And organized crime and corruption, Mr Mair, any advice on how to get that out of our public systems?

"too complicated for the average voter to understand" Nowadays Calculus is taught in most high schools, and is a prerequisite for many subjects in college/university. More and more people are going to college/university, in spite of the liberals dramatic tuition-hikes, because "education is an essential good", like oxygen, water, food, shelter, education... and so forth. I am just curious what is the mathematical/ scientific ability of the average voter in B.C.? I believe the average citizen's ability is a lot higher than "relayer" believes, especially that of younger voters. Sadly another question bears asking... What is the mathematical/ scientific ability of the average MLA in B.C? I would guess very low since no action is being taken on GLOBAL-WARMING, fish farms and other long-term enevironmental problems. Unlike students in B.C. who complete a language, math, and science assessment, MLA candidates are not required to do any such thing. Any canadian-citizen, who can stack a nomination-meeting, even if they can't name a greenhouse gas or do high school calculus can represent the people of b.c..

I don't see how rep-by-pop is going to be that complicated. The Stupids get 50%, the Evils get 30%, the Leftover Party gets 20% of the seats. I suppose there's a potential problem with being in the riding that gets stuck with the Leftover Party MLA that most people never even heard of, but, Christ, who are the politicians anyway?

Very "fond" of activists, and is a regular sport fishing tourist in New Zealand. Sure. We should all do it. And maybe preach about sustainability, ecosystems, the glabal airshed - all in the same breath. Great for the environment.

A green socialist! Is that like weekend socialist? Despite that difficult concept, I've always had a grudging respect for Mair, even when he was a Socred MLA in Kamloops. His clear enunciation that unfettered market place economics as practice by this current government is a badly flawed myth. Campbell's government has slashed far more consumer protection in this current term than most other governments have been able to introduce in two terms. It's certainly refreshing to hear this from someone of Mair's stature in the BC media game even if he does see himself as a maverick. I look forward to reading his book and hope he doesn't get what David Bond got for being an honest media commentator in this new era.

I welcome "right-wing" guys like Rafe and David Bond and Will McMartin to the anti-Lib alliance. I'm not asking anyone to suddenly do a 180 in their beliefs.

When guys like this can't be called "right-wing" then it shows just how marginal the support is for Gordon Campbell. I bet half the people that still support Gordo would fall in the same camp. They aren't ready to swear allegiance to the NDP but they wish the Libs would be far less ideological.

That's why Gordon is trying to be all warm and fuzzy lately, handing out bits of cash and getting huge headlines for every 40 bucks he hands over for schoolbooks. He knows to win the election he needs to appeal to all the soft conservatives. Guys who 9 times out of 10 agree with Mair, McMartin and Bond. Sure the "alliance" won't last a day after Gordon is tossed but so what, welcome aboard I say.

Someone like Rafe shows just how complex peoples opinions are and how unhelpful it is to pidgeonhole people or create caricatures of political views. Rafe is an old-time conservative, which means his views have an ethical basis. As such, he has more in common with the left - which also has ethical based views - than the neocons who are amoral nihilists. We need to develop a movement which includes all the ethical folks regardless of label.

I always find it interesting how former politicians always like to reminisce how wonderful everything was back in the good old days, with all of the “great decisions” that they made, etc, etc. I particularly get a kick out of those former Socred and NDP’ers who bemoan privatization, and yet it was the Socred’s who first introduced private liquor stores to the Province (not to mention road maint.), and the NDP who doubled the amount of private health care clinics. Ahhhh…the good old days.

Especially since this is a man who walked out on his constituents for greener pastures long ago. - No ethics there folks!

Well, I see the former Albertan, who claims he now operates a successful trucking business "somewhere" in BC's Interior is once again giving us history lessons. Imagine, that Mr. Lahey seems capable of absorbing the history of politics in BC prior to when he lived here (according to him), even though he claims to have been an innocent know-nothing political babe in the woods before leaving Ralph Klein's nervana for, presumably, a better life this side of the Rockies. We know Gordon Campbell is a liar, as are many of his fellow "Liberal" MLAs in Victoria. My question now is do I include Mr. Lahey as another fulltime practitioner of that same not so honourable art.

"What’s more, Mair actually describes himself as a socialist in the book." says Charles Campbell.

People describe themselves as, and hang all manner of labels upon themselves. Which is precisely why one has to be extremely careful about judging anyone by the "self-descriptive" labels people adopt.

Generally, we are ill-equipped, with the baggage of self-interest we all more or less carry, to very accurately make assessments of one's self. Again, "generally" that assessment of ourselves is probably more accurately reflected in the perceptions of other people-, though even there, nyahna, nyahna, for the same self-interest reasons, it should probably be taken with at least a wee grain of salt.

I mean, compared to today's crop of politicians of all stripes, "socialist" influenced ideas, very broadly defined, held much greater sway during the Great Prosperity Period of the immediate postwar II, and were in large part responsible for its more egalitarian distribution. It is the REAL yardstick by which one can more accurately, certainly than "labels", measure the degree of deterioration and abject FAILURE of current "rightist ideology" since the late seventies, and escalating in gravity into our own days. Carried, in one degree or another, by virtually all extant "formal" and "self-describing" political labels-, again much reflective of where said "labels" are coming from historically and "self-interest", than as actual accurate reflections of current "real political and economic direction" of where they one and all are attempting to lead us.

Hypocrisy, self and public deception have, of course, ever been with us to one degree or another. What is different in this time is, it is the gold standard by which the value of all political and economic ideas, and just about everything else, is being measured. All as always contingent on continuing public gullibility, waiting for the second coming of a saviour.

Rafe Mair, a socialist?

Tres amusante.

Only by today's standards.

I'm amazed to read left-wing right-wing (or BC - Alberta)nonsense in this thread. Didn't the interview suggest we need to get beyond this? It's time to hurry up and get interested in the 21st century. Looking back historically, I think the "right" and the "left" both have considerable wisdom that we should pay attention to, and use to re-define the province anew. Perhaps, if there is a better electoral system, we could see the emergence of new parties, and eventually they could lead the way. The Green Party is but the first example of a group that publicly says it's time to stop thinking "right" or "left" is best. I am sure there will be others, and I look forward to them. Good on Rafe for having the guts to disappoint the pigeon-holing public! May there be more like him.

Allan, As I have stated in the past, we actually operate a specialty transport business that differs from a conventional “trucking” business in many ways that I won’t bother to bore you with. As far as being “successful”, we a far cry from making VISA payments on Pattison’s credit card, however we do keep a few guys busy, manage to pay our bills every month, and find some extra money, more so lately, to do something fun with, hence why I love to live in BC. When we incorporated our business back in 1995, the banks all laughed at us, our plan to provide a specialized transport business given the state of what the NDP was doing to the mining industry in the province Banks said our plan had “no future” - What the banks did not realize was, that it did. We moved all kinds of industrial artillery out of BC in the 90’s, and today things are starting to move back in. Why be so bitter about that ?

Remember the phrase "We're all Keynesians now"? Nixon I believe. Not a lefty by any stretch of the imagination. The fact is, conservatives used to argue with us over how much we put into social welfare programs and how much medicare would cover and how much we should tax corporations and so on. The neo-cons now argue with us on whether we should do any of these things at all. That's the difference. So of course its nice to see guys who used to be on the other side of the fence, and still are in many respects, put aside labels and denounce the inheritors of "conservatism". Would we do the same if the left was taken over by a bunch of Stalinists or other such nonsense? I would like to think so.

Just as we allied with Stalin to defeat Hitler, I'm happy to ally with Mair, McMartin and Bond to defeat Gordo. Then, just maybe, we can get back to arguing over "how much" and not whether to at all.

"I'm amazed to read left-wing right-wing (or BC - Alberta)nonsense in this thread. Didn't the interview suggest we need to get beyond this?" wrote Big Red.

The interviewer may have suggested it, which doesn't necessarily make it true,or even resemble what actually exists.

Green thinking upon this issue is not only naive, but possibly even deliberately deceptive in the extreme, I suggest. That being the only choice of conclusions one can draw when one runs away from the reality of clashing economic and political interests, being sectional and class interests, which lie at the very heart of society, and what is described as "politics"; the art of identifying, securing, defending and managing same said interests. And dependant upon where one's view of society and its competing economic and political interests lie, in relation to the status quo, one's placement upon the societal graph of right and left, reflective of degree of conservative defense of same, or radical desire to overthrow same, can be more or less accurately determined. It is a simple and useful "scientific" description in the realm of political science, I suggest.

Greens, for example, can probably most accurately be placed on the "moderate right" of that graph, relating to one's status quo "ideological attitude". (Which, comparatively, is ABOUT where every other "major" political party in the country can be placed, with only more "extreme right" exceptions. Which is why it is so difficult for "the electoral mass" to distinguish one political grouping from another within status quo politics, at the current time: precisely because they all deny the left-right continuum, failing to see it because they are all so tightly desiring to, at least be seen, hugging around the "non-controversial centre".

On the other hand, those of us further out from the centre on the continuum, both right and left, are perhaps better positioned to see the actual graphical reality of our positions than those lost in the melee of the herd. Though even there, of course, there will be "some" who glimpse it, outside the dust storm raised by their own trampling feet.

The Greens especially though, are in need of less naivete and more reality.

Proof is in the fact rafe can garner all these letters from just stating his point of view. Or is it really a point of view or just a view most likely to augment a resume? His worth is just not in the drawing power of the number of listeners perhaps ,but in pandering to the rich media types which choose to pay him for "his" views. Let us keep it in perspective please.The biggest gorilla is one's own back pocket/self interest.

Mr. Lahey, that still doesn't explain how a self-describe know-nothing is now spouting political details from the history of BC, which he claimed not to know an iota about when he arrived. I'm curious, how you could live in a province like Alberta and not have a clue about politics in BC, yet move here and suddenly offer your thesis on political history in BC. Did you glean it all from the Edmonton Journal or the Vancouver Sun? And the banks told you to hit the road in '95? Well then, who bankrolled you then, the BC government or was it some other Alberta based group like Ledcor which has already caused lot of damage to working conditions in BC?

Coyote, life (even political life) ain’t a two-way graph. You obviously learned a lot from Marx. So did I. But, I didn't stop there. Some of the Greens are very naïve, true. But others are simply speaking a doctrine you haven’t yet grasped. I will be the first to admit that a lot of this is for dreamers. So was Marx. Helpful dreams, nonetheless…

Coyote: I've read and re-read your posting and remain baffled as to what you are saying and how it arrives at the conclusion that Greens are naive and in denial of reality. The latter statement may well be true but at least they appear to have clarity on their side.

I salute Dr. No in his strong opposition to that referendum in the early 90's.

The article makes a good point about putting the "left wing, right wing" nonsense behind us. The commentary you see in the Tyee and other such forums suggests that most British Columbians (or Canadians) fundamentally share the same principles, and that the majority of the fighting actually stems from knee-jerk political tribalism. Most of us believe in social services, progressive taxation, sustainability, a healthy economy, justice, fairness & democracy, though we may quibble about how to go about it or how to balance competing interests. It is the adversarial aspects of our political and economic systems that amplify our differences out of all proportion and the evolution of those systems is way overdue.

"The biggest gorilla is one's own back pocket/self interest." said poiuy.

Good points all. With which I do not significantly disagree.

Though Kurt has a little more trouble with it.

When you "think and act", as the Greens do with their "above left-right politics" stance, as if there was/is no objective reality, as in the reality of competing class and sectional interests, including gender, manifest in "parties" and other political "groupings and movements", objectively locked in a competition for influence and power within status quo society, then like men and women who ignore, or are unaware of the often competing interests and realities of and between maleness and femaleness, you are being NAIVE. And, I suggest, the Greens are in denial of that underlying and objective reality, manifest as the left-right spectrum.

Wishing it away, or even proclaiming its irrelevance, will not make it go away anymore than it will the moon, or hurling epithets about Marxism or whatever. What is, is. (Which is not to say that one cannot "change" objective reality. People do that, more or less, continuously, without even necessarily being aware of it.)

The other part of that, of course, is that "the end of left-right politics" is/ can be done for purposes of deceiving the "other", more truly perhaps, politically naive-, the Great Unwashed of the body politic. (Amongst whom there is often confusion about the same matter, and a tendency to follow whatever prevailing "ruling ideas.") Which "may" in fact be, what the Greens are trying to do here; identify themselves with those status quo "ruling (class) ideas". (Capitalists are always trying to convince workers and the poor that they have the same interests with us. It just doesn't fly, because it defies the "objective" laws of gravity.)

If one accepts then, that there is an "objective reality", and not just what "the mind" wishes or proclaims, one, the other, or both apply to the Greens-, in my view of it. And if I am to follow the Greens, they must convince me otherwise, with some other evidence of their "higher reality", which they have not yet done. Otherwise my contention re the Greens stands. They are either being naive, or they are attempting to deceive us.

"It is the adversarial aspects of our political and economic systems that amplify our differences out of all proportion and the evolution of those systems is way overdue." wrote Name.

And those "adversarial aspects", I say, exist "objectively", not just in our "minds" or that of collective society. They arise out of the real "class and gender" conditions of a real society, of which the Greens need to take more in depth cognizance.

And I agree, "...the evolution of those systems is way overdue." The question before us is, whence? Left or right?

The above was by moi.

In this thread I once again feel the need to clarify that Mr. Lahey is not Peter Lahay.

"It is the adversarial aspects of our political and economic systems that amplify our differences out of all proportion and the evolution of those systems is way overdue." offers Name. Sounds good, sounds great, but have you ever tried to negotiate a collective agreement from either side? Here is what it will take to evolve Name: the powers within the status quo must be willing to acknowledge that despite their wealth, others have as much right as them to the basics in life, which Canadians have deemed to included universal health care and the opportunity to be educated beyond the basics of elementary and high school. You see Name, the system isn't balanced and the wealthy or those who do their bidding have far too much power in this national non-adversarial community you dream of. Others don't have enough but a good many of those people or their representatives are never going to give up attempting to change the equation. We are still murdering people for oil, although we have got pretty good at bullshitting others into believing we are actually doing good things like population control or killing "terrorists". Some countries (USA) have presidents who say they will do whatever it takes to retain their gold leafed lifestyle, which suggests a lot more "terrorists" or over-crowded nations will have to be dealt with in order to acheive that goal, which if you only have a smattering of brains you aleady realize is a hopeless excuse to continue polluting the world so that couch potatoes in Peoria can watch the NFL teams beat the tribal shit out of each other. I find it interesting you picked up on Mair's "tribal" problem. Should the poor tribes simply cave in to the demands of the wealthy tribes? Will those commands then suddenly turn into cooperative suggestions? Will the wealthy sit down and break bread with the poor and commit to ensuring none of the poor tribal members suffer due to the wants of the wealthy? That's the greatest problem with this so-called Green plan, although I suspect it is really just the naive belief of the non-wealthy or non-powerful within the Green Party or movement. When do you anticipate the end of gated communities, the end of the use of jails to house the poor and the sick, the end of powerful countries invading weak countries or even the end of tax breaks for the truly wealthy? And will that other big tribal problem, organized religion, also be tossed in the scrap heap at the same time? I'm guessing that your answer will likely coincide with my estimation of when we will get around to tossing the adversarial system, even though a share your desire to see it gone.

"Others don't have enough but a good many of those people or their representatives are never going to give up attempting to change the equation." wrote Allan.

A damned fine piece Allan, with which I entirely agree.

C'mon Greens, take off your rose coloured glasses, and see the world as it really is, not as you imagine or would wish it to be. This isn't an exercise in Gestalt therapy (showing my age), this is about the REAL life of REAL people, with all their blemishes, warts and POTENTIAL for greatness.

We are still a relatively savage lot, caged within a still relatively backward and savage social norm. And the Green Revolution isn't possible without the Social/Class/Gender Revolution making greater cooperation and unity possible within real society. It's the old horse and cart parable.

You see, to think that the cart can actually pull the horse is naive-, or deliberate deception, no matter what you would wish to think in your own mind.

The clarity of your understanding is always a treat, Allan.

It's the adversarial aspects of politics and economics that work to the benefit of democracy; otherwise we acquiesce to fascism. Hence, an adversarial system is a good thing, no? It's the lack of an Opposition in this province that is part of the problem; hence the evolution of those systems is way overdue, as you put it, if you're talking about electoral reform. On the other hand, if you're talking about Marxism here, these folks talk about eating the rich but in reality end up eating their own (Trotsky et al.) in their vainglorious pursuit of ruling class power and all its trappings. As for the political centre, it's a pretty crowded place these days as all the parties clamour for the fabled middle ground. Ever since the last state interventionist type (Glen Clark) left for greener corporate pastures with Jimmy Pattison, and might I add, a hefty personal tax cut, the NDP have been putting on the business friendly face, with nice talk to business groups from C James and juice czar candidates (whassisname?) for the coming election. The Liberals like to think of themselves as the non-interventionist middle ground, and judging by the last vote and opinion polls, a good chunk of the populace also sees them as that. Ergo, the middle ground is a subjective place, not an objective one. And who can blame the Greens for wanting to stake their own portion of that middle ground? It's all marketing and brand placement.

"Ergo, the middle ground is a subjective place, not an objective one. And who can blame the Greens for wanting to stake their own portion of that middle ground? It's all marketing and brand placement." writes Kurt, completing his dance around the mulberry bush.

You folks on the right, unconvinced as I am, that Kurt is Green, really do need to get your head out of the historical notion that everyone who disagrees with you is either NDP, Trot or Stalinist, and hence either "state interventionist" or pro the status quo middle "capitalism". (The Neocon Liberals, sensing much of what I do about The Greens, are doing much subtle and not so, courting of them here, throwing out much common ground-, to which Greens unsurprisedly respond like fish to the bait.)

There is much on the left that has moved to the fore of the new times, that is much beyond this historical reduction, to which indeed it was much possible to characterize the "old left", I concede. Like "the right", "the left" also evolves out of its own and the experience of society.

Even I, an "old leftist", look with disdain on much of what was characterized by Stalinism, Leninism and Trotskyism. (Though I do seek to not throw the baby out with the wash.) All manifestations of which arose out of a quite different set of societal conditions than the modern experience with capitalism, and which as a consequence of the particular conditions of their own time, tended to place too little emphasis on "democracy", and too much on a "democratic centralism" notion which, in fact, set in motion the conditions for its own kind of heirarchical power "over" the working class, which it started out professedly to liberate.

Likewise am I unimpressed by your attempt to associate my kind of "left" with Glen Clark and the "business friendly" face of the NDP. Those that do or have associated with that, will have to defend themselves.

Whilst I would say that, in fact, what constitutes "the centre" in politics is, au contraire, objective, it does evolve with the political understanding of right and left, and the particular societal/economic conditions that prevail at any particular time. Which is not to say that "subjective factors" do not exert an influence or play a role in where and how the centre is perceived. It certainly does. Example: Greens.

Whereas "the left" of our Great Depression era past centred its hopes on "state power", I suggest, that has been demonstrated to precisely "not" be the desired avenue of change ordinary folks should seek after. The left of these current times, that experience indicates, needs to be shifted in "evolving degree" to "democratic control and participation" in the ownership and direction of the economy. The issue decided there, will allow the issue of "the state", if it is to continue, to likewise evolve and be decided. Likewise, economic power and who wields it, and how, is critical to deciding the great "green" issues of our time.

So, you see Kurt, it is not so much a matter of "subjectivity", as it is evolving historical experience at the levels of real politics, economics and the level of political understanding of all the class participants in society.

It is the great new struggle into which we are all just beginning to be drawn and engaged. My hope is that it will evolve peacefully, but there are two sides that will decide that issue.

Again, the above was yours truly. I had to rush away to something I had cooking in the oven. (For which reason there is a certain "disjointedness" to the piece.There was no sober second thought review. Still, it is good enough, I think.)

With but one misperception I may have left. Whilst I do not think "state power" is where working class power needs to focus its main attention, at this time, I do not suggest that what forces control it are entirely "unimportant". Clearly, "the state" has a role to play in making a "new democracy" centred as its starting point within the economy, more or less difficult.

I merely say that the matter of who controls the economy, especially the commanding heights of the "corporate sector", and what occurs there, and who decides it, is more important, again, at this time. Nay, it is decisive. It can even make or break "the state", and what it can and cannot do. (Small business is small potatoes, at least in this context, in my view, scarcely more than "working class". I see most small business as playing a secondary economic role, which can be relatively easily "regulated" by fairly ordinary means such as labour standards and wage laws etc., except to the degree that a "few" emerge out of this economic incubator to be the new giants of the corporate sector. Which when and as they do, should mainly then come up on our radar screen of "democratic concern". A more complex issue for another time perhaps.)

In any case, "the state" is important, just not as important as who "decides" the great issues of the economy, and controls its wealth generation.

I find it amazing that someone like Rafe would oppose the Illiberals and yet a lot of you folks would drive him away. The way you get something done is to form a broad coalition, not engage in sectarianism ("right wing" Greens, "statist" NDP, etc.)

And by the way, it was Micheal Bakunin, not the Greens who first pointed out that the real division was not so much left vs. right but authoritarian vs. libertarian.

And a Happy New Year to all who read and post here I must say, woo woo woo!

Now, down to business.

There are those for whom the defeat of the Campbell republicans is secondary to the promotion of their own personal Idaho. Or, more brutally, Dey'reDaHo. (My own little pun)

Ideological Puritans exist all over the political spectrum, 19th century mythologies about aisles notwithstanding.

They will reflexively beat one another insensate until the end of recorded time. Ignore them. Neither the ideological right nor the ideological left are especially interested in the lives or wellbeing of citizens except inasmuch as they may pertain to demonstrations of the rightness of their own positions or the wrongness of their oppositions'.

And a radio talkshow, on 'NW or 'BD, remains a front for advertisers no matter what the shill is gabbing.

Its wonderful to see ex-cabinet ministers come out in support of any political system that will move us from ideological governments to consensus governments. I find it poor journalism that the author has to insert the lines "headache-inducing methods of vote tabulation, lacks the kind of clarity and simplicity" into Raif's comments. Raif supports the system, he's worried more about various interests trying to mislead the general public. What I get from reading these posts, is that there are such a diverse range of political views out there, that its sad we have to run a two party system, with single riding plurality's. As for the systems complexity, its much overstated. Very few votes actually get transferred. I believe its around 30%, as from stats, 70% of people's first votes count in Ireland. However, if people like simplicity so much, perhaps we should go back to Authoritarian monarchy's, King Bennet I, King Bennett II, Bonny Prince Barrett. Oh, and now the legacy of King Campbell. destined to have at least another 16 years, unless his sneaky cousin Coleman, Duke of Langley, can take it away from him.

Wow. What a lot of fun. It's exciting to believe that there's a real democratic group of voices out there.

As I indicated earlier, there seems to be a recent trend of former politicians who like to expound on the "good old days" when they were in power and in turn, bitch about the political happenings of today. In the end, they are always the true hero’s, legends in their own minds if you will.

A.K.A. Harcourt, who seems to feel he is somehow important.

I don't like the many faces of the Mair for sure, that's because I think he's done far more harm than good with his wide mouth. (Another little known tidbit about the Great Mair. He's been known to crack early morning racial jokes on the radio in regard to Indians with his associate Frosty - anyone else would have been crucified.) Besides, all he ever did for the past few years was talk about his fishing holidays and lament the passing of his cigar chomping idol Winston.

I'm confused by objections that the proposed STV system is 'too complicated', and 'the average voter won't understand it'

Does the average voter currently understand how riding boundaries are set, and how population figures are used to balance them within reasonable-sized geographic regions? I don't think so....

There seems to be a claim underlying these objections that Elections BC is easily subjected to political interference, and can't be counted on to apply the chosen formula consistently, but if that's the case, why isn't anyone worrying about corruption in Elections BC right now?

It seems to me that there may be lots of legitimate questions to raise about STV, and whether it delivers results that are proportional, fair, or whatever it is we're seeking in electoral reform, but there's already mathematically complex elements that determine certain features of the current system, and if we believe that Elections BC is an independent, non-partisan body (relatively speaking), then why this obsession with complexity?

Oh, and regarding Elections BC, I might add "notwithstanding obvious gerrymandering by the govt. of the day".

"Micheal Bakunin, not the Greens who first pointed out that the real division was not so much left vs. right but authoritarian vs. libertarian." wrote Anarcho.

Indeed. And which works for me just about as well.

The central point being nonetheless, that in a socio-economic form divided between "rulers" and "the ruled", it is currently, as it has been understood, basically, that "the right" are the rulers and those who stand with them, to one degree or another, and "the left" are those who are and would stand with the ruled, to one degree or another. It is a reflection of an objective fact of prevailing socio-economic life-, this fundamental division of society.

It exists even in the face of denial, or a desire to "wish" it away-, as would the Greens.

You resolve that fundamental class division of society, only then will you have resolved the fundamental division of politics and economics between right and left. Then, for sure, what likely will still remain to be resolved, over time I suspect, if I understand how ALL "bureaucracies" tend to work, is the eternal struggle between authoritarian and libertarian/ democratic forms and styles. That may not even be so quickly resolved as the issue of "classes", almost certainly. But for sure you don't have a snowball's chance in Hell of getting to it, without first resolving the "basic" democratic issue of classes, and the democratic deficit they represent, with their unequal distribution of "power" and "wealth" within society.

The Greens may know nothing of that, even some NDPers, but certainly "the mass" of society lives it daily.

Deeby, I don't think you can compare boundary locations, population figures or other factors that are determined prior to an election and don't affect the outcome with complicated formulas that rely on variables within extremes, all predecated on voter turnout and preference, especially when no one yet has credibly explained how it works or presented a clear-cut case for STV, unless "it's better than first-past-the-post" is all you need to hear. We've got traditional voters bailing from their duties, sickened by the lies and corruption and we have young people who aren't interested in dancing to the tunes of a military band. So we chose a rubic's cube yet swear it'll simplify and improve democracy. Wow! I guess you just gotta accept its right sometimes, just like when they say "double-plus good," and you want to feel good.

I fully agree with your statements about class, Coyote. But as you know class domination – or class liberation also involves structure. A libertarian left-wing politics seeks to empower the working class through a system of direct democracy, decentralism and genuine federalism. An authoritarian left-wing politics empowers a state bureaucracy in the name of the workers. With the latter, working people may be better off materially, but are still dominated. Furthermore, should the government be replaced by a right-wing one, they lose those material reforms as well, since there is no political structure in place to prevent this. The NDP has formed many governments, but as far as I know has never attempted to change the political structure to empower the majority of the population. For example, it could and should be up to each community, not the provincial govt. to decide to close a school or hospital. It should be up to each community and neighborhood to decide whether it wants a Wallmart, MacDo, having its forests logged etc. All govt. and quasi-govt. industries and services could introduce forms of workers self-management. Authoritarian, hierarchical structures could be replaced by mass meetings electing recallable delegates etc, etc.

The green's empty conceit, that they are above politics, is highly reminiscent, of the "end of history" we heard so much about, until the planes crashed into the world trade towers. As to educational and academic achievements, BC liar caucus members have, on the average, fewer degrees and less education than any provincial party in Canada. Shirley Bond, now in charge of our dirty, overcrowded ill run, health system has been "working" on her BA for what must be almost a decade by now. Frightening, isn't it?

I agree that Rafe Mair looks good, along with other old fashioned conservatives, BY COMPARISION, to the heartless, mindless, neoliberal rubber stamp pimps, that mouth-breathing canwest readers were mindless enough to elect, under the apparent slogan of, "EVERY BODY'S STEALING FROM ME BUT THE RICH...sob, whine , pant, gasp....The STV system, increasingly would appear to be best renamed the STD system as it appears likely to benefit and lock in the social disease of rightwing governments -just the fact that the BC liars are pushing it so much should make us suspicious, those of us, not eager to sell our kids for nickels, that is. Mr Lahey will no doubt be thrilled to know that Mair now concedes an NDP VICTORY IN THE NEXT PROVINCIAL ELECTION IS A DISTINCT POSSIBILITY...I know, mr lahey, you can make a bundle, movimg your rightwing buddies BACK to ALBERTA, after the drunken, two-faced backstabber gets his ass kicked in the next election, you will not be missed...

Welcome back Samuori Lewis - you lick Dem' ass-lickers good!

Welcome back SAMOURI Lewis - you lick Dem' ass-lickers good!

I have to say, I feel really stupid at this point because I contributed about 3 words to this entire excellent discussion. When it comes down to this, I am really happy that I can read all of this because where I work, play and associate, this type of higher-thought never materializes. Anyhow, don't blast me because I am writing simply, its just an extension of my limited thought process. Coming from what I believe is a working class family, I sometimes think, what does "working-class" define. Who are we really talking about here? Are we speaking just about laborers, tradesmen, secretaries or are we including management and executives and bureaucrats in this argument? Second, I cannot clearly understand where the Greens stand on certain issues. What does it mean to have Green principles on Healthcare, Education, Law & Order, and inter-gubernatorial relations? What expectations do the Greens have on certain industries like the automotive and forestry and mining industries? I cannot really associate Green with an ethical ideal yet. If someone who is familiar with the Green ideals, please post and explain. As for different sides of the spectrum? I am convinced of this, to get to the show (the leadership), candidates rely on help from voters and business, there's no way that a clean campaign with three or four 'noble' characters will ever come out. So there are always commercial, private and external influences which at some point in time override the public want and need. Whether it be NDP, Liberal, Green, Socred, they are all beholden to someone. When the time comes where the reigns and puppet strings are something of the past and respect is what puts a person into power, then we can have right, left and centre discussions. Until then, I don't think much of any politician because I am such a small fish in a vast, foggy sea of interests that I cannot clearly see who is on the right, centre or left. For those of you who were patient to read this, thanks, if you have an issue with what I typed, explain to me nicely so I can learn from it. Happy New Years and thank you.

As for Rafe, he is one of my idols, not because of his beliefs because I do take issue with what he says sometimes. I just like him because he's loud and when we all went to the polls for that referendum concerning Quebec, he echoed alot of our sentiments. Also, I am an avid fisherman and I have seen some serious atrocities on the rivers by the First Nations and the Commerical fisherman and just stupid idiotic anglers who do stupid and illegal things. SO in a sense, I'm an environmentalist too. I'll explain my environmentalism. I work hard, 5, sometimes 6 or 7 days a week. When I get a day off, I don't want to see anybody, I jump in my vehicle and head for the rivers. Clean air, fish jumping, silence, tranquility is what I need, it recharges me. When I see bears and deer drinking from the same lake I'm fishing in, its something to be beholden. I'm not there to disturb them. I tread lightly on roads, whatever mess I make, I clean up. When a lake gets messed up because a mine is not taking consideration that people, on their leisure time, use that area, that pisses me off. When a dam is put in a place where some of the most legendary fishing is going on, that pisses me off. When contractors dump their waste products down the drains that pisses me off. So am I a soft environmentalist? Maybe. If it affects somebody's leisure and learning time, its most likely bad and will get me angry. When I caught four Native fisherman pulling beautiful sockeye salmon by the dozens and then leaving them to rot by the side of the rode at the end of the day because they couldn't sell them, that got me angry. And that does happen quite a bit. Nobody talks about that. Our system does have a lot of waste. I believe this, we fucked up a lot in our past, we really did. We should be ashamed. We should learn. We should agree, FOR THE GREATER GOOD AND HEALTH OF OUR POPULACE NOT TO REPEAT THE SAME MISTAKES. Keep that as a principle and move forward. Payments and ongoing disputes for past mistakes muddle up progression. That's where I see us standing right now. THank you

No problem Chevy - just switch to Ford and go greener by putting your X in red territory. Unless you support Sihota and Lali, which is hard to imagine. (you should duck now, because the little Samouri Pimp Pounder is in a crappy mood -no doubt.)

I will. I need to figure out how to that first. What do you mean putting an X in red territory. I find it tough to support Sihota and I heard about Lali. What beef does Samour Pimp Pounder have with me? I'm just contributing to the discussion. Now on to figure out how to see about Rafe Mair. Thank you

"A libertarian left-wing politics seeks to empower the working class through a system of direct democracy, decentralism and genuine federalism." wrote Anarcho.

I read and re-read this post of yours, Anarcho, and couldn't find so much as a line of it I disagreed with.

I think the USSR experience, that of current "communist" China, which should be translated as Capitalist China, also Cuba and the entire history of Social Democratic socialism in Europe and North America (Canada/NDP), should by now have demonstrated that there is much more involved to resolving this issue of classes and "empowering" social change, than the mere winning of state power by any means, electoral OR violent overthrow. And clearly, the other lesson has to be, that within the nature of ALL bureaucracies themselves, there lurks the seed and potential of heirarchy and the frustration of the evolution of "direct" popular democratic forms of organizing and running the affairs of society, and especially, at the wellspring source of real power therein, the economy.

It is there Chevy, within the economy, and the fundamental division of society between "owners" and "workers" (which in turn includes various "strata" from the lowest labourer, through skilled trades and the various professionals, and even the managerial strata who do the bidding of "ownership") that the real source of the class division of society and the division between what has come to be known as "left and right" resides, and is subsequently reflected into the institutions, movements and parties of political life. (And it is this further division of "the working class" into various "strata", some more distant from ownership and perceived "less important" by them, while others, suchs as the "professional and managerial strata" enjoying a "special relationship" with ownership, that is the source of much competition and resentments, even ill will, within the working class itself.Which also, I think, has to be broadened to include the "issues of gender" as well.)

And I much enjoyed your article, being as it was, certainly not simplistic, but very articulate, I thought. It is a difficult subject, with many areas that fade to shades of grey, rather than always simply black and white-, like real life itself.

But it is here, around this issue of the class division of society, and the unequal distribution of wealth AND power, and the need for the "evolution" of more "direct" systems and forms of "democratic control" of the economy AND the state (which I continue to hope can sooner rather than later be dispensed with altogether), that the resolution of other great issues is also made more complicated and intractable, such as the great environmental and gender issues for example. So long as the class division of society continues unresolved, attempts at the resolution of these issues does not step on all toes equally, and tends to further aggravate them, in fact, especially towards the bottom end of the class structure.

And Green desires to resolve all this by simply pretending it doesn't exist, or would just go away, is merely another Ostrich solution, for which they are becoming well known.

Eh! A Happy, Prosperous, Healthy and Wish for a Peaceful New Year to you all.

Yippie Ki-Yo! Coyote. - I'll be listening for you in the field at night.

Yippie Ki-Yo! Coyote. - I'll be listening for you in the field at night.

You might indeed just hear me howling, my friend. My Winter Solstice mood and stash is not yet depleted. Nor is the corrupting influence of sons in law, with whom I share spirit and the pipe, only to keep peace in the family. :-)

If anyone is interested STV was used in Manitoba from 1920-1957 with very successful results. (They used STV in winnipeg, and Alternative vote in the rest of the province.) There first female MLA was elected using it. Labour and business got along, in sharp contrast to the general strike in Winnipeg that crippled the province in 1919. As to earlier comments from Allen about comparing STV to boundary commissions. I think one of the key points is that especially in Urban areas with multiple ridings, issues are not strictly geographical but demographical. Government has evolved in the last 200 years beyond just deciding where to build a railway. Social issues transcend ridings, and need representation. Multimember districts allow multiple representatives for a region. Transferable votes allow voters intentions to be made clear. Only a fraction of the votes need to be transferred. As for "Lewis Swifts" comments, (Did the liberals close the local psychiatric hospital on him, or cut off his medication.) First past the post will lock in a right wing government much more easily than STV. It did with the social credit. STV may never leave B.C with a majority NDP, but it doesn't mean a Liberal/Green coalition, or a regional party and the NDP would be unable to form government. At least coalition governments won't be so quick to sell off all BC's assets, or engage in vanity projects such as the fast ferries.

Peace pipes and peace spirits are always a good thing. To a howling New Year to you and your family, Coyote. Peace on earth to all in the New Year...

Thank you Coyote. My best to you and your family in the New Year. Instead of howling, I had my customary cigar and briefly thought of Helms-Burton and the Cuban embargo before I shook my head and began to think about what lies ahead for me in 2005. Thank you,

Coyote, Allan et al--some thought-provoking responses re my earlier post on getting past left-right adversarial politics. You're absolutely right--it's naive to think we can resolve major underlying structural problems by pretending they don't exist, and I didn't intend to imply that. (Neither was I defending the Greens or commenting as one--more as a pacifist). In the search for answers, the relentless, habitual animosity can be tiring, distracting and counterproductive--as we sometimes see in these threads--though there are certainly good reasons to be angry and times when confrontation is the right thing. Yet I can think of times when more was accomplished when everyone left their hats at the door and focussed on the areas of consensus. Often, it's when everyone realizes that survival is at stake in some sense, and perhaps that's where the Greens are coming from.... As to whether STV offers a solution, I'm trying my best to understand it and still don't know what to make of it. If the average person doesn't buy it, that'll make it a moot point.

"To a howling New Year to you and your family, Coyote."

And to you, fine lady-, our voices crying out from the political wilderness. ;-D

Again and again I hear leftwing commentators like bill tielemann and david schreck, (as well as tyee articles) claim that STV will lock in rightwing goverments. As I see campbell supporters and campbell himself, never proclaiming that STV will lock in LEFTwing governments, I can only conclude that this argument has some merit, especially with so MANY greens in BC being closet bc liberals...

By the way, I no longer respond to cowardly little rightwing PIMPS, too gutless to even use a consistent pseudonym...you have crawled so far up campbell's butt, that you know mimicry his every word, and every particle of his mindless, heartless, GUTLESS, backstabbing ideology...I know street prostitution in bc is thriving under girdon campbell...Couldn't you campbell trolls FIND A CLEANER LINE OF WORK, AND BECOME PIMPS INSTEAD, that way you'll be doing less harm...

Your post is an interesting reflection on YOUR character, Daniel. You find campbell's ASSAULT on the mentally ill, and on social programs for the vulnerable A SOURCE OF HUMOR?? How typical of both greens and liberals in bc, whose idea of injustice must always include something that affects THEM personally, otherwise, it's just a topic for distastefull humor. Thanks for reinforcing my argument that STV supporters are intellectually lazy, moral imbeciles, such as yourself...maybe you could tour the downtown eastside, I'm sure you'd find it just full of belly laughs...

For what its worth Lewis, not much I know, I also think STV will lock in right-wing governments. Harcourt wouldn't have been elected under STV, Gordon Wilson would have. Clark wouldn't have been either since those 2nd preferences would probably have backed Campbell more than Clark.

But then I hate first past the post too.

And I also hate the "big-ballot" system for city council.

Somewhere at the end of the rainbow is a better voting system which I'm sure includes a form of PR without the party lists.

1/4 kudo for Lewis, who didn't use the word BACKSTABBER or PIMP once in his last post which was articulate, intelligent, intellectual and tastefully written with exactly the correct amount of moral indignity to make the point. (Then again it was all bullshit, but it's not a perfect world in Kwan's downtown eastside is it. Eh!)

Daniel @STV etc., Your picture of 50 years or so of management-labour relations harmony in Manitoba is a bit much, but to suggests that it too was the result of STV sounds an awful lot like snake oil in that bottle of yours. But your suggestion that issues in specific ridings or in regions can be better addressed by targeting them through changes in electoral boundaries sounds like the gerrymandering we've been trying to get rid of. On the one hand you say transferable votes will help ensure issues or concerns to large groups with in regions will addressed, but you then state there will only be marginal vote transfers. Also, I don't want to shock you, but Canada still has a few national issues to deal with even if you think we have enough railroads. Several that come to mind are control of our north, global warming, coordinated approaches to deal with increasingly hostile trading partners and national health and education standards. Sorry Daniel, STV may have its good points but massaging ridings or regions, as you suggest to satisfy varying demographics, sounds like just making more promises that can't be maintained.

1/16 of a kudo for you mr name withheld, for your unrelenting cowardice in refusing to post under even the same pseudonym...maybe the world is largely what it is because of smug little, backstabbing pimps whose only ethic is "Me first!"

What BC needs is a three-party system, like the rest of Canada. If the Wilson Liberals had remained as centrist with the NDP on the Left and a renewed Socreds on the Right, we'd be much better off. As it stands now, people never vote FOR anyone, only AGAINST. last Election, everyone thought the NDP needed a spanking and turfed them. The NDP won because people were unhappy with the Socreds and felt they needed a spanking... and so on... Until we are better represented by more than two parties and have someone to actually vote FOR, BC will be no better off. Remember the 1991 debate? The Socreds and NDP going after each other's throats, slinging mud and acting like ridiculous BC politicians, yet saying nothing? It took a third party (Wilson) to say what we were thinking, "This, ladies and gentlemen, shows why nothing ever gets done in the legislature of our province!"

I have never said anywhere that STV will "lock in right-wing governments." My opposition to STV is shared with many of right, left and centre politics. STV is an electoral system that is confusing, complicated, will not do what its proponents claim and will result in more backroom politics and party control, not less. A 7-MLA single riding in Vancouver under STV would require a million-dollar campaign, making it extremely difficult to see smaller parties or independents compete and ensuring more, not less, political party involvement, for example. STV is not a good system period, regardless of your personal ideology. See my columns on this at www.straight.com under Political Connections in News and Views.

Interesting points but this province is long overdue for some type of electoral reform. It always seems to be either left or right and their mistakes of the past. And it doesn't work. Be it fast ferries or the RAV line we need a system that creates a debate on the issues of the day and quits the polarization that is so prevalent. We should be moving decision making out of the realms of fear and ignorance into something civilized. And is it always interesting to hear the status quo especially those that fear change.

Daniel,when anyone uses the term "lack of simplicity" or "confusing" they are telling it like it is! If you want people to warm up to STV then stop telling them the world is flat. Rafe Mair has actually written papers in support of MMP, he's either changed his mind or likes anything but FPTP. Almost every STV proponent I hear has to stretch the truth or mislead people as to what STV will do. We can talk about Malta where a "wrong winner" has occurred on several occasions (something I've never heard of under MMP) and where the Nationalist Party and Labour Party have been fighting back and forth since the rocks cooled, independants are non-existant and although they are able to, people vote "party line", something the CA thought would all of a sudden go away. When or if the public catches on that team STV is taking advantage of the general publics ignorance you will prove to be your own worst enemy.

Daniel,when anyone uses the term "lack of simplicity" or "confusing" they are telling it like it is! If you want people to warm up to STV then stop telling them the world is flat. Rafe Mair has actually written papers in support of MMP, he's either changed his mind or likes anything but FPTP. Almost every STV proponent I hear has to stretch the truth or mislead people as to what STV will do. We can talk about Malta where a "wrong winner" has occurred on several occasions (something I've never heard of under MMP) and where the Nationalist Party and Labour Party have been fighting back and forth since the rocks cooled, independants are non-existant and although they are able to, people vote "party line", something the CA thought would all of a sudden go away. When or if the public catches on that team STV is taking advantage of the general publics ignorance you will prove to be your own worst enemy.

Daniel,when anyone uses the term "lack of simplicity" or "confusing" they are telling it like it is! If you want people to warm up to STV then stop telling them the world is flat. Rafe Mair has actually written papers in support of MMP, he's either changed his mind or likes anything but FPTP. Almost every STV proponent I hear has to stretch the truth or mislead people as to what STV will do. We can talk about Malta where a "wrong winner" has occurred on several occasions (something I've never heard of under MMP) and where the Nationalist Party and Labour Party have been fighting back and forth since the rocks cooled, independants are non-existant and although they are able to, people vote "party line", something the CA thought would all of a sudden go away. When or if the public catches on that team STV is taking advantage of the general publics ignorance you will prove to be your own worst enemy.

Boy I get tired of hearing my NDP labelled by people who have never been part of the party, never put forward and fought for policy resolutions, never examined who owns the media and who tells the reporters what they can and can't say (control that is becoming much tighter now). If you haven't learned how the spin is spun and how the news is twisted it's hard to judge the generally good people who try to run for office and get skewered by those who own the media! The NDP is often tied to something called "big labour" to scare you. Who is "big labour" though? It's the nurse, the BC Housing clerk, the municipal snow plow operator etc who took the time to elect their co-workers to union leadership positions, who have taken the time to look at the world and make policy resolutions and who yes in some cases donate funds to the NDP (NDP usually receives about 20-30% of it's funding from this "big labour" whereas Pattison's puppies whether Socred, Gordo's Liberals Liars or whatever usually get 80% of their funding from business-hardly an equal influence on the respective parties eh?). What we really need to understand is that the ONLY PHILOSOPHY at work in the BC LIBERAL LIAR party is the PHILOSOPHY OF GREED. These guys couldn't cite more than high school text book rote lines about less government is more let alone know what that means. THEY'RE IN IT FOR THE MONEY STUPID-tax breaks for their friends now and corporate board position rewards when they leave. That why there should be a waiting period before an ex MLA (or any other politician) is allowed to work for corporate boards (lucky I'm not elected-I'd make it a lifetime ban!). Oh by the way? As a New Democrat I believe it's not my Party's place to comment on the STV or any other system the Citizen's Assembly puts forward. The CA must make their case and the individual citizens must decide. I personally feel it's too confused (not confusING please note) and we should go for a much simpler proportional method. By the way, some of you are very good writers...I like "fighting back and forth since the rocks cooled"... By the way again: has everyone one of you checked your voter registration?

Perhaps The Tyee should create a "salon" for STV MPP etc...and for a handful of "contributors" who love to write multiple responses just to hear themselves think. PLEASE, two replies only!!!Get control of yourselves...my response to the article... One thing left out of the article is that the Socreds brought in the Uranium Mining Moratorium (of course after the entire Okanogan Valley were prepared to take up arms)...Vander Zalm let if fall by the wayside (after all the price of uranium was in the dumps)...the NDP under Harcourt or Clarke didn't revive it...the BC Liberals (god, why are they called Liberals?) changed the Code to allow three times more uranium to be mined while exploring for other minerals (oops it was a typo says the Chief Inspector of Mines, however, his field inspectors continue to regulate this using the 3 times more article...). Regarding STV, why not use the model of STV to put forth all the options that the Citizen's Assembly looked at and let the voters decide which is best using the STV system...we'd get a good picture of how it works and we may just find that the people of BC want something different but the Assembly...but one things for certain, the polls show that BC residents want change and their tired of the "tyranny of the leader" and "first past the post" systems. Are you listening Gordo and Glen Clark followers? Hopefully Tricky DIXey will set aside his nomination in Vancouver Kingsway and allow a fair and honest nomination process...perhaps try using the STV system!

So what are you for, Bill? What's your alternative? What's your vision for BC? You hit the nail on the head though Bill when you said it was going to cost $1 million to wage a campaign in Vancouver...that's what's wrong with politics...unless we have financial reform...we'll continue to have a system that's about 1 dollar = 1 vote. But then again, there are those who profit greatly by a system that allows that level of money to enter into the realm of a political campaign...it's about time we discussed ideas rather than tripe and spin...keep on spinning Bill.

Are there no more sacred cows?

Rafe has been a GREEN socialist for many years. I think up until this point most of the usual NDP crowd actually believed there was no such a thing as a GREEN socialist. We have lots in the Green Party, more than many people think or realise. Refe is living proof we exist !!!

One whole kudo to Mr. Swift for: "1/16 of a kudo for you mr name withheld, for your unrelenting cowardice in refusing to post under even the same pseudonym...maybe the world is largely what it is because of smug little, backstabbing pimps whose only ethic is 'Me first'!" What I'm wondering is if the gutless nameless one is holding Ms. Kwan resposible for the problems of the downtown eastside. Wow, if it's all her fault maybe we can make her fix it. That might be easier than getting the Gorgedon Pimpbull government to deal with anything other than shooting money to their friends.

oh, and kudos to puppypimp re: 1991

And yet rockerbiff does not care if his running for office splits the vote and relects gordon liar - a disabled person himself, -only with both a job and a pension-he has also stated that he sees "no difference" between the way campbell has treated the disabled, and the way the ndp treated them. He is as well a gay man, according to his own words, who has never spoken out against gordon campbell's attacks on gay street youth, against Lorne mayencourt, etc. If you're a socialist, rockerbiff, I'm the dalai lama...If there are socialists in the green party they must be naive, deluded, and starry eyed, for the federal greens are run BY A FORMER MIKE HARRIS TORY, the bc greens by the yuppie princess adrianne carr. All the greens ever have done, and ever will do, is split the vote allowing the reelection of rightwing pimps like campbell. As I've said dozens of times before, if the green party is not a corporate tool, THEY MIGHT AS WELL BE. My suggestion? Turf Carr, lock in progressive policy, install chris shaw as leader, and work out a vote sharing arrangement with the ndp. The greens will NEVER be anything but a tool of the right, until they move MUCH further to the left. A few progressive supporters has ZERO impact on policy and ideology. TURF OUT YUPPIE, CLOSET BC LIBERAL GREENS, AND GET RID OF THE MIKE HARRIS PIMP WHO LEADS THE FEDERAL GREEN PARTY!!

Rockerbiff, I'm afraid you'll need more than an of-the-cuff remark from a radio talk-joc to create Green Socialists. I think Rafe might be better described as a Green Mouth, but most of us already know there are more than enough in the Green Party.

Allan provide such sad comment. He does more harm with his attitude than Rafe has ever done in a thousand columns or radio spots. Rafe may have an open mouth, but he also has an open mind, even when he criticizes the NDP politicians I support. To paraphrase Noam Chomsky " If you don't believe in free speech for people (espousing things) you detest, then you don't believe in free speech".

don, we're all "open minds" when you agree with us. That isn't something I seek or even expect from you as I'm not chasing your or Rafe's convenient rainbows. Life runs a little deeper than the conversations offered up on prime time talk radio. I have absolutely no problem with free speech. It's the dumb things like the self-congratulating "Green socialist" whoppers that I find sad. But such terms pale in sadness beside the headlong rush of others to endorse whatever silly claims are tossed out by their media darlings. Perhaps don, you could tell me where Rafe sits on issues like universal health care, free post secondary education, the privatization and reduction of so much of BC's social services programs, the right of the poor to affordable and safe housing and the general belief that the welfare of citizens should take priority over private profit. I trust I am not being overly socialistic for your NDP sensibilities.

Allan you really are an ignoramus,you critize just to critize, you offer no viable input, this in turn only discourages input(comments),from others, there are many who would love to add their comments but are reluctant, as their aware you will either criticize and or challenge with out cause or as your mentor--(not so)--Swift-- does, make unnecessary reference to grammer ,spelling, errors,etc,(sexual preference) futher more you two dip turds seem to think that everyones comments either qualifies to your standards, other wise there irrelevant,I would go so far as to say, you two would like to think you set the standards on this site.

allan, C-gull is probably of "the discredit and smear team" of the binette/ Mr. R./Mr. Lahey operation... I've noticed C-gull often uses the same: "Is there a full moon tonight?" question as his alter ego jean binette. Slip-up # 2093.

lynn-what are you the missing link?

Lynn, it's quite obvious that C-gull and don are the same person or as Coyote would say "a shape shifter." C-gull or (if you prefer), don, you can pull your little I'll just use another name ploy all you want, but your limited ability and formulistic approach shines through consistantly regardless of what you call your self. Given the money your paid, I'd suspect your political masters have to wonder if they didnt screw up once again.

Face it see-gulled, you're out of your league, you're giving away too much weight, you don't have what it takes, etc, etc...heh, heh. And I am certainly NOT any body's mentor, least of all, allan's or lynn's. Why don't you go to canada.com? They post timid little rightwingers who can't even mount a coherent argument there all the time. And I do NOT reccomend anybody imitating me...

You tell him Samouri Lewis. C-gull I'd also recommend you don't irritate the little guy, according to legend when his owners the Alien and Sister Lynn take him out they use a loggers chocker cable for a leash and hang a double roll of Sharmin' off his studded collar because he always leaves Bernard size turds everywhere he goes.

(Actually I think he's nothing more than a welfare deadbeat who thinks the world owes him.)

Name withheld, perhaps you could update us as to when David Basi and Bob Virk will plead guilty and if Liberal heavy-hitters like Gary Collins and Christy Clark will be providing letters of reference to the courts in an effort to reduce punishment? Also, do you know if any of that marijuana siezed in the grow-op home on Vancouver island was destined for sale within the legislature? Imagine pot sales in the Leg. I mean, just how Green can you get?

Name Withheld---All three of them are probably on the dole.

There, there, little rightwing road apples, never mind, gord loves you, or does he? When gord gets defeated next may, the three of you can do a far, far, better, CLEANER thing, then you've ever done before, and follow in the footsteps of gord's daddy. It sounds to me as though there's a lot of hereditary syphillis in your families as well, don't forget to apologize to your kids for selling them out for nickles and dimes, that way, they may wait until AFTER the funeral to expectorate on your graves...Riddle?: What's the difference between a BC liberal and a pimp? Answer: The pimp is a better human being...ho, ho, ho...

"See -"gulled"" only believes in CORPORATE WELFARE, I guess, as well as welfare for the 75 rubber-stamp pimp BC mlas, the cushy one day a week $150,000 a year "jobs" for gordon liar's buddies, the outright gifts of BC owned crown corporations for a fraction of their value etc, etc, etc, -now there's REAL welfare abuse for you, you dim little, mouth-breathing, two-faced backstabbing, sub-human, subliterate pieces of human GARBAGE! Everybody's stealing from you but the rich...sob, sob, boo-hoo-hoo, DDDUUUUHHHH!!!!

Right on lweis - Thanks for the many words of wisdom, I can now be proud to be a BC Liberal which everybody knows is a giant step up from being a double-jointed asslicker like yourself.

Only a bc liberal can crawl so FAR up HIS OWN ASS, that he disappears, you gutless little waste of space. Of course, there NEVER was much there to begin with, was there, you little pimp, with your tiny little taxcut, the one that matches your iq AND your shoe size and your miniscule masculine endowments, ...heh, heh...make the world a better, cleaner place and snuff yourself, loser.

A question to Allan and Lewis Swift, after reviewing your (many) comments on this site. Do you consider yourselves to be the intellectual elite of the NDP, either officially or unofficially?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I do consider rightwingers who don't even have the cohones to post under the same pseudonym cowards -period. As is well known, todaY's neoconservative right cares only about desseminating propaganda -there is NO intelligence involved, nor human decency, simple honesty, or anything ever much else but cowardly eagerness to line their own pockets at the expense of the most vulnerable, including children...there are many intelligent posters on the Tyee; however neoconservativism, with its neofacsist tendencies sees intelligence merely as a way to lie to the gullible, not to participate in democratic debate, as is always evident by the recycling of stale lies, rebutted and disproved so often, they're hardly worth responding to...had martin goebells lived in bc today, he'd be writing op ed opinion pieces for the fraser institute on canwest editorial pages...NEOLIBERALISM IS A DISGUSTING, PERNICIOUS SOCIAL DISEASE....THE PROVINCE "NEWSPAPER" HAS JUST APPOINTED THE ODIOUS JON FERRY AS CHIEF EDITOR OF THEIR EDITORIAL PAGES WHICH BY ITSELF SHOULD BE ENOUGH TO SICKEN DECENT PEOPLE.

Is that a yes or a no?

By the way, the correct spelling is cojones. In Spanish the letter "J" is pronounced as "H" is in English, hence your confusion.

Don't worry Shamouri lweis, no lie, yours must be gorilla size! Keep up the good work though, because I heard lately that our tinpot premier's wife now has 666 pair of shoes in her collection. (Maybe you ought to bus yourself over to his house and see what you can sniff out - You think?)

philster, why is it I get the feeling you've posted here already under other assumed (?) names? As for your question, I don't consider myself an intellectual elitist "either officially or unofficially" of anything. Do you know if that's a paying job and if, where I could apply? BTW, give my regards to the rest of your team but encourage them to run their questions and comments by others before posting them here in the Tyee. Remind them that thinking, as in, before talking, also works well with writing. Philster, before you go, may I ask if you know if and when David Basi and Bob Verk go to trial on those charges that come out of the police raids of the now former Finance Minister Collins' offices in the BC legislature? What's your take on the BC Rail scandel? Do you think its all a police/NDP conspiracy to get Liberals? Can we expect to see Canwest and the rest of the media packs jumping onto these wounded politicians and their appointees now that they have had a little taste of blood from the Liberals? Will the stench of political corruption be so bad that even the Vancouver Board of Trade will gag? Get back to me when you've got some answers philster.

Lu-ass your one nutty dude,you gotta be the head nut for the the NDP compassionate club, speaking of gonads, you don't wash yours do you, you get inspired by bending your head down between your legs and sniffing yourself, if you and Allan have any gonads at all you will answer Philster 1/9/2005 10:53:35 am queston

C-gull, if you can't get beyond sounding like a teenaged Liberal with a fetish for personally unhygenic practices, won't you at least find a more appropriate space to troll. I left some questions above your last silly posting for your alter-ego philster, but he doesn't seem to be in a rush anymore to communication, so perhaps you could answer them, given his newfound shyness. You might begin with the one about the police/NDP conspiracy to get the Liberal government. But please, get beyond the childish body parts stuff and wash your hands after whatever you're doing.

Mssrs Swift and allan, thank you for your responses clarifying that you do not provide intellectual leadership to the NDP. Therefore, your postings carry the same weight as those of other individuals posting on this forum, whatever their views.

Is this where we comment on something about the above article? You people need to get a room!

This is an ideal location for stateing your feelings,thoughts,if one is offended by what they see or read simply scroll on by,Thank You Tyee for supplying this site and allowing these forms.

Ihave a question for you and philled with crap see -"gulled." Isn't it hard to breathe when you live five miles up gordon liar's anal canal??? YOUR "REBUTTALS," AND "ARGUMENTS" ARE SO TRITE, SYMPLISTIC, MORONIC AND PATHETIC THAT A GRADE SIX DEBATER COULD CLEAN YOUR CLOCKS. But then, the the average elementary school child is smarter than all the rightwingers above put together. I have a motto for you: "DDDDUUUUUHHHHH!!!!!!" If I thought any of you were men, instead of pond scum, disabled or not, I'd kick your skanky little asses into the middle of next week...Why not improve the gene pool and follow in the footsteps of the premier's daddy...the utmost contribution to society and the collective good any of you will ever be capable of making....heh, heh....

Honesty kids, "especially" LS, try resorting to real discourse rather that the pulp and disrespect that seems to delude this board. I think its disrespecting the tyee to take so much away from journalism, and relying on comments such as anal canal. As far as earlier comments that likened STV supporters to Snake Oil salesmen. I'm glad to see Tieleman has such a linguistic influence on the crowd. However, our claims our not that STV is perfect, who knows MMP could be as effective, and perhaps another province will try that for awhile and we can reevaluate our system later. The ball was set in motion three years ago, and the CA was to make a single recommendation and now we're to vote on it. The Liberals won't support STV because their message will be that everything is wonderful in this province. Who needs electoral reform when we get amazing 77 of 79 seat majorities. Its true, under STV, we may never see a majority NDP government, but at the same time, its also very possilbe that we may never see a right wing majority government again. And quite frankly, if we have any kind of coalition government, at least we'll have the kinds of checks and balances that we're missing. I'd rather have a slow moving government than one that either spends our money, or sells our assets as quickly as both the Liberal and the NDP could. Both MMP and STV are more likely to provide that. Now critics of STV accuse STV supporters of promising the world. What is promised. Australia uses STV in its upper house, which elects 33% women, whereas there lower house elects only about 20% using the same system as we do. Ireland has many more political parties and elects way more independents than B.C or any first-past-the-post system does. And Malta, we don't care about Malta, cause Malta has about the same population as Surrey does. What STV or any other multimember district campaign is to allow voters to choose the best candidates. Not all Liberals are slimey rats, just like not all NDPers are incompetent winers, and even the green party might have someone who has more than sunflowers on their mind. The STV way of deciding on the winner is advanced, but it is logical. Whether or not one understands how the votes are counted is not going to change the results. But it is explainable, and makes sense. It has to be if you want to figure out how a voter honestly indends to vote. But unlike what we have now, there is a fixed benchmark, a vote quota, which candidates have to get. I hear concerns about multimillion dollar campaigns being spent. But overall, its more likely that there will be less spent on campagning. They're may be targetted neighbourhoods and swing voters where money may be spent more on. Not to mention the biggest costs of campaigns are getting ads in papers or on the radio. If you have to target one riding in Vancouver or 10 ridings, your going to pay exactly the same amount to put your name in the Sun. Rather than having each party submit 79 candidates, and spend money even in ridings they know they can't win, they will target there votes, focus in on areas, and work together. Any party, under STV who would run 7 candidates for 7 seats, risks losing representation if voters don't keep all their preferences within the party. I'd be very surprised if you see more than 10 candidates at the most in any riding. Most will only have a couple more than they do now. Except, perhaps more independents giving it a go. I don't know about the rest of the province, but my last civic election in vanocuver I had to vote for over a dozen people. So 5 or 7 will be a walk in the park as far as complications go. Now many MMP supporters are getting onside, including Rafe, because they actually like the system. Now if we overpromise, it doesn't make it any less valid. What is silly is some of the comments we hear opposing STV. Norman Spector claims it was designed to give the anti-abortionists power, even though the federal conservatives managed to get plenty of wackos elected. David Shreck claims its unconstitutional, even though it was used in Manitoba and Alberta for 3 decades. Tielemanns actualy a moderate. The most he can do is claim amnesia for the last two elections and say our present system works just fine. And for those who believe its complicated, actually check out how the system works, rather than shrugging it off and walking away. There is real reasons why there are vote transfer, and quotas. They're actually carefully designed measures to ensure elections are fair and voters intent is actually calculated.

Nice try Daniel, The reality is a handfull of C.A. members (and a few profs) thought this would be a neat experiment for B.C. As far as 80% of the C.A. recomending it? You like to do research,get a tape recorder and ask that 80% why they like STV,you want to hear things all over the map? You say Malta doesn't count! So I guess leadership elections shouldn't either,so mabye you can tell Bruce Halsor to stop using that ridiculous example. The interesting thing is if the C.A. had been able to, they would have recomended 5 seat disticts province wide,you and I know that's not possible,Malta has 13 - 5 seat districts, an almost perfect template for STV.This is why Nick Loenen shyed away from using it for B.C.'s rural areas,but you know that right? You say the way STV decides a winner is advanced? It was invented in the mid 1800's by Thomas Hare (a lawyer) with some help from a mathematitian, advanced? OK, I don't beleive Rafe likes STV, I think he dislikes FPTP,so do I but what scares me is that if/when STV proves to be a disaster, that will turn the general public off of any form of PR! No system cures cancer but the C.A. had a great opportunity to offer much better medicine.

Daniel; regardless if you think some of us whine too often of life's complexities, I'm still of the understanding that no one has simply and clearly explained how STV would play out. I've been told it will save democracy, guarantee minorities governments, give "the power back to the people" at the expence of political parties, which apparently we all know are evil and unnecessary limbs in the evolution of democracy. But no one can tell me how. I think ranger has it pegged quite well in his comments above, especially his disappointment that STV, while certainly a form of PR, is far less than many of us had anticipated.

I agree with you Ranger, there are reason all over the map why people support STV. And I'm glad both you and allan agree FPTP is something to be disliked. And if STV was invented in the 1800s after Newtonian physics became popular, why does it take away from it being advanced? Now I'm not a historian, but I believe FPTP was introduced to allow the upper middle class to share power with the monarchy. It was a good system before women could vote, when you had to own so much land to vote or run, and you wanted to ensure that the monarch didn't try to expropriate your taxes. But we both agree that FPTP is a very poor system for acting fair or representative. I can tell you clearly whats wrong with the current system. Can you clearly tell me how STV fails the voter? Can you tell me how STV is unfair for candidates. Can you tell me how STV would be a disaster? Now I might be selling snake oil or I might be selling insulin. However, please tell me what you feel is actually wrong with STV. And I know both of you are smart enough to understand how STV works. If not, please take the time to inform yourself.

You know, maybe we do talk to big when we talk about STV. I'm from Vancouver, and maybe I should focus on that. This is where my Bias comes from. I don't believe we need 10 ridings in Vancouver, I believe we need 10 people to represent Vancouver. I've lived in a number of ridings, and I think Vancouver would be fine existing as two 5 member ridings. The reason I like STV is because I would rather see regional council who represent the diverse interest of a region, that seeing a patch work of liberal and NDP ridings. Thats what I'm hoping to see, a few business people, a couple social activists, maybe a representative from a labour background. I'd hope parties would nominate equal number of women and men as candidates, and let me, the voter choose who I want. I think STV will not necessarily elect party hacks, but will put the ultimate power in the hands of me, the voter. If I want to vote Liberal, maybe I'd give Colin Hansen my vote, but not Gordon Campbell or Lorne Mayencourt. Or perhaps, I'd like to support a young, articulate social worker, but I also don't want my vote to be wasted, and help the wacko that managed secure a party nomination. This is the way that I want to vote. I want to say these are the people I want to make laws, and decisions for my province. I want the best candidates to win, and I want options about who I can vote for. Am I wrong to want this. Also, you know what, maybe I want to run for politics. I want to represent the young people in the riding, or maybe I want to represent the issues of Apartment dwellers. Or perhaps my grandfather wants to run, to represent pensioners. Right now, its about winning the most votes in a riding, and winning the most ridings. Its not, are you the best, but is your party better than the next one. But where does responsible representation come it. Why should a party tell me you how to vote for Jim, otherwise the big bad opponents party will get. Or I used to live in Gordon Campbell's riding, who if I disagreed with his policies, would represent my issues in the Legislature? "I'm sorry Dan, you are out of luck. Gordon doesn't have time to listen you. Why don't you move to another riding, and see if someone will listen to you there." (FYI, that didn't actually have anything to do with me moving) STV is a system designed for voters. STV is also good for politicians who are going to work their asses of to satisfy the demands of their constituents. The more choices I have, the better the chance of having someone in Victoria, elected to represent me. Whats wrong with that? Why is this a great system? Why would anyone not believe this is fairer and more demographic. Why shouldn't I, the unaffiliated voter, have this freedom in the 21st century. And why aren't more of you helping us spread the news that STV is great for voters.

Snap out of it Dan! I hate to break this to you but to poperly use that buffet of choice you need to know what your choosing! your ballot in high density areas will have 20,30 or more names on it, now if you can tell the difference between the 8 social activists,10 buisness men,3 tree huggers,mickey mouse and spongebob squarepants that's good for you,but I can assure you minus the cartoon characters most voters are going to say "who the hell are all these guys?" Yep that's the kind of democracy I want. It is well known if you've done your homework that voting PARTY LINE is common practice in STV systems, my guess for this is a result of my above quote from Joe Public, It is a fact that in New Zealand 1/3rd of voters split vote, this is actually going on,you are telling fairy tales about it.I have a 6 member STV ballot from Australia on file, it has 45 candidates on it! (what a mess). Does Ireland have a Sunshine Coast,Northern region the size of the moon or downtown eastside? You go tell them that their local representation is enhanced,you can say something like "instead of 1 MLA you get 5!, they're all at the lodge in Mount Pleasant,what an improvement. Can or will you guarantee a representative for the Sunshine Coast? or are all of these reps from North/West Van? I'll be sure to invite you to the next town hall meeting to explain that one,(bring fast shoes).Before you leave you can explain to them that a candidate needs to reach a quota but it's possible to get elected if you don't reach the quota, yah,explain that to them, your math is probably better than mine, I'm guessing your attracted to STV because of how it sounds on paper, I'm looking at the system from a practical point of view, ordinary people don't study politics or electoral systems, unfortunately the Citizens Assembly completely ignored this, the general public should be fairly warned :"CAUTION STV:12 MONTH COURSE NOT INCLUDED!"

Yes, I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with which riding you are in. I take it you must be from a smaller town. I've managed to vote fine in Vancouver civic elections in which we had a total of 118 candidates. In total we elected 27 people. I was able to figure it out as were many people in Vancouver. I'm fairly confident that the rest of the province is as competent as we are. Please at least agree with me on that point. I honestly believe the public is as intelligent as they need to be. And I do agree with you, most people will vote mainly party. Party's will always remain an essential element of the political process. The endorsement of a party with whom voters identify is a strong aspect of our political system. That does not mean it should limit me or others votes. Also take a look at Ireland's results from their last election: http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/today/repres entatives.htm They have to main parties, (FIanna Fail, Fine Gael) but at least 8 independents were elected, they have green party members, labour, progressive democrats and even a socialist. There are greener pastures. Its a matter of fairness and better democratic processes. Its not just on paper, there exists working examples of this political process succeeding. If you are honestly looking at the electoral process from a practical point of view, you should already realized how our current system fails to deliver real representation. Honestly, I do think you underestimate your own ability and that of others to make informed decisions. I've sat down with many people and explained how the system works. They pick it up with no problem. The only people who seem to have any real difficulty are not those with low education, but those for some reason want this to fail. There are likely people in this province who have an entrenched interest in keeping the status quo. Which I don't believe you do. There are many who want to ensure continual strong liberal majorities, which they realize is very possible. There are those who benefit from riding associations, and would loose their positions of authority if they were forced to merge. There are politicians who realize that a systematic change may deprive them of a safe seat. There are certain political pundits who have taken a side, and need to maintain that front either to elevate themselves out of obscurity, or by the nature of their jobs, just needed to take a side, and now they'll stick with it.

STD supporters sound an awfull lot like greens, consistently willing to ignore ANY argument that detracts from their position, no matter how valid, how obvious, how irrefuteable. And I am still enormously suspicious that I have never heard a SINGLE BC LIBERAL critique STV. Going on their record on helping their OTHER constituents BESIDES the wealthy, bc liberal silence alone, as well as their enablement of it, makes me highly suspicious of STV. Perhaps YOU could discuss this Daniel Boone, and maybe tell us as well, how you voted in the last two provincial elections, since you're so much for transparecy and openness, hmmmmmm...??? Oh, and Dan'l, the REGFERENDUM QUESTION IS DELIBERATELY WORDED AS A VOTE OF CONFIDENCE ON THE CITIZEN'S ASSEMBLY, NOT ON STV. WHY IS THIS? THe potty mouth eagerly awaits your reply Dan'l...

LS: I'm not sure why you are accusing supporters of ignoring arguments, list your valid, and obvious objections and we'll address one by one them as we have all along. However, our opponents are not addressing our concerns about the present system. Nor are we receiving cohesive arguments against STV. Its true, I don't put to much credit in its "complicated". I never heard of the system until sometime in the fall, and I grasped it right away---- Yes, if it wasn't for the 1996 election which they won but lost, Campbell would have had nothing to do with electoral reform. Either way, I believe that your nemesis has put out a directive for Liberals to stay out of dodge on this issue. They are neither to support or oppose it officially. They initiated the process so to oppose it would raise eyebrow, but to support it would also imply that everything is not roses in the province, as they will be campaigning to keep things going in whatever direction they are.---- The question is "Should BC change to BC-STV as recommended by the Citizen's Assembly."---- The Citizen's Assembly was 160 regular people who are very proud of what they were part of. I'm sure it will be the highlight of many of their lives. Anyways, they wanted to make sure people knew that it was them rather than politicians who recommended the system. However, you're still voting on whether to change to STV or not, they've just added as recommended, as it was there recommendation. And if you're curious, I'm social libertarian. I've never joined a political party. I'm quite free market, but I too have a long list of grievances against the government. I did vote Liberal in the last election, and actually won a bet that they would win 77 of 79 seats. But don't worry, I won't be supporting them this time around. I'm a strong regionalist, and I think they have violated the provinces trust by selling BC Rail, outsourcing Ferry construction and management to out of province companies when B.C industries (public or private) are perfectly capable of handling them. However, I don't think the NDP has much hope for taking more than about 34 seats, and the greens won't go anywhere under Carr (I think there is an opening for Gordon Wilson). So I'll probably run as independent just so I can vote for someone I trust. Of course it would be a wasted vote, but hopefully it would be the last time I'm faced with such a dismal electoral lineup, under our horrible system.

STV is a system for electing politicians. It therefore by definition is flawed. But then that makes all electoral systems flawed. STV is not that difficult a concept. You vote for a number of people (likely around 5) and rank them in the order of your own preference. The formulas for counting the vote can be entered into a spread sheet by anyone who understands how to use Excel. Out tax system categories are far more complicated than counting STV ballots. I for one do not believe that most of our citizens are incapable of understanding STV even though many will chose not to bother. Yes indeed STV was developed in the late 19th century. So what!!!! So were electricity and cars. It seems to me that there are really only two questions to the debate. Those questions were not decided on by the Citizens Assembly but by the Liberal's. I believe they tried to set up a system to fail because they like the current system that gave them a stranglehold on government. The two question appear to be: Is our present system in need of change? Is STV better than the current first past the post system? The process has been designed not to ask what do you think is the best possible system but is the system recommended by the CA better than the staus quo. I for one have to say yes to both questions. The current system is not serving our province well and STV is far superior to first past the post.

Daniel; your STV-or-bust routine is getting a bit threadbare. Here's a point:You state that STV will ensure a fairer election process as it ensures marginal candidates or parties are given recognition for the trust voters put in them. In some cases, I take it, a few of these marginals may even win the election lottery and be elected in some ridings because of the myriad potentials that can arise out of this new and improved democratic electoral system. Putting aside my concerns that there appears to have been at least some anti-party, or should I say anti-established party, bias used to sell STV to the Constitutional Assembly, who will decide if voters in a certain area will be voting simply for their local representaitves or taking part in a multi-vote exercise that demands they have a grasp of the needs of people in communities hundreds of kilometres away? Even in your own case as a Vancouverite, do you have a solid grasp on the varying issues bubbling away just under the surface in say North Vancouver, Surrey, Port Moody. There are people who do follow local politics enough that they have a good handle in the diversities of a region, but those people are often, academics, journalists, policy wonks and political insiders. To anticipate that a majority of voters, who don't earn a living reading those tea leave, have that broad a grasp on civic affairs is, at best niave. Take that same concern and spread it across half the province's geography, if rural ridings are merged for STV simplicity, and the lack of understanding among voters will only get worse. Voters are as likely as not to look for party symbols when choosing who to vote for. But again, I go back to who will decide how many or which specific ridings will be merged into one. That is quite concerning because we know we could end up staring at another Gracie's finger or other political apendage. I don't mean that statement to be an insult or an attack on bureaucrats, but someone, somewhere determined the impact of Gracie's finger and someone approved it and why? Yes, the devil is in the details and many of us are still awaiting his first STV appearance with some trepidation.

Well,I can atleast say we agree on a couple of issues (B.C.Rail/B.C.Ferries),Your banging your head against the wall when it comes to electoral reform though. I've seen Ireland election results and there ARE safe seats, so when team STV says "safe seats will disappear" I say "your BSing the public again"! Lewis is correct when he states this isn't about "what's the best system for B.C." It's about a vote of confidence for the Citizens Assembly.Mixed Member systems have been recomended all over the world in different geographic and demographic climates by commissions with public input,so you tell me,are/where all of these people crazy? You figure 160 ordinary people know better? 200 random letters (per riding) went out to the general public in B.C.,an average of 17 citizens replied,so as you can see "ordinary people" throw the letter away to begin with!, of some of the "ordinary people" chosen a few could have taught the course in fact, some tried. As far as the civic election,I hate to tell you a whopping 20% bothered to vote for that smorgasboard of 118 candidates!,(they must have been begging for more) so if your using this example as a template for the rest of B.C. (which it looks like you are), my friend 20% is not good enough (maybe it wasn't enough choice)

Will the Citizen's Assembly now speak out in a display of integrity and demand the deliberately manipulated question on the ballot be changed? This should not be a vote of confidence about the CA, as Lewis Swift says, but should be solely on the voting system? Did the CA have any influence in drafting the ballot question? If not, who did?

The C.A. created, edited and endorsed it.

I'm sorry Allen, I'll admit I can be a little heavy on rhetoric. But STV or Bust for me is a reality. For me, this is the first time I will have a vote on deciding how the political mechanics work. There may be another opportunity, but for me a no vote is also a vote of confidence for our current system, which could very well set back reform for years. I'm not a politician, I work for a small business, and live paycheck to paycheck. Does it matter if I understand issues across the province, we elect individuals to do this. As I said earlier, most voters will vote for candidates put forward by parties as is the nature of a political system, but I do believe that a well respected mayor, or city politician could win as an independent under STV. And it also does not limit B.C to a two party system. As for your Gracie's finger scenario, I may be wrong, but I believe its unique to single member plurality. Any proportional system will minimize that, as increased riding size will make it harder to gerry mander specific ridings to any specific extent. I'm not saying it cannot possibly happen, but it will mathematically be limited. Thats not BS. As far as safe seats, we're not claiming there is no safe seats, but that politicians cannot take their support for granted under STV. Why? Because even if I support a party, there is no guarantee that I will support a politician who poorly represented by area. As a voter, I may vote for his colleagues, or I may rank them low on my preferences. Now, whoever runs for the NDP in hastings will get elected. Now, whoever runs for the Liberals in Abbotsford will get elected. I'll wager money on that! Any takers?

(Me above) I promised to address every objection: 1. I'm sorry, what wrong with ballot question? ""Should BC change to BC-STV as recommended by the CA on Electoral Reform?"" I'll admit, it was silly to rename it BC-STV. They were concerned about people calling it STD, which isn't unjustified from posts here alone. As for the question itself, its much better than say the Charlottetown accord referendum: "Do you agree that the Constitution of Canada should be renewed on the basis of the agreement reached on August 28, 1992?" Huh?

Boy,your really sticking your neck out!!!

(Ah, watch which return key you press) As for political systems Ranger I personally prefer STV to MMP. As for world wide usage, MMP is used in Germany, Italy, Mexico, Venezuela, Bolivia, Lesotho and Hungary. New Zealand uses both STV and MMP. Ireland, Australia, Malta (whatever), soon to be Scotland, use STV. Now Ranger, I'm not going to argue whether the Irish or the Italians are crazier. With the exception of pointing out that the Italians had 3 elections in 4 years in the 90s. MMP has major problems. Now the system you probably are getting confused with is List PR. Which I would agree is an excellent system, and for the most part gets very similar results to STV. This is the one thats used in dozens of nations. With the Scandinavian countries as a high point, and Israel as a low point. It functions similar to STV in that they use regional districts with multiple members. You vote for the candidates. The difference with this system, is that it is slightly more party based. Some of these countries use open lists, whose results are nearly identical to STV although the tabulating process is different. Others use closed lists which again return similar results, with the exception that parties and not voters determine the order of representatives elected. I'll agree open list PR is a great system, as almost exactly the same candidates would get elected. The only difference is that STV may elect a few, not a lot, more independents. Even though they are both far better systems than what we have now, the CA was only able to provide one option under its mandate. From what I've been told, it was very close. They made their choice, and I accept that. I would have voted yes for open list PR had that been there choice. But now our choice is clear, keep the current system or choose STV. Now I've answered your questions, not please answer the question I've asked over and over again. How is the current, single member plurality, first past the post system more democratic or fair than STV? Come on Allen, Ranger, Lewis, Lynn, or Bill T. if he's around. If you can't, then feel free to contact me, and help me put up some posters this weekend.

Daniel: that's an old rhetorical trick which requires a bit more flair then you've so far delivered. You are attempting to sell me a new road to democracy and it's my responsibility to convince you why I don't want it? This sounds like one of those real popular negative billing options. Sorry Daniel, but I'm still waiting for the STV operating manual so I can compare it to other Proportional Representation models that were somehow overlooked by your assembly. As for understanding issues across the province, how can you feel comfortable you are voting for the proper person if you don't know the issues or what their respective positions are on those issues? I mean that's pretty fundamental. It's the reason most of us want to vote in the first place, isn't it? I'm real glad you're excited about this "first time having a vote deciding how the political mechanics work," but I'd be more excited myself if I had a more information about STV and its alternatives rather than having to digest veiled threats that democracy will be left to fester and rot in some political backwater for the next three centuries if we dare say "no" to STV. Daniel, tell me, who within the CA pushed and lobbied for STV and who promoted the anti-party sentiments I've read so much about in the STV saga? There must have been a core group, a few names please?

Daniel on 1/12/2005 12:53:31 am you make the remark "The only people who seem to have any real difficulty are not those with low education, but those for some reason want this to fail." if you would please, explain what you mean by this remark, also describe to me what you view as a low educated person, As for our voteing system I want a change from the current system, I will vote for STV, I can't see where we can lose anything, only gain.

Ah, C-Gull, I guess by low education I mean those of us who haven't achieved our Doctorate degree in mathematics or at least a Bachelor's in statistics. I think I was thinking of some of some of my younger siblings friends, but for all good purposes, it was probably an old rhetorical trick. Ah, I probably deserve more sleep. As for Allan, I only attended the last two meetings of the CA, so I'm don't really know all the CA movers and shakers. Trust me, had i been there, the system would have been way more complicated. STV in Van, PR_List in the suburbs, a bit of AV in the North, and would have included some form of ostracism. And to be honest, although I would like to consider myself one of the the greatest political minds of the 22nd century (now that's snake oil), I never paid much attention to electoral systems. Actually, I'm probably bluffing on that one. I served on a student council in university and we worked on campaign financing (lowering it from$200 to $150) and cleaning up election irregularities. I also studied the development of Greek democracy and electoral reform in Italy between 500 BC and 31BC. -- But I never heard of STV until late last fall. I attended the final CA meetings. I loved the principals behind it, even though I wish it had a better acronym. That being said, once I like something, I do a lot of research. Anyways, everyone in the province will get a copy of the final report in the next few weeks. And I believe most of the CA's material can be found on their website. I think they even have an operations manual there. There is also a great animation there, which I suggest anyone check out.

Thanks for the lesson Daniel, you got some of it right and some of it wrong and I'm fully aware that PR List is the most widely used world wide,Mixed systems are used in around 30 countries for national elections, STV is used in 2. You can run around and tell people this place uses it,that place uses it and don't forget the school board in Camebridge Mass! I was very clear on my concerns of STV read post: 1/11/2005 9:11:57 am , I will concede it may be an improvement in some parts of B.C. but a step backwards in others see: 1/11/2005 11:04:29 pm,this is a "Helter Skelter" system and yet another provincial experiment, I'm getting really pissed off about my province being used as guinnee pig!,there are systems out there that would have taken some of the unfairness out of FPTP while retaining our local representation and given voters the choice to cross party lines in a meaningfull way (not theoretical) again, this was completely ignored by the C.A. even when the public submissions where 20 to 1 for MMP over STV. Oh! and sorry your on your own with the posters.

Daniel, I certainly haven't attained a doctorate in math or even a bachelor's in stats, but then I was led to believe that the CA was to be made up of people who reflect the general BC population. Perhaps I'm way out of touch, but it certainly isn't my understanding that the typical British Columbian has years of post graduate study under their belts. I was also led to believe that assembly members were fully aware of all the options after some eight months of detailed analysis, so I find it a bit startling that you now inform us you only showed up for the final two meetings and immediately fell in love with an entirely new concept following a spiel by people you can't even identify. My faith in the CA has just been downgraded substantially with your somewhat late confession that you bought the first klunker they offered you. I'm tempted to take my anger a bit further than ranger by following you around and adding a caveat to your pro-STV posters.

Danielle,I suggest you read David Schreck's excellent refuatation of STV at strategic thought .com. Scheck raises several points that your arguments fail to even address: longer waiting times for election results; some voters having their preference counted more times than others; results may fail to show support for small parties; IT IS STILL POSSIBLE FOR A PARTY WITH AN OVERALL MINORITY VOTE TO BE ELECTED TO GOVERNMENT; AND, BALLOT PAPERS ARE MORE DIFFICULT TO MARK CORRECTLY, LEADING TO MORE SPOILED BALLOTS -IN ONE JURISDICTION UNDER STV, SPOILED BALLOTS INCREADED FIFTEEN FOLD, AS HIGH AS 13%... GO to strategicthought.com. At least shreck has done his homework.....

I'm sure I would have had a blast if I was on the CA, but honestly those 2 days were very boring and I would much rather spend my Saturday mornings in bed that to sit around the wysk center while every Green Party member of B.C. lined up to speak the benefits of MMP. Like how it would guarantee Carr and at least 4 or 5 of her dearest friends a seat. And how it would allow Campbell to make sure every one of his cabinet members got elected. I probably would have voted for MMP, as at least it promised a fairer and more proportionate than FPTP, but on the flip side, there would be some politicians who would be guaranteed election if they were at the top of a list, no matter what they're views or qualifications. (If they had chosed a provincial proportional system rather than regional ones. I have this problem with any system that presents close lists. (Is there any MMP with open lists as well, I'd be more open to that) I also believe that there are things that need to be added to STV (or FPTP) that were not within the CAs mandate. Lowly Malta introduced a top up clause, that would add additional seats to compensate for any problems with proportionate representation. The CA wasn't allowed to increase the # of seats. Lewis, I hope you read more than Strategic Thoughts, notice the lack of a comment board on Shrecks site. However, I have had a great series of offline exchanges with both Shreck and Tieleman, even if they fall victim to some logical fallacies. However, unless that was you sitting aside me in the Library in the parliamentry archives reviewing results for Manitoba election results from 1920-1950s, I'd watch who you criticised about homework. As for Shreck, a wack load of retorts have already been written at http://www.stvforbc.com/bulletinboard/viewforum.php?f=10. As for the 13%, Shrecks homework fails to mention that that riding's ballots used STV for healthboard and FPTP for council elections, without clearly indicating it. As for delayed election times, Shreck is right, if we're still using 19th century voting technology in 2009, it will make election night a lot less interesting. However, If I have to live with a government for 4 years, I'd rather have the right one elected. BTW, whose Washington's governor this week? Whose the Ukraining president. Ah, I know, I should have done my homework on those last two.

OpPerating Manual for STV! Write 1 beside the name of your favorite candidate, write 2 beside the name of your second favorite candidate, continue 3,4,5, etc until you get bored. Thats it. I bet you could train a monkey to do it. (With pictures of food or potential mates). Actually, it is the same basic idea as shopping in a supermarket. Can you do that? I am beginning to think that I live in the land of Thick. The CA sent out a guide to it. You could read it. SLOWLY. The mathematics was more or less figured out in the 19th century (independently in England and Denmark). If you got to secondary school, you can get it with study and a bit of effort. In ireland they say tullymander about a guy who tried to rig the electoral areas. (It didnt work and the voters kicked out the government for their efforts).

So what if it takes a week or 2 to count votes by hand? The count is verified by the checkers from the partys watching over the counters shoulders. Super accurate result gauranteed! You are not paying for imported hardware and software either. The country still has a government until the votes are all counted. Why the need for a quick Fix? You do have the ukranian example and the washington state example of quick fix up jobs. Democracy is not a process which can survive computer software manipulation intact.

About a week ago, cknw talk radio had the bill good show with Moe sahota and the other guy. Both of them roundly critisized STV as being bad for politicians and the political process. There was no defender of stv on the show. WHY? In ireland if a radio show has an unballanced panel about an issue, they get in serious trouble. Where do I send my complaint? Under STV, Ireland is a 5 party state. 2 right wing partys, a centre party and labour and green. From my experience there the government is usually a bit right or left of centre. I do not know why people think it will cause a right wing drift in BC. I expect it to cause a drift to the centre.

Right left. Lets admit it. It is stupid to still be spouting out that crap. Most people are much more complex. I bet there are closet gays in the right wing partys or supporting them. right wing econically and left wing socially, i guess. Also, keynes is used by both sides in BC. He preached that Deficit is not necessarly a bad thing. The right and left just achieve the deficit in different ways. Campbell achieved his with a billion tax break.The provincial debt has grown from 33.8 to 37 billion under Campbell.(The Business Examiner, island voice for business gave me that lovely statistic). Keynes was a really smart man, he also said that the money harvested must go to productive things. The Campbell money was ment to reward his backers but more importantly, it was ment to warp the economic cycle. He diliberately created the dive in the provincal fortunes in the first year in the hope that bc would be in an upswing part of the cycle in the runup to the election. So, you see, Keynes and his economic theorys was used by Campbell and those in the NDP before him to distort the echonomic cycle. His second part, (good housekeeping, use the money wisely) was ignored.

Yes there is a lot of selective, cherry picking of facts and statistics, especially by gordon backstabber, I can't say that I find your refutations of shreck especially, convincing, danielle, two countries in the world use STV for MAINSTREAM elections, what parties or party currently rule malta and ireland, what has changed, give me a CONCRETE, SPECIFIC example of enhanced democracy in malta or ireland, bet you can't, and I really don't care if some fringe party got one or two seats, such changes are merely cosmetic....

Damn it, we have an opportunity to have more proportionate government. What's wrong with change? Here is an example, neither Ireland nor Malta have ever provided one party with 77 of 79 seats. Not could they ever possibly.Should we accept the CAs recommendation? Yes! Should we work together to improve it even more. Most definately. Is STV perfect? Nothing is perfect, but STV is much better than what we have.

Brian White, thank you for the clarifications, but could you please complete the working manuel? Yes, I know, if enacted the STV will give my vote to the first candidate I chose and, if by chance or other unforeseen circumstances that candidate is snuffed out, my second vote will then be given to my second chose, etc., etc., etc. But please, Brian, what will the political parties be doing before, during and following the vote? How will they go about stacking the ballots or otherwise influencing the outcome of the election? I realize you and others see STV as an opportunity to reduce the powers of the parties, but politics is power Brian, plain and simple. If there are not open and accountable political parties playing in your new STV model, who will be weilding all that power? Wealthy individuals or groups? Secret coalitions that remain hidden from public view, or will it be the sad sack who's on his own trying to determine who is the least dangerous of the candidates? If nothing else, most of us voters have come to realize that there is far more going on in the background during an election than the candidates will admit to or the general public is aware of and most of it is done by people who don't want to go public. Of course, Brian you can write me off as a poorly educated cynic, who doesn't understand well-researched ideas like STV. I certainly am not an acedemic, but I suspect I have just as much or perhaps more experience than you working and volunteering in elections in many postions, inside, outside and around parties at all levels in Canada. One thing I have learned through all that misery is if someone is pushing extremely hard to sell a concept he or she can't really explain, the best thing to do is take a pass on it. If the concept is that truly good someone will no doubt offer a better explanation the next time around. I'm still waiting.

What is all the hurry about? I would really like to see some adventurous reporter tour around the province with a camera crew in tow and film the responses of the citizens of this province as they try to answer the question: Explain the STV voting system. Just stand in the town squares and main streets of BC communities and ask the passers-by. The fact is despite your information pamphlet few people know little about STV and if they have read about it they cannot explain it very well other than to say "you number your choices." I have not seen any Letters to the Editor in our local paper regarding STV, either agreeing or disagreeing with it. Just no interest. The election is only months away - it seems obvious that more debate, more answering of questions, more details and generally more town hall information meetings should be held "before" this is put to a vote.

Brian, if you're not worried that it may take weeks to count STV voting ballots, why is it so important to push this through so quickly? Do you have evidence that STV is being roundly debated and discussed around this province, that the citizens are well enough versed in it to make an intelligent and informed decision? What kind of informed response do you think that reporter and film crew will elicit from those randomly chosen people trying to explain STV on the main streets of our towns? In other words, what evidence do you have that the people of this province are actually ready to vote on the issue of STV in just a few months time?

Hey Lynn, thanks for real questions. There is four months to go, and people aren't ready yet to vote. We hope we can change that. We want to have mock elections, we've created a website, our gathering doantions, and we're working to form regional groups. These aren't problems, these are challenges, and if we can't get enough people involved in the process, then no matter how good STV is, it will have a real hard time passing. Of course there will be plenty, of anything but this on our side, but the more people who get involved, the better. We're deeming this a very grass roots campaign, as most parties are keeping neutral.

Dear Allen, you only have one vote. It only gets transferred if your first choice does not need it. There is tons of stv explaination online. The CA have a website with some explaination. There will not be much official literature because, quite honestly, the BC Libs do not want it to happen. STV puts the election in the hands of the voters, not the party backroom. Also, Lynn It has been debated up and down the province for the past year. It or MMP. The CA did the grunt work and hours of study for you. They decided to put the power in the hands of the voters. With MMP, it was still in the hands of the party leaders. In the next election, in Victoria hillside a guy called Flemming was chosen by a couple of hundred NDP ers to be the candidate. (He will almost certainly win that riding). So, a couple of hundred people actually chose the winner! Under stv, Victoria hillside will probably be part of a much larger victora 7 seater. There might be 4 NDP candidates in that 7 seater. 2 or 3 of them might get elected. But the important distinction is that the voters (all those thousands of people) will make the ultimate decision). Mr Flemming might still be one of the winners but those couple of hundred ndp party members are no longer kingmakers. The party machine is weakened and that is a really good thing! Why push it through quickly? Well, it is really simple. When might the next chance to change the system occur? And who will do the changing? Gordie has a "mandade" because he has all his ducks in a row. He could have run his pet skunk in some ridings last time and won. Under STV, gordies pet skunk will have meaningful opposition. There will be another liberal candidate in the riding. This gives the voters the choice between a stinky skunk and a moderate liberal. Having such a choice makes for better more responsive partys. You can go into a supermarket and buy from a vast selection of products. Politics under stv will allow more choice for the voters. There will be greens in parliament. There will be independent members of parliament. And if people are really nasty and negative and disrespectful, they will lose out on transfers. Partywise, STV is not strictly proportional but it doesnt have to be. For instance, candidates for a zenophobia party of bc might well get a substantial number of first preference votes. However, they will likely fail to get a proportional numger of seats on the lack of second and 3rd preference votes. A very good thing too! Every household in BC should get the Citizens assembly report. If you have doubts, why not contact one of them? They are genuine ordinary patriotic BCers who did their duty for their country. They Decided for STV because they think that system will provide a better world for BC in the Future. You simply dont get the chance to change the system every 4 years. You get it once. I expect the BC Libs to win this time with a reduced majority but with first past the post, far too much is in the hands of fate. He should never have gotten over 70 seats last time. Had he got 45 or so, he might have governed in a more mature and less dictatorial manner.

My evidence is 77 of 79 My evidence is that in every riding, you have one person to go to if you need to talk to a politician. And if you are an NDP er, you are shit out of luck. And, if you are a green voter, why do you even bother voting? YOU CANNOT WIN WITH 12% provincially. The last vote I did was actually green and she got elected to the european parliament. (I think Ireland is the only country to ever directly elect a green but, I could be wrong). So, there you go, I have experience with STV, I am from a minority (southern protestant) and when I was growing up, about the only difference between north and south was the electoral system and the violence towards minoritys. It is my sincere view that that system kept the people more sane and more united than those in the north over the last 40 years. (The north of Ireland has only recently converted to STV for local elections). I believe STV will help them become less sectarian. And it is the same here. The BC Libs and the NDP are both toxic units that need the fear of the other to get votes. STV is a much less fearful system.

Perhaps, Brian...but in my opinion most bc greens are closet gordon campbell supporters, who under STV have an excellent and improved chance of propping up gordon liar for another four years...explain to us how STV doesn't make this far more likely to occur...

Brian, you've chosen the most extreme case and amplified it to suite, so I guess it's fair for others to do the same, Ireland had a constitutional crisis in 1981 because their STV system produced a "wrong winner" (the party with the majority of the votes did not win a majority of the seats) ,this not only happened in 1981 but 1987 and 1996, THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED IN ANY MMP SYSTEM IN THE WORLD! because it's designed to prevent this, In Ireland's first referendum 49% of the people voted to get rid of STV (only about 30,000 people saved it's bacon) but the C.A. states that the Irish have "steadfastly refused to change" bit of a stretch, don't you think? In Ireland their Rep to population ratio is : 1 rep for every 20,000 people ours is : 1 rep for every 40-50,000 so if this where to go through you would be the proud owner of a very "watered down" electoral system, If you feel good about accepting a 2nd or 3rd rate electoral system, fill your boots! I'd be just a little pissed off if I knew my tax money could have offered something better.

Brian, I appreciate you enthusiasm for STV, but I remain unconvinced that British Columbia will experience the same transition you say happened in Ireland's electoral system. I grew up in small town Ontario, so I have an appreciation of the sectarian madness that flowed out of Ireland and other European countries. I made the mistake of being born to catholic parents in a predominently protestant community where the Battle of the Boyne was celebrated annually complete with a King Billy parade, as we used to call it. I learned before starting grade school that I was catholic and most of my neighbours were not and those "we're different" attitudes of the adults were clearly mirrored in the actions of their children. In my view it was new immigration and a touch of enlightenment arising out of that growing diversity, rather than electoral reform, that gradually cooled the intollerance. Having said that, I think the dynamics are quite different in BC a half century later. For one thing, so-called rural areas of Ireland are, in relative terms, within spitting distance of others that may share the same pool of elected officials. In BC, according to the STV plan a politician in Prince Rupert might be asked to intervene in an issue in Fort St. John, a two-day drive away. I suspect that will lead to a lot of confusion prior to and after elections and open the door to all kinds of nefarious political deeds. STV might shackle the official political parties, but you can't stop political people from doing what they have always done - interfere. Now, I too realize the majority of voters are tidely residing in the Lower Mainland where ridings can be of Irish size, but on this side of Hope it's more like Texas. In fact a lot of us are beginning to think we're from Missouri on this one.

I still don't understand why this vote cannot take place in two years time, why does it have to be tied in with an election vote? For all what you call debate I don't see proof that the average British Columbian is very well-versed in STV, not well enough to vote on it. So if you are really interested in the people speaking, in the people determining the kind of democratic voting system they want, why don't you give the people the time to now read and study the proposed system? Time to discuss and ask questions. Why do I feel there is a hurry to settle for second-best just for the sake of change? Speaking of questions, one more question: Under STV won't it be even more difficult, almost near impossible to overturn or rescind so many of the disastrous legislative policies and privatizations that have been put in place by the Campbell government? Won't that middle ground help keep all Gordo's fine work of selling off BC ever more firmly entrenched?

Lynn I understand your frustration, it was of great concern to me that most voters actually don't follow politics that closely and yet THEY ARE the ones that are being asked to buy STV. Looking at it through an acedemics eyes it's the greatast thing since the wheel, STV proponents like to use the "so do you think people are dumb?" "It's as easy as 1,2,3 spiel, I happen to think people are busy doing God knows whatever to get through each day and I can assure you it's not going to be studying politics and electoral systems! Does every STV proponent know how to rebuild a transmission? operate an excavator? if not, does that mean there dumb? To be fair the privatization issues etc. won't have anything to do with STV and in specific pockets of B.C. it could work well but the alarm bells definetly out weigh the possitive features for me. Your going to get the C.A. final report soon and I would urge you to read it and then get as much info as you can about "the other side" because much of the information is selective and you will be able to vote in good concience whether this is good enough for you.

Ranger, I did not amplify anything. . You continue to look only at peoples first preferences. Put things just a little in perspective with this. Under stv,Daddy Bush would have beaten clinton on perrot second preferences that time, and Gore would have beaten bush junior on nader second preferences just a little while back. STV is a different world. It is a safer world in my opinion. Also, Allen, there was no immigration in ireland for many many years before the early 1990's. Yeah, we grew up all on our own. The referendum is being held at the same time as the election so that people can do 2 things at once. Very practical. And there will be a decent turnout too. Also, guys, the whats the rush (HORROR) comments are laughable. If you had been paying attention in the last year, the CA probably visited your town. I spoke to them up in duncan because the victoria meetings were booked out. (The green party had hundreds of people giving their "we want mmp like new zealand" presentations. (And that sentence was often one third of the presentation!) And I only went up to Duncan because I was asked (as somebody who has lived under STV and under the straight vote) to discribe my experience of it. If the CA had chosen MMP, I would have supported it. Basically, any system is better than the one we have. The CA decided that STV is the BEST one for BC. After about 10 months of study, who are you, (self declared electoral dunces) to argue with them? I figured out stv in a couple of days when I was in my teens. Why not read their document? Why not take about 3 hours out of your life to figure out the math? The lazy, knee jerk conspiracy theory stuff is just so childish. People ARE busy, and thats why the citizens assembly was started. They did all the study for you! Anyways, I still suggest that you sit down and read a little about STV before posting or voting on the issue.

Who are we? only the public footing the bill!, and the public spoke to the tune of 20 to 1 publc submissions for MMP! how can you be so arrogant, those people did alot of legwork before the C.A. came to be and they where completely ignored! You know what's knee jerk? people like you saying "hundreds of Greens where there saying : "we want ......" there weren't even hundreds in attendance! Where they involved? yes, Where they responsible for every MMP submission ? Not even close, If it only took you a couple of days to figure it out we could have saved 5 or 6 million and asked you to recommend this system! If you think that 16 page document is the gospel, then you my friend are the one who is lazy.

Two things: Lynn: I think at the time of an election is the best time to have such a referendum. First of all, tween election Refs have a very low voter turnout, which would skew the results. Secondly, there is still four months to go, and you will find that the interest in this will increase 10x as people get into election mode. The process has been in the works for three years, and it will be 6 months between the final report and the referendum. Ranger: Numerous MMP presenters have already expressed their support for STV. Many were only familiar with MMP, and most realized that the principles of each of each system were not too far off. From CA members I've talked to, they closely weighed the merits of each before coming to their decision. This wasn't done lightly. They listened to both the concerns as well as solutions presented to B.C. You may be upset with the result, but I believe the process is very fair. As for the case about Malta, with its 300,000 people it can only sustain two parties, and in 1981 the party with the most first place votes did lose once, (4000 vote difference) to which the government changed the legislation to add seats to a party if it was underrepresented. Thats something that should be added in our system no matter what.

As for electorial systems, list your three principles and see if the system satisfies them. Mine were more proportionate results. Keeping regional representation. And taking away systematic disadvantages that hinder independents or smaller parties from gaining representation. Both STV and Regional-PR Lists fit under those options, and since STV was chosen, why not vote yes. If you believe MMP is a better system, ask yourself, which system, STV of FPTP would you rather live with in the meantime, it could be years either way.

Ah, 1981 don't forget 1987 and 1996 "wrong winners" in Malta and your claim that Malta's system can't sustain more than two parties just doesn't wash (what a surprise) From 1921 to 1962 with a smaller population Malta had 3,4,5 parties representing it's parliment, in fact in 1950, 5 parties and an independant (the last time one was elected) Oh, I forgot STV is good for independants, It says so in that shiny 16 page report! you asked me which system I'd choose? lets say I'd pass on the "helter skelter" option.

Ooh Malta. Again you strike with Malta Ranger. I gave up on them after the collapse of the Phoenician empire myself, but I'm so glad you've become such a falconer yourself. But I will have to remember that in the early days of Maltese STV, there was so many parties, for future reference. Since 1981, the Maltese have added a mechanism where they do not have wrong winners. So I'm not sure what point you are making as far as 1987 and 1996. Alright Ranger, well you keep on stifling electoral reform. That way we can keep strong, unproportional, unaccountable, right wing majorities in which party mechanisms choke up our representation.

Daniel "Captain STV" please keep talking , your the "No" sides greatest hope!

Brian White, I don't know if there much immigration in Ireland during the last century prior to the '90s, but I do know that an awful lot of Irish came to Canada in the 19th century. Perhaps your ancestors missed theimpact of one of those potato blights. Like Ireland, that sectarian hatred held on here for generations before our partial enlightenment. Granted it hasn't been front and centre in Canada since the 12th century like Ireland. I don't raise it to attack the Irish, but to note that not everything that comes out of the old world is a good fit for us, thank you very much.

First past the post came from the old world. It gave you 77 of 79. Is that bad for you? You have the simple choice in your referendum. First past the post is only workable in a 2 party situation where you have a maximum of 2 candidates in every riding. If you vote green under first past the post, you are a dummie in a catch 22. You want to support the party but also you want your vote to elect someone. Your choice is to vote green and waste your vote or vote for your second choice and be a silenced green! Some choice! Under STV, your green candidate might get elected. (In a 7 seater, it would be hard for your green to lose). Even if your green fails, you have shown support (and the greens will get their dollar for your vote) and your second choice will benefit from your transfer. Anyway, the malta stuff seems familiar. What is a wrong winner. Ndp last time perhaps. Malta have screwed up their system by joining mmp with stv. Also, second preferences come into play in STV. If a party put up more moderate candidates who get some preferences from the other party candidates, they will gain higher representation than their first preferences would indicate. I really do not know anything about malta. u sure you know what u are talking about? Why not compare BC with Ireland? Same population as bc, everybody has heard of ireland. People are much the same. But, Ireland has a stable right, left and middle in politics. And they have greens. And they got independents. In short, you got choice! In BC, u just got boring old right and left. Wouldnt it be nice to have a choice like that? If you vote yes in the referendum, that choice can be yours. Brian

And Ireland has a Sunshine Coast, downtown eastside and a northern region three or four times larger than Ireland alone, JUST LIKE B.C.?! Do you sniff glue or something? I'm not a FPTP fan either but at least, love 'em or hate 'em you had a local representative, does every election produce 77 to 2 ? or is that the only thing programmed in your head? , last time I checked Canada had four different parties and an Independant representing in Ottawa, Is that STV?,FPTP? or one or the other in drag? The C.A. had an opportunity to recommend what the public was asking for and ignored it, but keep on spinning it as you wish, You and Daniel make a good team.

And Ireland has a Sunshine Coast ,Downtown Eastside and a Northern region three or four times the size of Ireland alone! Just like B.C.!!!? ,Do you sniff glue? I'm not a FPTP fan either but atleast love'em or hate'em you had a local representative, Has every election in B.C.'s history produced a 77 to 2 legistlature? or is that all you have programmed into yourself? The last time I checked, Canada had Four different parties and an Independant representing in Ottawa, is that a FPTP,STV result? or one or the other in drag? keep on spinning it like you wish, you and Daniel make a great team.

Brian W; I think it is terrible that I have only your "simple choice" between the bad system we now have and this convoluted STV option you and your fellow CA members left us with. It's of some interest, and irony, that we will be using the even simpler First Past The Post system to determine which system gets picked. I also note your tired refrain of all STV has to offer disgruntled Greens and other marginals who seem to get no respect under FPTP. I've heard it before and I still prefer MMP, an option yet another maritime (New Brunswick), province has announced it is recommending to its voters. It frightens me somewhat that we are being urged to take up a system that appears to require the services of a mathmeticians with a background in computer science to understand and which will treat voters in the hinterland of BC with a lot less respect for their local needs than those who already enjoy better services and benefits by way of their residences in the Lower Mainland. Brian you are right that FPTP does come from the old country, but I don't blame it on the Irish, rather the English who started this effort to give the lords as much power as the king.

I am not a CA member. I am not a citizen of Canada. Whatever, as a resident here, I am just dooing my duty. The crucial difference between choosing the system for here and in the maritimes is that here Citizens chose it while there a 'commision' did the choosing. Ranger says "The last time I checked, Canada had Four different parties and an Independant representing in Ottawa" Well, that is pretty pathetic to represent a country of 30 million people! Yet ireland with 4 million people has 6 partys and 14 independents! Canada, bigger than China with just 4 partys? Do you see the problem? A single self made man in the whole of Canada! Do you seriously believe that 4 partys can represent the diversity of this country? You have got to be kidding. The English do not have STV, but in june, the Scots will have STV. (When I was growing up, the scottish education system was aclaimed as the best in europe). I also heard that the british medical association now holds their elections by stv. Now why would they do that? Actually, to get a bit of ethnic diversity in the association representitives. (It just got too embarrasing for the doctors to continue to elect completely white boards all the time) by first past the post. And they cannot use mmp because partys are an artificial creation anyways. The citizens assembly did not ignore citizens making submissions. They ignored the A Carr inspired crude politicial interference in the process. Please, ranger, dont keep insulting your own inteligence with that one. Actually, the CA submissions are all still there. The mmp submissions would be an ideal subject for the type of software that universitys use to tell if students are cheating by copying from each other. Shall we call you on it? Actually, it would be the type of thing that the NDP and BC libs would enjoy doing. To their credit, the NDP and the BC Libs did not act in that way. So, Allen, I am not trying to give the lords the power of the king. I am trying to convince u guys that STV is fairer and more reliable than first past the post. You do not need the services of a mathematician to understand STV. MMP does not address local needs as good as STV. First past the post does not address local needs as well as STV. Here is why. You are going to have a larger riding, with 2 to 7 members. Even with 2 members (probably a lib and a ndp) you will have a choice of politicians to represent u. In a city 7 seater, you will have 7 different people to choose from to represent your political interests. One of them is quite likely to be agreeable to you. STV was chosen by ordinary voters for that reason (among others). The citizens assembly turned down mmp for another reason too. First past the post is a screw up, so what does mmp do? It keeps the screw up! and tacks on another bit to compensate for the screwed up bit.Independent representatives get no mmp extra seats, right? So, what happens if, say, 15 independents get elected under mmp? Anyway, after 6 months in parliament, they discover that they really like each other and they decide to form a party! So, this new party has a significant percentage of seats. Doesnt that mean that a couple of the A Carr nominated (green members) are over the percentage that mmp allocates her? Or suppose that half way through, there is a big disagreement in one of the caucusses and 5 members leave and become independent! What then? the percentages change again! Or suppose some of the greens rebell against a stubborn dictatorial leader half way through the season? What then? After all, none of the greens are directly elected. Can she just kick them out of the party and stick someone else in their place? Can a nominated member of the ledge even leave their party? The more you look into mmp, the more you head starts to spin. Anyway, folks, unwash your brains and join the free thinkers. If you can. Maybe,

Loved your diatribe Bryan and the scenario you stretched together near the end of it to explain the dangers of MMP. I think we're all quite capable as Canadians or British Columbians in conjuring up our own worst case examples. What if there were no "what ifs" and we had a real choice rather than the two limited options offered by the CA, which btw, is a committee appointed by the government and under the guidance or control of people hired by the government, just like the committees appointed in Eastern Canada. Again you raise the boogeyman of the political party as though it were Lucifer himself intervening in the democratic process. This naive, and I think distorted, belief that we as independant men and women will bring on the promised land by getting as far away from the dreaded political parties is quite dangerous. Turn the parties into villain and then who, other than the guys with the most money or the biggest stick get to decide what hot buttons get played out to incite the populace. Frankly, the only similarities between BC and Ireland are population size, a coastal shore line and the predominence of English language useage. Your arguments that everyone comes out a winner because somewhere along the line someone(perhaps your fifth choice), who gets elected is the same as one as on your ballot. I really don't need that tiny, fleeting sense of feel goodness to tide me over until I again get to participate in democracy four or five years later.

Under STV (Irish style) you will have more partys to choose from, more people going up for election within partys to choose from, you will get fiesty independents elected in lots of places that the partys ignore. (Inner city and up north on Van Island). You also will get more stable partys. (The 3 largest Irish partys have been there since the 1930's). Here you get some guy with a bit of money sponsering some new mushroom party every 15 or 20 years (The new wondor party comes along with inexperienced mla's gets a huge majority and promptly screws everything up!). It is a shitty system and shit supports mushrooms.) Having a stable party system where people from the larger partys get elected in every riding means experienced politicians are waiting in the wings no matter what. Look at the BC libs. Commentators said early on that Colin Hansen was the "only guy capable of taking over from Gary Colins!" Does that mean you elected 72 total morans last time? So, you get all that 'talent' elected and only one guy among them is capable of being finance minister. God help us! But they all called it correctly! And, if the NDP win! Just a single one of them will have experience! God help us! Can you see the problem? So, you get this crazy flip flop from left to right and a lack of experience among politicians generally. I am going to try to find the re-election statistics for politicians in Ireland. I am betting that politicians get re-elected more in Irelans than here. What does that prove? How about: more experienced politicians generally? How about: a public who are happier with their elected politicians? AND a system that dilivers that to the voting public. Let us test your knowelege of the "only similarities between BC and Ireland". Have U lived in Ireland? I have. Have you experienced STV and first past the post? I have. Anyway, Allen, thanks for your help. I can never convert you, but perhaps there is a little food for thought here for reasonable people. The CA was appointed by lot. They were not hand picked to reach a decision. If Stv is chosen for BC, I have no doubt that they will be acclaimed as heroes of democracy in the next few decades. Brian

Excuse me, Brian White, but there are I believe something like 15 NDP former MLAs running for reelection. And the Bc liberals have only about a dozen people with degrees in their ENTIRE CAUCUS. Shirley Bond, pathetically the minister of advanced education has yet to complete the simple BA she's "been working on" for over ten years. And MANY ndp candidates, including Carol James have lots of political experience, especially compared to the 75 RUBBER STAMP PIMP, high school drop outs, like gary collins...do your research...

Bryan, no I haven't lived in Ireland. Are there any Irish ridings that take a day or more to drive across if the weather is good? I find it interesting that you are now suggesting STV is good for political parties, even though you and your fellow proponents have been insisting for months that STV is the miracle cure to end the strangle-hold political parties have on BC politics. It would appear STV can deliver pretty much whatever you want.

The ndp has one mla going for reelection this time round. You might get rusty after 4 or 5 years in the wilderness. STV is good for the political partys in that it keeps them closer to the grassroots. It also seems to have a higher level of politicians keeping their seats. This makes them more experienced. At any job, you get better if you do it longer. STV promotes a stronger link between the elected member and his or her electors. That is good for everyone (including the political partys). You might find it a strange thing but I do not think a party with a strong leader deciding everything is a good party. I think a party with strong individuals working together for their constituencs (and ocasionally openly disagreeing with the leader) is a good and healthy thing. I differenciate between a strong party and a strong leader. Look at Glen Clarke and Gordon Campbell. They are steely eyed tough guys who face down everyone else. A strong party would have kicked out Glen Clarke in 97 or earlier. A strong party would have extradited Campbell to Hawaii and fired him for disgracing this province. I do not believe in tough leaders. They can all to easily morf into hitlers, stalins, or pol pots.

or George Bush.

If anyone is interested: GVRD "Yes" Campaign meeting 1-3 pm, January 29th, 2005. Kerrisdale Community Center. 5851 West Boulevard, Vancouver.

As someone who got involved in the electoral reform movement as a progressive voter frustrated that the parties representing my views were getting a raw deal under FPTP (Greens in BC, NDP nationally), I've been flabbergasted at the hostile attitude the Left has taken towards STV. Any student of electoral systems will tell you that both MMP and STV are sophisticated, nuanced, and fair systems for electing representatives in advanced democracies. MMP is chosen more often because it is an easier system for politicians to deal with. We should not be surprised that a group of citizens would choose STV because, as Tieleman likes to point out, it is a difficult system for politicians to deal with. Both are vast improvements over FPTP, and yes, complex in certain ways that FPTP is not. What irks me is how such a nonpartisan issue has seems so divided along partisan lines. Ask yourselves honestly, how would you be approaching the exact same STV issue if the NDP had commissioned the Citizens' Assembly, and how would you expect commentators on the Right to be reacting to it as we speak?

MMP is easier for voters to deal with!, If the NDP commissioned a Citizens Assembly on this I would hope they would give the public a choice: STV - MMP what are you afraid of?

I'm beginning to wonder if this STV proposal isn't a cute way for someone to scuttle the entire electoral reform movement. Voters who haven't any idea of how STV will really play out might feel rightly justified in voting for the (FPTP) devil you know. Had the options been a little broader, then maybe people would think they are truly being offered choices rather than the old one with holes or the one that no one can explain how it will play out across BC's mixed population bases.

Come on, get on the boat for the vote. If you're concerned about having electoral reform scuttled, help us organize community forums, mock elections, and make sure voters can understand the system. Just because we support STV doesn't mean we're trying to limit the options on the poll, long before any system was chosen, it was decided to accept a single option. The NDP, the Liberals, the Greens all supported the process of putting the recommendations in the hands of an independent group. Joy McPhail was part of the planning commitee for the CA, and the NDPs official position, which has since been removed from their website, was they fully supported the initiative. This week, as every household in BC receives a copy of the Citizens Assembly's report, we can start celebrating that we're enroute to a system that will have better results. Come on, don't be sour, celebrate that in 4 years, we probaably won't have a government that makes unilateral decisions without overlooking the needs of B.Cs regions

BC is too big. This province should be reduced to smaller, semi-autonomous states with local representatives answerable to their local constituencies, partnering with other states to work on mutual benefits of cooperation, and overseen by a larger oversight body to ensure minimum standards of living, environmental protection, and so forth.

Ranger, I sympathize completely, being an STV supporter, with voters' lack of choice in the referendum. I think the reasoning behind the single option and the CA process as a whole is that electoral systems in a complex topic that (as you well know) requires months of study to begin to grasp the issues and how various systems address them. Like it or not, 99% of people in BC won't completely understand what they're voting on, regardless of whether they're presented with STV, MMP, or both. It's largely a public relations exercise, as it was in New Zealand. The difference is that in New Zealand, they also chose which system would be on the final referendum by a public relations exercise, and we chose ours by a deliberative citizens' process. I wish that everyone in BC had the time and desire to educate themselves as the CA members did, but they don't. I liked the CA process, and I think it came a lot closer than it seems to selecting MMP -- I think that most members were sitting on the fence until decision day, and just went with the prevailing wind as a result of the desire to remain cohesive as a group. If a few more members had spoken out eloquently in favour of MMP it may have tipped the other way. I would have supported a BC-MMP proposal just as vigorously as I support BC-STV. But in the end, you may be right: Giving just the single option of STV may make people suspicious (even thought they have no informed reason to be) and make change less likely. I hope not. And it's ridiculous to say that the CA process was designed to give a recommendation that would scuttle the electoral reform movement. Why would those who oppose electoral reform even want to give people a chance to approve it? If anything was designed from the beginning to scuttle electoral reform, it's the double 60% hurdle that voters must overcome... But that's why the Yes side is fighting the public relations battle so hard against those who say they favour electoral reform but are still picking nits over STV and the CA process. The time for that was last year or the year before, when Gordon Gibson called for public input on the design of the CA process. This year, unfortunately for you, it's STV or FPTP. Which will it be? Will you really continue to argue against change? If so, come out and instead of whining about an imperfect process and outcome, make an honest argument for keeping FPTP. I dare you.

Ryan, I'm happy to hear you say that if the electorate chose STV as an alternative to FPTP it would have nothing to do with an understanding of what they are voting on, because you are 100% correct. My other point and problem with the STV recomendation is that to sell it you have to mislead people into beleiving it will do things it just simply can't. This is an "experiment" plain and simple, by the way the CA didn't come up with the idea, that was an other entity, the real task was to see if a majority of CA members would buy it, they obviously did, I personally did not feel very good about offering a second or third best system for the public I spent alot of time talking to, this is not what they asked for! Many members are quite proud of themselves and thats fine, they worked very hard and studied their brains out, many followed the herd as well, I wasn't aware of any input in the CA process that I could have provided but if I could have I would have pushed for "true democracy" for B.C. not limit it to 160 people, Give the people a choice:MMP STV FPTP tell me in the province of B.C. that STV would win a fair fight! I DARE YOU !

Alright, this threads getting a little old. Let Ranger vent because he got the red car instead of the blue one. From this thread we have learned: a) People who are arguing against STV are not doing so because it is a move in a negative direction, as they can not show any ways in that it would create unfair elections or that the current system is better. No one will stand up for the present system. b) Old wounds don't heal. Saying that MMP has a bigger fan club does not mean it is the better system than STV. And even if it may be, they are not telling us how the results of an MMP election would be better than an STV election. And either way, a "no" vote will not lead to MMP. c) STV supporters are aware that a simpler system might have passed easier. However, that does not mean we should not do everything in our effort to try to get this through. Oh wait, Ranger was daring us to say STV would win in a FAIR fight. I'd say it would. If everyone in British Columbia was educated on various voting systems, witnessed their results, and talked to people who voted under that system, I'd say it would. Of course it never would have been a fair or informed fight. And it still is not.

Oh yeah, KJ, just to make Ranger happy, we are going to promise that as well! You must BELIEVE us when we say STV will "definately reduce BC to smaller, semi-autonomous states with local representatives answerable to their local constituencies, partnering with other states to work on mutual benefits of cooperation, and overseen by a larger oversight body to ensure minimum standards of living, environmental protection, and so forth."

...paradise

Ranger, I'm interested: What is the Yes side promising that STV can't deliver? STV will certainly deliver more proportional outcomes and an end to vote-splitting. STV does allow for the election of more empowered and independent-minded MLAs with the ability to demand less party discipline, but only if we vote that way. (And judging by the public input to the CA, we just might.) It also allows for the election of strict party-line politicians if that's what we prefer. What else did we promise?

I was hoping more posters would enlighten me on how Mr. Mair could consider himself a socialist. I tried and all I got for it was a headache. I'm sure Mr. Mair is just as decent as any of us, but I'm not sure he actually has beliefs. I've read a lot of Mair in my day, and I think he kind of picks and tastes ideas, discarding some one day, retrieving them, adopting others, and so on and so forth. No offense, Mr. Mair. For all I know this might be the ultimate manifestation of intellectual honesty. He's occasionally landed on some very good ideas, including his current activism regarding salmon farming. Regarding left versus right wing... Now, that's a huge mystery--as much as where those electrons go when they randomly disappear on their way around an atom. I think kids around ten or twelve have already developed left or right tendencies. It's probably genetic. I'm pretty attached to my own left-wing political and social agenda, but I'm not sure anything would ever get done if everyone agreed with me. Conflict seems to be built in everywhere. Regarding voting systems... I don't think it's so important--"First past the post" often seems unfair, but it seems to have served us quite well so far and will continue to do so as long as we have honest, committed people willing to run for office.

Re: Mair a socialist? Maybe like any other group, those that identify as lefties like to think they are winning converts from the other side. I'm heartened that if Rafe can find his balance somewhere, then there's probably hope for us all :)