I agree, and I voted in favour of BC-STV. We can't change the rules post-vote. We need to either revisit this model, or another and have another referendum with electoral reform as the sole question on the ballot.

I'm not so sure that "zealots" is an accurate description, nor do I agree that that there was an "eruption" of "whining". What the bulk of vote reformers wanted was to see their vision come about. I don't think there was anything nefarious in their intentions. And if some of them call for a retroactive lowering of the threshold... so what? They want their enthusiasm and hard work to show. Are we to simply ask the "losers" of our world (First Nations, French Canadians, the poor) to shut up and board the new train or go mope in the ditch? I've never really understood what appears to be a quite virulent strain of negativity toward the objective and the content of STV. OK... if it's inadequate or too complex, fine. Just don't get all the negative shit dumped on it. Anyone care to tell me why/how this came about?

adding to the above

I suspect a certain amount of arrogance among those steering the Citizens Assembly's decisions.

There is certainly a sense that some people had a theory they wanted pushed and the public be damned if they didn't appreciate the theory.

No doubt, the CA got a positive rendition of the potential outcome of STV voting, including computer-based calculations on how it would play out.

Fortunately, most people can smell a pig-in-a-poke, especially when its backers are more than willing to whip up fears that a no vote would put us all back in chains or worse.

Please, please, if, and I hope when, it goes to the next stage, ensure that those in the backrooms and leading the effort are free of acedemics pushing their own experiments, stay away from the pathetic fear tactics that tainted STV and then find someone who can explain the process to the public in lay terms.

If they can't even carry out that final concern they shouldn't be recommending anything but the break up of their own committee.

I though it strange that a vote to change the votong system required 60% while everything else requires only a majority. How about demanding 60% support for so-called privatizing or any of the other anti-people actions the Fliberals have in mind.

jtothemfk, I'm curious what First Nations, French Canadians and the poor have to do with this issue.

I am also surprised you would refer to either of the first two as "losers".

According to who's definition?

I would guess the First Nations, French Canadians and the poor got much the same treatment as anyone else who might have suggested anything other than STV. They were ignored.

Their enthusiasm, as you put it, was never in doubt, nor the efforts they put into it.

They fit my description of zealots, however, when they want to change the goal posts after the game and they accuse anyone who argues against that silliness of being dumb, too lazy to read or part of some dark conspiracy to keep FPTP as the standard.

Negative is much like beauty.

MMP is basically a con to keep power in the hands of party leaders. This stuff about ensuring representation is a smokescreen-folks like James are really power hungry and what power concentrated in their hands.

I think what you would see if you pose the question carefully is that most folks that really understand both STV and MMP will choose STV. More folks know of MMP already-and they know party officials are in favor of it. However, few folks have really been exposed in depth to the subtle differences in how MMP favors rigid conformity within parties, centralizes power in the hands of party leaders-and how STV allows candidates to draw support from a variety of constituencies.

The folks in the Citizen's Assembly did have time to examine those issues-and they made the right decision-something which has impressed me quite a bit personally. Perhaps BC should just go the whole way and run the entire government with a Citizen's Assembly.

I voted for STV (sounds like a kind of disease does it not!) not because I liked the system but rather to express my voice to change from the present past the post system to one that has proportional representation.

Those that want to keep past the post likely just wish to maintain their control of government and the relevancy of party politics, or they wish to run a suiccessful election campaign that gives them there first past the post victory and power.

I look at the referendum as a shout for change, and not necessarily for STV in particular.

"Those that want to keep past the post likely just wish to maintain their control of government and the relevancy of party politics, or they wish to run a suiccessful election campaign that gives them there first past the post victory and power."

Isn't it more likely that people who want to keep FPTP do so because they believe the system has merit? Surely, not all supporters of FPTP are politicians or have sinister motives.

That said, I agree that the referendum was "a shout for change", and I, for one, would support change.

Allan, I'm removing the literalness of the meaning from "loser" with the quotes. By bringing First Nations and French Canadians, and poor into it I'm not connecting them directly to this particular issue. I've heard tons of people proffer the weak argument that the losers of the war (whomever they may be and in whatever "war) should merely be quiet. The First Nations and Quebecois (and other French Canadians) have not simply laid down and I doubt you would blanket them with terms such as "whiners" and "zealots" for continuing their fight. And one can find countless examples of attempts at "goal-post adjustment" on the part of all historically oppressed groups. I still think your and Andersen's calling them "zealots" is mere inflammation. Please, don't take me for calling proponents of STV as an historically oppressed group. That's not my intention at all. It's just that I don't really feel that this is a game where the losing team complains about the refereeing or the dirty play of the other team. Just cause the 60% threshold was not met does not mean proponents of STV should now just be quiet or cry on mama's lap. Just as First Nations aren't obligated to keep to their reserves and just enjoy their tax free status.

Clearly Mitchell Anderson would never have chosen STV as a electoral system, judging from the number of negative emoted terms used to describe it throughout the article. It is really nice to see such an objective and fair evaluation of why this referendum failed, don't you think? :-)

I have no major committment to STV, although I did vote in favour of it, mostly because I think any proportional system would be better than what we have now. I would have voted for an MMP system for the same reason. My only real distaste would be for any system which allowed political parties to choose who will be an MLA by selecting from a list. I feel strongly that those selected as MLAs must be chosen directly by the voters in some fashion rather than indirectly by a party heirarchy working down a list. I think it a pity that a simple majority was not required, although I do appreciate that in many private societies a 60% threshold is often used when a constitutional change is being made. I am not sure that such a restriction is justifiable in provincial referenda.

I think there is at least a possibility that should the referendum have been about choosing an MMP system that we would have gotten the same result. My perception, as a voting activist rather than a pundit, is that most people did not have enough information. That was a result of very poor funding for the advertising campaigns rather than defects in the system proposed. Voters may not have understood it, but that is because no clear explanation was ever given, primarily due to lack of funding for a campaign to do so. The same could be said about the no side as well, I might add. Lack of money would have resulted in poor explanations of how an MMP system would work just as much as it did for STV, likely with the same result.

What we need is an educational campaign at a reasonable level for a period of at least six months which explains the various proposed systems, followed by two referenda. The first would be to decide whether we want to change the electoral system. If that passes, something that the 57% in favour of STV makes pretty certain, then a second referendum would choose which system to use. This would cost some money, but as has been said before, "what price do we put on democracy".

"What we need is an educational campaign at a reasonable level for a period of at least six months which explains the various proposed systems, followed by two referenda. The first would be to decide whether we want to change the electoral system. If that passes, something that the 57% in favour of STV makes pretty certain, then a second referendum would choose which system to use."

This is an approach I like. A reasonable amount of time to educate the public. No competing or dubiously worded questions on the ballot. No election happening at the same time. A change of electoral system requires at least this much diligence.

I hear ya, ammonra. Whether the lack of understanding was because of poor funding to explain it in clear and simple terms or because it simply isn't a clear and simple system is to me quite irrelevant. Most of us don't truly understand economic systems or care to understand what happens to every dollar we spend or how Medical premiums are assessed or why it is exactly we pay 23% income tax in this bracket and 27% in another and who the hell and how comes up with that figure yet we participate nonetheless. And I think in ammonra I've found one other person who seems rather puzzled at the almost visciousness of commentary about the "zealots" for the STV, almost as if these people were enemies of the people or something.

Verso, i agree with your agreement. :-)

An STV-MMP hybrid can bridge the gap between the various factions who have conflicting agendas and priorities.

In order to maximize proportionality, we can make votes transferrable to any candidate, any place in BC. In order to maximize the opportunity to get local representation, we can place local candidates' names at the top of the ballot in bold print and print area of residence of all candidates adjacent to their names. Number or years of residence at this location can also be placed adjacent to each candidate's name. Such an approach will reduce the incentive for political party executives to impose parachute candidates, while giving small party supporters the option of focussing their votes on the best candidates in BC.

Despite the ability to transfer our votes to candidates anywhere in B.C., we can retain the local riding boundaries. The candidate living within each riding who gets the most votes from within that riding becomes the local representative, responsible for running the local constituency office. Candidates who are elected on the basis of transferred votes from throughout the province without getting the most local votes can be at-large representatives. With their widespread support resulting from a firm grasp of BC-wide issues as opposed to local issues, these at-large representatives should be strongly considered for cabinet posts.

Even though the ability to transfer our votes to any candidate anywhere in B.C. will guarantee a high level of proportionality, we can further enhance proportionality by comparing the number of seats gained by each party to their share of the popular vote and where necessary, add a few top-up seats drawn from party lists. Since the STV aspect gives a lot of power to the grassroots and few top-up seats will be needed, it does no harm to throw some crumbs to the central office types who want to override the grassroots and ram-through gender balance quotas etc.

Yes, this proposal will involve more seats overall than we already have. But the candidates who get the most votes from within their ridings can spend more time focusing on consituency issues, meaning they will need to hire fewer constituency office assistants. Some of these candidates may be former constituency office assistants who know how to appeal to their local voters.

I'm a fiscal conservative in some ways, but I don't see a problem with paying more elected representatives if we balance that by paying fewer unelected constituency assistants.

Under an STV-MMP hybrid system, Adriane Carr likely would have been elected as an at large representative due to transferred Green votes from throughout B.C. Nicholas Simons would also be elected as the local representative for Powell River.

In 1975, B.C. NDP premier Dave Barrett not only lost the election, he lost his own seat. In 1976, NDP MLA Bob Williams stepped down from the safest NDP seat in the province to trigger a by-election and make way for Barrett to return to the legislature as the leader of the opposition. This type of thing is a waste of taxpayers' money, an affront to local representation, and an invitation to all kinds of shady monkey business to induce an elected MLA to step down.

Under an STV-MMP hybrid system, Barrett would have been easily elected to an at-large seat in 1975 on the strength of transferred NDP votes from throughout B.C. Williams could have kept his seat and delivered better local representation than a preoccupied opposition leader.

Why did it take so long to count the referendum ballots? I smell a rat. Were they erasing our little pencil marks?

With very little campaigning, 57 per cent of voters expressed their desire for change. All but two ridings, both in Kamloops, returned a majority in favour of change. The people have spoken. Another referendum should be held outside of an election year for sure. If we can afford to hold a referendum with heavily biased questions for the sole purpose of bashing the Native land claims process, we can afford to have one to enhance our democracy to the benefit of all citizens. Anything less is an outrage.

I think the reason many voted for STV was that all the politicians were against it. Anything that all those guys can agree on as bad must be good for us, the taxpayers who are so thoroughly screwed all the time.

The referendum should allow for a choice between systems, including STV, MMP and FPTP. Those who wish to vote for the system as is can, I doubt it will find many supporters.

Something that Campbell is never really given credit for is setting up the CA. Wonder why that is? Gordo, you are a brave man despite your shortcomings.

Pretty specious reasoning, serious...

I don't know how many politicians you spoke with about this but I presume it wasn't near "all". Myself, I nary heard more than a few say one thing or the other about it.

Besides, surely there are some of those who do try to serve the public and not merely line their pockets? Or should we add to the Butcher's call: "...and then kill all the politicians"

Can el Gordo be credited as "brave" or as some kind of dishonest shill. For gordo, as politician, in setting up the CA must have had a devious ulterior motive. I'm not clear on how following dictates of opinion polls (those that clearly showed, in this example) that people wanted a change to our electoral system qualifies one as "brave" Explain?

to clarify, I mean opinion polls that have for many years shown that people have wanted a change to the electoral system, not this most recent one, aka the referendum.

I look at this question from the point of view of asking what has been gained in western democracies by using the first past the post system, and I keep getting the same answer: A hell of a lot. I'll go with Dave Barret on this one. 77 seats to 2 does seem totally unfair, but I thought the NDP deserved it, even though I've voted NDP in every single election since I started voting in 1965 or so.
I thought the Clark regime went seriously off the tracks and needed a cleanup, which I think Carole James represents. STV could likely weaken the party system, and I think it works quite well, and is capable of wonderful things.

Just a quick note:

Someone mentioned First Nations having tax free status - Not totally true - yes in some instances they do not pay taxes, but often they do (income tax if they live and work off-reserve sales tax off reserve for example).

Just wanted to clarify.

Mitchell Anderson pretty much sums up my feelings on STV and electoral reform. I had to vote against it even though I am for some sort of new and fairer system. Many of those that voted yes where merely voicing their discontent for FPTP and the fact that we had such an unbalanced legislature. The zealots are those that went out and lied and/or mispresented what STV was to the public. Anyone who went out and said that STV was a form of proportional representation: shame on you!

It would be interesting to see how the public would vote on it now since most people I've talked to like the look of the BC Legislature after the election. FPTP was the system that produced such a fantastic result in many people's eyes. I've never been a member of a political party, but I'd vote yes for a MMP system in a heart beat.

We got the best result in the referundum in my opinion. STV failed, but it came close enough to keep the electoral reform dialogue open. I couldn't be happier.

If the provincial government had determined the first-past-the-post system was undemocratic and should be changed why didn't the referendum ask to choose MMP or STV, majority rule.

I don't think I or anyone else has been viscious in their criticism of the actions of STV proponents before or after the vote.

At least no more hostile than those, including some above, who have shown a profound hatred for political parties, yet have offered absolutely no alternatives to them.

Yes, in theory individuals can nominate and elect individuals, but in reality the individual will always be trumped by the conspirators who work together as a party.

Because of evolving rules on party activities, finances etc., we have a far greater likelihood of fairness than when parties were controlled by small, but powerful groups or individuals who did whatever they wanted.

As much as you may not like to hear it, that's the way it is and the way it ought to be.

I'm not saying the party system is great and I, for one, would hope if another run is made at electoral reform, that issues such as party financing, third party involvement and a raft of other issues be addressed along with a new voting structure, such as MMP.

Political parties have simply taken over for the drunken mobs who were control by the wealthy who controlled who got nominated and who got elected.

Remember how hard it used to be to buy a bottle of liquor on election day? That was a holdover from the days when encouraging support of specific candidates was a task conducted in the bars of the nation instead of at the doorstep.

To believe that you as an individual can get involved in the political process without joining in group action is naive in the extreme, something, I truly think many of the more vocal STV supporters are as well.

A 60 percent requirement is by no means unusual and, besides, evceryone knew the minimum required long before the vote went ahead.

To later demand that the bar be lowered after the fact simply because it was close leaves me to question the depth of understanding of those making such demands.

Hey, I hold no bitterness toward those people. My only bitch is the still unexplained reason we had STV on the ballot in the first place, especially when, as the author notes, the vast majority of submissions favoured MMP over STV.

You see, I've been told the assmebly went around and gathered submissions from the public before making the final decision.
Does that mean the vast majority of public input was simply filed in the round file?

Bring on real consultation, but by people who can and will listen to the public.

Leave the theorists in the classroom at least until they learn to explain their theories without resorting to fear as the main selling point.

Obscure and baffling system
Pig in a poke
BC-STV is a dud
An unfortunate artifact

Wow! Tell us what you really think Mitchell.

Unfortunately it seems that Anderson’s understanding of STV is about on a par with his understanding of MMP.

Sweden, Denmark and Belgium do not use MMP, they use the PR List systems, a system used in seventy two democracies around the world. PR-List is the system used by “most established democracies”, not MMP.

True there are only three countries that use STV at the national level, Ireland, Malta and Australia (upper house) but fifteen years ago there was only one country, Germany, that used MMP. Over the past fifteen years eight other countries have joined Germany in using MMP, they are Venezuela, Hungary, New Zealand, Italy, Bolivia, Mexico, Lesotho and Albania. In none of these countries was the electoral system selected by the citizens of that country. New Zealand perhaps came close, MMP was chosen in a referendum after a Royal Commission had recommended MMP to the voters (surprise!). In a second referendum, when MMP was compared against First-Past-The-Post, MMP won 54% of the vote. A good thing New Zealand did not have a 60% threshold for that referendum.

As for a solid record of MMP systems delivering proportional results it is interesting that last elections for the Welsh National Assembly (using MMP) resulted in 50% of the seats awarded to the Welsh Labour Party on 37% of the vote, hardly proportional. The Richard Commission has now recommended that the MMP system in Wales be replaced by STV.

As for better representation for women, it is true that Germany and New Zealand have a higher proportion of women representatives than we do in BC, but Italy (11.5%), Venezuela (9.7%), Hungry (9.1%) and Albania (6.4%) are not great examples of places with gender equity in elected representatives. If electoral systems bring gender equity, a position which I believe is ridiculously simplistic, then MMP clearly has issues.

Anderson states that the reasons the Citizens’ Assembly recommended STV remain unclear. Far from remaining unclear they are available in a book written by one of the Assembly members. That book was available on the Internet as a free download during the referendum. Clearly the reasons were unclear only to those who did not wish to discover them.

Rather than look for conspiracy theories of why the Citizens’ Assembly chose STV by a vote of 4 to 1 perhaps some effort to understand the rational might provide some insight. The research staff did not provide the members of the Assembly with computer simulation projections for STV. We did that ourselves. But the value of such simulations are limited, far better to look at the results of fifty years of elections in Ireland, Germany and other countries to discover how these systems really perform. And no, the research staff did not provide that research either. In the age of the Internet where everyone is empowered to find facts for themselves, the Assembly members did that research too.

And in your search for reasons to pick STV over MMP, consider that in the countries that use MMP up to 50% of the elected representatives are drawn from a Party List which voters have no ability to influence.

And if Anderson is baffled by STV maybe he would like to clarify for us all the simplicity of the Sainte League formula used in New Zealand, the elegance of the algorithm used to assign list seats to the various German states or the straightforwardness of the formula used to calculate the allocation of compensating seats in Italy.

David Wills
An ordinary citizen who learned a little about electoral reform while serving on the Citizens’ Assembly

Great post David.

Now we all agreed to the process beforehand. MMP and STV and others were all rejected. There should be no do-overs even though Mitchell Andersen seems to want one.

Frank - You say: “MMP and STV and others were all rejected.”

Interesting position. Perhaps you would like to comment on the statement by Thomas Berger in his report to the City of Vancouver on the Wards referendum. He talks about the Provincial Electoral Reform Referendum threshold as follows

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

So rejected may be too strong a term.

None of this seems really important to me - all these options only concentrate power in the big centres. The outlying areas are largely disenfranchised and plundered of their resources.
It seems vital to me that there be some workable form of regional representation. Ex -mayors of Vancouver so far haven't shown any appreciation of the problems of rural British Columbia.
The present system, STV, or MMP will all probably function to govern an area the size of Lichtenstein, but none address the disparity in an area the size of B.C.

grouch: Great post. So far, it seems Lichenstein has had all the clout... while the outlying rural colonies have become mere pirate booty.

David, I am grateful to the CA for spending so much time from your personal lives investigating and discussing various electoral reform options. I supported STV and voted for it. I still believe its better than the silly MMP system which never met a politician who didn't fall in love with it.

But, we all agreed to both the CA itself and the 60% rule. So in my honest opinion, FPTP prevailed over STV and MMP and everything else. Anderson's article is simply a cry for a do-over.

My understanding of the purpose of the dual threshold for "automatic implementation" (i.e. with no input from the Legislature) was to ensure the system would not be imposed against the will of any region of the Province. While moving the goalposts for "automatic implementation" would indeed be unseemly, it seems reasonable to me that the Legislature (i.e. the government) might now conclude that passing approx. 77 of 79 ridings (don't forget the absentee ballots are yet to come) and no less than 49% support in any single riding, does indeed show that no region opposes the system, and therefore that 57% is a strong mandate for implementing the change in new legislation requiring debate in the Legislature (as opposed to "automatically"). Who knows, maybe they'd implement it for one election only, on a trial basis.

If the government doesn't see it that way, let's hope the process is kept alive somehow, in the hands of citizens as opposed to politicians or parties, and that a good strong education budget (for a wide range of views) is provided.

I think there are concerns about the legitimacy of the results of a referendum held outside the normal provincial election cycle, given the expected much lower turnout. This doesn't concern me though.

Grouch, maybe the answer is to break provinces up and create smaller regional units. In Alberta for example Calgary and Edmonton would be in separate provinces. North-western Ontario would no longer be in the same province as toronto, etc.

STV is an extremely problematic system with a lot of problems. Fair Vote Ontario posted on their web site ways to improve BC's process which includes making sure the members aren't subject to undue influence.

I don't believe this is a 'people's' desire for change at all.Instead it is an organized movement that is receiving a lot of help from outside of BC and it is a very organized blitz to keep STV alive and to force BC to adopt it.

You can not change the goal posts for the referendum after you lose. 60% was a very low threshold. Most, for such important matters are 67%. I feel offended when peopl suggest the gov't should ignore the vote on the referendum. Why bother voting in any referendum at all if it doesn't matter one whit.

I'm very tired of STV. Clearly, it does nothing to fix corporate lobbying, kick backs and breach of public trust. It is likely to increase voter apathy, rather than decrease it. It threatens the integrity of our voting system because computers would be necessary to calculate the vote tally and who knows where our transfers really went, 'cause we wouldn't. And, more tired of those who would take away other people's democracy to enact it.

As far as vote changes go, Serious Jim, if there were any tampering it would have been to make them yes's, considering people barely knew a darn thing about the referendum.

Another referendum, where STV, MMP and FPTP are given equal opportunity in an unbiased question and after a period of discussion and public education would be fair. Anything less is railroading.

That's it for me. I fully expect the yes side to barrage any public discussion of it and frankly its a turn off.

Apparently you didn't understand the quote from Thomas Berger - the goal posts have not changed - many people just didn't understand what they meant. If both 60% thresholds had been met then the government was "obliged" to implement BC-STV for 2009.

Instead it surpassed one goal-post and almost made the other one. So the government is in a position to choose what it will do instead of being required to follow the Assembly's advice.

But the governement has to do something - after all, only 43% voted to keep our current electoral system - not exactly a vote of confidence in FPTP!

Uh-oh, Red River Girl is getting turned off.

But why would anyone rig a vote just to get close? You rig to win don’t you, or else what is the point?

I was simplistic when I said all politicians were against STV. I should have said all the parties were against, I’m sure some politicians were into it. The Greens said they were neutral, whatever that means, but none of them was for.

STV hurt the parties because they lost control of nominations. There would be more than one party candidate running in a riding and so politicians would have to differentiate themselves from each other, not such a bad thing. Members of parliament would be freed up to actually represent their constituents rather than blindly follow official party lines, not such a bad thing either, unless you don’t want to be represented.

Too often, people don't even know the name of the person they vote for, they just pencil in a check for the party that is least reprehensible to them. I voted for Nader, and he wasn’t even on the ballot, I had to pencil his name in. They really have to start counting intentionally spoiled ballots.

I do not understand the criticism about rural ridings being less represented under STV, please someone clarify.

And I don’t really think Gordo is brave, just kind of reckless. It doesn’t turn me on either.

STV, MMP, a PR List system - used in seventy two democracies around the world, First Past the Post systems---all interesting but ....me thinks there is a lot more to change then just the electoral system.

For quite some time now, at this site, and at bcpolitics.ca, and around the province I have been articulating that the regions of this province should be treated equally, that they should not be creations of the province, that we need an internal constitutuion that not only will specifiy what kind of voting system is better, but also how rights, & political/fiscal power should be more fairly shared between Victoria and the regions of this province.

The key question is: what kind of polity are we, as citizens, wanting to create in Briitish Columbia during this century? Is it one where political and financial power remains concentrated at the coast, in Victoria, and where the perpetual unelected government, the senior bureaucrats inside the Premier's office decide everything? Is it a polity where all tax revenues, resouce rents flow to a central Crown in Victoria? Should it be a polity where the Crown continues to own all the water, oil, natural gas, trees, minerals of the province, thereby enabling the Premier & Minister's of the Crown to sell them off, or lease them for 999 years to private corporations --essentially using the powers of the State to privilege private Capital. Do we want continuance of a polity where our democratic rights as citizens essentially end at the ballot box, or do we have more expansive concepts of citizen democratic rights and duties that extend not only within the political sphere...but to the economic sphere as well... so as to create less of a capitalistic economy...and more economic democracy? Am I alone in seeking a polity where rather than Capital prevailing over Labor, organized or unorganized, Labor prevails over the privilege of Capital? Do we want a polity where limits are placed on the ability of Capital to extract profit from the natural environment --while shifting the costs onto the natural world?

...In my view, this Citizens Assembly, although occupied by sincere citizens who were intent on doing a good responsible job--was an elitist farcical ad hoc institution created by the Fiberals under a VERY restrictive terms of reference. we, the citizens of BC...deserve better!

In my view, the people of BC, not only need a better voting system, but they need an internal constitution that creates the legal foundation for a different kind of democratic polity, a polity that enables different legal, social, economic, cultural and fiscal relations within the province. A polity that vests soverign power in the people of BC...and not the Crown.

An elected constituent constitutional assembly whose soverign power once obtained directly from the citizens of BC -will supercede the Crown's claims to soverign power...as all power which is not derived directly from the citizens of Canada cannot be a soverign power....and the Crown is an imposition...not a conferrment of power from the people upon the Crown. Once elected, by virtue of that soverignty conferred by the citizens of BC -that Assembly is then empowered to set its own terms of reference & time -table in proposing a new internal constitution and voting system to the citizens of BC.. and since soverignty vests in the people not the CRown...that new internal constitution, to create a new polity for BC, must be approved or rejected by referendum.. Hopefully there would be several month period of intense debate and wide circulation of the proposed constitution.

...the only question to be clarified --is how should citizens elected members to that constitutional constituent assembly? ---that should, in my view, be decided by a referendum? Put it to the people: do they want First Past the Post, MMP, STV, a PR list system...and let them decide. Once we decide...carry out the election...elect members to that constitutional constituent assembly...and let the process begin...to create a new, hopefully more just democratic polity in BC. Otherwise, we, all are frozen in time, frozen in the historical time of the colonial constitution that was imposed upon Canada & BC at the time of Confederation...excepting the Charter ...which was born from the ground-up within Canada.

typo: it should read "how should citizens elect members to that constitutional constituent assembly". ---

That question can be decided directly by referendum!

Why the Citizens Assembly chose STV is a subject I outlined in a Georgia Straight column December 9, 2004.

Three reasons: The CA could not recommend an increase in the number of seats in the BC Legislature, which is necessary for Mixed Member Proportional to work. This restriction was imposed by the BC Liberal government.

Second, the CA took a strong anti-party position and believed - wrongly in my view - that STV was the most antagonistic system towards parties.

Ironically, Australian Senator Bob Brown said on his recent speaking tour here that all the parties agree on one thing there - they love STV! Whoops.

Third, the Green Party's overt efforts to heavily lobby the CA to adopt MMP backfired.

My column can be found at:

http://www.straight.com/content.cfm?id=6926

STV gives the voter the ability to get rid of party candidates without getting rid of the party. It is called choice voting for a reason. It provides the voter with choice. Other systems do not. If you go to the supermarket and buy apples, you dont have to buy the rotten ones. In first past the post and mmp, if you want an applem, you got to buy the rotten ones. In stv you have a good selection and just take the ones you want.
If the supermarkets were run on mmp or first past the post lines, you could not go through the produce section.
I am truely amazed that people still find this complicated.
And how could ranking candidates be confusing?
If you can count, you can do it.
Some people shouldnt be let out on their own.
STV has been used in ireland for a very long time.
I am so sick of people saying it is a dud. What an insult to my country.
The green for vic hillside was for it and Corky Day was strongly in favour. The big partys were scared shitless of stv.
Thats why they put out a 22 page document discribing how the CA was chosen. They could have just as easily put out the real document. It was about 5 pages of the technical report and it discribed the system for bc.
People love quoting institutions here. Fair vote ontario! And you dont need computers to count votes in STV. Why do people keep saying that they do?
It aint in trial mode like mmp, it is a highly reliable system. New Zealand has had mmp for just a few years. Are there cracks appearing yet? And why do they use STV too? (They implimented STV for some elections in new Zealand).
I learned a while ago that the did have stv in a few places in the usa until some time in the 50's. They got rid of it because minoritys were winning elections.
Another thing, any self satisfied jerk who says, "woo hoo, I got 43% and won" has a pretty malliable set of values.
I have seen similar editorial columns in the times colonist, but they didnt go all out rocky horror camp like Mitchell Anderson.
It is a tongue in cheek joke article, right?
I would hope that the tyee editorial staff will keep some balance. "STV was a dud, but we need more women in government" Thats like saying "The sun is shining but there is fish in the sea". Why not next do an article about berlosconi and how easily he trashed the mmp system in Italy? And he didnt even break the rules. Or on A Carr and how she tried to swamp the citizens assembly with one line"we like mmp, like they got doun dare in new seeland" submissions. You aint getting a goebbels award for that propaganda.

Excellent post, Peter Dimitrov. That is an innovative way of using the CA for real change, and a way of placing power back in the hands of the people, which of course is what real voter reform is all about and should be as always, its greatest intention.

grouch: Peter's post addresses some of the rural automony concerns that you have.

ahhh...should be "autonomy"

Well, supporters of the dud will surely be buying up copies of today's Globe&Mail to read the truth from their guru.

Yes, Gordon Gibson, the guy we, of course, all turn to for clear non-partisen political wisdom, was given an overly generous half page to finally lay it on the line why STV failed.

It's the NDP's fault.

Why, of course it is Gordon, otherwise you might have to blame it on the other side and we all know the Liberals whether federal or the extreme conservative group fronting as grits here in BC, would never disappoint you, would they?.

Yup, the NDP, which didn't rush out and embrace this aging political bagman's dream, and, which is now calling for a second look sans the blinkers members of the CA were expected to wear.

So there you have it folks, from the guy who ran the show and certainly wasn't randomly choosen to participate.

The godless commies are at the gates and unless the provincial government ignore the ground rules and just impose the failed referendum choice all good and decent Liberals (I mean citizens[I]) will be at the mercy of powerful party bagmen and others who intent on manipulating the public's will.

It's always great when our elder statesmen can get through a statement without blaming someone else.

That half page must be backed by some pretty big money...not surprising allan... the NDP is as usual, of course to blame for everything...the boogiest of all boogeymen...I think there's even a warning about them on my suntan lotion now...

I find it interesting that an improvement over the FPtP was proposed and more voted for it than the current majority government … and yet STV is panned as an absolute failure. Pie in the sky diatribes about a utopian ideal are posted and how other systems would work better but let’s be sure of one thing: most of the people who bothered to vote (which is another whole issue of course) want a new Electoral system. STV is certainly an improvement over FPtP … and melded and fine-tuned with other systems it may become a model the rest of the world could emulate. So let’s not throw out the house with the bath-water. The fear of may people in BC who were looking for ‘any form’ of electoral reform was that if the STV was smacked down smartly the whole question of electoral reform would be put to rest for at least another decade.

A mandate was given to improve the electoral system in BC. Perhaps with less apathy and more information a 60% or even 67% majority would have been found. Certainly a referendum will have to be explored before the next election, let’s hope the politicians we elected do not ignore this mandate.

One of the things many of these systems have is a means to transfer your vote to an alternative candidate or at least have a influence on how the candidates are elected if your first choice is not on the first count the first-placing candidate. Let’s look at Pt. Grey in the most recent election: If the Green Party and NDP votes were to be combined (at least the count when I last saw this comparison) they outnumbered Gordie’s votes. The FPtP system is built around a two-party system in that if your candidate is not the resounding favourite your vote pretty much has no value. You can only vote for one of the two leading candidates to have any influence in the outcome at all. This penalizes diversity, makes the democratic system come down to the shirts and skins over and over and over and over ad infinitum. I’m tired of that and I think most people are.

Voting for Ralph Nader is where many would prefer to vote in the US but being that they have a Red State-Blue State mentality and the entire society is split along those lines if you want the lesser of two evils to win over the other you have to vote for them even if Ralph Nader is the better fit.

If the vote of 2001 and again the one we just completed hadn’t split the left-vote the Fiberals wouldn’t have received an overwhelming and fallacious mandate last time or even held its majority this time. More independents would have been elected and democracy would have been better represented. I know that a substantial number of the votes for the NDP were from people that wanted to vote Green but were afraid the Fiberals would get in again. I know that a lot of people have voted for the lesser of two or three evils federally because the prospect of ‘wasting your vote’ in the FPtP system was too much of a risk. I did this once out of fear of the party that could have gotten in as did many others I’m sure. I pledged to never do that again.

Given a choice I might not have voted for the party or candidate I voted for but the FPtP system penalizes this kind of conscientious voting. I’m lucky that I have an unreserved support for my MLA in dealings with her on a municipal level but I’m sure not all of us were so lucky.

/diatribe off ; )

"The fear of many people in BC, who were looking for any form of electoral change was if the STV was smacked down smartly the whole question of electoral reform would be put to rest for at least another decade[I]," offers Takeda 999.

I agree entirely.

The people who generated that fear were, from what I heard and read, proponents of the STV plan.

In fact, if anyone is inclined to dig into the Tyee's archives and run a tally of statements on that fear factor, I would hazard a guess that all came from the yes side.

It would require quite a leap to blame that fear tactic on those not in favour of STV, but then more than one broadjumper has passed through Tyee over the years.

But alas, neither fear nor principle could chase enough yes voters out to the polls.

Takeda 999, I too want to see efforts continue on electoral reform, but I want to see more than a mechanism for changes to what we voters get to do only once every four years.

There is a hell of a lot more to elections and the process than what's played out like some public cleansing ritual in the school gyms and community halls across BC.

Campaign financing, pre-election promotional spending by government, third party involvement.

Rather than trying to break the party system's dominance, I would prefer we look for ways to open up the backrooms so everyone knows who is lurking behind the scenes.

Transparency rules with perhaps backroom guys registered as such, just like lobbiests are required to do.

To finish I want to state I have nothing against backroomers. All parties have them and without them the political process, well it would likely involve big sticks and other unpleasant objects rather than lawn signs.

Game plan don't have to be revealed, but why can't we know who is steering the politicians and trying to push our buttons.

One thing is for sure, the public ought to get a say into the mandate given to any group picked to define the options and needs.

Some didn't like the 60 percent issue. I didn't like the narrow focus and singular new option presented.

Reform is dead only if the government and opposition are allowed to let it slip from the agenda.

Lots of greens were in favour of stv. The candidate in van hastings and 2 of the victoria candidates were strongly in favour of it.
They are pretty mad with adrianne Carr too. She will have to get her corperate buddys to buy a few memberships if she wants to keep the franchise. If C James had said that she will introduce stv if it gets a simple majority, she would have gotten nearly all the green vote and possibly won the election.
I am concerned about the sloganeering that happens on babble.
Fiberals is a word that identifies you as a member of a tribe.
I am not sure that continued use of slogans like that is going to achieve a whole lot. A wavering liberal voter isnt exactly going to jump ships to someone who brands them a liar.

In Ireland in a referendum, the partys are actively involved. I am curious as to why none of them got involved in this one here.
The 2 referendums to get rid of stv in ireland were called by a majority government. I dont know the details of the campaign but the plan was to co opt the right wing fine gael voters too.
It would have established a 2 party irish state. At the time, those 2 partys had something like 80% of the vote, so if the voters were tribal like here, they would have got rid of stv (and the labour party and all small partys in ireland).
To be honest, I am surprised that their voters didnt grab the chance. (Politics is pretty hard fought in Ireland).
Has anybody any info about the last 2 times they changed the voting system in BC? Was there any public consultation?
Was it an election issue at the time?
That was the change to av and back again.
Just wondering because history does seem to repeat itself.

Allan, Why are you happy with first past the post?
And how will voters influence any change when about 50% of them vote for candidates that dont win? It is all very well to ask for change in politics like you do, but really it is just so much peeing against the wind. If you cannot make a choice within your favorite party, you cannot favour the guys that express the wish to clean up the system. And if the guys who want to clean up the system get no electoral benifit from you, they are not going to get elected. They are never going to get nominated either. The insiders do the nominating.
I read in the economist that in the united kingdom, ridings in scotland and wales are historically smaller (population wise) than those in england. The english are by and large, the ones that vote conservative (especially in the south of england).
The article went on and on but at no stage did they see a problem. But the problem is pretty clear. Ridings should be similar population otherwise one persons vote is worth more than another persons. It is the same here. Some ridings do not have enough people. (Even those ridings here that are over represented wanted to change to STV).
The funny thing is that the welsh and scotish are the most vocal for change. The English are being quiet.
Perhaps people keep a tired old electoral system because it was there when they had an empire?

I agree with the decision that a referendum needs a 60% majority to pass, lets face it, if ever there is a major decision that affects all British Columbians and a referendum passed on a 50.6 per to a 49.4 nay we could see terrible consequences.
However, I also agree with the electorate needed reformation. Although I did not vote in favour of BC-STV, we do need something to bring more people into the system, end the 2 party system that we have right now, and end the popularity contest forwarded by first past the post. Hopefully, people start talking about a system such as multi-proportional representation.

Azure_O,
All electoral systems are populatity contests. first past the post is kinda like american idol, except whoever leads the first round wins the series is first past trhe post. StV differs in that there is no one winner. The top 4 or 5 would win. They all have merit.
"I don't think I or anyone else has been viscious in their criticism of the actions of STV proponents before or after the vote". allan
You told me to stop telling people about the good points of stv, to stop talking like i knew about the system, (I grew up with stv) and insisted that i was in league with Gibson and called me a neo con.
How about what people have said about the citizens assembly?
Its pretty nasty. The assumption is that average ordinary people who study a subject for a year, who listen to presentations and audience feedback for a year, are idiots.
That assumption can of course be extended to ordinary voters and some of the mmp people have done that too.
It is interesting to see those people interpit the results of the referendum. (People voted yes but they didnt really mean it). ETC ETC. Gordie tore up the contract with the health workers. You want to continue along that line? People voted yes to stv in 97% of ridings. Perhaps you can do an analysis of ballot papers next? "See that X, its a bit squiggly! That shows hesitation on the part of the voter! STOP THE COUNT! This NO is being counted as a yes!". "But the X is in the yes box!". No Campaigner storms out muttering "conspiracy".
STV as recommended by the CA (as recommended by a random committee of informed ordinary citizens) was on the ballot paper.
That has been called a loaded question. It isnt. It simply said that if you (an ordinary voter) study the question in detail for a long time, you will probably come to the same conclusion.

STV and other electoral reform is now up to Gordon Campbell. So no worries, our illustrious leader will of course do what is best for the province. We shoulda just skipped the CA and referendum and done it this way all along.

If he kills STV, fine. If he decides nobody can write cheques bigger than $99 (but can write as many as they like) fine.

I'm sure whatever he does, if he does anything, will not favour political parties, especially his own. Good for him, parties should make the rules.

But several things are clear. STV was defeated in a referendum. Period. MMP was defeated by the CA. Period. Electoral reform of any kind was either not on the table, was killed within the CA or killed in the referendum. Period. The democratic process has spoken.

Wishing that GC would now implement sweeping reforms on his own is misguided and naive. But as is clear here there's no law against wishing and other pie in the sky nonsense.

"Allan, why are you happy with first past the post," Brian White asked in what appears to be a silly bugger question from someone who simply can't let go.

Brian, I am not overly fond of first past the post, nor am I ever much delighted in campaign financing rules, third party intervention in elections and a whole whack of other anti-democratic practices that are accepted by a tamed media, most politicians and zealots too fresh from their indoctrination sessions for anything resembling a balanced discussion.

I am also less than thrilled when I am warned in dark tones that unless I accept the crumbs as presented I and my offspring for seven generations (I exagerate a little Brian), will will be enslaved by dreadful monsters.

You seem to be missing most of the arguments here Brian. It ain't just about your failed STV dream.

A great many people are trying to tell you and others that electoral reform is more than a sanitized rejigging of one aspect of the electoral process.

Gordon Gibson flashed his political stripes all over his article in Friday's Globe&Mail, blaming Carole James and the NDP for the fact that 60 percent of British Columbians did not support STV.

Was it because James has wisely stated that, yes there is a taste for change, but no STV is not the only option BC voters ought to consider?

Or is it because Gordon Gibson has always been a partisen?

Why would Gordon Gibson, and you, fear the public having more say into the reform process?

Do you think maybe Gibson was trying to signal to that other Gordon that 'hey Carole James is opposed to STV so let's implement it'?

No, I'm sure he wouldn't be that partisen, would he?

I'm marvelling a bit here, at the intricacies involved with this entire STV referendum. I'm no fan of Campbell at all, but it was a brilliant stroke to structure this debate the way he did.

Having a referendum on something as crucial and important as changing our electoral system the same time as a provincial election, to me, was an attempt to smokescreen what an utterly incompetent job his government has done for the past 4 years.

With all due respect to Rafe Mair, Bill "not so" Good, and the other radio commentators, as well as the other media outlets, there was little if any open debate and dialogue on PR and STV and FPTP during this campaign or even before it.

Thankfully, in my opinion, it didn't make the 60 percent of the threshold, because the average voter had no idea what the heck they were voting for or against. When you're talking about changing our electoral system, I believe that vigorous debate and discussion should be had, so that people who are interested in being able to vote for or against it, can get a clear understanding of the issue.

But to hold those debates parallel to a provincial election debate, is somewhat akin to going out to ocean in a canoe during a hurricane. People for the most part, aren't going to vote in favour of something they don't understand. And when people asked me how I was voting, that was exactly what I said to them.

Would you buy a cantonese book if you didn't speak cantonese? Or would you first want to learn as much cantonese as possible so that you could understand what was written?

In effect the YES side was hoping that the majority of BC'ers would buy into the idea that our electoral system is broken, which a majority did. But not enough of a majority in my view to change our electoral system. The message is clear now. People are interested in PR, and want to learn more about it. So, give the yes side and the no side equal funding and opportunity and let them put their positions forward. Offer opportunity for public debate on the entire PR issue, and the word the referendum like this.

Are you in favour of changing our electoral system from it's current first past the post to a form of proportional representation

yes
no

If yes... which of the following.

STV
MMP
Other system listed below.

Because it's vitally important, the second question should only be addressed after the first has attained a minimum of 66% of eligible votes cast. Let people make an informed, rational decision, and most importantly run it separately from any election such as provincial federal or municipal. There should also be a provision for a minimum turnout of eligible voters to vote for this.

In short, this decision should reflect the views of the majority of the citizens overall in the province.

My browser craps out at a certain point in a good list of comments, so I was unable to raise a question prompted by "Anne" on the Middle-of-the-Road thread, who is calling the New Democrats "rotten to the core" etc., and denounces Glen Clark in particular.

Q. Is any political party perfect? Or do we have a part to play in keeping the parties on the right track?

I surely do agree that New Democrats lack the killer instinct. Mostly I like that about them: their search for concilliation. BUT, for example: how I've wished that Mike Harcourt had stood up and fought for Dave Stupich who, for cryin' out loud, hadn't done anything wrong. Sometimes I think we let the outrages happen.

Q. So should we wait for the perfect party before voting for it? Or (choke!) are the Greens that perfect alternative?

I'd like to see a Tyee story and comments on this topic.

I still love the blind MMP diatribes from zombies such as Anderson here. Echoing David Wills above.. Sweden, denmark, and Belgium do not use MMP They use open list systems which are regional proportional systems nearly identical to STV in how they destribute seats, with the only exception that they don't allow Voters to rank candidates from multiple parties. So STV and them give nearly identical result, except STV gives a slightly better chance for independents. Its clear Anderson like most people fall into the MMP camp have never bothered to actually read the difference between electoral systems. He must have heard a Carr speech a few years ago and considered himself capable of writing a piece.

I think a lot of MMP supporters have remained utterly cranky because despite their best efforts to swarm the CA with mostly generic requests for MMP by party members, the CA when they actually thoughtfully compared the systems merit for merit, realised that a system which send handfuls of unelected party hacks to Victoria was a poor system. Now, I know a lot of people here like MMP, because they think "STV is a pig in a poke", so they prefer a nice sounding anagram which really is "pork barelling of party seats".

While Anderson wants STV supporters to graciously admit defeat because we didn't make the artificial spread. Only 15% seperated the Yes and the No sides when the bookies said we needed to beat the status quo by 20%. STV WON. Face it. The status quo was swept out in 95% of the ridings. So we didn't beat the handicap? Well, obviously the solution is to cram down our throats a system (MMP) rejected as 2nd class by a citizens group more representative than any of the major parties should ever hope to be.

And for the rest of the crap I hear. Yes, 65% of BCers didn't know everything about STV two and a half weeks before the election. Well the same would happen to MMP. And I bet the same number of people still wouldn't know what a Single Member Plurality was. And, guess what, some of the people actually like our current majoritarian system.

Now, I'd encourage everyone to avoid this bait and switch technique, pushed by the hacks, and make sure your MLA actually follows the will of their constituents. As soon as I can finally find out who my MLA is, I can assure you I will be doing the same.

"Would you buy a cantonese book if you didn't speak cantonese? Or would you first want to learn as much cantonese as possible so that you could understand what was written?" asks Kegler.

Excellent comment, Kegler, and well thought out ideas especially in regard to the wording of a referendum.

"I doubt the STV zealots will ever graciously do anything given the whine that erupted when their pet cause just didn't quite make it."

Sixty percent was required for a madatory change. To call 57% of the voters whiners is the height of arrogance. To dismiss a majority of voters when you speak from a position that shares only 43% of the vote is exactly what is wrong with the FPtP system.

Despite what the pollsters said, 57% voted for it on the day. Most people don't know how the health care system works, but they want it anyway. The two numbers have nothing to do with each other.

Anyway, I hope that the majority will mean something in this case. In the meantime, much as I'd love to share my second and third place votes among NDP candidates in my riding, I guess I'll just have to keep using my one vote to vote Green.

I don't know enough about MMP to say whether it would be better than STV, though what I *have* learned about STV in the last while really excites me.

One thing I *do* know is that the majority of this province resoundlingly defeated our *current* system, with a mandate unseen in the history of this province. It would be absolutely *unethical* to hold another election under the current system.

At any rate, as Mitchell points out, we need to keep "moving forward" to keep up the momentum for electoral reform.

But currently, there doesn't seem to be a single rallying point for people to go to in order to push this issue forward. An acquaintance of mine and myself intend to provide that rallying point for people on Vancouver Island, at least. (And by the way, Greater Vancouver already has one...).

Fair Vote Canada is a nation-wide, multi-partisan and non-partisan organization pushing strongly for a referendum on electoral reform on both the federal and provincial stages. It is on a strong membership drive to drive this message home to the governments. I was shocked to find there was no Chapter in Victoria. There will be one now.

On Wed, Jun 8, 7:30 pm, in the UVic MacLaurin Building, Room D110, we will hold our first "planning meeting", to prepare for our Chapter Launch and founding AGM, to be held later in June or in early July.

I want to attract a *large crowd* out to this "Chapter Launch" (time TBD), with TV stations and newspapers in tow. This will be an *excellent* opportunity to send a strong message to both the provincial *and* federal governments.

If you would like to participate in this, or even just attend the Chapter Launch, please contact me at

, and/or just show up to the meeting. I will notify you after the June 8 meeting, by e-mail, of the time and place for the Chapter Launch, as well as any other events, etc., we will be hosting.

We would like a strong contingent of people from all provincial and federal parties, and of people not affiliated with any party.

Even if you are not interested in showing up, joining this organization is one of the strongest messages you can send to the government at this time, and only costs $10 the first time. Please visit:

http://www.fairvotecanada.org

Donations will also help us in our membership drive as well, and are badly needed.

I truly believe that while the iron is hot, we *must* keep this government's feet to the fire, and that we may also be able to provide recommendations on how the government should proceed as time goes on and we learn more.

I know there's a lot of interest out there in this. Let's take this one by the horns!