents can put forth. hi, Rob, i'm a member of the citizen's assembly. perhaps you need to review the asssembly's structure and process before tarring us as 'sycophants of Gordon Campbell'. i won't take that as an affront, because i trust that you've simply been misinformed. if you'd like to defend you claim, however, please, do explain how the Liberals managed to rig the process; i'm fascinated to learn about this! an STV system won't benefit the BC Libs, or any other political organization, any more so than it will benefit the individuals involved as citizens of the province. an STV system provides for a much more accurate translation of votes to legislative representation. it's a simple principle, and the only people that it would disenfranchise would be those with an interest in distorting democratic sentiment. put otherwise, STV is a fair system; a level playing field. maybe this opposition is stemming from parties(all of them) afraid to confront their own failings, once they can't blame the system for their losses.

Thanks for this article. It's the first I've read about STV that doesn't just repeat the 1-2-3 line. But I'm still confused...what's the worth in having more than 1 MLA per riding? Is the premier still the leader of the party with the most MLAs?

I agree with iq - its a piece of drivel. I trust that the Tyee will offer something constructive to this debate in the future.

Green Party Leader Adriane Carr Listens to People and Clarifies Position on the Citizens' Assembly Decision to Put STV to a Referendum Votebr> I remain strong in my belief that a Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) voting system is the very best electoral reform option for BC and disappointed that the Citizens' Assembly decided to put the Single Transferable Vote (STV) electoral system to a referendum vote at the May 17, 2005 election. However, I have listened to people who want the chance to reform BC's voting system and decided that our party can best serve democracy at this time by encouraging every BC citizen to learn about STV and make sure their vote is principled and informed in the May 17, 2005 referendum. br> I support a "free vote" by Green Party members on the referendum ballot and will recommend to the BC Green Party AGM, being held November 19-21 in Victoria, that our party not develop or support a 'No' campaign in the lead up to the May referendum. br> I commend the volunteer Citizens' Assembly members for their dedicated work and fully support their decision to reject BC's current voting system. br> I also agree with the electoral reform goals established by the Citizens' Assembly: to reduce adversarial politics in BC and to ensure that BC's voting system improves local representation, offers more voter choice and achieves overall proportionality, i.e., that a party's share of seats equals its overall share of votes. br> These goals are the very reasons why our Green Party has consistently called for a Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) voting system for BC, beginning with our first BC election platform in 1983. MMP maximizes the number of votes that count, is universally fair to all BC voters, retains effective local representation and is designed to achieve proportional electoral outcomes. It also results in fairer parliamentary representation of women and minority viewpoints. br> I believe the goals established by the Citizens' Assembly are shared by the vast majority of BC citizens and I am proud of our party's hard work, over so many years, to achieve electoral reform in BC. I am counting on people educating themselves and voting with good conscience in the May 2005 referendum on STV. br> Sincerely yours, br> Adriane Carr Leader of the Green Party of BC

Sorry about the messed up formatting.... Green Party Leader Adriane Carr Listens to People and Clarifies Position on the Citizens' Assembly Decision to Put STV to a Referendum Vote I remain strong in my belief that a Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) voting system is the very best electoral reform option for BC and disappointed that the Citizens' Assembly decided to put the Single Transferable Vote (STV) electoral system to a referendum vote at the May 17, 2005 election. However, I have listened to people who want the chance to reform BC's voting system and decided that our party can best serve democracy at this time by encouraging every BC citizen to learn about STV and make sure their vote is principled and informed in the May 17, 2005 referendum. I support a "free vote" by Green Party members on the referendum ballot and will recommend to the BC Green Party AGM, being held November 19-21 in Victoria, that our party not develop or support a 'No' campaign in the lead up to the May referendum. I commend the volunteer Citizens' Assembly members for their dedicated work and fully support their decision to reject BC's current voting system. I also agree with the electoral reform goals established by the Citizens' Assembly: to reduce adversarial politics in BC and to ensure that BC's voting system improves local representation, offers more voter choice and achieves overall proportionality, i.e., that a party's share of seats equals its overall share of votes. These goals are the very reasons why our Green Party has consistently called for a Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) voting system for BC, beginning with our first BC election platform in 1983. MMP maximizes the number of votes that count, is universally fair to all BC voters, retains effective local representation and is designed to achieve proportional electoral outcomes. It also results in fairer parliamentary representation of women and minority viewpoints. I believe the goals established by the Citizens' Assembly are shared by the vast majority of BC citizens and I am proud of our party's hard work, over so many years, to achieve electoral reform in BC. I am counting on people educating themselves and voting with good conscience in the May 2005 referendum on STV. Sincerely yours, Adriane Carr Leader of the Green Party of BC

I had the same reaction as Derrick. If these sorts of straw-man arguments are the best that anti-PR forces can come up with, there should be no problem winning the referendum and thereby giving British Columbia proportional representation and voter choice.

I find The Tyee's decision to publish such drivel questionable. What I have no question about is their decision to publish this sentence: "If your third choice is Jagdish Wong, you put a “3” next to where it says “Unlikely Token Ethnic Name.” " This is unquestionably bad form. Such racist comments have no place in the media.

Ian, I am glad to see that Adriane Carr has at last decided that members of her party should be free to make up their own minds on this important issue.

I wonder, Ian, could you give us one or two examples of issues on which members of her party do _not_ have a "free vote"?

Rob, after being invited, I came within a day of putting my name forward for the Citizens' Assembly. A lower-back injury changed my mind. I'm very lucky as I didn't realize that I was volunteering to be Gordo's pawn.

More seriously, criticize the choice of STV if you wish, and by all means work for the 'No' campaign this spring, but keep your asinine conspiracy theories to yourself. You sound like a paranoid fool

I've splorted coffee all over my keyboard from laffing so hard.

I think it really does the Citizens' Assembly a disservice to lampoon them for failing to produce detailed educational materials before they have even finalized their decisions and submitted a final report. They have devoted an entire year to studying this issue, so we should respect them for that dedication and at least let them finish their work before jumping all over it with criticisms, both the legitimate and rediculous ones.

It really feels like Tom suddenly realized he had a deadline this afternoon so threw something together with no research at all. I hope regular Tyee readers are insulted that he thinks this would pass by our notice. Editors, what were you thinking??

Julian West - my guess the members of the party will overwhelmingly come out in support of STV. Adriane brings with her the 4000 volunteers and 98,000 signatures of her own "Citizens Initiative" of 2002. Now if you can put your EGO in check for five minutes and appreciate the support that will be forthcoming, we might pull this off working together. However, I can assure you that if you continue your petty personal war against Adriane Carr, you will do nothing but antagonise the people who support the same thing you want. So off your high horse, better still concentrate on your NDP nomination and let the rest of us get on with it.

Loved the article, too, Mr. Barrett. After reading letter after letter from the public on the Citizen's Assembly website, who quite knowledgeably and emphatically, expressed a desire over and over again for MMP but a dislike of STV, I'm just curious as to why public opinion pulled such little weight. Do you have the numbers for how many letters expressed a desire for MMP as opposed to STV?

STV, seems to have too many areas open to the possibility of human tampering, especially in the transferring of surplus votes. In the infamous words of the tyrant Josef Stalin: "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything."

you said nobody likes the current voting system. you're wrong. i like it. i'm sure lots of other people like it too.

I'm sure that any one of the 98,000 signatories to the ill-fated 2002 Initiative campaign will be thrilled to know that Ms. Carr has now decided that they may vote Yes, Ian! Will she be phoning each of them herself to give them the wonderful news?

Ian -- I certainly do appreciate the support which has been forthcoming from many Green Party members who have contacted me and others to ask how they can help. I agree with you that the rank-and-file members will be firmly onside for the referendum.

As to my problems with the way Adriane Carr tries to run her party, I see by your lack of response that my point hit home. But it isn't personal. For better or worse, both Adriane and I have put ourselves out as public figures (she by running in an election, I by seeking a party nomination) and are accountable for the things we do and say.

How do they decide which of the 19 surplus votes to use? Inquiring minds want to know!!!

Don, questions like these about the details of the chosen system will have to wait until the Assembly has actually made that decision. As for the examples Tom gave in his article, they are totally rediculous and contain many inaccuracies about how STV generally works, and should be totally disregarded.

The thing that bothers me about this proposal is that it just seems like a modified version of the At Large system for the entire Province. Does 137 names on the ballot ring any bells people? Larger constiuencies? Up to 7 MLA's for a riding? How is this going to do anything but drive up the cost of running a successful campaign and take away accountability? For one I'm truly disapointed with this...

A proportional representation system is to be told what we want next, i suppose.The first past the post system can be representing a winner which does not get 50 percent of vox populi,as most voters realize.More people may vote for the others in a riding. the system in use in greece addresses this by having the candidates who represent the fifty percent plus one , this may by one rep two or more, unfortnately the number of people sitting in the chamber could escalate, and how can different percentage of vote attained by various members justify one vote in a legislature?Obviously a weighted vote or partial vote might solve this.BUT the single transferrable system proposed is even more complex.Best thing i think is a runoff second ballot system to split the two top candidates,but only those who registered and vote in the first ballot ought to vote. Well it seems harsh but dropping the old system may prove not easily done.

The article might be a satire, but I just love the comments about "the public" wanting MMP - as if. The Citizens Assembly probably read the Green party's self-interested and fully scripted "public" lobby of submissions, loud and clear.

Very clever - Greens perenially wedging themselves as the "monarch-makers" via a clever party strategy under MMP. How to acutally win by oiling the party from third place. And whom do you think they'd align themselves with by the way - the NDP? Guess again.

karen, FYI the correct spelling is r-i-d-i-c-u-l-o-u-s. Hope this is a help.

You're not going to have 137 people or whatever on a ballot. Most parties will not run full slates, either. In a 7 member riding, you might see the Libs run 5-6 candidates, the NDP 5-6 candidates, and the Greens 1-2, depending on the strength they foresee in the riding. Running too many candidates spreads the vital first preferences around too far, and lessens the chances of electing anyone at all. The Green party could concentrate their energy and support around two candidates, and when one is eliminated, the second preferences would flow to the other, electing them. Accountability is strengthened, as MLAs will have to develop personal appeal in their district, distinct from the party brand. As there will be multiple New Democrats running, first preferences will have to be earned on the strength of the candidate, rather than party affiliation. This has the potential to greatly increase attachment to constituents, rather than attachment to a party apparatus. In Ireland, the 19 vote surplus would be chosen randomly: we will NOT be using this method. Rather, all of the second preferences will be counted, and mathematically reduced to the weight of 19 votes, then redistributed as percentages. So, everyone counts again, in a very small way, even if they've already elected somebody. The cost shouldn't be significantly higher; the ratio of MLA to voters won't change. Remember the quotas: a candidate need to appeal to a majority or a plurality of the larger district, but merely enough to meet the quota. Put it this way; rather than Green party supporters wasting their votes on 7 seperate candidates in Surrey, they can all vote for one candidate, and get them elected. The party has a less expensive campaign, ultimately, becaused they can concentrate resources on one or two candidates that have broader strength, rather than waste them on 7 seperate candidates that won't possibly win a plurality or majority today. STV isn't necessarily the end of the road: we may choose to recommend an automatic review mechanism, where a similar assembly is struck after 2 election cycles to judge the system's performance relative to our expectations. If this one has horrible unintended consequences, we'll have a safety hatch. I see a 'Yes' vote as an acknowledgment that our democracy is flexible, and adaptable to a changing society. A 'No' vote, I fear, will be interpreted as a vote for the status quo, rather than a vote for 'different change'; we'd be ending this discussion for several decades, I fear.

I'm sorry for that ugly block of text: i'm not used to the formatting quirks here. I take it I need to use < p> tags?

ditto on my last message re Julian West goes for Ms Etheridge also. Last time I saw you Karen you were trying to have Adriane Carr removed as leader at an AGM, shortly after leading the party to its best ever election result in 2001. All I can suggest to you is if you want this to work with getting a YES vote you better suck it in and be prepared to work the Greens again. Taking your personal grudges against Adriane at time when you need her support is not going to win you any popularity in the NDP let alone the Greens. The two parties HAVE agreed to work together on this issue, you might want to come to terms with that at some point, if only on a temporary basis.

Kit - the Green Party plan was far less organised than you give it credit. Sure, there was some incentive from Adriane to get things off the ground, but the majority of the presentations to the CA in support of MMP came from people who worked on the Citizens Initiative in 2002; not all of whom are GP supporters. MMP would have been the surest way to bring in a third or fourth party, however this is secondary to the real issue and that was achieving a better picture of how people vote. At the end of the day if STV acheives the proportionality of MMP or something reasonably close [3-5%] painting that accurate picture will have been accomplished and voters will be happier.

Agreed. It is obvious that Karen and Julian have been very hurtful and disrespectful to Adrian Carr. When are you going to phone Ms. Carr and apologize for your behaviour?

Boris, The last time I saw Adriane Carr, I asked her cheerily "Hi, Adriane, how is the by-election coming?" She replied, "I don't want to talk to you".

Under the circumstances, I think it is best if I don't call her. However, my number is and always has been in the phone book if she or anyone else wants to call me.

Ian, nothing I have ever said about Adriane Carr is "personal". I have nothing to say about her marriage, how she relates to her children, her choice of hairstyle, or even the way she laughs. I only judge her on the things she says and does professionally -- because being leader of the Green Party is her profession.

I hope no one has gotten the impression that Ms. Carr is being excluded from taking part in any Yes campaign. She is certainly welcome to join if she wishes, and bring anyone with her that she can. The Yes Committee is in the formation stage right now, so the timing's perfect for her (or anyone else) to get involved from the start.

The article is a piece of drivel, the nuts and bolts of stv have yet to be decided. It will not be as bad as the author suggests and will assuredly improve upon the current system.

The liberals are not trying to use this to their advantage, why would they change a system that brought them a huge landslide?

Furthermore I wish all of this Green infighting would stop. None of you are coming out on top or looking good after all of this bickering. Please tone it down.

Oh yeah, you all look like schoolchildren arguing over the sandbox. Grow up and get along.

Thanks for the media lines, derrick. Must feel pretty good to be such an involved citizen, involved with democracy no less, and have the opportunity to straighten us all out here. And it's even nicer of you to leak some information even though all the details on your proposed reform from FPP to STV aren't worked out yet. Though I was hoping to focus my questions and comments on district magnitude, I am compelled to remark on one of the several simplifications and generalizations you make in your above comment - how surplus votes are to be counted.

You claim that your version of STV will not choose the surplus votes randomly, as though that's a bad thing, but rather will reduce them to the weight of the surplus and redistribute them as percentages. Wow, sounds good...I think, ummm, but I wonder if you have really thought about what it means to, “...mathematically reduce the weight of citizen's votes.” I thought under STV everybody's vote was worth the same. What happened to the one person, one vote principle that STV ostensibly upholds?

I know I wouldn't want my vote reduced. Reducing votes makes it even more impossible for voters to see what contribution their votes made to the outcome of an election, especially after numerous stages of recount and mathematical reduction. And anyways, under your system, how would I know if my vote was wasted, was mathematically reduced or was counted as one? And now that I think about it, what's wrong with the random method of choosing surplus votes? Do you have a problem with randomness? You were chosen at random to sit on the assembly, weren't you?

But back to my original intent - district magnitude. This is where it gets really interesting. As a strong proponent of STV, you probably already know that district magnitude is the key factor in determining how well your system will actually work. I'm very curious about how you folks decided to divide up BC.

Tell ya what, derrick, go address your media lines on this and get back to me with some details about the size and proportion of your proposed districts, the number of seats, etc. I will reserve further comment until I have those facts.

Thanks for the media lines, derrick. Must feel pretty good to be such an involved citizen, involved with democracy no less, and have the opportunity to straighten us all out here. And it's even nicer of you to leak some information even though all the details on your proposed reform from FPP to STV aren't worked out yet. Though I was hoping to focus my questions and comments on district magnitude, I am compelled to remark on one of the several simplifications and generalizations you make in your above comment - how surplus votes are to be counted.

You claim that your version of STV will not choose the surplus votes randomly, as though that's a bad thing, but rather will reduce them to the weight of the surplus and redistribute them as percentages. Wow, sounds good...I think, ummm, but I wonder if you have really thought about what it means to, “...mathematically reduce the weight of citizen's votes.” I thought under STV everybody's vote was worth the same. What happened to the one person, one vote principle that STV ostensibly upholds?

I know I wouldn't want my vote reduced. Reducing votes makes it even more impossible for voters to see what contribution their votes made to the outcome of an election, especially after numerous stages of recount and mathematical reduction. And anyways, under your system, how would I know if my vote was wasted, was mathematically reduced or was counted as one? And now that I think about it, what's wrong with the random method of choosing surplus votes? Do you have a problem with randomness? You were chosen at random to sit on the assembly, weren't you?

But back to my original intent - district magnitude. This is where it gets really interesting. As a strong proponent of STV, you probably already know that district magnitude is the key factor in determining how well your system will actually work. I'm very curious about how you folks decided to divide up BC.

Tell ya what, derrick, go address your media lines on this and get back to me with some details about the size and proportion of your proposed districts, the number of seats, etc. I will reserve further comment until I have those facts.

I think the humour was lost to those who like to be serious. Maybe one of them could submit a serious essay to the publisher. I cannot guarantee publications but a well thought out item might add to the discourse. Meanwhile lets get back to the humour. Tom do you have a COLA clause in your contract?

I think the humour was lost on people who are far to serious. Tom - keep up the good work and you can add humour to the discourse anytime in my book.

I agree with Rob, Q, what is wrong with randomness and doesn't anything else suggest interference? I, too, would like more information on how you are going to divide up BC in order to ensure that there is no attempt to gerrymander the left out of the picture.

Also, I am one of those people who read the letters to the CA believing they represented an unbiased cross-section of public opinion, shamefully naively I know realize, after reading Kit's comments. From reading so many of the pointed comments here and from taking note of the mud-wrestling between the Greens themselves,( who knew?!) there is definitely something unsettling about the way the Greens are so swirling about, within, and around the CA? Why are so many of the commenters supporting STV former Green party members and why are they speaking as if they represent the whole CA? Is this an infight between the Greens that has been carried into the CA at our expense? What do the NDP members of the CA think about STV? Are there any? If this is about our democratic right to vote in this province, why do I feel the Greens and former Greens holding court here? In both articles on the CA, we have only heard from those supporting STV (another lobby it seems). Where are those members of the CA who wanted FPTP, MMP or other options? Do they exist? Are the BCliberals and Greens power dancing together on this under the guise of voter reform?

Rob- you're mistaken. Surplus votes are only redistributed and reduced in value after a candidate has been elected. Your vote will only be redistributed as a surplus if it has already directly elected someone. The surplus redistribution is your vote counting, in effect, a second time, albeit at a reduced value, in proportion to the surplus. By the time your vote gets redistributed as surplus, it will have already counted one whole time.

The concern with a random selection of votes should be apparent. Recounts would be impossible, as the random selection would change each time. Suppose the election comes down to a 60 vote shift, and 180 votes had been randomly redistributed: the loser would have a fair grudge. How would the selection account for biases such polling booth or district? Counting all the preferences guarantees a replicable count, which is important for transparency. There's no room for finagling with the math; it's a simple ratio, easily calculated by any observers.

The details I'm giving you are things that we've already decided, three weekends ago. They're a matter of public record, not leaks; you can see the sessions broadcast on Hansard TV. I believe the documents are avaliable on our website, if you'd like substantiation: www.citizensassembly.bc.ca

Riding size and division isn't on our plate: that's up to a non-partisan electoral boundary commission, similar to the one that redistributed the ridings before the last provincial election. This will happen regardless of the referendum result, I might add; a commission is struck after every second election. I'm not too concerned about gerrymandering in any direction, as it hasn't happened before, the the commission rules won't be changing. When a map is proposed, it will be subject to a series of public hearings to register concern before the map becomes official. Much can change based on public feedback: see the recent federal redistribution for proof. I'd encourage anyone interested and concerned about unfair districts to observe this process closely; I imagine many of us assembly members will be doing so.

Magnitude is key; we've suggested districts of at least 3 and of no more than 7, with some 5s in between(odd numbers are better for proportionality, i'm not quite sure why). This might change in discussions next weekend; I can't say for sure, but we may increase the number to 9, maybe not. As you know, the larger the district, the more proportional the result. This has to be balanced with BC's distribution of population, however, which makes everything that much trickier. A 9-member riding in the north could conceivably span from Atlin to Kamloops. Again, we don't have the mandate to deal with the actual district creation.

Lynn, I wouldn't worry about the comments here too much. The assembly itself was completely non-partisan. There might have been one or two of us with actual party memberships, but anyone holding office within a registered party, or who had run as a candidate recently was disqualified from serving. The talk here amongst Green party members is really just idle speculation after the fact. Julian had the most involvement, by virtue of giving two presentations to us, rather than just one. The Green party is the most concerned now because they've been the party most concerned with electoral reform in general for the last 5 years.

There were Assembly members who supported MMP, and even a few(not many, to be honest) who supported FPTP. We've been talking about this decision since January, after all. Personally, I was undecided between STV and MMP until the vote; the systems have different positives, and there's a legitimate debate to be had between them. There's no right or wrong choice, rather a question of what you would prioritize most in a system. Most of us, including myself, pledged to support the assembly's decision regardless of which way it went: MMP, STV or FPTP. You're only hearing STV now because you're only listening now. There are records of the plenary sessions since January avaliable on the website, I believe, if you'd like to follow the whole debate.

The Liberals have taken an official 'neutral' position on the referendum: no party members made submissions, at least not officially. The only indication we have of their sentiments are in the hansard of a July meeting of the legislative oversight committee, wherein Rob Nijjar and Kevin Krueger have a panic attack over our possible consideration of a proportional system. My guess is that they'd like to see the status quo continue; after all, it's kept the right wing in power for most of BC's history, a fact we'd be wise to remember.

You don't get accountabilty by getting umpteen parties or numerical games - you may do so by constitutional legislation where election planks are contracts to the people themselves that cannot be lied about or broken without clear legal penalty - non-confidence and dissolution. This numbers jockeying alone glaringly misses this larger point.

When people or worse - parties - perenially talk about numbers through party apologists - and there are reams of them here - and not publicly what they're about and why - issue by issue - it begins to reek of strategic party agendas - and the craving of power for its own sake. Electoral wonks will not cure what currently ails us locally, provincially - or beyond that border.

Kit- you make an important point, and I agree: electoral reform is not a panacea. Electoral reform does, I believe, need to happen to solve some problems. Most of the problems with our politics, though, won't be affected. It won't, by any means, change the province, for better or for worse, in any significant way. We'll still be the same people voting for the same office, just with a different translation in between. That's not to say that electoral systems don't matter, though; the do matter, just not that much.

The Citizens Assembly (CA) has chosen an ugly and unworkable system used in only 2 countries. Ireland and Malta. Does Malta ring a bell? Lowest proportion of women in politics in the democratic world. Ireland is close by with 12%. STV is a system only academics and mathmaticians would love, hence the unnatural balance of CA staff in its favor. Early on in the process one could feel the way the CA was sheperded toward STV. Members hate to admit it, but the overwhelming bias that was formed against political parties put them on the fast track to STV, which was presented somehow as a partyless or independent system. How naive and ignorant. I guess they didnt even seriously look at Ireland. Dominated by 2 main parties with a few others thrown in. The Irish have tried to get rid of STV twice!! The CA members were stampeded like so many sheep. BAaaaaa. They have chosen a pig of a system and no amount of 1-2-3 drivel will get this passed. More later...

It is not true that STV is used in only two countries. It is also used in Australia, New Zealand and the United States. (Okay, only one city of 250,000 in the US, but it was formerly used much more widely in both the US and Canada.)

I observed the Assembly process quite closely, and you simply will not convince me that they were railroaded. It was a very independent-minded body -- in fact, if anyone had tried to steer them one way, they probably would have responded by going in another.

The Irish _political establishment_ has tried to get rid of STV, to their own partisan advantage. The Irish _people_ have resisted.

Do any of these reforms lead to us having more competent/qualified people making decisions about things they have expertise in? I likely stand alone (coming from a rather boringly objective background of a nonpolitical nature) in believing a total rehaul is required for BC (heck, even the rest of Canada). Here is the shocking thought - how about having EXPERTS hired by our elected reps to run specific ministries. Example: I want the Minister of Education - to have a degree and background in Education and administration; Minister of Finance - should be a degreed accountant; the Minister of Fisheries - to actually have a background/doctorate in marine biology; dude in charge of health care - to come from health care; Minister of Forestry - have a degree in Foresty and/or environmental studies. - When I was young and learning about the political structure in Canada and how "ministers" are hand picked by the party in charge - it totally confused me how a lawyer could make informed decisions about the state of our forests and what is required to sustain them. I still don't get it a decade later watching the hideous mismanagement. By having our elected reps (however they be picked - it would be less of an issue since their damaging influence would be minimized by them not actually doing the actual thinking upon matters that they know little about other than running a swell popularity contest) - to recruit degreed people to apply for positions to actually do the managing and decision making in the diverse components of society that our government controls. At least there would be some accountability as to how things are done since it would be less a matter of loyalty to either corporations or unions (or party sponsors) - but actually a focus on what would be the best decision for a particular system to be sustainable - by an expert in that field. This thought has been gnawing away at me since watching a discussion on stem cell research, nuclear energy, and missile defense - the folks making the policies had absolutely no idea what the heck they were talking about - it was terrifying the absolute lack of comprehension of what each concept entailed - yet these ignoramuses will be deciding the future employment of each of these spheres. It is amazing that we find the most incompetent folks to make the most important decisions - no wonder we have so many holes at the bottom of our barrel.

Yeah good call Shirin, I think it would make sense to have people like that in charge of ministries. I have often wondered the same thing and recently had a similar discussion with a friend who's somewhat conservative. He argued that government needs more business people elected while I said that most of those elected are business people and that we require much more diversity in government. He didn't even know that Paul Martin was one of the wealthiest business people in Canada!

You know the right would fight this all the way though as the only thing they seem to care about is bean counting.

Oh yeah another thing, most ministries do have "experts" like scientists, engineers, etc... However having once worked for Environment Canada I can tell you that the best experts go the way of private industry. The pay was lousy, we had engineers making $18 an hour. If we really want good people in charge we need to make it worth their while.

Julian West can spin it all he wants, but as a partisan supporter of STV who lobbied the CA hard, we know where he stands. In Ireland, referenda against STV were given the sole choice of First Past the Post; some choice. New Zealand rejected STV in favor of Proportional Representation, Julian, you know that. Australia is still counting votes from an election one month ago. More later...

Robert: Of course everyone knows that I support STV, and have been supporting it since before the Assembly made their decision. Who is supposed to be speaking in favour of STV, if not those who support it?

With regard to the referenda in Ireland, I was only speaking to the point you made yourself. You said that Ireland 'tried to get rid of STV'. It would be more accurate, as you now observe, to say Irish politicians 'tried to bring back FPTP' because they knew it would restore dominance by the two large parties. The voters were having none of that.

New Zealand voters were given a choice of two different forms of proportional representation: MMP and STV. They chose MMP. Their new parliament, elected using proportional representation, considered what form of proportional representation would be best for the jurisdictions it controlled: municipalities and health boards. It chose STV. I think it speaks volumes that legislatures actually elected proportionally seem to prefer STV when given a choice: Scotland, Wales and New Zealand have all recommended STV for at least one level of government.

I think you mean New Zealand, not Australia, is still counting ballots (the two countries had elections on the same day). This is a function of shoddy electoral administration, and is not limited to STV. You may remember that in the US state of Florida in 2000, it took about a month to determine the winner of a FPTP election. In the particular case of New Zealand, they outsourced some of their election administration to the private sector. This is an obvious recipe for disaster.

Vancouver uses scanned paper ballots and counting machines, and has the results within hours. They have the poll-by-poll results, a spreadsheet of about 20,000 numbers, up on the web within a day or two. There is no reason an STV election could not run just as smoothly and quickly. Also remember that we won't actually be using STV until 2009, so our (extremely serious and competent, if you have ever met them) elections officials will have plenty of time to develop best practices and conduct field trials.

How do you give the illusion of electoral reform with-out changing anything. STV is the answer. You didn't think the people who run this country would willingly give up power. Remember, if Canada did have the German model of proportional representation the Free Trade Agreement and NAFTA would never have happened. The rich and powerful can't allow democracy to get in the way.

I strongly suspect something's rotten here, despite JW's proselytizing on behalf of STV, and maybe someone can illuminate for me. Quite frankly, when I see Gordon Gibson stumping that democracy has spoken and chosen STV as its model, I smell a rat (in a prime slot in the Sun, no less). I trust GG and the Fraser Institute whose views he represents about as far as I can chuck a rotting pumpkin. The CA was told it didn't have to listen to the public, and it didn't. It met somebody's interests, and now GG is crowing. I'd like some light shed, please and thank you.

We can't say with any certainty what would or would not have happened had the results of the 1988 election been different. What we do know is that under proportional representation the parties which had capaigned against NAFTA (Liberals and NDP) would have had a majority of seats in parliament.

This would have happened under _any_ form of proportional representation: the German form (MMP), the Swedish form (partly list), or the Irish form (STV). This isn't an argument for one form of proportional representation over another.

Nor is that the decision facing British Columbians. They will be asked to choose between a form of proportional representatation (STV) and sticking with the same, outmoded winner-take-all system which gave us that second Mulroney majority government which you so dislike, and also gave us our present opposition-free legislature despite 42% of the electorate voting against the Liberals. Doesn't seem like a tough choice to me.

All that is really needed and wanted is a simple MPR system. What we have here, in this obscurantist STV option is another attempt to make what should and could have been the essence of simplicity, another overly nuanced product from the gaming mindset of academicians and political gerrymandering schemers: Their thinking being, if it ain't complicated, make it so. So much more can be hidden and manipulated behind fine print and shaped shifting detail.

I agree with Mel from Calgary again, along with those others of you, who equally see the sleight of hand trickery at work here. The first clue, of course, as to what was up, was in who "framed" the exercise-, and then the proof of the pudding is in this "result".

Like Mel says, "The rich and powerful can't allow (simple, unnuanced) democracy to get in the way."

It is becoming clearer, that to really get at this issue of PR, a whole number of other "power" issues are going to have to be dealt with first. (I would hope, though Rockerbiff seems to want to skid his ass on both sides of the fence on this one, which seems to have become the Green Way, will see this, and hold themselves to the MPR concept they can actually claim credit for having launced here.) I think we all need to see, that though progressive folks should continue to push for it, it is more likely we will need the continued maturation of the current political, social and economic forces working on those self same enviornments, in order to arrive at a place where it can actually be achieved.

My own view is, STV is "likely" to proceed in the current social and class circumstances, as the preferred lesser of evils the status quo will opt for,which includes "their" media of course, and which they will get behind and pressure "popular opinion" to accept. (Though I am sure they would much prefer what has worked for them so well, for so long, or even something more narrowly in line with their "extreme conservative" view of society.)

Though it is always possible to miss a contrary element, of course, I don't see any force or combination of forces currently of strength to change that. (My suspicion being, that ALL currently established political parties at the table are likely to similarly "work" for it, overtly or covertly, in the end.) That need not, nor will not, be the end of the matter however.

History is still in motion, not? :-)

"Do any of these reforms lead to us having more competent/qualified people making decisions about things they have expertise in?" wrote Shirin.

A glimpse of the beating heart of the "technocrat" within Shirin? :-)

These "educated" folks do have this fondness for elevating their own importance, and finding ways of excluding "the common herd", which we glimpse from time to time. God knows, the plebs and prols are "unqualified".

I would only say to my friend Shirin, that there is more to education and this issue of "qualifications", than books and pieces of paper with scroll writing on them. Some of the dumbest people I have met, have been the most "educated".

Which is not to impugn the basic goodness of your motives OR the purity of your heart. ;-D

It's just that I much prefer the value of "generalists" myself, overall.

Though I agree with you, shirin, on the idea of qualifications, I think when it comes to experts , one man's expert is another man's fool. A lot of experts have also been bought off by private industry and may have loyalties that will compromise their decisions-making process. When it comes to human beings, it will always be a somewhat flawed and haphazard process because we are. I guess the best qualifications would be wisdom, honesty, and integrity - we just have to recognize it when we see it and admit it when we don't. Campbell loves his pool of fools...I mean financial experts...The Fraser Institute.

Shirin- we have those informed and experienced people making decisions, and they're called deputy ministers, head of the civil service of these respective ministries. They make most of the real decisions; the ministers are kept in check, most of the time.

Gordon Gibson had no involvement in the actual assembly process. He showed up last weekend to watch the 'big vote' from the side, and I believe it was the first time he'd appeared at an event of ours. At least, it was the first time he'd been introduced; I doubt he'd been popping up incognito, but you never know.

The anti-party bias wasn't coming from our staff, who were impartial to a fault(they were asked for opinions, on many occasions, and refrained). The anti-party bias camwe, to be honest, from our own experiences as British Columbians, and strong sentiments from the public hearings. At both hearings I attended, there were several proposals attempting to outlaw party affiliation entirely. For better or for worse, people who aren't involved in politics and political parties(which discounts most of you here, and myself, to be fair) are alienated and disconnected from the political process, and they blame political parties.

As for listening to the public, don't forget that we ARE the public. Our quick biog.s are avaliable on the website, I believe, if you'd like to see just how random and ordinary a group we really are. Because of that, we gave a huge amount of weight to public opinion, in fact scheduling a seperate meeting in July(in Prince George, no less) with the sole purpose of discussing and interpreting the public hearings and submissions.

I'd be shocked, though happy, to see the Lib and NDP brain trusts come out unreservedly in favour of STV. It will be a shock to the system, much more than MMP would have been; after all, some 60% of the legislature would still be elected by FPTP in most MMP systems, and those seats would generally go to the major parties. Campaigns likely wouldn't change much at all; only the legislative dimension would feel a kick, from having to cope with 2-3 extra parties and a likely minority/coalition government. STV will likely prompt a shift in campaign tactics, and we won't really be able to predict the result with polling or speculation.

There's not much I can say to people who think we were swayed, or 'led down a garden path', or 'hornswoggled', or anything. All I can do is encourage you to watch the taped plenary sessions, read over the learning materials on the website, and talk to the people, and there were quite a few, who came to every session. To charge that we were partial and corrupt, at this late stage in the game, without going back and studying the process just isn't credible.

"For better or for worse, people who aren't involved in politics and political parties(which discounts most of you here, and myself, to be fair) are alienated and disconnected from the political process, and they blame political parties." writes Derrick.

Which has me wondering if you are seeing something here, which I do not. Always a possibility, of course.

I am myself not really a "party" person per se, though there seems little way to avoid them, seeing them much more as an obstacle to real democracy than an asset, each throwing up their own particular elites to dominate the process. Which is precisely why I tend to view "economic" democracy as the trump card I would prefer to have in my greasy little working class hand, over ANY straight out "more formal than real" political selection process, frankly. Economic power, in the final analysis, always trumps politics.

And to the degree that "formal" governance politics is necessary at all, I would prefer a "simple" PR political process that allows for a great as opposed to confined "multiplicity" of choices. Period. STV, to my mind, still overwhelmingly favours the "party" machines, and their result gerrymandering manipulations.

Nothing I've read here yet, convinces me otherwise.

Though I will concede that I largely view the whole thing a bit of a tempest in a teapot anyway, all designed to keep waving the hand, in order to detract us from the real "power prize", in the economy. If "the peasants and prols" were more powerfully positioned there, with greater control over the distribution and investment of the socio-economic product, as opposed to a current ruling class monopoly over same, the politics would quickly sort itself out.

Everyone is still looking stage right, at the parliamentary tinsel and hyperbole, when the real action is happening outside of view, stage left, in the management and direction committees, and the corporate boardrooms.

Coyote, I'm puzzled by your remarks: I would prefer a "simple" PR political process that allows for a great as opposed to confined "multiplicity" of choices. Period. STV, to my mind, still overwhelmingly favours the "party" machines, and their result gerrymandering manipulations.

These are exactly some of the criticisms that some have had of MMP, where STV is better -- MMP offers the voters just a local constituency candidate (as always), and a vote for a party. Some MMP proposals have it that the voters don't even get to select the order of that party list - it's take it or leave it, and subject to the very manipulations that you are wary of.

STV is free of all that. You can vote for more than one party if you wish, or vote for just the independents (who now have a better chance of actually getting elected). You have a multiplicity of choices. In fact, in the US they call STV "Choice Voting".

The parties are upset about the choice of STV over MMP because it takes control away from them and puts it right in the hands of the voters. No longer can they run a corrupt candidate in a "safe seat" and get them into cabinet. Every candidate has to face the voters, and if they do a bad job, it's easy to show them the door next time. And as we've seen in previous elections, British Columbians aren't afraid to display their wrath to the politicians!

Indeed. I see why you are puzzled. :-D I was not clear enough.

First, let me reiterate, the political arena is not my area of "primary" concern. And that is partly the reason.

Before we get to creating a workable model there, I think, there is the issue of "economic power" which has to be resolved within society, in advance of that. It is the horse which must go before the cart.

That said, this side of things, though I would much prefer a system whereby people, for example, from trade unions and ngo's, such as environmental, consumer and other community interest groups would be able to field and secure representations in the political institutions of the state, and not JUST political parties, I think that will of necessity have to again await the resolution of the "economic power" issue first, for a complex of reasons. In the absence of that possibility, I want a simple system of proportional representation, wherein political parties and groupings, however small their percentage share of the popular vote, are similarly proportionally represented in the institutions of state, to broaden the ideas and competing ideologies base there. If the Greens get 3-5% of the popular vote, for example, they get same of the number of seats in the House, even if that is only 3 or 4 in a 100 seat assembly, for example. If the NDP get 36%, communists 1%, likewise. All just hypothetical examples. (And I am aware of the tendency that would have to break fractions away from the larger political parties, thus undermining their homogeneity. Which I would view as a good thing, frankly. It would drive the flourishing of a broader ideas and ideologies base, and create the need to negotiate alliances in order to govern.)

STV, which is built around a system of ranking choices, in my view of it to here, is more designed to head that possibility off, and preserve systems of majority government, preferred by "Business", based on second, third and fourth choices etc. (Which is a manifestation of ruling class/corporatist enterprise fears of even creative "instability", or more accurately, dynamics that might threaten their ability to exercise primary control over all aspects of social life.)

What seems to be occurring, even around MPR somewhat, but more so with STV, is again, a tendency to seek to "tame" and control outcomes, before it is even clear that is actually necessary, and steer them more favourably back to the status quo; which is precisely, I think, what it was hoped PR would begin to move away from. But mayhaps I am wrong in this, and it was merely another exercise in rearranging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic. (Actually, I'm sure that's what it is. :-)

STV, will make us all "behave" in the words of Austin Powers, a homogenized, pasteurized, cream cheese of an electorate. STV supporters often cite the civility of it , how the system rewards those who do not offend, who "play well with others" since in STV you never know what alliances may prove helpful in the future, what ooportunistic openings may unfold if you play the game...kinda like a political-business model of "Survivor"... Now this may be the outsider in me but this rankles in a real philosophical sense because that is exactly why politics is so ineffective...so civil, so silent, so dishonest in the civil charade. I guess, I've always liked those who've behaved just a little badly, against the rules, naughty where it really counts like Rosa Parks or the young Beijing student who stood in front of the military tank. But this is the new business model of political voting and if anything it's well-mannered and yes, Coyote, well-tamed. But it isn't change; it is only more of the same.

And it will break the left by bringing in modulation... just as the US election was won by the religious right issues that rallied the right-wing vote through an effective church-based well-organized moral campaign...here the left will lose it's rallying center. The BCliberals lose nothing if party politics diminishes - their party's rallying cry is business - as long as the Chambers of Commerce survive, they survive. If there is any alliance to be formed it is between the BCliberals and the Greens. With the diminishment of party politics, fading unions, what will the left rally and organize around? If is going to survive it will have to find a new point of convergence.

Interesting item on Associated Press about a system that seems to be preferential voting. If most of us won't quite understand how STV works (like we don't quite understand how out SUVs work, I guess), we'll have to depend on computers... Neale Adams http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/05/voting.problem s.ap/index.html AP story, Nov. 5, 2005 - ... Meanwhile, in San Francisco, a glitch occurred with software designed for the city's new "ranked-choice voting," in which voters list their top three choices for municipal offices. If no candidate gets a majority of first-place votes outright, voters' second and third-place preferences are then distributed among candidates who weren't eliminated in the first round. When the San Francisco Department of Elections tried a test run on Wednesday of the program that does the redistribution, some of the votes didn't get counted and skewed the results, director John Arntz said. "All the information is there," Arntz said. "It's just not arriving the way it was supposed to." A technician from the Omaha, Neb. company that designed the software, Election Systems & Software Inc., was working to diagnose and fix the problem.

Coyote's argument about the heirachical structures being at the root of problems comes close to the real subject. Imagine a "governing" party or even coalition commissioning a Citizens Assembly to address the question "why these fiscal inequities?". And then voting to really change the corporate tax structure. On a referendum. Or making it illegal to go offshore for ferries. Picture it.

The "election", points south, pointed to the glaring example of what corporate "democracy" looks like. Corporate heirarchies and "religion" go hand in hand. Inside the gloves of the military, and the industrial military complex. What did the Americans pick? One far right goon instead a couple of "for the people" millionaires.

Would diffusion "math head" systems, largely - championed - by Greens and closet libertarians - come anywhere near the cure, or in the direction to balance the corporate law inequities? It's going to take principled, and articulate individuals with hutzpah, coming together with others at the service of others, and with genuine corporate law reform in their sights, not games of musical chairs, on the boat Coyote refers to. Look at the Argentinian example - for hints of what's really needed.

Promises are contracts. Contracts - in the form of legislation, including tax legisltation and business law reform is where true political reform lives - it will not arrive from musical chairs.

Boy, if there is anyone here blowing smoke, it is Derrick. He says anti-party bias came from public hearings? Poppycock! I attended 4 hearings and heard but a few such comments. And let's face it, living with 2 choices of NDP or Socred/Liberals for years, who wouldnt be disgusted. Anti party feelings are a function of the corruption of the First Past the Post system Derrick, nothing more. After all, STV systems still have strong parties. And your fatuous comment about you and the other members of the Citizens Assembly being the public, "As for listening to the public, don't forget that we ARE the public", speaks volumes. What arrogance. The "public" overwhelming asked for a Mixed Proportional Representation system. It is there on your website for all to see. You and your apologists can rationalize it anyway you choose, but the bottom line is you chose to ignore the public input. You acted like you knew better than the public. You were no better than those in government who believe that they have the facts, public be damned. Anyone who goes back and studies the process as you have suggested will see the betrayal. No matter how you spin it, you ignored the wishes of those people engaged enough to make submissions, and they overwhelmingly asked for Mixed Member Proportional Representation.

No, Adrianne Carr asked for MMP five hundred times. That is different from individual people 'overwhemlingly' asking for MMP.

Coyote and Lynn in kind - I admit, if any one enjoys wallowing in delusions of grandeur - it is the "technocrat" such as I... Having admitted this flaw - I will stand by my desire to making our gov't leaner and more accountable by reforming the "cabinet" - those hand-picked ministers by the premier from a limited pool to make the policies on important divisions of our society scares me a little. I rather have a cabinet that is not necessarily party affiliated and are people who have applied for the designation based on merit - the public can decide who best fits the job description to make this more "democratic" (how we love to have our say - as we should since we will be paying their wages). I want to have a list of credible folks applying for the Minister of Sustainable Energy to actually have a doctorate in a science in the field of energy production and environmental sustainablility. We have a 2 tier system of "public service" and those making the policies which is redundant and not entirely accountable for best practice - especially since the "policies" would be better made if it were the expert and not the hand-picked party loyalist who decides to push for off-shore oil exploration. Imagine good ol' Dr. Suzuki being the minister of Water, Land, and Air Protection... if dreams could come true - but it would be hell for those of us who live to exploit rather than use innovation to progress - being prone to inflation by virtue of over consumption.

Dear Miss Vicki; It is odd but in the the four public hearings I attended, 70% of the people spoke in favor of Mixed Member Proportional Representation. I didnt see Adriane Carr anywhere. Maybe the fact that Adriane Carr collected the signatures of 98,000 people on a petition supporting MMP is difficult for you to accept and comprehend. The way I see it, it doesnt take a scientist to figure out that many of these people came forward to express their desire for MMP, a system that is truly proportional and quite simple to understand. That people like you and Derrick would like to rationalize these submissions as somehow tainted is "rubbish" as Jack Blaney would say. The record speaks for itself. The Citizens Assembly, in their wisdom, ignored the citizens of BC.

Does MMP or STV create less corrupt politicians ? Sadly, no but it does make it easier to get rid of them the next time an election comes around. Despite the many presentations for MMP and STV the idea of reform stops at presenting a more accurate picture of how people voted - does it make people more honest ? I doubt it. We know NZ's version of MMP has brought more women and Maori's in to the elections. They use a 5% cut off in order to stop the splintering evident in countries such as Italy and Israel, where the smallest parties have representation. The CA will have their final model of STV ready in December, my guess most folks who originally supported MMP whilst initially supporting STV will wait until the final version is announced before making a complete committment to it. I am given confidence from the members of the CA who claim that STV will give as much representation as MMP, but the proof is in the pudding as they say. Some one mentioned why there is not a lot of NDP chatter here about this; they claimed to have studied it for 5 years in 2002 so they have some expertise I would expect. Nominee Judy Darcy made a presentation on May 3rd when I made mine, it was a bit vague and non commital to either STV or MMP. Howver, I expect the Greens and NDP and supportive Liberals and other political parties to pull together and work on this, even when working together it is going to be a major piece of work to get a YES vote on May 17th.

i wish i had one of those smiley faces with the dazed glazed look it its face.. tha geek asked a great question why would the libs dismantle a system that gave them such a landslide victory? sounds a bit like the the thousand year lease agreement with b.c.rail, i read steven hume's column this morning in the vancouver sun, the only free read i could access by the way and in a nut shell im with him, i don't feel like going thro yet another grand social experiment brought to us by the very people who have gone out of their way to demonize all but the elite in this province, can we please bring back some accountability with our m.l.a.'s, rather than introducing such a complex system on the voters of this province where what was once public is now gone or un accessible,freedom of info other than the glossy ads is few and far between in this province, at this point ill be rejecting the change

If the current B.C. government has determined that the now used first-past-the-post system is unacceptable, they why not have the vote between the STV and MMP systems.

Dear Mel, The citizens assembly decided that STV is Better. They put 10 months of their lives into studying the systems. (they also ran mock elections using the 2 systems). How long did you research your idea? What chance of any system getting 60% approval if there are 2 competing options? I refer you to the history section of the irish green party http://www.greenparty.ie/ They have done well under stv. The STV system has accountability built in. You can vote for the other BC Lib in the Gordon Campbell riding, if you dont like drunk driving, or the stupid adverts funneling money to private add firms or any of the other stuff he does. It promotes a competition akin to that that exists in nature. You see, in nature it isnt dog eat dog. The dogs co operate to eat. Politicians are going to find a whole new world when stv is introduced. NDP and BCLib and Green people are going to have to make real stands on issues (Just to differenciate themselves for the voters). Certainly in Ireland, voters do not like liars, so if a candidate just outright lies, they often just vote for another more honest guy from the same party next time. Some ndp people and some bc libs are going to agree with a specific green policy and even campaign on it. The leaders of each pack will have less power to send individual troops to the slaughter. Under the stv system, the dogs have liberated more independent brains. That is much better than the present system where the leader muzzles them even before he buys party memberships to nominate them.

I have lived under STV in Ireland for 35 years. It is easy to use. I think the CA are going to group candidates under party labels on the ballot. That should make it real easy. Seriously, it is as easy as 1,2,3. You really dont have to understand the math. (STV was invented a long time ago by 2 mathematicians, independently of each other. An english guy and a Dane). The article did not attempt to aspire to high standards of journalism. Perhaps you can get some of your journalistic info from the CA website. They have articles from the likes of Jody patterson (left wing person, i believe) and others from the right. You only have one chance to change the system. It will be on the 17th of May. You dont get to write the referendum question. It will be stv yes or no. If you choose no, thats it, you get right left swings for the rest of your life. If you choose STV, you get a more stable system with solid deep rooted partys fielding candidates in all elections. I certainly long for the day when bipolar politics is ended.

The comment at the end of the article "like voting twice" is an insult to the inteligence. STV is a system based on mathematics and fairness. Throwing one aspect of the system at people without correct explaination is a shoddy way to behave. Surplus distrobution also gives the political partys important info about the preferences of those voters. At the end of the day, under stv, more votes DIRECTLY elect candidates than under any other system. That is one of the reasons that the CA choose it. At the end of the day, they (As ordinary voters) didnt want to be disenfranchised by a paryt list chosen by insiders or by first past the post where only 40 to 55% of votes elect people. That is something YOU should check out. What precentage of votes actually elect people under first past the post? And under stv. That little figure is way higher under STV. And that little figure is important to voters. They Want to be able to identify the member they elected. Stv gives detailed info to partys too. This is critical to them making policys that the voters like and approve of. STV connects the people and the MLA's in a way that first past the post cannot.

I guess Brian White is the new pitchman for STV. His arguments are rather flawed however. Pray tell Brian, what are the choices in large 2-3 member ridings that are slated for the North? Do you really think 2 members of one party will run? That would be cute; and most unlikely. As a Liberal, why should I give a second vote to a party I don't support? It certainly wouldnt be the NDP! Maybe I would just vote strategically for an NDP nemesis. Or probably I would simply just vote once. Easy as 1,2,3. That is the Citizens Assembly Madison avenue marketing talk. Just trust the computers to tally the vote. Brian says "you really dont have to understand the math" Such drivel. STV is a complicated system, it is not transparent, it is cumbersome. And by the way, stop with this proportional nonsense. As many as 20% of the vote can be wasted. And tell me Brian, why does Ireland have only 12% women in politics? Why do truly proportional systems like PR and MMP have 2-3 times more women? Neither the NDP nor the Liberals have any reason to support this system, much less the citizens of BC. It is a pig in a poke.

Robert: In the last national elections held in Ireland, the European Parliament elections in June, 38% of the elected candidates were women. They used STV.

Irish Dail elections are highly proportional to party first-preferences. A recent study (by Michael Laver) showed the 1997 election produced a more proportional result than the German MMP system would have done.

As for your Liberal voter in a two-seat riding in the north, she could list only one preference if she wished. It would almost certainly be used to elect her preferred candidate, so no urgent need to list a second choice.

derrick, your comments still do not convince me that votes are not reduced, and I don't find the fact that my vote, or a reduced version of my vote, or anyone else's, could be used again particlarly reassuring either. Why would I want my vote to help elect someone that I don't want to see elected? I mean you're fubared, here, no doubt. Either you state one preference, the person you want to see elected, and run the risk of dropping out and thereby "wasting" your vote, or you state multiple preferences and run the risk of helping elect someone you do not want to see elected.

How is this democratic? The system won't work properly if voters don't state enough preferences for counting stages. And since there is no way to determine this beforehand, one should really state as many preferences as possible. Are you going to interfere with a ctizen's right to state that only one candidate is worth voting for?

C'mon man, there's a reason why so few countries use STV. It offers no unique advantages over any other electoral system. What's worse, its inherently complicated nature makes it pretty close to impossible to truly discern the relationship between one's vote and the contribution that vote made to the outcome of an election. And for me, a voter who cannot perceive the impact of his vote has a constrained understanding of the consequences of the choices he makes in ranking preferences on a ballot paper.

And the worst thing about all of this is that the Citizen's Assembly has been used as a political pawn. The fix was in for STV before you randomly received your first invitation to join the Citizen's assembly - your comments that the assembly is not mandated to determine riding size and division prove that. Riding size and division, as you must know, are the crucial determinants of STV's ability to proportionally translate votes cast into seats won. Why would the government not allow you to determine those as well? When I think that the power to determine these crucial parameters is out of the assembly's hands, I am even more dismayed. The "public" is one step closer to handing the BC government an undemocratic, distorting and manipulable electoral system, while leaving the most important details undecided and at the government's discretion - YIKES.

Shirin, I'd like to see those hand-picked deputy ministers go as well. No argument there. I also think you are making an extremely relevant point about the important significance that information and informed people play in successful decision- making. Nothing better than seeing David Suzuki in Land and Water (wouldn't that annoy the fish farm lobby) but I'm not sure if others would agree and that is where democratic principles come into play. Perhaps, the real challenge is to find ways to educate the public, that makes them more knowledgeable and current on issues so that they can recognize a stupid idea, like the privatization of our medical information, when they see one and call the government on it. I don't know, I went to university for a lot of years, and some of the best and wisest discussions I have had have been in gumboots - talking to the fishermen on the coast.

As to electoral reform, in reading this thread, it is becoming ever more clearer that the Citizen's Assembly has betrayed it's name, and that we, as citizen's of this fair province , are caught in the cross-fire between warring factions of the Green party at our expense.

Rob,Q's comment, especially the last paragraph, should be read by all. YIKES, indeed.

Lynn - please explain the "expense". There is no war going on between members of the GP here. My only concern was that Mr West and Ms Etheridge put their beefs with Adriane Carr behind them, since they are on the board of FairVote BC, West and Etheridge are no longer members of the GP What we DO have here is GP members and supporters discussing the pros and cons of the STV, the CA and other aspects of electoral reform - and in a healthy way [now we have cleared the air].

Rockerbiff: I think that the comments of Greens and former Greens speak for themselves - that there has been a schism in the party and that the CA has been a convenient battlefield for proponents of STV or MMP rather than a voice for real voter reform. The "expense" is time lost and confidence lost. Under the guise of voter reform, the Citizen's Assembly and here I would also include the Greens as a contributing factor, have become as Rob says above the government's political pawns and soon Gordon Campbell will be yelling "Checkmate" to our electoral process.

I think Coyote and Kit hit the 'nail on the head' when they stated that the manner by which the issue of 'revitalizing our ailing democracy' was framed by soup & co...has moulded the recommended outcome by the constituent assembly. Whether you have First -Past the Post, STV, MMP, etc. etc...the 'frame' still exists. Namely, a 'frame' of an elitist executive form of governance, where the Premier and a few ministers, regardless of how they are elected will still do as they please. The 'frame' ...is that power is concentrated in the Executive Branch of government, soverignity over lands, waters, oil, gas, fish, personal & corporate taxation is vested in the centralized Provincial Crown. Virtually all revenues flowing from resources rents, personal & corporate taxation flow to a central Treasury, and the regions and their peoples that produce that wealth...get pittance in return, while bearing the social, economic and environmental costs. There is no division of powers between the centralized Provincial Crown and regions, cities or municipalities..and thus Minister's of the Provincial Crown, regardless of how they are elected, under the current 'frame' will continue to have centralized authority to enact legislation that results in dispossession by privatization, that results in an undemocratic budget-setting process. This Citizen's Assembly's mandate was strictly confined by the constituted power of the State. It was not free at all to look at other issues or means to revitalize our democracy. In no way has the absolute power of the Crown, which is in my view, the major barrier to a revitalized democracy - been challenged by the so -called 'constituent assembly'. As I see it ,political progress in BC ..is essentially frozen in ' historical time' - namely, the 'time of a constitution produced by elites from a bygone era, a constitution that concentrates political power, that privileges corporatism, that divests First Nations, and 'peripheral regions', and that is tending to greater contintentalism and union/integration with Uncle Sam. Regretably, the BC populace does not understand that soverign authority to revitalize our democracy vests in themselves and not the Crown. The first principle of democracy is that soverignity vests in the people, and they alone have the power to establish a constituent assembly which could then establish its own terms of reference. Constituted power ought not to trump constituent power - regretably, soup & co's 'constituent assembly' , however noble an elitist idea it was, was considerably restrained so as to not challenge the 'frame' , it was enacted to restrain the empowerment of the populace - not to embolden its creativity. If we, the populace, are ever to free ourselves from elitist executive federalism, where First Ministers and their Minister's of the Crown exercise their absolute authority to the detriment of democracy and the survival of this country, the constituent power of a soverign people must prevail over constituted power embolded by a colonial, elitist constitution.

Good analysis of STV by David Schreck at http://www.strategicthoughts.com/record2004/nostv.html#more

Robert East claims that the CA ignored the citizens of bc. Most of the mm presentations were from declared green party members. So your 80% represents a vocal 5% or so. The CA were wise to that political motivated scam. (Though they did think mmp better than the current system). They just found stv to be far better. And, Yes indeed, I do think 2 from one party will run, and one will be eliminated and most of his or her transfers will go to his or her more popular collegue. That is a quite common occurance in Ireland. The reasons for running 2 candidates or 3 in a large 2 or 3 seater is geography. Your party supporters will give some weight to locality in choosing their member. You will find an awful truth in stv elections. Some BC LIB voters will give their second preference to an NDP er just because he or she lives just down the road from them. And visa versa. Voters and politicians will become more pragmatic. STV also makes elections a compellingly interesting thing. Check out http://www.ireland.com/focus/election_2002/voting/voting2.htm Anyway, I really shouldnt be bringing you up to speed on STV. There are tons of details on the web. How about reading up on it before making a comment? I grew up using the system. If you can count you can use it. There is a reason that it is spreading across the world. It is because voters really like it. Its spread is slow because politicians dont like it. (A party with a comfortable majority in Ireland tried to get rid of it twice). So, are you speaking as a fudging politician or a decent voting citizen of Canada?

robert, if it was that simple, the gov't could have simply commissioned an opinion poll and saved a lot of time and money.

rob, your vote will never go to someone you don't want to vote for. your ballot will only be redistributed to those candidates for whom you register preferences. if you are bitterly opposed to a candidate, leave them off. if you are bitterly opposed to all but one candidate, simply mark that one and leave it. true, the system doesn't work if everyone does that, but i doubt that would be the case. stating more than one preference is a simple matter, or so i'd assumed. you can pick chocolate over vanilla and strawberry, but once the chocolate runs out, you can pick vanilla, as the best remaining flavour.

federally, a lot of people liked the ndp first, but faced with their elimination and the field restricted to the lib. and con. candidate, would have picked the liberal. i'll reiterate: your vote will only be transferred to your second choice, etc. after your first choice is either a)elected or b)eliminated. if you cannot stomach the thought of voting for anyone but your first pick, you do not have to rank anyone else, and your vote will end there.

those important details that you cite(district size and boundaries) are not up to the government to decide; they never have been. rather, they are left to an independant, non-partisan boundary commission to develop and then take to the public for feedback. this process will proceed whether the referendum passes or fails, as it does after every second election in BC. it is a transparent process, and one that has functioned in a fair and non-partisan manner for many decades, as far as i can tell. if you have legitimate concerns with this process, that's fair. i would advise you to follow it closely, if you are this concerned.

the math isn't that hard to do yourself with a grade 6 knowledge of ratio and proportion. if you can calculate a percentage, you're skilled enough to count an STV election. there's very little room for error.

"Now this may be the outsider in me but this rankles in a real philosophical sense because that is exactly why politics is so ineffective...so civil, so silent, so dishonest in the civil charade." wrote Lynn.

Damn, you are good woman! This piece even sparkles with brilliance, I think.

And Kit's observation about the preferred "math head" solutions of the Greens, making the linkage with its "libertarianism" roots, clicked on a switch of recognition in my brain immediately. That does seem to be the real ideological "home" towards which the Greens are steadily evolving, doesn't it? Interesting.

And yes, Peter Dimitrov, it was in the original framing of the PR assembly, and who did so, that the outcome was shaped. That, and as Kit and yourself both draw attention to, in the heirarchical environment and historical tradition in which it is all rooted. (Which is not so much to demean that history and the circumstances out of which it arose, but to simply acknowledge it and move on, where that is now possible, and needs to be done.) To which I would only add, "...and the ecnomic system", coming out of the 18th Century industrial revolution experience, and the class system it evolved, that is still very much with us-, more highly evolved, and subtly and sophisticatedly entrenched. And harmful to the present and future.

And to my dear friend Shirin, I do not want you to think, though I tend not to be, I think, "overly" smitten with a convicition of the "absolute" indispensibility of "experts", that it necessarily follows that I am completely contemptuous of "education". I am not. Certainly I highly value your experience, expertise, and view of things. :-)

I am much preoccupied with other matters for awhile, good people here. I will nonetheless pop in from time to time to read and comment.

The one factor missing in all of this ranting and raving about our proposed new bread slicing method is who were the backroom players who pushed the agenda. Yes, I realize that dozens of British Columbians spent many weekends and, no doubt, many other thoughtful hours working to find a better answer than first past the post. But delegates don't set agendas and someone surely pushed buttons to get this off the ground. Who are those somebodies? There must have been academics involved. Were they the chosen ones or did they just luck out when a computer randonly drew them out of several million names? I certainly appreciate the efforts of all these delegate, but I am still at a loss as to who did the actual cooking, who led the discussion and who got a regular paycheque for their work on this plan? Forget the histrionics and what Adrianne Carr said yesterday or will say tomorrow. This is British Columbian politics at play here and until I get a better idea of who worked behind the scenes on this plan I have little to assure me it wasn't designed to meet an agenda that we haven't heard a word about yet. The debate here so far sounds about as credible as the ongoing argument over how many angels you can get to sit on a pin head. Please, someone, drop the political bullshit and just identify who helped cook this brew and then I might have a better means of assessing its credibility.

What a lot of hopeless, fucking drivel (both article and 90% of the posts). The Tyee is off my alt. news favorites as of now.

My apologies to Tom Barrett for not noting above that without articles like this anyone with a questioning mind is left holding his or her nose and investing far too much faith in an art that makes sex-trade workers seem like missionaries. Tom, thanks for the humour. Too bad the giants who came up with this little STV gem couldn't be as clear in telling us how this proposal will do anything other than create another gerrymanderable process.

Lynn: I agree with you on Campbell issue, this whole CA could be a diversion for many of us whilst Campbell reloads his barrels and takes a new aim, I guess we will not see the final card played until May 18th 2005. The Greens had a similar diversionary tactic thrown at them in the guise of the unified "left" movement perpetuated by NDP So far the only source of inspiration for the CA is from Campell himself, no idea what elements in the Liberals supported it, my guess is there were a few opposed to it.

Well the status quo has helped maintain the polarised political climate in this province in which big Labour keeps the NDP staunchly left wing and big business keeps the anti-NDP coalition be it Socred, Liberal or what have you firmly right wing, leaving the vast majority of BCers who are moderates feeling ill served and facing the perpetual choice of voting for the loony left or the ridiculous right.

You are going to leftie hell because your beloved greenies will never ever ever elect anyone! Naturally everyone from the C.A.E.R. is an absolute idiot, and cannot think for themselves. Imagine wanting to actually vote for the one you want to represent you in the legislature? Perish the thought!

'Course we all know that the pummeled Ms. Carr and her n'er do anything greens have all of the answers.

SOUR GRAPES!!!!

As the policy and communications chair of the BC Democratic Coalition, I am the representative of one of the two political parties in the province who have come out strongly in support of the decision of the Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform. The other party is Reform BC. What is notable about both parties is that we are both committed to democratic reform. Both Reform BC and our predecessor party--the BC Democratic Alliance--made their own submissions to the Citizens Assembly, neither suggested an electoral system identical to that proposed by the Citizens Assembly. What we share in common is a commitment to grassroots democracy and a respect for the bold experiment in participatory decision-making that the Citizens Assembly represents. As one of the some 1,600 British Columbians who made submissions to the Citizens Assembly, together with our party leader Tom Morino, I proposed unique system of Mixed Member Proportional Representation quite distinct from the Green Party's model of undemocratic party lists. Our vision was for a system that allowed for broad proportionality, voter choice, equal opportunity for independents, and a representative relationship between MLAs and the electors. Considering these broad terms of reference, the STV model currently being finalized by the Citizens Assembly, though different than which we proposed, addresses many of the same concerns. There are many ways to acheive the same goals. Personally I have great respect for the proposal made by Dr. Julian West, and his proposal for circuit-STV, one of the few, which together with that made by the BCDA and another from the All Nations Party, addressed the question of First Nations representation. We are just some of the independent voices in the province, who believe in the power of ordinary people to make choices and re-invigorate our democracy. I encourage people to ignore the thoughtless ridicule of articles such Mr. Barrett's, and the self-serving rhetoric of Ms. Carr and the Greens who swamped the CAER online forums with their mail-in campaign. British Columbia will have an opportunity in May 2005 to change the system of government for the better. The system proposed may not be perfect, but neither is any other in the world. What is clear however is that it will be a substantial improvement over our outdated first-past-the-post system. One hundred and sixty ordinary citizens have worked together to achieve something truly remarkable in the history of our province and our country. It's time for the people to express their appreciation. VOTE YES FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORM Robert Allington

I'm glad that so many of you are interested. Most of you, though, need to educate yourselves a great deal before May 17. Perhaps if more of you would use your real names here, you wouldn't have the nerve to jump to so many silly conclusions. Most of all I'm glad that "derrick", who says he's a member of the CAER, is writing. He's right 99% of the time, so far. However, Derrick, please realize that it is well within your mandate to determine district magnitude. True, your assembly cannot draw the boundaries, but there is nothing stopping you from requiring in your plan that the minimum riding size be 3 members. Please announce that there should be 3 that small, at most. The rest should have an average of 7 members, at least. And in order to change those numbers, the government should have to get approval in a referendum. Don't let anyone tell you, Derrick, that you in the CAER cannot put all that in your final plan. Even if some supposed expert says that's not in your mandate, put it in your report anyway. My CAER submission is DAY-1390. Sincerely, Korky Day

gret stuff Tom, You nailed it

I'll be voting NO on STV on May 17, 2005. I will try and convince as many people as I can to vote NO as well. I'll use a simple strategy. I'll simply ask the person to tell me exactly how someone is voted into an MLA seat using the STV system. If you can't explain it ... how could you vote for it? Yes, when it comes down to it ... it is that complicated. I like the present system far better. Too bad proportional representation wasn't an option on the ballet. I would have voted for that.

I certainly do not support the recommendation of the 160 member Citizens' Assembly with respect to the changes to the electoral system. I also do not believe the premier of the province should take any credit for the work of the Assembly. When the Assembly was formed it was out of public pressure to change the "first past the post" electoral system. Which many (including myself) deem as bad system of electing MPs, MLAs and City Council. In fact only three democracies in the world have kept this ancient system of election. Canada and the USA are two. In most countries they have some form of a proportional representation system. In some proportional systems one would cast two ballots. One ballot for the candidate, the other for the party. When tallied the party would get a proportional amount of seats to the ballots cast. The candidates would be elected and the parties would get additional seats from the vote for the party. This balances out the power so that a political party had to actually get over 50% of the votes by population in order to gain a majority. What is wrong about this new system is that the Assembly proposes an provincial At Large system. Ranking candidates that the voter likes in preference. Take Burnaby New Westminster for example. The two entire cities could be one constituency where everyone votes for 5 MLAs, ranking them by preference. This process is at best confusing. There is a potential here for confusing voters. If there were 5 political parties fielding candidates then there could be 25 candidates to choose from. I can see the number of lawn signs now. It will be huge. Who do you rank first, second or third? This system is absurd. I would only rank the people that ran for my party of choice. If I vote for a combination of parties that would end up hurting my party's chance to win. I can't see how this will increase democracy. It would be a guessing game as to who won and for what reason. Anybody that wins based on someone's third or fourth choice might not be who people want. I am very disappointed with this recommendation. I was hoping for a less confusing method of electing our representatives. I do not support it and I will be fighting to get people to say no to this system. Yes, we need electoral reform. No, this is not the reform we need.

There will be an education process and there is lots of material online. The British electoral reform people are particularly good. From reading the comments, it is clear that a lot of you guys should go back to school. You are not required to understand the math? That got figured out in the 19th century. If you are not capable of ranking candidates, you can use a plain old 1 or probably mark an X. It aint rocket science. How do you manage to do your shopping? Think of the amount of choice in a supermarket? STV is voting updated for the free market. And, about bluddy time. What has you guys sooo paranoid? Do you look for hidden meanings in everything? In Duncan this summer, a member of the CA gave a speech saying that they would publish their report regardless of whether the BC Libs tried to suppress it or not. (I was there) And look what happened! It is the BC Green party that is trying to suppress and discredit the CA. Why not ask some Irish people (like me!) about the system before you go shooting your mouth off about how it cannot work. You havnt got a clue and are too lazy to inform yourselves. Once again, the STV system is spreading across the world. Shane Pollack should really give the mmp stuff a rest. People vote for people not partys. That is the way it should be. The decision you have to make on may 17th is a simple one. Is STV more proportional than first past the post and a better system for BC? Forget mmp. Sour grapes nonwithstanding, it isnt going to be on the referendum paper. Ireland,, some parts of australia, the british medical association, etc. use stv. It is not a new system, it has a track record and you should inform yourselves.

Please excuse a comment from an Ontario observer.

Since it's early days, the humour in Tom Barrett's piece didn't surprise me. As a New Zealand electoral reform leader keeps saying "First they laugh at you. Then they ignore you. Then they fight you. Then you win."

Sure, STV is new to BC and takes a while to understand. MMP would have been new too.

At this point let's keep it simple:

1. STV is a proportional representation system. While MMP was my first choice, there's no doubt STV will meet the same objectives. As one CA member commented, they "had to choose between chocolate cake and strawberry shortcake."

2. Both systems can have higher or lower degrees of proportionality depending on design details. A couple of comments above suggested an average district size of seven, ranging from five to nine. That would help make every vote count while still providing voter choice, strong local representation, and full representation of regions, women and minorities. Ireland started with a range of 7 - 9, but the big parties gradually shrank it to 3 - 5, causing problems for both small parties and women. I expect your CA will write rules to prevent that. Ireland's is still a quite proportional model, but it could be better (even less bi-polar) with larger district size.

3. You really need to see how Irish PR/STV elections work. Far from leading to huge slates, they tend to see very manageable numbers of candidates, and many voters do indeed give second preferences to candidates in their locality regardless of party. Oodles of accountability. No safe seats. PR/STV is an excellent system for broad representation of minorities in municipal elections, even where parties are weaker or absent. If there's a criticism of it in Ireland, it's that it is TOO local, personal and non-partisan. Your Citizens' Assembly decided that was just what BC wanted. Debate on that would be more relevant than some of the early comments which, understandably, are made from very limited knowledge.

4. With PR/STV every vote counts exactly equally. If your first choice is a popular candidate who gets twice the votes he or she needs to win, your vote is not wasted: you've made a 50% contribution to his or her election, so your ballot then transfers at 50% transfer value to your second choice, and so on.

STV may be complicated, but I can't believe it could ever be as unfair as the current system. Who can truly believe that Glen Clark and the NDP deserved to form the government when the Liberals gained the popular vote? Further, who can believe that the NDP, given their popular vote at the last election, only deserved 2 MLAs? The current system is likely the least representative one imaginable.

While I would have preferred a German-style PR system, I'll vote for "ANYTHING BUT THE CURRENT SYSTEM".

I started reading all the post, to find out more about the STV/MMP/FPTP election methods. It wasn't very long, however, that my eyes started to glaze over. So perhaps my questions have been answered somewhere in all the verbiage. (Not to say that there weren't good points made.) Why do there have to be large ridings with several members? Why can't the selection process be very simple, if someone gets 50% +1, they win. If nobody does on the first round, drop the person with the lowest number of first place votes, and give the 2nd preferences to the other candidates. Keep dropping people off and distributing their preferences until someone gets 50% +1, or is the person with the most votes over 50%+1. I think Neale Adams mentioned something like this, but as far as I could see, with glazed eyes, nobody picked up on it.

Then it wouldn't be proportional representation. With seven MLAs in a district, 12.5% of the votes is enough to elect one MLA. And that's 12.5% on the final count, so you could win with even fewer first-choice votes.

Thank you Wilf Day. Your walk-through of the process was the best I have read here yet, despite the great roaring, moaning and groaning from some much put off intellectuals who arrive here in bold print ready to shed wisdom over our confused lives. Seems that some of these voter-reform gods don't appreciate having their positions questioned and are quite adept at flaming out in a "I'll never read Tyee again" or "get an education" posting in the best of Monty Python style. It may not be a good voting proposal, but it certainly does get entertaining.

I dont want to spoil the party for all you Easy as 123 wankers, but this just in, a bulletin from the New Zealand Herald: STV system 'needs review' 09.11.2004 The single transferable vote (STV) system needs reviewing after unacceptable delays in Waikato District Health Board election results, the board's electoral officer says. Voters and 36 board hopefuls waited four weeks for the results to be declared due to a blundered vote count and voter confusion over STV. Vote counters Electionz.com and Datamail were slowed by voters filling in forms in crayon and ranking candidates with obscenities. But electoral officer Blair Bowcott said most delays were because of a Datamail computer error the week after polls closed. The delay spooked health boards into calling in the Auditor-General to review results. "Clearly the whole STV system and its processing has to be talked about again because the waiting for STV votes has been totally unacceptable," Mr Bowcott said.

Well, no one said the STV was going to be "easier" - it is supposedly supposed to be more representative - whether you understand it or not. Like Darryl, I had gone through the transcripts of the meetings held by the CA. There were many good questions poised by members of the CA for which the answer was (to my dismay - "We don't know" - or "aren't sure") - especially to questions regarding the chances of independents of getting a seat under such a system. I've long been an advocate of the KISS principle - since as we should know by now, "oh what a tangled web we weave..." Do keep in mind that the whole Citizens Assembly and how it would operated was outlined to the Campbell government by Gordon Gibson (formerly affiliated with the Fraser Insititute). For those of you who may be interested, there is to be a potentially insightful event: "What Leaders Need to Know About Citizen Assemblies Wednesday, November 10, 2004 7:30–9:30 pm Join Gordon Gibson, Jack Blaney and Matthew Mendelsohn as we examine what we have learned from recent citizen engagement processes. What are the key challenges, barriers to moving forward? How does this inform the skills and nature of leadership for citizen engagement? For more information, please download the PDF flyer. This event is free, however, reservations are required. To reserve your seat, call 604.291.5100"

As any programmer will tell you, computers work perfectly -- it's the people we have the trouble with. Without computers, Northern Ireland does it the old way (but not the really old randomized way), count by count. More fun to watch, too. Sure, it takes a couple of days, but never four weeks.

Dear Wilf Day, STV is not a form of proportional representation. This is misinformation that can be refuted with at least 3 points. STV is only proportional within constituencies, and since constituencies will vary in size and number of seats, the only way to make STV proportional would be to turn BC into one constituency. That would be ridiculous - strike 1. Next, all ridings won't have the same number of MPs. How can someone's vote have the same value when in one seat there is an opportunity to elect 3 MPs, while in another there is a chance to elect 5 or even 9? Now we are even further away from PR - strike 2. Finally, the ratio of electors to MPs will also vary within constituencies. This will also affect the value of votes - strike 3. How is this system PR again?

And another thing, why do you generalize when you try to simplify? With PR/STV, every vote does not count equally, and it's not as easy as 50% here, 50% there. The mechanics of the system allocate different values to votes. Votes can be worth 1, more than 1, or _gasp_ votes can be worth 0. Let’s say there are 21 voters voting to elect 2 politicians from a field of 5 candidates – the quota is 8. The quota is determined by dividing the total votes by the number of vacancies + 1, then adding 1 to the total (21/(2 +1))+1 = 8.

Under the Gregory method, which is the method I assume was proposed for dealing with the surplus, all votes are transferred from the person who meets the quota to the person with the most second preferences, but at a reduced value. To determine this reduced value, we must divide the surplus by the total number of voters. So, let’s say the winner of the first round had a surplus of 5 votes (he received 13 first preference votes) – his votes for the second round would be then worth 0.25 (5/20) each, giving his 13 votes a new value of 3.25. The random sampling method of dealing with surplus at least would have seen the second preference getting the 5 vote surplus at the value of 1 each, rather than all at reduced value, as in this example.

The second place candidate who received 5 second-place votes has not reached the quota, so all of the winner's votes go to her, but remember, they’re now worth .25 each, instead of 1 each. So, she receives 3.25. This means the second preference candidate now has a total of 8.25, which sees her elected. We how have filled our two vacancies.

Sure, you got lucky; the candidates you voted for won. But, there's no way of knowing if your vote went to the winner as 1 or ended up in the surplus and therefore went to the second-choice as .25. How is this “one person, one vote”? And what if you voted for the 3rd place candidate as your first preference? She didn't get elected, so your vote was "wasted."

And don’t get me started on how this system supposedly does not “waste” votes...

There is another voting system which is simpler than STV.It does not require understanding how to use proportions to transfer surplus votes. It's called Approval Voting. The Citizens' Assembly should provide a multiple choice referendum and add Approval Voting to the list of acceptable methods and use the approval voting method to pick the most acceptable voting system for BC to vote on next spring.

Approval voting is like STV but with no ranking. There is one ballot per voter. The voter marks the ballot with one OR MORE selections of any of the candidates that are acceptable. After the voting is over the selections on the ballots are tallied. The candidate with the most votes wins. It also works very simply for multi-member constituencies as well. Say, there are five candidates running for three positions then the candidates with three highest counts are the winners. Its counting simplicity makes it easy to understand and most importantly any recount is easily repeatable.

It's a pity the Approval voting system did not get much exposure within the Citizens' Assembly deliberations. Their fact sheets and glossary do not include it even though there were a couple of submissions made to the CA. It is the method by which the Secretary of the United Nations was picked and it is used by many societies. For more information see: http://www.approvalvoting.org/

I have never been a fan of PR because I reject the premise that one's vote is wasted if you didn't vote for the winner. For keeping MLAs attentive, votes against are as valuable as votes for; the narrower the margin, the better. I also reject the anti-political party bias (I'm a member of the NDP); it's political parties which give us responsible governmentr (as opposed to merely representative government), which PR fosters). MLAs who are more independent may be less effective. When you elect an MLA on the basis of their party affiliation you have a platform and promises you can hold them to, and if they form Government, they are responsible for what they do. Independent MLAs have more opportunities for passing the buck. I am particularly not in favour of multiple-member constituencies, which, as someone else pointed out, in effect changes us from a ward to an at-large system. I've seen this concern countered by the assurance that it won't be more difficult to run in such a constituncy as a candidate will only need to get the quota--say 16%, and can therefore concentrate on a particlar slice of the citizenry. It seems possible we could have 6 MLAs, each of whom was supported by a mere 16% of citizens. That is, none of them would have the confidence of anywhere near the majority of citizens in that constituency. I don't know that that's really any improvement over what we have now. The more I learn about STV the more I prefer, if we must have PR, that it be MMP. Re women being elected. I note that the 38% was for the European Parliament; in the one that really matters, the Dail, men still prevail by a wide margin. The real barriers to women are not the electoral system so much as--lack of money, lack of childcare, lack of time, lack of money, lack of time, lack of money, etc., etc. Elizabeth

Approval voting, like Borda counts, works best when the criteria being voted for are generally agreed upon - e.g. when selecting "most valuable player" for the NBA. It does not work well at all when different voters have totally different ideas about what makes a "good" candidate. Also, neither are proportional, and both encourage strategic voting. A good electoral system for the legislature is immune to strategic considerations, and the Citizens' Assembly decided that proportionality was an important quality, so that also eliminates approval voting.

As for those who would prefer MMP, sorry -- that's off the table now. The decision is between STV and the status quo, and I do believe that a "no" decision will kill reform for a generation. The system can always be modified later to fix things that don't work out!

Well, it appears the best system may be a "disapproval voting" - Voters could choose whether they want to cast a vote for who they feel should NOT be selected OR they could give a positive vote for someone they want to see selected as their representative (but not both). This could turn out to be rather fun - we could disqualify the candidate who gets the highest "worst rep" vote since it indicates more people rather not see him/her in government rather than use their vote for someone else. It could also keep the party campaigns in a confused limbo since they would be both terrified of not being hated so much that they are voted against by the majority while at the same time trying to butt kiss those who would give them the most money for sponsorship. Titilating.... call it a love-hate voting system. Heck, I will even have this grand system - both sweet and simple - named after my twisted self "the shirin system" - to rival the above mentioned "gregory method".

Yah Shirin I like it! It would go well with negative campaign's and choosing the lesser of evils.

I agree with Elizabeth Woods. The notion that we would want to minimize or reduce the impact or power of political parties seems misguided to me. When I vote, I vote for a party platform -- a set of values relatively congruent with my own. Quite honestly, the party of my choice could nominate a monkey in my riding, and he'd still get my vote.

Whether my MLA is "good" or not hardly impacts on my life. On the other hand, the policies implemented by whichever political party is in power impacts my life dozens of times every day.

The CA dropped the ball by not opting for PR, but I defy any STV critic to explain how or why "first past the post" is something that should be retained.

Let's reframe the debate. Let's ask why we should stick with the status quo. This ought to be good for a laugh.

Well judging by the length of this thread I'd say that Tom Barrett certainly deserves credit for one thing; stimulating an interest in much needed ellectoral reform.The unfortunate part is his distortion of the facts and a political bias so prevalent on this site,that it continually draws out those drivelling pundits who's sole joy in life is to riddicule and critizise anything that they perceive as having a RH twist.On the other hand Mr Barrett's tongue may have left a dimple in his cheek,"who knows what evil lurks..." I would recomend to those who have not done so to go to the citizens assembly site and veiw the Australian pictorial showing the difference between the PR&STV systems.It is extremely well done and I think demonstrates the differculty that The Assembly[or government?] is going to have in terms of explaining an STV system.A great deal of care is going to have to be taken over this,otherwise peoples eyes will glaze over and the opportunity for reform will be lost. I personally think that the basic idea of an STV system is better, but if it cannot be easerly understood by the ellectorate,then the advantages it has in fine tuning the averages will be lost. I think the simplicity of the PR system would be a much better first step and will essentially achieve the goal we are looking for. I hope that the members of the Citizens Assembly remember that they may represent a cut above the average on the old IQ scale and therefore the ultimate system to them may not be the best one present to the ellectorate.How does that old saying go? "keep it simple stupid"

"I hope that the members of the Citizens Assembly remember that they may represent a cut above the average on the old IQ scale and therefore the ultimate system to them may not be the best one present to the ellectorate,'' says Hedley Goldsworthy, in what sounds like pure 19th century drivel copied out of some santimonious British advicebook for colonial agents of the crown. Gee, and I thought these delegates were ramdomly picked by a computer in an effort to find a truly representative group of British Columbians. I've had some concerns as to how these "a cut above" people were chosen for some time, despite the claim they were all picked by chance. Hedley, you seem to confirm my doubts so perhaps you could enlighten us a little more. What, short of having all these supposed Phd candidates immersed for some time in a room with your worldview, would lead you to make such a pompous assumption?

Fire bad. Grog have time on hands so Grog comment. Grog miffed. STV seem bad to Grog. Grod hold head in hands. Grog clumsy yes, but Grog know only way to win is to TAKE. Grog king because he smash face of other - what you say - 'wannabees' with large club. Grog happy to smash faces for win. Grod use big stick and push thumbs deep into opponents eyes. Women "dig" Grog for this. Other 'men' run away. This good tekneek. Grog no need STV. Grog need medisin and maybe bigger cave. Grog also checking out new Escalades. Grog say thanks for listen.

The article by Tom Barrett did give me a few chuckles, but they were mostly cheap laughs. I guess members of the Citizens Assembly are learning quickly what it's like to stick your heads up in public. Just about anyone with an axe to grind is going to take a shot at you, fair or unfair, and push their own agenda at the same time.

None-the-less I've seen some very good comments here on the idea of STV. I was especially pleased to hear from people who have actually used the system in Ireland, and I hope the Tyee will make an effort to get some more informed comment from people who have actually used the system, and what they have found to be its pros and cons.

I also liked the explanation of what happens to "surplus" votes and I better understand how that works now. That was poorly explained in the Sun. I also see why multi-member ridings are needed to get closer to true proportional representation.

I'm also beginning to understand why a party might not run a full slate of candidates in every riding, which I instinctively would have thought would be the natural thing to do.

Clearly this would be a very big change in our system and how we elect governments. A bigger change than MMP would have been.

There's no question in my mind that STV does offer a kind of PR, and that it probably will loosen the grip somewhat that parties have on provincial elections at the moment. If you favour PR and think that PR will lead to better government than what we have now, then I think you have to stop carping about STV and get behind it. It does offer local representation as well.

I'm just not sure yet that it will lead to better government. I wonder if that is a question that can be answered without trying it.

It seems like it will probably lead to minority governments and coalitions. That will be a significant change and will take some time for our politcal system to come to terms with.

Our present system at least leads to majority governments that can act on their policies and platforms. Occasionally you get badly skewed elections like the last one, but we would have had a liberal majority anyway, so I don't know how much it really affected what the government did. In a way it has just accented their predominate traits and shown very clearly where they stand. This makes it easier to make a decision about them in the next election.

In a coalition or minority government it might be much harder to determine who is responsible for government decisions.

I look forward to further discussion of these issues in the coming months as I try to make up my mind about whether to support STV or not.

Hedley - allan is on the mark about your "cut above" statement. The only guy who actually seemed to know what is the "plan" for the government is the hand picked Chair (Jack Blaney). It is almost as if they went out of their way to get the average Joe and Jane to sit in agreement - from 19 year old recent graduates to 77 year old retired folks - to the cross country truck driver - they definitely are representative of the everyday BC folk. It is definitely hard to criticize our own (ie the CA) when they are used as a shield to cover up stench of something "rotten in the state of Denmark" (or BC in this case). In fact, any word of criticism on the CA is sure to bring about indignant wrath - much encouraged by the staff of the holy democratic CA (check out their website if he haven't done so already: http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/public)

This is beginning to sound more and more like take what we know is best for you and quit asking questions we can't or won't answer. And if Hugo thinks these poor beligered CA members are being unfairly treated he might ask a simple question. Why? My answer to that is because so far about all I've gleaned from anyone who will admit to being a CA member is that STV is better than what we have now. I don't need to be part of Hedley Goldworthy's IQ elite to expect anything offered might be slightly better than the status quo. I mean musical chairs might provide more of a democratic read of peoples' wants than first-past-the-post currently does, but it doesn't necessarily improve anything. I've read lots of glowing claims that Ireland, that bastion of democratic insight and calm, sober second thought, is a world leader in electoral reform and we should also depend on the luck of a shamrock. I have also read numerous dark warnings that I had better sign on and support STV or we might get something worse. I have one question and that is who among the CA membership did any independent research that might have looked at more than simply what high-paid contract employees who are kept from public view fed them? Why do we keep being told the CA had only a limited mandate when a CA has all the mandate it wants to take if it has the backbone to demand it. Perhaps Grog should have been among the Assembly. As dumb as his behind the scene creator might be, Grog sounds like he might have at least enough smarts to say "we want more." Why is it that the CA didn't look beyond a simple formula for elections and didn't even reflect for a minute on how multi-member ridings would be set up and how the gerrymandering leanings of so many politicains will be effectively eliminated? So far it would appear the CA is quite willing to hand all that back to the very people who cause the problems in the first place. While I do appreciate Karen Etheridge's comments in general(above), her "The system can always be modified later to fix things that don't work out," leaves me aghast. If I purchase a vehicle I don't want to find out later that I'll have to add an anchor becasue the brakes really don't work and I don't want to reach for the binder twine when the door keeps opening on curves. Propose a system you know will work rather than trying to sell us a bag of parts that some higher IQ type deems cool.

Alan's opening sentence of his above comment reflects what I think a lot us us are feeling. Why do we feel we are being pressured and why do we also feel a kind of political deja vu operating here reminiscient of the BCRail deal (among others) that again we are not to ask too many questions, at least not probing ones, and that the STV proposal must be railroaded through at warp speed.

I happened to like Stephen Hume's letter posted on the CA site and his very apt point that the voter reform process has become reductionist in nature rather than expansive. And as Shirin above notes, the CA is very quick to respond with "indignant wrath" to any kind of criticism of that nature even though you would not have found a more respectful letter in tone than Mr. Hume's. It seems rather than opening possibilities, the CA has closed them down... and behind door number three there is STV, game over.

This is the heart of our democratic process at issue here. We should take our time. We have the right to ask questions and we have the right to receive a response other than "that's to be decided later " or "that can be changed later" or "I wouldn't worry about that." Where have we heard that before?

Hugo, 11/10/2004 12:07:36 PM, writes: "Our present system at least leads to majority governments that can act on their policies and platforms. Occasionally you get badly skewed elections like the last one, but we would have had a liberal majority anyway, so I don't know how much it really affected what the government did. In a way it has just accented their predominate traits and shown very clearly where they stand. This makes it easier to make a decision about them in the next election." This is NOT a recomendation for a system. Accenting the right left devide leads to hitlers and stalins. Same face, different system. Not only is this system producing bipolar politics(party wise) it is also producing a bi polar disorder within partys too. Just look at the magical change from mr mean (stealing the daycare allowances from single mothers, with 3 weeks notice) at the start to Mr ooooh so nice just now, giving some of it back in the BC Lib party. The Irish experience is that government has been a right-left coalition or a large centre party in government. The point is that the right and the left never had free reign. That is a really good thing. I believe that most people, even in BC, are politicially close to the centre, they believe in live and let live. The right would shoot the poor and the left would imprision and retrain the rich if you "just accented their predominate traits". I believe STV will preserve the centre and keep the wing nuts on the wings where they Belong.

Rob, Q, writes "STV is not a form of proportional representation." If you mean it's not perfectly proportional, of course that's true, because few PR systems are. The Netherlands has perhaps the only perfectly proportional system in Europe. Being a small country, they have no ridings: the whole country is one district, with 150 MPs. With no threshold, a party can get a seat with 0.67% of the vote. Perfect proportionality, and zero personal accountability. For this reason, the Netherlands is in the process of switching to MMP. Scotland has eight self-contained MMP regions. I expect most Scots think they have PR. But there is no proportionality Scotland-wide. A sweep in a region will not be compensated in another region. They have no "overhang" seats. A purist would say that makes their model less than fully proportional. But where do you draw the line? Germany has a five percent threshold, as many countries do. Votes for a party getting less than 5% are "wasted." Not proportional? In STV, such votes are not wasted since their ballot will transfer at full weight to their further preferences; they will still count. On the other hand, in a seven-MLA STV district, on the final count the candidate in seventh place is elected and the votes for the candidate in eighth place are "wasted." Not proportional? STV is too complicated? Scotland's MMP model is simple, but can produce a "majority government" with less than 50% of the votes. The BC CA designed a better MMP system, with province-wide proportionality, regional open lists, and lots of local accountability, but some members found it as complicated as STV. Designing a new voting system is an exercise in trade-offs. The trade-offs a provincial cabinet would have made are different from the trade-offs the independent Citizens' Assembly made, and different from the trade-offs I would have made. But if they reflected BC Citizens well, then they did the job well. You should, IMHO, take the time to understand what they did, and why, before you dismiss it as "not proportional."

If it had no other qualities to commend it, this would be worth doing only for the fact that it would make a very strong majority government a rare and unlikely thing. The Libs have changed those parts of Parliamentary democracy which prevented dictatorship from occurring. They slashed oversight officers like the Auditor General, the Labour board, the Ombudsman. Then they made themselves safe from Parliamentary proceedure by establishing an American style fixed election date.

In a minority or coalition position any government which fails to find support for certain types of bill fails and falls, and must call an election. Any government which becomes so enmeshed in scandal or public disapproval must seek a mandate in an election. Election dates cannot be fixed. Oversight must be public and strong. We would have to rebuild all the parliamentary structures this last bunch of vandals have attempted to grind underfoot.

That alone makes it worth doing.

I agree, Mr. Day, that designing a new voting system is a challenging job, and I guess the bottom line, then, is - why did the BC CA select the STV after working so hard considering other choices and even designing a way better system?

Your informative response proves there are far better voting systems out there which could have been used as a starting point. And, I have read through the stuff on the CA site and know that other better systems were suggested. What's worse, I realise that not all STV issues have been properly addressed and in some cases I can't tell because the site's downloadables are not downloading. It is clear to me that we will never know why the BC CA chose STV over some of the other, better, more proportional systems out there.

Public beware. Promoting STV as being as easy as 1-2-3 leads people to believe the controversy is in its complexity rather than in the many ways results can be manipulated. The STV system proposed by the BC CA is a highly controversial and distorting system that offers no unique advantages over any other system.

STV...

• “wastes” votes
• is not transparent
• can be counted in more than way, giving different results with the same, identically completed ballot papers
• causes a psychological barrier at the voting booth
• allocates different values to votes
• is non-monotonic and,
• is not as easy as 1-2-3.

Thanks Mr. Barrett!

Allan when you stop looking for Imperial Tories in every corner you will probably find your own enlightenment. As far as Allan's comments re my piece above I sincerely hope that not too many people interpreted it as he did and if so I do apologize.I am pleased to say that his interpretation could not be further from the truth ."an imperial elitist"!wow With respect to the make up of the CA I really hope that the leader of that group was appointed because of their ability to lead such a group as that.Of course Cambell had a golden opportunity to reach across the isle and appoint somebody like say Mike Harcourt[assuming he was medically able]whom I think would have done a great job. I don't know what the inteligence make up of the Assembly is,but I sincerely hope that after they were/were not, randomly picked, they were put through some kind of independent suitabillity tests to ensure that they were up to the task.Unfortunatly not everybody is up to the thought process that is required of a group such as this so I hope that they were picked carefully to ensure that we got the best we could get just like any job interveiw. My greatest fear is that the CA presents an STV system to the ellectorate that is not easerly understood and they don't have an adequate educational plan to go with it.If so I think it will fail. Now lets assume that Cambell is doing every conceivable thing he can to bias this STV plan in his [liberals] favour.It will only work once and if the general public sees this it will cause the complete collapse of the liberal party.He may not be the brightest bulb on the tree,but he certainly is not that dumb. I just wish there was some more give and take on this site instead of this continual left wing holier than thou stuff. We need more people like Brian White who's artical above is right on the money. I too think that the process is flawed.The CA was instructed to come up with a system that complied with the basic tenants of the Westminister rules for pariament.This of course ensures that we continue with a party system,which I really feel is the biggest fly in the ointment.I wish this whole process could have been started sooner with more thought being put into its parameters.The government is obviously trying to save money by having this referendum combined with the ellection which is good ,but may end up being too little, too late.Don't shoot the messenger,the CA is probably doing the best they can given their mandate.Something positive may come out of this and if not you can always vote against it.

Hedley, thank you for the clarification on your remarks and please accept my deepest apology that I would dare to think you would want an elitist selection process to ensure that intelligence, as defined by pedigree or something as telling, be used to determine who is worthy to lead us into a better world. It's also encouraging that you now say we should try to stay within the Westminster model, which has often been cited as the bedrock of democracy. But I do worry a slight bit about your suggestion of a "suitability test" to make sure they are up to the task. Frankly, I'd prefer they use the same system that is in place to determine who is suitable to vote. But it's positive to learn you aren't recommending a House of Lords approach to picking the CA. Like the Canadian Senate, the House of Lords represents the rotting timbers we often tend to gloss over when waxing on about our brand of democracy, don't you agree Hedley? Now as for imperial Tories hiding in every corner, let me just note that I may be a victim of a left-wing conspiracy by Canadian history teachers who seem to have imbedded in me this belief that it was Tory politicans who wanted to keep hereditary privilage as a cornerstone in British democracy. Those dang teachers and their "left-wing holier than thou stuff" have had me Toryized for years. I can't even go to bed without first peering ever so bravely underneath, fretful that there are Thatchers lurking there just waiting for me to nod off. I'm also glad you think a guy like Mike Harcourt might have the stuff to run the show sans a test, but even though I like and admire Mikey, I really don't think a politician, even a backroom type like Gordon Gibson, with perhaps just a taint of political odor should be anywhere near the process. It just smells far too much like that old Tory approach to government that my mentors instilled in me. One final issue. You state that the ground rules adopted by the CA, and based on the Newwestminster model ensures the continuation of the party sustem, which you "feel is the greatest fly in the ointment." The territory of Nunavut has been functioning under a concensus style government for six years now and there are no political parties involved, yet the system has been endorsed as fitting into the Newwestminster model of democatic government with at least as many safeguards as we'll find in the BC's system. It may be all jiberish to flim-flam Nunavut voters and it is written by an academic so he may have ties to my former history teachers, thus caveat emptor is of course prudent. But if you are curious, you might search out Consensus Government in Nunavut, written by Graham White of the University of Toronto's department of Political Science in Dec. 2003. I'm sure a google search will uncover this article and, if not, let me know and I can copy it to you somehow. In the meantime, I've added facists, republicans and elitists to my list of people I'd like to flush out of all those corners.

Perhaps we could get a piece in Tyee explaining STV before we get another bit of lame humor. And perhaps a piece explaining what, if anything, is good about the current system.

In the discussion above, I've seen plenty of information re the pros and cons of the STV. But, since I'll need to choose between STV and the status quo, could someone please explain what's so good about first past the post. I've been voting for over 30 years, and have found absolutely nothing to recommend the current process.

This is my question that I think deserves an answer: I have been reading the deliberation phases on the CA site. You state that on Sept. 25-26, the CA designed an STV electoral system model. On Oct. 16-17, you designed a MMP electoral system model. This is followed by the following statement ( note the word "planned" ):

"Members planned on the weekend of Oct.23-24 to pick one of these two (referring to STV and MMP) as the best potential model for BC. Then they were set to compare it's pluses and minuses with those of the current First Past the Post system."

Then when you read the page describing the Oct. 24 final stage of deliberation this is the information provided: First they voted whether to retain First Past the Post. Result: 142 No 11 Yes. Then they voted on whether the STV model they designed should be proposed to the people. Result: 146 Yes 7 No.

Wait a minute...no mention on Oct.24 of MMP... What happened to the "plan" to vote between STV and MMP? If you did vote when was the vote conducted and what were the voting count numbers? How many voted for MMP? How many voted for STV? I think it is curious you left these numbers out, as you state on your site "members planned" to vote between STV and MMP on Oct. 24. Did you change your plans? If you are to have any credibility, I think you should provide us with the vote count numbers that allowed you to in the end, select STV over MMP and thus be able to offer STV as the only choice in the final deliberation against our present First Past the Post.

If your members did not vote between STV or MMP on Oct.24 and if you instead did some esoteric "picking" of voting systems then the Citizen's Assembly is not worth a damn. If a Citizen's Assembly on Voter Reform doesn't value the importance of voting in final decisions we are all in big trouble. Awaiting your response and the numbers...and I hope for all our sakes you have them.

It's not up to me to explain the CA, but anyway: Here's the slideshow they watched as they decided between MMP and STV: http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/resources/deliberation/Week end4/Alternative_systems.ppt#16 And then they voted 80% for STV, 20% for MMP: "On Saturday, members turned down as an alternative to STV a Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) model that they had designed. The vote was 123 to 31 in favour of STV as the best alternative to First Past the Post." http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/public/news/2004/10/dmacl achlan-3_0410241345-701

Thanks Wilf. Since there was absolutely no mention of MMP or the votes it's CA designed model received on The Deliberations Page:Weekend Four, The Final Decision, I didn't understand why that important fact was omitted. I'll have to take your word for it. I tried both those links, the first one said "the requested resource is not available." The second one also said this page is not available. I have found real difficulty in downloading a number of items from the CA site - a lot of info is not downloading. It is still very unclear to me as to how STV was finally chosen and in my opinion at least there seems to be a conscious attempt to overlook other proportional systems.

If you read their deliberations on the weekend they designed their MMP system, you'll see they did a good job. They didn't overlook MMP, they decided they wanted a system less oriented to parties: http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/public/extra/deliberati on_weekend3.xml

Wilf, I thought the MMP model they designed was quite elegant and I think it should be proposed to the public. In that regard, I think it was overlooked as the STV proponents and the CA want less party influence. More of that false-faced civility, I say. I rather like political parties, I think as a process it often encourages refinement of political thought, committment and accountability - with all it's warts and human flaws. I agree with Stephen Hume that the CA Assembly has been reductionist in nature, rather than expansive, just as a Tyee article predicted months ago. It is just interesting to me that the STV supporters and the CA have no problem in telling us that fifteen candidates on a ballot will be a cakewalk, but the "only" answer to voter reform is STV. If you can put fifteen candidates on a ballot so simply, why can't you put three choices on a referendum - STV, MMP and FPTP?

Three choices on the ballot is not within the CA's power. They were mandated to produce "a" model by their terms of reference. They were also mandated not to change the number of MLAs. We are apparently about to start a similar process in Ontario. We hope to have a CA in Ontario which will be subject to neither of these restrictions. However, you in BC have a choice next May between FPTP and a proportional system. No one else in the country has such a choice at this moment. You are the pioneers. Don't complain. Seize the moment.

Who are the people who placed the restrictions on the mandate the CA was given? In other words, who devised the limitations, that in effect control the result?

It was a lengthy process. See:

http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/public/inaction/history

Allan where in the hell do you get this stuff?I have never said we should or should not use the Westminister Parliamentary rules,or wheather people should be selected according interlectual pedigree,or most of your other stuff.You don't even have courtessy to accept an apology when its given with out making fun of it.Thanks but no thanks.

Thanks again, Wilf, I really do appreciate that you took the time to answer. I tried link, again I got "this page unavailable". Will try later, I guess...Gordon Gibson of the Fraser Institute, I believe.

STV in Tasmania has elected mostly Labour governments. In Ireland the left is weak. Does that mean STV is a right-wing scheme? It certainly doesn't prevent left governments, even in Ireland. "Since its foundation in 1912, the Labour Party has taken part in seven coalition Governments: 1948 - 50, 1954 - 57, 1973 - 77, 1981 - 82, 1982 - 87, 1993 - 94, and most recently from 1994 to 1997." "In 1990 Labour nominated Mary Robinson as President of Ireland. She went on to win the election and became Ireland's first woman President."

Just a point about Ireland, The left is not that weak.(labour shared power in all those coalitions.) Garrett Fitzgerald was leader of fine gael ( right wing) for a while. But he was pretty left wing. Also, the other large party fianna fail is hard to quantify as to where they stand. Left of centre lots of times. Mary harney is the leader of the pee dees and they are the right wing party in the coalition at the moment BUT she was the one who implimented the controls that cleaned up the smog in Dublin about 15 years ago. Sounds like a left wing greenie thing to do! She banned people from burning smelly coal. Had to be smokeless. I guess I am trying to say that right and left are just cloaks. It is convenient to proclaim yourself left or right here but under stv, you got to talk policy a little more. The one that wins seems to be a bit of everything. Brian White

Indeed Irish politics can be hard to follow, since the two biggest parties derive from opposite sides in the 1920 civil war (and sometimes seem to be still fighting it.) And indeed, the strength (or weakness, depending on your outlook) of PR/STV is that it rewards candidates who appeal to supporters of other parties. But to help people follow who's who in Ireland (and BC is fated to learn a lot about Ireland in the next 6 months) just look at which group the different Irish parties sit with in the European parliament:

Fianna Fail: Europe of the Nations, along with Italy's Alleanza Nazionale (neo-fascist), the racist Danish Peoples Party and the conservative Polish Law and Justice Party.

Fine Gael: People's (Christian Democrats), along with the British Conservatives, Chirac's party in France, the German Christian Democrats, and Berlusconi's party in Italy

Progressive Democrats (represented only by independent Marian Harkin elected with their support): Liberals, along with the British Liberal Democrats and the French centre-right UDF (whom they most resemble).

Labour: Socialist group, with British Labour, German Social Democrats, etc.

Sinn Fein: United Left, along with the German left-socialist PDS, Swedish and Spanish united left parties, and the French and Italian Communists. (Note: some of their voters don't quite buy all this, and give their second preferences to Fianna Fail.)

Wilf Day, I'm curious. Were you involved at all in the B.C. process? The reason I ask is you appear to know more about the workings of the CA than most of its members or the people who are churning out their comments on behalf of the CA. ***Hedley Goldsworthy, go back and read the apology you say you offered to me. Sorry, but when I read it, there was a pretty clear indication you were excluding me from your little mea culpa. I was certainly left with the impression you had painted me as one of those "drivelling pundits"(Nov 10) you seem to be troubled by. I'd urge you to broaden your horizons slightly and drop those pompous airs about ensuring that only IQ tested and certified elitists should decide on the democratic process in BC. Here's what you said on Nov. 10: "I hope that the members of the Citizens' Assembly remember that they may represent a cut above the average on the old IQ scale and therefore the ultimate system to them may not be the best one (to) present to the electorate." When you were challenged on that as being elitist, you clarify (I guess) on Nov.12 with:"I don't know what the intelligence make up of the Assembly is, but I sincerely hope that after they were/were not randomly picked, they were put through some kind of independant suitibility tests to ensure that they were up to the task." So I ask you Hedley, what kind of suitability testing are you speaking of? The test that excluded women from voting until the 1920s? How about the old property ownership rules that used to exclude a lot of people from voting? Hedley, you can blather on all day about the need to have CA members who are suitable, but that still sounds like elitism. It would appear you don't really want democracy, but rather some form of control by elites. In fact, your writings so far suggest to me you are among that class of the comfortable who need to be afflicked once in a while just to remind you that democracy isn't a tidy little package fathomable only by your select few.

Allan, I was involved to the extent of making submissions here:

http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/public/get_involved/submi ssion/D/DAY-1203

and here:

http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/public/get_involved/submi ssion/D/DAY-1667

But although they were in support of MMP, I have no doubt PR/STV is a whole lot better than FPTP. As I quoted above, the CA had to choose between chocolate cake and strawberry shortcake.

In reference to Mary Robinson, as the first woman president of Ireland, the role ot the president of Ireland is largely ceremonial in nature and seems similar to the Govenor-General's office in Canada . The prime minister of Ireland has more of the actual political clout.

Thank you Wilf. Taste, as you no doubt appreciate, is a personal thing so I'll hold my applause for your chocolate or strawberry short cakes at least until some of the ingredients are more clearly defined. You made earlier reference to Gordon Gibson's position that only one option cold be advanced for us plebs to respond to. Mr. Gibson is well known for his political views, which suggests to me his manner of stirring the batter might not make it in a straight up cookbook such as the Joy of Cooking. I guess I was under this illusion that the Citizen's Assembly would be determining these issues without the firm direction of a man who is known to support partisan political causes. The idea of a Citizens' Assembly, fairly picked to best represent us the citizens sounds great until we find that the real decisions are made by those appointed by the politicians. As much as I appreciate the hard work, long hours and much travelling CA members undertook, I am still left to wonder what they did in the final analysis other than rubber stamp the recommendations handed down to them by people who have vested interests.

I am just wondering who is running the smear campaign against the Citizens assembly? I just got strait of Georgia Island Tides and on the front page, Referendum article, Green Party of canada deputy leader Andrew Lewis is quoted as saying "Congratulations to the CitiZens Assembly. They have done a tremeidous Job. It is a privilege to have such a groundbreaking democratic process in BC -which the whole of Canada has been watching closely. I am relieved that the Assembly have recommended changes in BC electoeral system. My First impression of STV is that it will be good for the minorityh communitys like the Gulf Islands which have a better chance of electing local candidates. I look forward to the final proposal and am confident that it will have a defgree of proportionality that is so desperately needed in the province" I also wondor who is the ranking member of the green party? Do you listen to Adriane Carr, who has been lamblasted and lampooned by everybody (left and right in the regular media) and who seems to run a personal fiefdom and runs a personal vendetta against stv or to the deputy leader of the federal party? (Who also resides in BC)? Also,Why do you not call stv proportional representation? It is just as proportional as mmp and every single person gets elected by the people under stv. The backroom boys and girl would love party list so they could get to appoint mla's. Tough, you lost, get over it and behave with decency. Who are you working for? Certainly not the greens of BC.

Gordon Gibson may have been instrumental in the construction of the process, but he has had no part in the execution of the process. If you do feel that the construction of the process sigynificantly biased the outcome, that's fair, but you'll need to substantiate it. The vote between MMP and STV was held on Oct. 23, and was 123 in favour of STV(79.87%) to 31 in favour of MMP. Many of us vowed, before the vote, that while we may have a preference, we'd support either option through the referendum, as opposed to FPTP. Remember that we're not done yet: the official report was worked on this weekend, and will be released in two sections in early December. Vol. 1 will be a 20 pg. overview for wide distribution. Vol. 2 will be some 300 pg.s of academic detail, for the trainspotters. For the curious(Wilf, IOW), and as fodder for charges of over-complexity, we've chosen the Gregory Weighted Inclusive method for allocating the surpluses of surpluses. This is the price of democracy, my friends.

sorry, forgot to format properly.

Brian, it's good to hear that Andrew Lewis is supportive. I daresay he's the most credible representative the Green party has at this point. Personally, I have doubts as to how long Carr will be around; she rode in on a coup, and is likely to leave on a coup. It's nothing personal but the party isn't well if internal conflicts are playing out on Tyee message boards.

In Ireland, the system is known as PR-STV. We voted today to call ours BC-STV, after (too long) a discussion. It is proportional, but we felt that the regional identifier would be more significant, in the long run.

Wilf, sorry, I was unclear earlier: yes, max and min DM is up to us, but where those are specifically allocated(i.e. Kootenays are a 3 member district, North Island is 5) is not. We've recommended a min. of 2 and a max of 7, with a strong preference towards 5 and 7, where possible. We hope to not have more than two 2-3 member districts, but those specifics will be left to the boundary commision.

Five-MLA districts will do, if you're lucky, although 7 is safer.

In the last election in Ireland, six parties and 14 independents were elected in 166 seats. The three small parties did, as you would expect, better in 5-member districts where they got (between them) 14.3% of the seats, matching their 14.3% of the popular first preference vote. In 4-member districts they got 12.5% of the seats. In three-member districts they got only 6.25%.

But a handful of 3-member and 4-member districts will do no harm. Ireland, however, has 96 of the 166 members elected from districts with less than five members. Bad for proportionality. Good that you've avoided that.

We'll have specific recommendations that only rural areas get the 3 member districts, and 7 members be the rule, if possible, in urban and suburban areas. It's the province's population distribution that really cuffs us; a 5 member district, even, in the north would span over half the province. Again, this is the nonsense of this country. The deputy minister appointed to look into electoral reform in Ontario, or at least someone working with him came to one of our spring meetings. He seemed interested and excited by the process, but skeptical that it would be recreated in Ontario. What's the current word? If you wait until after the referendum, us alumni can fly over to help out.. :)

Ontario is close behind you. We're likely on the verge of our own Citizens' Assembly. The announcement may come this Thursday at the government's "Dialogue on Democracy: Two panels of special guests will lead a day of stimulating debate and discussion on reforming our political institutions and enhancing opportunities for meaningful citizen participation in decision-making processes."

The Gordon Gibson conspiracy theory surprises me. If the CA had chosen MMP, would you have suspected Gordon Gibson favoured that system? A google search on "Gordon Gibson" + STV shows nothing he said about STV before the last few weeks. Has he ever been in favour of it before?

Wilf, my concern about Gordon Gibson's involvement in this project is that he arrives as a champion of the extreme and powerful rightwing of Canadian politics in his role as a senior fellow of the Fraser Institute. I am not accusing him or anyone of a conspiracy, but do have a true problem when someone so strongly identifed with such a powerful force in politics and the media as the Fraser Institute. B.C. Attorney-general Geoff Plant, who was glowingly introduced to a Fraser Institute luncheon last year, by none other than Gordon Gibson, went on to thank the right-wing think tank for its contribution to electoral reform in BC. It was Plant's boss Gordon Campbell who appointed Gibson apparently based on Gibson's work for the FI. I do note that Gordon Gibson is well educated, well connected and has a certain amount of what you might call political expertise in BC. He does have name recognition, but he is also recognized as anything but friendly to politics of the centre or centre left, which no doubt holds him in good stead among his fellow Fraser instituters. I could get into a very long list of things about Fraser Institute policy that I believe would be quite scary to many Canadians, but I suspect you have heard a few yourself. I will admit I seldom read much from the Fraser Institute, primarily because most of its public fodder is pushed through Can/west newspapers, which I do not read because of ongoing and repeated editorial bias imposed from above. His appointment suggests either Gordon Campbell sought out the safest possible person in terms of ensuring an edge for the right or that Premier Campbell simply doesn't understand fairness or balance.

Allan, I don't dispute anything you have said about Gordon Gibson. However, the reason we want an Ontario CA on the BC model is because it seems to have been insulated against partisan interference better than any other model we can think of. At least that's what lots of its members say. If you can point to how it could have been done better, please do, quickly. It's odd that no one has accused Jack Blaney of partisanship, which would be more worrisome. I don't know who Ontario's Jack Blaney is -- Ontario might need co-chairs to keep each other honest.

allan, that's a fair concern- I'm a labour studies student myself, and have done some research on the Fraser Institute. We can speculate endlessly on why he was chosen at the beginning, but he has not had any involvement in the actual process, nor has the fraser Institute itself, aside from a lame op-ed piece claiming that 'minority gov'ts = wild spending! don't change the system!'

Wilf Day and derrick, you both are doing a good job of pulling me over toward acceptance of STV, although I think I'll wait for a little more of the details to fall into place before making that decision. Wilf, having lived in Ontario, I certainly understand your interest in tossing FPTP in the trash there. I believe residents in both provinces are fed up with the radical swings in government philosophies, hardened by bitter partisen politics that mark the past decade so starkly.***derrick, I appreciate your comments and your commitment to this process. I realize I have been quite critical of the plan and do apologize if anyone was offended, but we will not just be changing our socks and underwear. Instead we will be changing about the only involvement the average citizen has in what we call the democratic process in British Columbia.

Hi derrick, did ya miss me? Thanks, for spilling the beans on what constituency sizes might look like under BC-STV. As you know, the number of seats in a constituency has a direct bearing on the rate of proportionality an STV voting system offers. And since the question of how many seats are contested in STV constituencies is a highly subjective one, this is one of the areas in which one can directly manipulate an STV system's results.

With this in mind, I have to question why the CA would be specifically recommending 3 members in rural areas? You do realize that reducing the number of seats per constituency reduces proportionality, right? In a three- member constituency, a candidate would need a quarter of the total vote plus one to guarantee election. The brutal consequence of this is that the weaker parties in a 3-member constituency would still find it very difficult to gain representation; a party could gain almost 25% of the vote in a three-member constituency, but it could not get a seat.

How is this better than our current system again?

There’s no reason you can’t have 5 representatives in rural areas, thereby reducing the quota to one-sixth of the vote plus one. Sounds like a more reasonable amount to attain, doesn’t it? But, hold on a minute, the weaker parties, i.e. the Green and the NDP, are not all that popular in rural areas anyway, are they. One plus one = ...

Another note of interest, didn't Mitch Anderson report in the Tyee in August that the BC CA was considering doing some dubious things with respect to constituency size, especially in rural areas.

The more you type, derrick, the more it sounds like the STV deal was done a long time ago.

Go here for the article written by Mitch Anderson.

http://www.thetyee.ca/Views/current/BCCitizensAssemb lyReform.htm

Remove the space in "Assembly"

rob- the decision to change the system could be guessed at the end of the spring, to be honest. the decision to opt for an STV rather than an MMP system, however, was made oct. 23. all of our plenary discussion are avaliable in windows media format, i believe, on our website: http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca i urge you to watch the first three fall sessions to see the debates over STV vs. MMP, and the final debate of STV vs. FPTP. you are, quite simply, wrong. individual members may have decided where they were leaning by the fall, but many more, i can guarantee, were leaning either way at different times. see, it's not a 'yes' or 'no' question; the systems have different strengths and different weaknesses, and we chose the system that we felt provided the best solution to a tricky balance of values. personally, i was undecided until the moment i voted, and would have been happy with either system, as opposed to FPTP. most of us pledged to support either MMP or STV vs. FPTP, depending on which way the vote went. many of us were, quite frankly, stunned at the 80% margin of the STV/MMP vote. i'll ask you, kindly, to either stop casting aspersions, or substantiate your claims. i can only repeat myself so many times.

rural constituencies are 3 members because of the vast amount of space that these ridings already take up, and the truly massive area that a larger riding, even 5 member, would take up. there simply isn't any logic in a riding that spans from Atlin to Kamloops, or from the Peace River to Skidegate; those members of the assembly from northern ridings were very clear on this point. this is the difficulty of geographically-based representative democracy in a country with such ridiculous population distribution. 3 member ridings, while less proportional than we might like, were a better solution than the substantially bigger simgle member districts under MMP, or the single member AV districts that nick loenen suggested, which simply aren't proportional.

as for third parties not getting support in rural areas, you're wrong: all three 'third party' MLAs elected in 1996 were in rural ridings; Powell River-Sunshine Coast, Peace River North, and Peace River South. the NDP are traditionally very strong in rural BC; stronger, perhaps, than they are in the lower mainland. North Coast, Skeena, Bulkley Valley-Stikine, could all be considered relatively-strong NDP seats, and they are definitely competitive in all three Prince George seats, and even took 30% in the Peace River seats in '96. i'm not sure where your information is coming from.

some points about Mitch Anderson's article.

1. he's right that nick loenen's 'preferential plus' is a bad idea: that's why we didn't use it. using a different system in different areas of the province was discussed, but dismissed quickly.

2. electoral systems are a bad indicator of the participation of women in politics. the strongest indicators are overall political culture and political party activism. is ireland's low rate a result of its electoral system, or rather its very catholic, patriarchal society?(a major party's name translates as "soldiers of destiny": these are very different people) is sweden's high rate a result of its electoral system, or its strong social net that has led to high quality of life indicators across the board? the single best way that we can bring more women into politics is through political party activism: candidate search committees picking women to run in winnable constituencies, and giving them financial and organizational support equal to the man in the next riding. more broadly, we need to change our political culture, which still holds the archetypical politician as older, male, anglo-saxon, and wealthy. believing that an electoral system can do all that is hoping for a panacea that simply won't arrive.

while it is true that a closed list MMP system allows parties to 'zipper' their lists, and take a 'lazier' route towards increasing gender parity among candidates, the accompanying party control and lack of accountability made such a system a non-starter, for better or for worse.

3. the comments Anderson makes in support of proportional representation apply equally to our BC-STV as they do to his idealized MMP system. balanced policy, coalition governments, fewer wild ideological swings are characteristics of proportional systems in general, which is why we picked one. FPTP won't deliver those things, and neither will MM or AV. we picked a system that, we hope, will.

4. an important point in general: the biggest lesson to learn from new zealand's shift to MMP in 1994 is that, in the end, not that much changed. yes, the system was different, they had coalition governments, a few more parties around, but they were the same people, living the same lives, voting on the same issues and facing the same problems. electoral reform will fix what it can, but no more. that goes for any system.

Ok derrick, I’ll stop buggin’ ya about this one. Though I’m not sure how proud I’d be if "…i was undecided until the moment i voted…" on such an important issue. I mean dude, that’s a lot of indecision for someone in such a powerful position.

And to say that "most of (you) pledged to support either MMP or STV vs. FPTP, depending on which way the vote went" suggests to me, anyway, that some of you were biased, lazy and / or lacking conviction. Sounds like some of you are well on your way to becoming the politicians you want to be…

I still believe that the BC CA blew it with this decision, but I guess time will tell. If your BC STV system produces any better results with less controversy than the status quo, I’ll write a big fat apology to you in the Tyee - promise.

Talk to you in around 9 years. Until 2013!

I agree with Rob on that rather revealing manipulated "pledge" of support for either MMP or STV over FPTP, depending on which way the vote went - what happened to independence of thought? This is what I was referring to in earlier posts that under STV, we will get opportunistic alliances formed who under a manipulative "niceness" to get what they want, to fulfill an agenda, will look on those with independence of thought as troublemakers to the coalition. But, hey, they won't be called troublemakers, it's all too nice and business-like for that, they'll just feel the pressure of being the odd man out on the jury. STV will require more and more of these "pledges" for the harmony of group thought. But independence of thought...think again

i'm not sure the two of you are really understanding what i've said. it was a matter of those of us in the minority respecting the group's decision as one that we'd all worked on, and come to together. it was an almost universal feeling that either STV or MMP would be a far better option than the status quo. it's a sentiment that came, i feel, from the tremendous respect we've come to have for each other and the process. while we may have had strong feelings for one system over the other, and there were stong opinions on both sides, it was a mutual agreement to 'bury the hatchet', so to speak, in respect of the democratic process that we'd undertaken together. i'm not sure how you can find fault in the mutual support of a group following a tough decision. had the vote been 55%-45%, i can't say what may have developed, in terms of the group dynamic. with the 80% vote, it was very easy to move forward.

somehow, i doubt very severely that many, if any of us have plans to enter politics at this point. most of us are ready for a vacation, and some time away from droop quotas. we all have lives, thanks very much.

lynn, your argument is actually non-sensical. STV, in all likelihood, will lead to more independant MLA's, as erach will need to create a personal appeal seperate from the party brand in order to receive 1st preference, rather than 3rd preference votes. on the other hand, i believe that our provincial Liberal party, as well as the old Socred party are the very definition of 'opportunistic alliances'. for independence of thought and restoring decision making power to the legislature, rather than the premier's office, there is simply no better electoral system than STV.

it's not as if i was undecided for lack of information, but rather an overload of information. i could, on oct. 23rd, given you a long argument for or against either system. as i've said, they have different strengths and weaknesses, and there's no 'correct' answer. 'proud' is the wrong term: 'honest' is what i'm trying to be. if you'll follow our discussion here, you've first decried us for deciding on STV well in advance, then decried me for not being firm enough in my decision. that doesn't parse.

Derrick, I don't think my argument is non-sensical but I agree I'm probably in a small minority here, perhaps a minority of one, in my disappointment of the CA's move away from party politics and towards a more coalition-based STV. This is said with full recognition of the warts that sometimes appear in party politics and with a real distaste for the "my party, right or wrong" pledge.

I agree, the BC liberals are one of the best examples of an opportunistic alliance but that is "because" they are a coalition of old Socreds, Reformers, Conservatives and some Liberals - exactly, my point. They are not a party based on liberalism, they do not represent liberal policies. "Party politics", isn't their game. Hard to tell who they are, again my point. They appear to be a coalition of lemmings centered around a Chamber of Commerce mentality.

I guess I would like to have seen proportionality without the diminishment of the party system that I think will be the result of a STV voting system. There are reasons Tommy Douglas is heading the list of the greatest Canadian - he believed in how life should be for all Canadians. It was his vision of what Canada could be. He stood for something, it was direct, it was honest. It was embedded in policies, policies that became party politics. Party politics under Mr. Douglas of the finest kind - not afraid to stand it's ground, not easily compromised. You didn't have to agree but at least you knew what the CCF stood for - a rare thing in people and in politics today.

OK - how's this for a conspiracy theory. The form of the proportional representation system doesn't really matter. All this talk of PR leading to co-operation, and coalitions, and doing away with left/right polarization makes PR sound like a excellent way of entrenching the status quo. So if you're the Fraser Institute, a hard swing to the right (Campbell liberals) followed by a switch of electoral systems that short-circuits the inevitable swing back to the left probably sounds pretty appealing.

No lynn, you’re not in a minority here; I stand shoulder-to-shoulder with you on this one. I don't want parties to weaken either. But don’t worry so much. The notion that STV, in this case the BC STV, will lead to more independent MLA's thereby diminishing the power of the party is a fiction.

Just think about it for a minute. This assertion completely ignores the fact that candidates are chosen by constituency or ward parties and that therefore, a party's candidates in a given STV constituency might all be from the same "wing" of a party. Further, the experience of STV in Ireland has shown that in many constituencies, parties run fewer candidates than there are seats available, with smaller parties running only 1 candidate in a given seat. The reason is the fear of "leakage;" a situation in which voters, for whatever reason, fail to transfer to all their own party's other candidates.

Under STV, parties usually run no more candidates than they can reasonably expect might be elected, in the hope of avoiding unnecessary competition between them, and with the intention of concentrating their support on these candidates so that they reach the quota at the earliest stage and don't run the danger of leakage by "losing" voters who fail to transfer to a surfeit of candidates.

Also, in Australia, this issue of so-called independence of candidates was disproved in a different way. There was an election in which party campaigners distributed leaflets advising their own supporters in what order they should place their preferences. The purpose was to "organize" the transfer of votes and thereby maximize success.

The goal was to get one candidate so far over the quota that his surplus could then be transferred to other candidates (also in prescribed order) and pull them over the quota without eliminations - remember no candidates are eliminated under STV until all surpluses have been re-distributed.

Voters obeyed and the tactic worked; rather than exercising free choice between candidates, over 99% of Labor supporters followed the party directive and Labor won 5 of the 10 seats for only 41% of the first-preference votes.

These examples show another way in which STV is manipulable and, worse, that parties can still conspire in power to win, win, win. How is STV better than our current system?

Thanks, Rob, very interesting reply, and I agree, wasn't the purpose of this to supposedly create a better system?

Re: The Brockington conspiracy theory comment: One of the better ones and more probable than some would like to believe.

I don’t know why all the conjecture about conspiracy theory. Although I’m sure it makes CA Members defensive when the hear suggestions that the process might have been partisan, but the fact of the matter is that the process had partisan fingerprints all over it. The mandate was set by the Liberal government, the terms of reference by a former leader of the Liberal party, Gordon Gibson, and the Assembly was run by a hand picked Liberal appointee who did what the government told him to do. The fact that Gibson, Nick Loenen and other long time members of the provincial political right, got to design the process, choose the staff (including the people providing “instruction” to the members) should hardly make it surprising that the Assembly picked the system long advocated by Gibson, Loenen and the voices on the right of the electoral reform question. Better proportional systems (like MMP) never stood a chance.

"There was an election in which party campaigners distributed leaflets advising their own supporters in what order they should place their preferences. The purpose was to "organize" the transfer of votes and thereby maximize success."

That was done in Australia by all parties in all Senate elections before they invented "above the line" voting.

"The goal was to get one candidate so far over the quota that his surplus could then be transferred to other candidates (also in prescribed order) and pull them over the quota without eliminations - remember no candidates are eliminated under STV until all surpluses have been re-distributed. Voters obeyed and the tactic worked; rather than exercising free choice between candidates, over 99% of Labor supporters followed the party directive and Labor won 5 of the 10 seats for only 41% of the first-preference votes."

That's impossible. To win 5 of 10 seats takes at least 45.5%. They could have gotten some transfers from other parties, but only after elimination started. Surpluses from 41% of the voters, without eliminations and transfers, would elect 4 Senators, not 5.

lestor, it's true that many of the names connected with the citizen's assembly are well known Liberal partisans, but you would be hardpressed to find any action taken by any government that passes such a test. Care was taken to shield the assembly from the government at all times; Jack Blaney was unanimously approved by the legislature as chair, indicating the NDP's support. If STV was the right wing dream, do you honestly believe the assembly would be getting such a consistent string of bad press from Canwest Global, the Lib.'s official mouthpiece? Would the Lib.'s be stalling on whether to fund a province-wide education strategy before the referendum? Would they have taken a stern 'neutral' position, despite supporting the assembly's every move until now?

This referendum has an uphill battle to pass, frankly, and the Lib.'s aren't lifting a finger to help it along: these are not the actions of a government that has just gerrymandered the ultimate system for their ideology, rather they are the actions of a government that's more than a little scared of the cat we've let out of the bag. There are many ways that the Lib.'s could indicate approval of this recommendation, and they've gone in the exact opposite direction.

Not every issue can be boiled down to a 'left v. right' dichotomy, and reducing electoral reform to that level is to do a grave disservice to a debate that deserves better.

Michael, it's a neat theory, but the results of an electoral system change in BC are far too difficult to predict for such a plan to be made concretely. That the pendulum might 'stabilize in the middle' is only a guess, and an abstract one at that; define 'middle'! The talk of ending polarization is merely hopeful speculation; it'd be nice, but predicting political culture is a fools game at best. The Lib.'s are in relative danger of losing the next election, in which case the pendulum could be on the other side in 2009.

FWIW, the Fraser Institute has come out opposed to proportional systems in principle in both BC and Ontario, on the premise that minority/coalition governments spend more money than the strong majorities that FPTP produces. They don't want STV.

Like I said, Derrick. CA members seem awfully sensitive. To say something is non partisan because it got the support of the legislature is laughable – Because the two non government members didn’t campaign against it (and politically how could they?), the effort is non-partisan? Please . . . spare me. You may be non partisan, and I appreciate all the hard work you did, but who defined the mandate? Who decided that campaign finance could not be discussed? Who decided on the number of members of the legislature? Who decided on excluding the problem of aboriginal representation from the mandate? Who decided on the system for picking members based on local constituencies? These are all important factors in explaining why the CA has blindly stumbled towards choosing a system that that Loenen and Gibson wanted. Loenon and Gibson (who seem to already be running the Assembly’s “Yes” campaign, have always wanted this style of STV because it will ensure right wing political dominance in the province. Read Gibson's past writings on the topic - the need to reform the sytem to exclude the left from office. STV is not in fact proportionate. It has a horrible record for social representation and political corruption. It has also been largely abandoned everywhere it has been tried. (Outside of Ireland and Malta). Oh yeah even the Irish tried to get rid of it in a refferendum. Twice. Bad process = bad sytem. Full stop. What’s really sad about the CA is that it such a textbook example of how these kind of processes can be used to legitimate a government’s own agenda. Thanks for the hard work, but spare me the “non partisan” stuff.

And who did the CA rely on for "expert" advice on the difficult question of electoral reform? Two published experts on STV hired by Gordon Gibson.

No sense, it seems to me, arguing about the messengers (CA) when their message is clear and there to be discussed on its own merits. Here's a start: Ireland's government has twice put STV to a referendum to switch to our FPTP, both times initiated by the right-wing(!) Fianna Fail party. Twice the Irish people rejected a switch away from STV, narrowly in 1959, but soundly in 1968. Bad system? The people seem to quite like it in Ireland. It's the politicians themselves and their parties who want change there (even the right-wing ones, if you'll believe it). Sounds like an STV selling point to me... A good and fairly balanced (noting both general pros and cons) article on STV in Ireland: http://www.aceproject.org/main/english/es/esy_ie.htm

I know the current system is unfair and not democratic. I choose to trust the Citizen's Assembly, even if I do not fully understand STV. It is a step in the right direction, even if it is not perfect. I am willing to give it a chance. If you don't like this initiative, the question remains, "DO you like our current system? If so, why?" Because you think you understand it, is not a valid reason for the sake of this discussion.