Rafe, only you could condemn someone as not being a "democrat" because they believe you should actually follow the rules set up prior to the STV referendum, not bend them in your own favour after the vote!

The rules were crystal clear - to pass the radical move to an STV system required a minimum of 60% of the voters to approve it.

STV failed under those rules, which were established long before the vote and were not protested by either the Citizens' Assembly or the YES STV groups.

Other rules in other situations are beside the point - you don't change the rules to allow your side to win after the results are in.

That's the elephant in the room you are trying to ignore and it won't work.

Now it's up to Premier Campbell and his government to decide what to do and whether to set up another process to review the issue of electoral reform.

But STV failed to pass the required majority percentage and to now suggest it should be implemented anyway is not only wrong, it is undemocratic.

"The system for electing your political representative should be, in the least, easily understandable by the general public."

Despite the continual barrage from the mess media that STV was too difficult and complicated for the average British Columbian to understand, it is actually quite straight forward. Of course, we are talking about a medium that writes at a grade 9 level to assure not 'talking over the heads of the common folk'

STV requires five minutes and a *Grade 4* level of mathematics to understand. To think that a society that discovered the arts of multiplication and division over 3000 years ago still finds thier use to be too 'complicated' for use in the public arena is not only disappointing, it may be a condemnation of the public education system.

The opposition to STV boils down to one thing: there are various political elites in place that want to concentrate power in their hands-and they have a big enough megaphone in place they can shout down the opposition.

However, I think acceptence of STV will _grow_ as more people understand it. I'd like to see a refinement to the BC STV proposal. The big one is I would use are rankings submitted by a voter's first choice candidate in to impute any rankings the voter omitted--that would eliminate wasting of _any_ votes. It would also mean many voters would know someone who the MLA's would _have_ to listen to.

Rafeis blowing smoke. He's part of the political elite that lined up on the yes side.

Here's a link to my Globe column that explains why he and others lined up on that side, whereas Dave Barrett and Bill Bennett lined up against STP:

http://members.shaw.ca./nspector3/globe200.htm

Norman's explanation: "Gibson, Hallsor, Mair and Presto never prospered under existing rules."

If your so-called explanation consists of saying that Rafe lined up on the Yes side because of self-interest, why not just say so and skip the link?

For those of you who missed Norman's column this morning in the Globe, don't worry: if history is any guide it will be rehashed and reprinted by him in several papers. While I am not a fan of scholastic argument which seeks to advocate a position based solely on the reputation of those who share it, his thesis that Mair and the others are embittered outsiders seems facially preposterous. Each of the cited individuals is associated with no small measure of accomplishment. While much could be said in favour of Barrett and Bennett neither has even been accused on having a thoughtful interest in political reform.

A vote for STV in the high 50's in the vast majority of districts means that a significant majority of voters favour adoption of the system throughout the province. At the moment I can't think of any other issue over which this remarkable consensus has emerged. True 60% + would have been even more remarkable, and because that threshold was not obtained there is no legal obligation based on its own legislated commitment for government to implement STV.

But nor is there any prohibition on Government considering the possibility of choosing to implement an electoral reform that has sprung from its own laudable process and garnered the support of majority to an unprecedented degree.

As with most of Bill Tielman's arguments around the issue of STV, he relies mostly on nitpicking, misrepresentation, non-sequiturs and, as is the case here, semantics. The first definition of "democracy" from Merriam-Webster's online edition is:

1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority

So I don't think it's a stretch for Rafe to use the word "democrat" for someone who actually wants to follow the wishes of the majority -- at least the majority of those who voted.

That of course leads to Norman Spector's point that 57% is not a "clear majority" because in fact only about a third of eligible voters actually voted Yes in the referendum. Interestingly enough, he doesn't seem to have a problem with the fact that the Liberals formed the government with the support of only 25% of the eligible voters.

But to Bill Tielman, that's democracy.

Who's the real democrat?

Bill Tielman worked for a government that produced the Nisga treaty; Rafe opposed that treaty. Not surprising, since Rafe was buddy buddy with Mel Smith--his former DM--who for 20 years advised the government that aboriginal rights didn't exist in BC.

Bill Tielman belongs to a party that favours abolishing the senate; in 1978, Rafe Mair proposed, on behalf of BC, a senate appointed by the provinces.

Aside from the above, the difference between Tieleman and Mair is that Tieleman has been at the centre and, like Barrett and Bennett, knows how difficult it is to govern.

it's those evil salmon farmers that ruined STV.

I'm sure you all see yourselves as democrats
,but this issue has been taken over by egos who each think they alone coined the crucial word or phrase to win or defeat the referendem.

Yes Rafe 57 percent is a fair number of people to vote in favor of a referendum. But it isn't
the required 60 percent. Besides, if we are going to round off the edges to the nearest 10 percent here just to show how popular the STV plan was, remember most people didn't even bother to mark the referendum ballot.

I do agree with you, as I think most people do, politicians will not be able to ignore the support for a better electoral systems.

Now that we know not enough people supported it, I think it's time to open the thought process once again and expand the options the actual voters will have a say on.

I think domocrats would all agree no one owns this process more than do the voters regardless of some who just can't let go.

"Who's the real democrat?"

Who cares? More semantics to avoid the issue.

The point is 57% of the people that bothered to go out and vote, and a majority in 77 out of 79 ridings, said Yes to STV. To a lowly amateur like me, that certainly seems like enough of a political critical mass to create the "centre" that all of the professional pundits are talking about.

Of course to the elite political class out there, STV represents a loss of control over the system. And that, not the inane meanderings and semantic destractions, is what is really at the root of the opposition to STV, or, frankly, any other electoral system that is more representative of the people, i.e., more democratic.

It's quite hilarious, actually, to see and hear the experts talk about the need to operate at the centre while at the same time fighting tooth and nail to hang on to a system that, at least in BC with only two viable parties and thus little chance of a minority legislature, ensures polarization and a swinging of the pendulum with each ideological change in government.

Yes, STV may produce more coalition and/or minority governments. So what? One need look no further than the current situation in Ottawa to see that the minority government has been forced to move to the "centre," at least fiscally, by adopting the NDP budget proposals. And if you trust the polls on the budget ammendments, they have basically been forced to do the will of the majority of the people.

Yeah, it's fragile, it's messy, it requires compromise, but that's democracy. Get over it.

Better that than the four-year mini tyrannies we have to deal with now.

petbug, perhaps you could identify all those experts you refer to.

I think pundits is a more apt description. If we had even one expert involved in the failed STV referendum, the damn thing might have passed or failed worse.

It just doesn't round right to call someone "an expert" who reverts to fear tactics to scare voters on side but then turns around and now insists oh, nothing to be afraid off, cause we won.

Let's get real here, STV proponents spent their political capital unwisely before and during the vote. It's all gone.

How do you know that many people who voted yes, would have if the bar were less than 60%? You don't know because some people who voted yes to send a message would have chosen to vote no if the bar required to pass was lower. That is one reason terms of a referendum are clearly laid out before the vote. To change the rules after the fact is a blatant rejection of democracy.

Excellent point, redrivergirl. I think the fat lady has definitely sung on this referendum.

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

But 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 Rafe rightly pointed out, 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 founding meeting, 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, 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 actively participating, 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. Carpe Diem!!

So Mr. Spector, you're a real democrat if you support the Nisga treaty and abolishing the Senate? Interesting litmus test. The real virtue of STV whatever its flaws may be is the diminishment of party power. I think this hightens democracy. It's not suprising that old partisans disagree.

Love seeing Spector here, trying to get people to read his lousy work. Oh, I noticed he failed to mention how he thought STV was a plot by the anti-abortionists as he did in his other articles. It takes great pride to know that he and Barret shook hands when they realised that all their misinformation had not been in vain, I can just picture Spector whispering, "so we're not has-beens Dave", "you're right Norm, we're not." If he wants to go ad hominem on others, he can very well first acknowledge that he's full of crap.

What Spector fails to mention are the hundreds of volunteers who are not the political elite, who worked there asses off trying to educate and inform. He misses the endorsement from civic politicians, community activists, and others, who have far more relevence to today's world. The whole point of electoral reform was because so many people thought the system was broken, and they wanted to try an alternative.

As for the "Yes STV" side agreeing with the 60% as Tieleman says. That is sure not true. We thought it was stupid all along, and I even asked Tieleman at a forum why the heck do you think the goverment set it so high, well he defended it. We sure as heck made our displeasure known, doesn't mean we got any press. Bill, last August, months before the CA did their final report, came out swinging against any change, before hearing the options. In a november article he writes "fortunately" about the 60% being in. It seems as though some of the status quo defenders were hoping that a 40% minority could fend of the democratic will.

The current system disenfranchises people. Whole bloqs of voters shut out with no chance to express their will. Saying that 57.4% is irrelevant is another means taking away democratic rights, of using systematic barriers to ensure that change falls short. And we as voters should take the excuse that the bar was set. That is not an excuse, the bar was changed mid process, not at the beginning, but right before the CA was struck, and nearly two years after Campbell had made a committment to looking at electoral reform in his new era document.

If 43% can subvert the will of 57%, I'd call that pretty damn undemocratic. To hand electoral reform in front of voters faces, but to make it unreachable is not something to be admired. A legislature which was 95% from a single party changed the rules to make it as difficult as possible, there was no recourse at the time.

Norman Spector knows that the British Parlimentary system elects a King and the king does as he wishes. The Westminster Legislative system supports the King whilst giving the civil service statutory authority to uphold the letter of the law.
When the ' existing system gave British Columbia as good a result as you can get in an election a majority gov't and a strong moderate opposition within striking distance..'. (Spector, Globe and mail May 30/05 ) it condems us to another four years of ideology rule by Gordon Campbell. The damage that can be done is irreperable in the NAFTA global environment.
I suspect that Mr Spector sill believes in honourable men doing the right thing for their country.
I believe those men can not prvail in the global economy. That is why we need to reform our democracy asap

It’s been quite a sideshow. But the STV referendum has been, in reality, a distraction.

When it comes to real democracy, the vote we’ve just taken about voting systems and almost all the argument about it demonstrates how far we’ve been suckered in to the current general form of non-democracy.

Politicos, pundits and members of the press whose careers have been wrapped around parliamentary systems have -- despite their real differences and almost-eloquent sparring on STV –– now framed the debate about democratic systems in terms of vote-taking procedures.

Democracy is about conversation. Real discussion that creates understanding among people. Dialogues and gatherings that discover and use talent in our communities to creatively explore better alternatives for our lives. The public observations and exchanges of opinion that refine options.

Finally, and mainly, it’s about people having the power to collectively choose among the possible conditions of their collective lives.

Not a march to the polls every four years to choose a dictator – or worse, as we see in Ottawa, a dictatorship distracted by minority tugs-of-war. (Nice to see some social spending delay business tax cuts, but does anyone doubt Martin will shaft the NDP and the kids as soon as he needs to… or can allow to subtly happen in committee.)

And certainly not a march to CanWest’s pervasive drum.

Yes, it matters whether there’s an NDP government cutting welfare or a Fiberal one requiring disabled folks prove they’ve suffered no miracles. There’s a difference between a neo-con privatizing our future or a socialist gambling a piece of it on fast-tracked ferries. I’m not being facetious here: it does matter. (The cuts and mismanagement of children’s services and at schools over the past four years have harmed people close to me, and there’s no way the NDP would have done worse.)

But in terms of British Columbians having political power in their lives, the debate about voting systems is a bit of a red herring. At least compared to dozens of other issues – corporate donations, the power of global capital, general confusion about the roles of various levels of government (even Gordo spent more for a question about natives’ federal taxes on a provincial referendum than he coughed up for the whole STV vote), newsmedia concentration and bias, obscene spending on public relations and lobbying to benefit the wealthy, the disempowerment underlying our education systems’ curricula, mass marketing’s misdirection of our human values...

57.4 % seems pretty close to me. Has anyone asked for a recount?

Yes Peter, though remember our "representative democracy" begins the day we cast our votes. What results from that initial allocation of representatation per population sets the framework of our entire democracy. Having a plurality which gives birth to artificial majorities, provides special interests with much more of a desire to influence the election. When a 3 or 4% swing in votes can influence 20% of the seats, the effects of media concentration and corporate donations are exagerated.

Also, the limitations of a two party system which locks the door on any alternative ideas and those who choose to champion them, limits the ability for global discourse to be endulged in. How, if such ideas and values cannot be raised within the heart of our democracy, the halls of legislative power, should we demand the media or corporations to grant voice to those our so called democracy will not permit?

If we as citizens cannot set the discourse and direction of government ourselves, by bringing new voices to the assembly and yet protecting those existing voices that have served us well, how can we expect any less than the same inadequacies in society to prevail?

Also, how can we challenge capital or corporate ideology, when we arre compelled to embrace ideological frameworks? How can we move on when from the beginnings of democracy we are to "decide whether to compromise some of [our] principles by voting for a party that is more likely to win an election or to vote [our] conscience no matter what the odds." (http://www.straight.com/content.cfm?id=4343)

Earth to Rafe: The '2.3% Deficit' argument just doesn't wash. Did anyone hear you or anyone else argue publicly about the terms of the referendum before it was held? (deafening silence pervades).

After the fact, the proponents of STV want to change the rules. Fair enough for folks who came shy of victory in a public forum that everyone agrees was not given adequate resources by the Campbell government to argue both sides and create an informed electorate.

So, does that mean that voters were uninformed when they made their choice, Rafe? You can't have it both ways, my politically charged friend (if I can call you that. I hardly knew ye.)

Just once, I'd like Rafe, or any pro-STV proponent address the REAL problems with the STV system, which I have never seen one of them address in this entire debate:

1) Under the STV system, why is my first ballot choice not counted every time? The mathematical 'Droop' formula which determines how my vote will be distributed, cannot guarantee that my first choice will ever be counted.

If I am lucky enough to have my ballot scanned through the electronic machine before anyone else, my first choice may count toward electing my MLA. If I do not enjoy the 'luck of the Irish', my second or third choice may be counted instead. And there is no way to pre-determine which choice will be counted first.

Refute that if you can, Rafe. The facts are clear. STV is an electoral system chosen by a foreign Phd math professor, and not a direct choice by the citizens of a democracy.

2) Why do dense urban ridings benefit from Proportional Representation under STV, but rural ridings do not?

According to the Citizens' Assembly's own information, the STV system will only realize a degree of proportional representation if the number of representatives per riding number five or more.

Only dense urban ridings will see five-to-seven member constituencies. The vast majority of rural constituencies will see two or three members elected, which will result in no proportional representation.

3) Why do areas like downtown Vancouver get to vote for up to seven representatives, when areas like Bulkley Valley-Stikine (already the largest constituency in the province), will be forced to double in size and elect only two representatives?

In the early 1980's we did away with multiple-member ridings provincially, because they were shown to disproportionately augment the votes of urban vs. rural voters.

STV is not different. It is not the answer to BC's dysfunctional electoral system, and more work needs to be done. For once, let the experts have their say, and I'll cast my vote based on a truly informed choice.

Our representative democracy need not begin -- and end -- the day we cast our votes.

Reliance on such a vote is capitulation, not democracy.

And we do not have a two party system. We have a first-past-the-poll dictatorship. There is no real voice for others -- even for an official opposition. Just the brief opportunity to put in a couple of words, hoping the right-wing media might report them.

And we have system promoting third and forth parties as spoilers. (A system I enjoyed in the early eighties when lefties helped nominate Conservatives to take votes from Socreds.)

I agree with you there Peter. Now Krispy, are you asking questions or trying to make points. Anyways, here are the answers.

1) Incorrect, every first vote is counted. Only after your choice has been elected on eliminated is your 2nd choice considered.
2) Incorrect, only a few very remote ridings will have 2 or 3, and they still receive more balanced representation than currently.
3) Incorrect, areas like downtown Vancouver will merge with areas like Point Grey, Quilchena, Langara, having their ridings extended 7 times in size. They will have the same rep per pop as now, as will Skeena.

I think this is evidence that the "know" side was very successful in their misinformation techniques. They've managed to have poor Krispy here fully misled into believing things that just aren't true. Quickly, someone get Krispy the Technical Report. However, from the consistent 50+ results we see in rural areas, at least we know that some people benefited from the socred/ndp education system, even if poor Krispy did not. Where do you live Krispy? Are you really concerned about rural areas? Would you prefer an MMP situation which would half the number of rural reps, and give the seats to unelected party insiders. Or are you an urbanite, pretending to care about your northern bretheren.

Ah... dangrice.com (whomever you may be):

1) Your first point is most assuredly WRONG. Once the mathematical 'Droop' formula is achieved in the counting process, and a candidate reaches a pre-determined mathematical threshold for election, any subsequent first votes for that candidate are discounted, and their second or third choices are counted - again, depending on their point of entry into the electronic universe of the electoral counting system.

This is not ME inventing this system, my uninformed friend; this is the STV system adopted by our naive bretheren, (and sisteren) in the mal-informed Citizens Assembly.

2) You have presented absolutely no evidence to support your point. Here is a quote from the Citizens' Assembly's own documents on STV: "Once the number of seats per
district drops below five, substantial
reductions in proportionality occur..."

This puts the lie to your, and Rafe's claim about a more representative form of democracy. Only if you live in downtown Vancouver will you realize a full measure of Rep by Prop under STV.

3) Increasing the size of dense urban ridings will do nothing to compensate for the disparities realized by sparce rural ridings. I used to live in the former Atlin riding - now known as Bulkley Valley-Stikine'. I've travelled Highway 37 (Kitwanga to Cassiar) in the winter time, in -25 temperatures in January, when it takes 8 hours to drive between communities in the north.

What you are saying is, "to hell with the north. Never mind the fact that an MLA will now have to travel 24 hours to reach his or her constituents, instead of 12." What you are saying is, that your narrow view of electoral reform has no real place in such a geographically diverse place as BC. If it fits your own narrow urban sensability, everyone should fall into line, for the sake of the cause.

I'm sorry, "dangrice", but I was born in rural central BC; I've lived in remote northern areas of the province; spent decades living on Vancouver Island; and have found home on the Lower Rainland. The one thing I know is, that one size will not fit all in this province. And STV is not a sytem that will serve the interests of anyone outside the dense urban confines of the Lower Rainland. I've been around. Where have you been?

Dangrice:
Just a short note. You mentioned in your post: "Where do you live Krispy? Are you really concerned about rural areas? Would you prefer an MMP situation which would half the number of rural reps, and give the seats to unelected party insiders. Or are you an urbanite, pretending to care about your northern bretheren?"

Interestingly, I followed your moniker (dangrice.com) to your web site, and copied this entry:
"For a day job, I sell computers to the new media community (mainly macs) as well as server/storage solutions at Simply Computing in Vancouver, BC."

I have no problem with informed dissent, and certainly have no problem with urban/rural interests in an informed debate, but why did you accuse me of an "urban" bias, when you live and work on the Lower Rainland?

I've lived most of my life in rural B.C. - born in the Kootenies, spent my formative years on rural Vancouver Island, lived and worked on the Queen Charlotte Islands and the far northern BC.

I live and work now on the Lower Rainland, not by choice, but by necessity - because Gordon Campbell has sucked every family-supporting job out of rural BC and forced us all to fight for survival in the densest, smog-infested region of the province.

Like you, I'd love to be able to live and work at a liveable wage on Vancouver Island again. But don't ever accuse me of being an "urbanite". It's just a little too much like the kettle calling the pot black, my friend.

Let's face it:

The STV-niks are lined up with anti-abortionists like Nick Loenen; aboriginal assmilationists like Rafe Mair; Preston Manning's anti-Quebec crowd; and Bill Vander Zalm--one of the worst premiers in BC's history. Any voting system that would increase the power of these kinds of people is not in BC's interest.

On the other side, you have thoughtful New Democrats like Sihota, Tieleman and Barrett, and, on the right, people like Bill Bennett and Bud Smith. People who've been there, knew what they were doing and made a difference. Unlike our current premier, who set this whole thing in motion and then invited people to vote blindly.

The STV-niks lost with a loaded question, more money to spend and a sympathetic press. They should give it a rest--British Columbians don't appreciate sore losers.

Sorry 'Norman',

Much as I'd like to think it is you, even I know that the real Norman Spector (much as I loathe his 'intellectual' perspective)is more articulate than you give him credit.

Now, if only we could engage in a REAL political debate with the "Spectator" online - that would be a thread worth bookmarking.

Well, I want to know who I was dealing with, to seperate fallacies from opinion. I'm an urbanite for sure, but you show me what you think a better system than STV is for rural areas. I think STV is perfect for urban areas, and a step up for rural areas in turns of diversifying their representation. My colleagues in rural areas are more interested in being able to rank candidates and achieve more effective representation. No one benefits from a plurality system, but due to geographical constraints, proportionality is stronger in the 80% or ridings that are urban under STV. Urban versus rural is a lifestyle choice, wheras other tredge acres, I tread steps. I'm also given the least representation per population in the province, which won't change under STV.

Do you think the current system benefits rural areas? Are they represented by a member of the opposition or government? Does that affect their representation and democratic rights?

------

On the matter of the first votes counting, it isn't a matter of opinion, it is a matter of you failing to read the details. All first votes are counted, once the votes have surpassed the droop, at that point each vote is split, a fraction remains with the first candidate, while the fraction equivalent to the surplus is transferred. IE, a candidate only cost me 1/2 a vote to get em elected, so I have half a vote to spend. No luck, just Fractions.

------

Now as for the referendum, buckley valley gave 55%, and peace river north gave 58%. The lowest areas were Kamloops 49% and Vancouver Quilchena 50%.

Anyways, I apologise for accusing you of being an urbanite, but you deserve some mockery for grandstanding on inaccurate misinterpretations of BC-STV.

Krispy, I'd have to disagree with you, take a look at Spector's site and see some of the crap he's been publishing.

I think its really him.

Next he's going to accuse STV supporters of harbouring anti-industrialists David Suzuki, unthoughtful NDPer turned Uvic Dean of Law Andrew Petter, and Vancouver's worst coroner turned mayor Larry Campbell.

Petter, with his provincial government experience and intellect, has made a valuable contribution to the debate.

Spector, what's with all this ad hominem crap you're throwing out here? Given an informed electorate, STV will stand or fall on its own merits.

A laundry list of who's smart and who isn't, on both sides of the question, is utterly irrelevant. For every Loenen or Zalm on the yes side, I'll show you a Campbell, Falcon or Coleman on the no side

The recent vote in the UK is indicative of some very
deep problems:

EU election
votes 2004
2005 2005
General Seats
Conservatives 26.7 32.3 30.5
Labour 22.6 35.2 55.2
UKIP 16.1 2.3 0
Lib-Dem 14.9 22.0 9.6
Greens 6.3 1.0 0
BNP 4.9 0.7 0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election%2C_2004_%28UK%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election%2C_2005

What is important here, in the UK is the difference in result that is almost purely a result of a difference in _election rules_ between the two elections. We have in the UK, a party with 22.6% of the popular vote in a
more level playing field with 55% of Parliament. Labour and the Tories together got less than 50% of the vote in a fairer election-and 85% of parliament. That is hardly democratic-or even good government.

Last week in British Columbia, over 57.4% of voters supported a referendum to adopt STV,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Transferable_Vote
a system would avoid that kind of problem,
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=STV&btnG=Search+News
they did so against the wishes of virtually _every_ major political figure(the bill would remove much power from the hands of party leaders), but on the recommondation of a Citizen's Assembly chosen by lottery:
http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/public

This is news that goes to the _foundation_ of
representative democracy in English speaking
countries-and the Progressive Community essentially _silent_ on the issue.

We are really talking possibly _less_ than 22.6 of the voter base controlling the UK-because Labour has a lot of funding and patronage jobs to dole out compared to third party opposition(i.e. even much of that 22.6%
was essentially bought and paid for). This is how we get corporate elites putting legislation through congress than the overwhelming majority of americans detest-and is fundamental to understanding centralization of political power in the US and other English speaking countries.

The BC premier didn't get it when he said voters indicated they wanted "strong opposition".
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/LondonFreePress/News/2005/05/19/1046411-sun.html

No, his incumbent government got 46% in an election with rules that favored it--and 57.4% preferred the recommendations of a Citizens Assembly with little funding and no power to influence opinion via corporate dollars or patronage(in an election essentially rigged against the Citizen's Assembly).

We are seeing similar situation in the United States. In Washington State we have two divisive candidates, neither of whom can claim a majority-since a substantial minority of voters picked candidates with no chance of winning- fighting for political power in the courts.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/05/21/national/a123156D07.DTL

In such races there are well established methods like Approval Voting that avoid these problems.
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20021102/bob8.asp

If STV were to be used to elect congressmen in the US, we could instantly expect the Progressive Caucus to _double_ in size.

If progressives want to be taken seriously, they have to champion an election process that gives broad representation rather than concentrates political power into a few hands.

When a poll clerk wrote The Province (25 May 05) his letter raised questions regarding the balloting procedure he that witnessed and was part of.
I responded that day to The Province with the following unpublished letter - though later there was just one response:

Dear editor,
Poll clerks are there to hand out and collect ballots, not interrogate voters. (letter 25 May)
The writer's submission was also confirmed by radio callers. It would have been as incorrect for poll clerks to have asked whether voters wished to vote for a candidate. What further is required to have Elections BC declare the result of the STV referendum invalid?
Equally wrong, while the polls were open, was a radio news item stating that STV ballots were being left unmarked.
Taxpayers should not have to suffer the cost of immediately putting the question again. The recommendations of the Citizens Assembly should be enacted, as clearly desired by a significant majority.
sincerely

Given Rafe Mair's legal background, I'm surprised that he has not referred to voting irregularities as cause to invalidate the referendum result.

Michael Smyth, columnist, writing today, quotes Bernard Schulmann, co-ordinator of the Yes to STV Campaign:

"If we end up narrowly losing this thing because of a systemic screwup we'll be complaining."

We'll be??? FEEBLE!!! The vote was on the 17th. There is ample to rally around. Let's get on with it.

What's with Spector, the Globe not selling enough papers? The public want change and STV was the approved mode. If we don't get change soon the public will tire of the corrupt mess, we call democracy (actually it's not). Maybe we must resort to more violent means for change.

The likes of Spector, Tielman, et al, is that they, or should I say their political masters, want the 'winner take all' status quo and use the Asper Press and Brand-X to spout their anti democratic nonsense. Let's do it and get some real democracy in Victoria and to hell with the political elites!

Krispy's confusion illustrates above all the need for an adequate and well financed program of public education around a referendum on an admittedly technical issue such as voting system reform.

Here are the facts:

Under BC-STV, the counting, and therefore the transfer of ballots, does not start until ALL of the votes have been cast. The first step is to count ALL of the first-choice votes.

The quota is then calculated using the Droop formula. If there are 3 candidates to be elected, you need 1/4 of the votes; if there are 5 to be elected, you need 1/6 of the votes, etcetera.

Candidates who have achieved the quota are then declared elected, and their surplus votes are transferred according to the next preference on the ballot. Under BC-STV, ALL of the elected candidate's ballots are transferred, but they are weighted at a fractional value so that their total value adds up to the number of surplus votes.

The purpose of transferring surplus votes, and the real beauty of the STV system, is so that everyone gets full value for their vote, even if they voted for someone who was going to get elected anyway.

The key point to understand is that higher preferences continue to count until that candidate is either elected or eliminated.

As for rural ridings, while it is true that you need five or more members elected in a riding to get really good proportionality, electing even two members in a riding is vastly better than electing only one. Electing only one member in each riding, as we do now under first-past-the-post, means that, on average, about forty percent of the voters get to vote for someone who gets elected. When two members are elected in a riding, on average about seventy percent of voters will see their first choice elected.

Since rural ridings tend to have a lower ratio of voters per member, rural ridings are actually slightly over-represented, and this will not change under BC-STV.

I voted "yes" because I wanted to support electoral reform but I do not like STV. Ranking 20+ candidates does not appeal to me and I don't think it would appeal to many other voters here in BC. And BC-STV is NOT very proportional because it would likely have had too many 2, 3, 4, and 5 seat ridings.

If the bar to pass STV had been 50%+1, I would NOT have voted "yes". I would have voted “no”. Voters went to the polls under the assumption that STV required 60%+1 to pass. To change the rules now is blatantly unfair.

BC voters support electoral reform. That's why 57% of BC voters voted "yes" even though only a small fraction of them understood anything about STV. Now that BC'ers have shown that they support electoral reform ,they should be allowed to choose between FPTP, STV MMP, and maybe even a few other electoral systems. New Zealanders were able to hold a referendum where many electoral systems were offered. I don't see why BC couldn't follow suit. Here is the result of that New Zealand referendum:

source: http://www.democraticaudit.com/download/NZ-MMP.doc

As I have said elsewhere, I think the vote was rigged at 60% simply because it was unlikely to get that much. Our rulers don't want anything that can limit their centralized control of power, and STV, as poor a system as it is, would limit that power at tiny bit by allowing greater democracy. I would prefer PR, but STV would do in the meantime.

The 57.4% figure has always (since election night that is) struck me as a bit dubious. I understand it to be the preliminary figure based on the number of votes cast on election night. Shortly before I went to bed on election night, I saw that Elections BC were releasing the 57 and change figure as a preliminary result though they had yet to process results for ten districts.

Today is May 31. The final count was slated to be released yesterday. According to Elections BC today at 1:25 pm, the YES was at 58.45% and the NO at 41.55%. It seems that they only have a final count out for 14 districts, results in 65 yet to be published.

My point:

1. The 57% figure used in all these debates is a preliminary vote count in 69 of 79 districts, i.e. it is meaningless.

2. We did not get a full preliminary vote on election night, and in fact as far as I know I preliminary vote has never been released.

3. The final count is still not out although it was statutorily required yesterday. (Why is it so hard to count these votes?!)

Let's wait and see what the final count is.

Small correction: I see that Elections BC did release the prelim count after election night.

Interestingly, Final results are being released it appears per district. The Final Count is coming out as higher than the Prelim in the districts released they I quickly just looked at.

If the final count is something like 59%.... yikes!!!

As stated by Krispy and others , STV Sexually transmitted vote is the wrong system. It was not the first choice of the assembly and I wonder why it was chosen as "the system for reform" did anyone ask this question.

It will create massive inequities in urban and rural BC, more than currently exists.
It will make MLA's less accountably, can anyone tell me how 4 different MLA's in a area can be more accountable than one. Why should a main party MLA give 2 shits what the public thinks when he only needs say 12-15% of the vote to get reelected.

This is a way to ensure the left never gets reelected in this province, sorry folks but your need and desire for change has been exploited by the quick fix committee on electoral reform. Life a fat person taking a pill or getting a tummy tuck, anything but exercising or changing habits to lose weight.

Democracy is not a counting up of votes but a counting up of actions. How many pundits in this forum actually do things to improve our democracy or their communities. Positive change has never come from the top down, it has always come for people getting together.

The Vancouver Sun endorsed STV , what does that tell you.

"One of the intentions of corporate-controlled media is to instill in people a sense of disempowerment, of immobilization and paralysis. Its outcome is to turn you into good consumers. It is to keep people isolated, to feel that there is no possibility for social change." David Barsamian

Final numbers continue to be higher than preliminary count. Final result somewhere like 59 % if this trend continues. The elephant is sitting on the couch now.

If STV final count changes the total by more than .5 to even tops 1 % then something is very, very wrong. The final count includes very few absentee ballots relative to the votes already counted. The absentee ballots would reflect the ballots already counted as well.

There needs to be an investigation into what happened if STV suddenly jumps.

John, where are you looking? I just checked Electiion BC's web site and there isn't that much of a difference. I wonder if you checked before more riding results were entered. There are still many yet to be reported and the difference should be negligible for the reasons I mentioned.

redrivergirl,

http://www.elections.bc.ca/elections/ge2005/finalrefresults.htm

Look at the final results per district compared to the preliminary results per district (ignore cummulative running total). The final result is higher than the preliminary for the districts counted so far. I'll copy some examples if I get a few moments. But I don't think there is anything sinister going on if there is a percentage or so change either way. That almost always happens with the popular vote from prelim to final, so I don't know why STV result would be any different. I just think it is silly to debate the significance of a 57.3% result before we have the final count. There is enourmous political difference amongst 55,57 and 59 all of which are possible (and not improbable) final totals.

redrivergirl:

Examples from the top of the list at Elctions BC:

Final YES for Abbotsford-Mount Lehman 50.90% (9,186 votes)
Prelim YES for Abbotsford-Mount Lehman 50.47% (8,836)

Final Cariboo South 8,109 votes, 53.13%
Prelim Cariboo South 7,628 votes, 52.86%

Final Chilliwack-Kent 10,602 votes 54.96%
Prelim Chilliwack-Kent 10,394 votes, 54.93%

Final Chilliwack-Sumas 11,226 votes 55.12%
Prelim Chilliwack-Sumas 10,805 votes, 54.92%

As you go down through the districts tabulated for the final count you see that the final count is picking up votes that weren't counted in the prelim.

No conspiracy theory here. I don't think it's unusual for the popular vote (for example) count to change from the figure announced by media on election night based on preliminary figures and the final figure presented in the certified result. No one will care if the final popular vote has changed from the one announced on election night. And why should they as nothing turns on it?

But a change on the STV referendum question over the announced 57.3% (which looks likely) has enormous political significance.

Only if its over 60, John.

Well, no one cares as long as the vote aproximates the expected tally. Otherwise it raises a red flag that something was going on. I'm not suggesting a conspiracy theory. And, thus far the numbers seem okay in any event.

Thanks for taking the time to show me the postings.

Hey, if anyone wants to read AG Plante talk about why they decided to change the referendum rules from a natural majority. Halfway through the Citizen's assembly mandate, (may, 2004) here it is:

http://www.leg.bc.ca/hansard/37th5th/h40518a.htm#11185

PLANTE
"We had some discussion about where to set the percentage figure, given that we had decided it was going to be a higher threshold than a bare majority. We looked at a number of examples of situations where a higher threshold than a simple majority is required, and they range across the universe of these kinds of situations from 55 percent for some kinds of decisions up to 75 percent in other kinds of decisions. It depends on whether the issue is redesigning the constitution of a corporation or perhaps redesigning the constitution of a country. Government was of the view that 60 percent struck the fair balance among the different alternatives. If you've got a 60 percent majority, you've got significantly more than half of the people who voted who want change, and that sends a strong message that change should be acted on."

This double majority was introduced after the CA made their first report, (april, 2004) which did not make recommendations, but clearly gave some indication that they were intent on change. It was an arbitrary number, picked after the fact by the Liberal council.

SO the rules were changed after the government saw what benchmarks the CA was using:

http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/resources/Preliminary%20Statement%20-%20colour%20letter%20final.pdf

I'm going to go on for a bit and then shut up on this.

I don't think Plant had very much to do with any of this, and nothing to do with the decision to fix the threshold at 60%. It's a very Campbell-esque figure - anyone remember the NPA ward threshold when Campbell was mayor of Vancouver? I also think the Citizens Assembly was very much Campbell's baby. He deserves credit for that. The disgraceful Plant should be neither seen nor heard from on this issue.

I agree though that 60% is an arbitrary figure. It's legal significance is that it binds government to act if the vote passes the legal thresold. But even had it be 61%, the government could have freed itself from its commitment by introducing new leglislation negating its word; they've done it before!

So, the real significance of a result would always have been ultimately political- what number is high enough to suggest there will be a political price for not acting?

Any vote over 50% puts momentum behind electoral reform. Any vote for STV above the number of votes received by the government has to get the government seriously thinking. Any vote placing this near the set threshold of 60% keeps STV very much alive. And a final vote higher than 57% will create the illusion of increased momentum after the election day. (I suspect the final count will be something like 58% and change.)

So Campbell has room to move but there is political momendum behind reform. Let me say a nice thing about Campbell for a change: I actually think Campbell is seriously and sincerely interested in electoral reform - and not necessarily opposed to STV. He knows the liberals can't (and shouldn't) govern for ever, and that he probably can't win a third term within the existing system. And I think he sincerely sees a system in need of reform. He's clearly not emotionally attached to the British Parliamentary system.

For Campbell, getting behind a form of STV tweaked by the legislature could be just the sort of unifying non-partisan move he needs to make just when he needs to make it. He would warm a lot of cold disinclined cockles, and create a much better legacy than the Olympics. I think it would be an inspired move to begin his second term in a fresh way, with much political benefit to spend on another issues.

Besides, doing nothing is deadly for him. Launching into another extensive, expensive and time consuming consultative process is not viable. It would look like he was treading water.

The most rational course would be the non-partisan one of bringing STV to the house for debate and tweaking in committee followed by a presentation to the public for ratification in November. It would do wonders for his political capital at no political cost.

Let us remember that in 1988 57% voted against the disastrous Canada/US FTA, but we still got it, thanks to a Parliamentary majority for Mulroney. They didn't dare to put it to referendum, knowing it wouldn't pass. Ed Deak, Big Lake.

Bla, Bla, Bla, you folks are sounding like scum bag political insiders. Who cares what was said or what was promised. The 60% was not met , dead issue, let it die. STV is good for rich city ridings that usually support the right wing party more. STV equals less accountability, less representation in rural BC, and less clarity for voters. The STV system was the least popular but was picked by the assembly, WHY IS THIS . Why Is the Vancouver Sun supporting STV, It's a lousy confusing system in which the left will never see power again. It's a electoral coup by the right, people are so easily exploited by their need for change.

God, Stuart, you sound like an ignoramus who thinks that just because you've made a pronouncement, everyone has to bend down and kiss your ass. Ever heard of free speach? STV is not dead. It is alive and well, and kicking like hell. Deal with it.

If enough Canadians stood up against the FTA if would have failed, I hate powerless people who want leaders to take care of them. If you sat back and did nothing you helped the FTA pass, I was only a kid and I marched to my Conservative MLA's office and protested it, I watched many folks going about their shopping etc with blinders on. No positive change has come from high places , stop watching the polls and acting as if you’re a spectator in your own life and can do nothing to effect change.

"One of the intentions of corporate-controlled media is to instill in people a sense of disempowerment, of immobilization and paralysis. Its outcome is to turn you into good consumers. It is to keep people isolated, to feel that there is no possibility for social change." David Barsamian, The Daily Texan, June 25, 1998

True Stuart and I also opposed it, but that is no reason to refer to people expressing their validly held opinions as "scum bag political insiders". Uncalled for, and degrades political discourse.

ammonra,did STV meet the required % to pass, NO , what does this mean to you. Does it mean lets keep crying until we get our way or does it mean the gov will keep its promise and have some integrity and not ram it down our thoughts. Or do we keep pushing it until we get another RAV situation. Ask yourself why the Vancouver Sun supports STV and then ask yourself why it was picked by the assembly when it was not the popular choice. Kiss my ass if you want but sorry the parameters were set and they were not met, should we bend rules whenever they suit us, you must love Gordo if this is your mentality.

Gee, Stuart -I'm sorry you are so upset. I think whatever else might be said about STV supporters we can't be critcized for apathy and being spectators in their own life as you uncharitably put it. You are way off base in your commentsin my view - it is "scumbag political insiders" that you so apparently loath that are joining you in your opposition to electoral reform. I don't know how old you were or what province you lived in during the FTA eelection - one with a conservative MLA apparently - but I'm sorry you weren't able to single handedly derail free trade with your protest march. Here and now a majority of British Columbia voters have taken action for change and I doubt they will be ignored. You have every right to disagree.

I'm sure that MP phoned Mulroney and told him a kid said no to FTA and they better call the whole thing off. Who cares about elections and referendums, its better to protest against anything the Sun supports.

As for STV, its way better than MMP or FPTP but since we didn't get 60% I'm not demanding change, the FPTP people won the referendum in my view. They get to keep this wonderful system.

You're possibly right Frank. I agree it is now really STV or the status quo. We'll see. There are a lot of reasons why STV is the more likely alternative now, including Gordon Campbell's personal interests and similarly the fact that the business community is neutral rather than opposed, allowing the Sun to endorse it. No one but Norman Spector is standing up for the status quo.

It's as much about political dynamics now as it is personal choice and advocacy. Stuart isn't going to change anything by insulting people.

Stuart asks:
"ammonra,did STV meet the required % to pass, NO, what does this mean to you."

What the 57% endorsement means to me, (sounds like a school essay), is that the majority of voters want change and are perfectly willing to have STV as the system. What it means to me is that we should have an educational campaign in which proportional systems are explained. This should be followed by a vote between some of them, including STV, because it is the current majority choice and is therefore the most likely to succeed.

John, but besides Mr Spector, 42% did vote for the status quo. Enough to elect a government more often than not. That 42% can't be ignored either.

Stuart[I], I can appreciate your puzzlement over the reaction from the STV group.

I suspect that had this group got its wishes we would have been flooded with 'we told you so's, claims of how wise Gordon Campbell was to insist on a clear majority and 'if you don't like STV, tfb'.

Fortunately that did not happen and so we are now experiencing the death rattle of this we-know-what's-best-for-voters gang.

Gasping for anything, they have taken up the "we really won" rally hoping politicians don't have as good a read on what voters were really saying when they failed to pass STV.

I too am all for electoral reform. There is nothing I would like more than to have the chance to vote on real options, most of which were kept well away from voters May 17.

It's amazing in this day and age people are still displaying this silly Father Knows Best attitude.

"people are still displaying this silly Father Knows Best attitude"

Pretty much the definition of political leadership

Frank - sorry but it's just fallacious to interpret the 42% who voted
"no" to be voting for the status quo. Look at Allan's post above mine. He's for electoral reform (i.e not the status quo) and presumably one of the 42% or so who voted no. I'm not a huge fan of STV by the way, but when I think of what will happen next (rather than try to advance my thoughts about what I think should happen) I see considerable inertia behind STV now and all sorts of good reasons for the Campbell goverment to embrace it. I'm told that for some reason this makes me an apathetic scumbag, which still has be scratching my head :)

Allan voted for STV, I believe he voted strategically, thinking STV won't pass but wanted to increase the anti-status quo vote.

The referendum question was clear, a no vote cannot be construed in any way as not being a vote for the status quo. Just as a Non vote in Quebec can't be construed as anti-separation but pro-sovereignity-association.

I am a "huge" fan of STV but I don't want it sliding in through the backdoor. So I'm okay with 43% of the population deciding what's best for the other 57%.

As an aside, its interesting that a nation in Europe voting to give up control over much of its own economy only requires a simple majority. Quebec separation only requires a simple majority. Plebiscites held between the world wars on what country a region would belong to required only a simple majority. But in BC, deciding how votes are counted requires 60%.

"The referendum question was clear, a no vote cannot be construed in any way as not being a vote for the status quo. Just as a Non vote in Quebec can't be construed as anti-separation but pro-sovereignity-association."

Just because you say it doesn't make it true, Frank. I suspect you are just being argumentative since you can't possibly believe that every no vote was an expression of support for our current system. I know of people who said they voted no because they didn't like STV and favoured some other flavour of reform. Hell, the No side was encouraging pro-electoral reformers to vote that way. Why are you so certain that a no vote must be taken as a pro status quo? And why would you bring up Quebec separation - strange example, really: lots of non voters were anti-separation but pro reform up to and including some form of sovereignity-association - among them many members of the liberal party of Quebec, and Action Democratique... lots of people who voted No to Charletown weren't anti-Quebec, and many Yes to STV voters aren't racist anti-abortionists as Norman would have it.

As for your last post, I agree there is an irony... we'll see though. High 50% support for something is something worthy of noticing.

Allan, I don't know who you are talking about. I'm told you voted for STV but didn't want it to pass. Frank is a self-professed huge fan of STV but thinks it should be abandoned because a minority of voters prefers the system we have. Norman Spector thinks you're a christian fundamentalist and/or a racist if you voted for STV. And you think there's something paternalistic about listening to the majority, which is preferable to the view of Stuart who invites us to kiss his ass.

Quite the discussion we're having...

Actually John, I enjoy being argumentative. And no, just because I say something doesn't make it true, however, if I call an apple an apple its still an apple. And if I call a 43% no vote a "no vote" its still a no vote. I take that vote as it is, a "no" vote. I have no idea what the thought processes were in each of those voters or even in those that votes yes and it doesn't matter.

"I know of people who said they voted no because they didn't like STV and favoured some other flavour of reform"

That's their right but they have no basis for this wishful thinking. No promises were made or inferred by any authority so anyone who thought they could reject the CA's choice of reform and get a different reform were deluded.

And your example is exactly why I brought up Quebec. There is a real parallel there. Both referendums there have had only 2 choices, oui or non. Both sides have argued that a vote for oui was really a non and a vote for non was really a oui. I say, rather than keep having new referendums let's just take the vote as it is without reading anything else into it.

Now I argued a pro-STV position as much, if not more, than anyone else here. And I said long ago on the Tyee that the 60% requirement and the number of riding requirements just proved the government didn't want it to happen. But, as a democrat, I don't believe in holding new citizen assemblies and new referendums till I get my way.

The percentage was set high at 60% because this is a very serious issue , changing the whole way we elect our MLA'S is at the basis of our fundamental rights and the way we govern society. A yes or no 50% vote would not be a clear majority but a flip of a coin in which our whole system would be revamped . You STV folks have the same old tired rant with no real thought attached, their were many other voting systems like MMP that were preferred over STV . In fact STV was not even the 2nd or 3rd choice. And John when you push for the government to break the rules which it set out as parameters , this does not shine will on your sense of fairplay, many people were exploited by their need for change including yourself unless you’re a right winger.

And as far as any cheap shots made towards me regarding the FTA agreement, you missed the point that if enough lazy Canadians got up and did something instead of complaining than this FTA would not have happened.
Now focus on the questions. Try a little harder to answer the questions.

1) Why was STV picked over proportional systems like MMP when STV was a very low priority
Over other systems.

2) How will STV serve the rural ridings, how is less representation good for them.( in their monster ridings)

3) How will getting a much lower % of the popular vote to get elected for the major parties make them more Accountable.

4) Who will be accountable per riding if there are 4-5 MLA'S in that riding.

This will rap up the balance of power for the right for the next 1000 yrs,

Hence the Vancouver Sun's undying support.

I agree that a no vote is a no vote and that we shouldn't read anything more in to it. This is why I think you fall in to error when you try to interpret a no to STV as a yes vote to the current system. W

Your comments about Quebec have got me thinking about the parallels. If a majority had voted in favour of secession on a clear question the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that on the Quebec question (AND questions like it!) that Government would have a constitutional obligation to respect that vote and could not arbitrarily decide on a 60% threshold. I think if you reflect you'll agree that if ever there were a 57% vote in favour of the Yes side in Quebec, your sudden steely resolve in favour of the staus quo would be out of place. But the real mystery to me: you've abandoned your prior objection to the arbitrary (and arguably unconsitituional) 60% threshold "as a democrat", even while pointing to the absurdity of it with your examples. That makes no sense to me. Have you seen someone about this condition?

I agree with your view that that it would be wrong to have another assembly and referendum. I think that would be cynical. This is why I suggested having the legislature now take the ball and consider where we go, with the possibility of ratification by the public in the future. I think this is reasonable and that there is a reasonable prospect that exactly this will happen. I also think that the leg should be considering STV. It would seem to me to be quite proposterous to use a 57% result as justification for ruling STV out! Don't you?

And my ass kissing statement was directed towards ammonra, this is the language she/he understands and relates to. People like people like them , so I had to lower my standards to communicate for a moment.

Stuart, Canadians rejected free trade by voting against it, but about 40$ of the population decided we should have it and they won. We don't have a democracy based on who yells the loudest, its based on voting quietly.

Where's this MMP is preferred by the population come from? Was there a referendum I missed?

1) Because the CA chose STV over all other systems.

2) Ridings twice as big but they get 2 MLA's. Compare this with MMP where the ridings are twice as big but they still only get one MLA.

3) because they will now have to run against people in their own party. So serving your community will become a higher priority than serving your party.

4) All of them.

"This will rap up the balance of power for the right for the next 1000 yrs, "

If that happened, so what? Democracy is good even when your side doesn't win.

John said : "But the real mystery to me: you've abandoned your prior objection to the arbitrary (and arguably unconsitituional) 60% threshold "as a democrat", even while pointing to the absurdity of it with your examples. That makes no sense to me. Have you seen someone about this condition?"

Yes I know I may seem at odds with myself. But I haven't abandoned my position on the 60% threshold. I have always thought it was garbage, was too high and made no sense based on what 50% + 1 means everywhere else. However, much as I like STV and as much as I think the referendum's threshold was arbitrary and wrong the referendum result should stand.

"It would seem to me to be quite proposterous to use a 57% result as justification for ruling STV out! Don't you?"

I would if it had required only 57% to pass. But a democratically elected government picked 60% out of thin air because a voting system I guess is more important than leaving the country. I may not agree with 60% but I agree with the right of the elected government to pick whatever number they like.

"I think if you reflect you'll agree that if ever there were a 57% vote in favour of the Yes side in Quebec, your sudden steely resolve in favour of the staus quo would be out of place"

Say what? If Quebec ever had a 51% vote to separate I'd hug them goodbye.

Dear Stuart,

On the subject of cheap shots, thank you for not asking me to kiss your ass and calling me a scumbag.

Sorry this has taken me awhile. My life away from Tyee interupted me. Also you have made several comments and asked several questions of me, so here goes, Maybe we can find some common ground:

1. "The percentage was set high at 60% because this is a very serious issue , changing the whole way we elect our MLA'S is at the basis of our fundamental rights and the way we govern society."

I agree! Although lots of very important decisions are made all the time on the basis of a simple majority, and a great many are made with less than the support of the majority (including FTA as you say!) I don't have a problem with the 60% threshold actually. I'm not demanding that STV be implemented because of the result, I'm just saying that a majority vote for it shouldn't and won't be ignored. I suggest gpoing to the legislature now for future developments. What's wrong with that?

2. "A yes or no 50% vote would not be a clear majority but a flip of a coin in which our whole system would be revamped"

If this is a riddle, I don't get it. In what sense is a vote higher than 50% not a majority but a coin toss? I have no idea what you mean here. Maybe you are saying something deeper than I appreciate.

3. "You STV folks have the same old tired rant with no real thought attached, their were many other voting systems like MMP that were preferred over STV.

I don't think very many people other than Maltan, Tasmanians and the Irish had heard of STV a couple of years ago, now its proponents are engaging in an "old tired rant". STV supporters may be wrong, but it is hard to make a case that they are thoughlessly peddling some old tired idea isn't it? Your assertion that MMP was preferred over STV (the 3rd or 4th choice of the assembly?) is on the other hand looking guilty as charged on both counts.

3. "When you push for the government to break the rules which it set out as parameters , this does not shine will on your sense of fairplay, many people were exploited by their need for change including yourself unless you’re a right winger."

I'm not asking for the government to change its rules. Your comment that something is not shinning on my sense of fairplay and that my need for change as exploited me unless I am a rightwinger is more of a mind-bender frankly. I have no idea what you mean.

4. "You missed the point that if enough lazy Canadians got up and did something instead of complaining than this FTA would not have happened."

Sorry if you think this is a cheap shot. Aren't you missing the point that a majority of Canadians were (if you are right) against FTA and yet it happened? Doesn't this suggest electoral reform should be considered if you are a populist democrat?

5. "Now focus on the questions. Try a little harder to answer the questions."

Yes, sir.

"1) Why was STV picked over proportional systems like MMP when STV was a very low priority Over other systems."

I am trying to answer that question but don't understand what you mean when you say "STV was a very low priority Over other systems". The Citizens Assembly chose STV as the best among competing contenders with a large consensus around that decision. Much thought was put in to that decision. 57% of voters agree.

2) How will STV serve the rural ridings, how is less representation good for them.( in their monster ridings)

There are fair concerns here, but I understand this is addressed by increasing the number of representatives in the ridings. Maybe you should ask a STV proponent about this. In my view, as someone who thinks that a 57% result should be responded to, the legislature should take a look at this and other aspects of STV and tweak if necessary.

3) How will getting a much lower % of the popular vote to get elected for the major parties make them more Accountable.

It Won't. Why Should it? People will or won't vote for them. Why would a different percentage of popular vote effect this? How would a larger popular vote requirement increase accountabilitity? Actually, now that I think about it I'll chnage my answer, the lower the popular vote required to win the greater the accountability. Let's say you only required 1 vote to win, you'd be pretty accountable to that voter wouldn't you? The fewer votes you need to win, the more you will be responsive to the voters - don't you think?

4) Who will be accountable per riding if there are 4-5 MLA'S in that riding.

See above. I presume in a 4-5 MLA riding, an MLA would be just as likely to want to be re-elected as one in a 1 MLA riding. Wky do you think otherwise?

5) This will rap up the balance of power for the right for the next 1000 yrs, Hence the Vancouver Sun's undying support.

Spector has said this, and I see the point about right wing coalitions. But I've never understood why left and centre left groups wouldn't also be encouraged to evolve in an STV system. Afteral, the centre left NOW only has any chance of governing when a coalition is formed on the left and the right splits. I see no indication that Ireland took a turn to the right after adopting STV. I'll try and keep an open mind when STV is considered again, as I think it will.

Your concerns about The Fifth Reich aside, I suspect the Sun support ( I wasn't aware they had endorsed STV but I'll take you at your word) is because the business community is neutral on the issue so there using bias didn't apply one way or the other.

Warm regards,

John

I'll let you have the last word in our discussion Frank. Good afternoon.

How short Stuart's memory is. He says, "And my ass kissing statement was directed towards ammonra, this is the language she/he understands and relates to. People like people like them , so I had to lower my standards to communicate for a moment."

My comment to him was in response to his referring to people who didn't agree with him as "scum bag political insiders". Intemperate language for sure. I treated him to a dose of his own medecine, and he sure doesn't like it.

John[I], you are correct.

I did vote in favour of it and almost wet my pants when the results came in.

I am certainly not in favour of STV, but I am also not in favour of this FPTP.

I figure the referendum would fail, but wanting change, although not STV I felt it best to have as strong a pro vote as possible to show that change is wanted.

If I were a betting guy, I'd have hit the jackpot with that call.

As many others have noted, an awful lot of people appeared to have voted for it even though they didn't understand it one iota.

Or maybe I was just sending the same message a whole lot of others were too.

I suspect that if Canadians had another option in the Meech Lake Accord referendum one of them would have passed.

Canadians, in that case also, understood the need for change as well, but were left wondering why lot of powers would be shifted around if Meeck Lake went ahead, yet voters, common people, would get none of it.

Now as for the discussion. I think it's just great. Spector may be on to something with those christian fundamentalists.

Another conspiracy by the evangelicals to take political control once all their chosen candidates are elected? Perhaps STV will give them the blessing to just take over.

Hey, these conversations sure beat dragging a big stick around.

John,

You write:

"Your comments about Quebec have got me thinking about the parallels. If a majority had voted in favour of secession on a clear question the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that on the Quebec question (AND questions like it!) that Government would have a constitutional obligation to respect that vote and could not arbitrarily decide on a 60% threshold."

That's true. But what the STV-niks aren't telling you is that the Supreme Court said that, in the event of a clear majority on a clear question, federal and provincial governments would simply be required to negotiate in good faith with Quebec toward securing a constitutional amendment, with no guarantee of success. Talk about a stringent hoop!

DO NOT VETO STV

I guess the end of this is that the BC-STV proposal will go to the legislature, where the MLAs aren't oblidged to follow the will of the people, for in our current legislature, it is the will of the party that seems to provail. The Citizens' Assembly was given the job to evaluate electoral systems, and they made a proposal. A majority supported it, though not enough to shield it from a legislative veto.

I believe that the reps should accept the results based on the fact that their own constituencies voted in favour of it. They are not oblidged to accept the report word for word, though it would be advisable to keep very close to the Citizen's Assembly proposal. Party's should allow both a free vote and a free discussion, in which we as British Columbians can address our riding's concerns with the system, and let our MLAs do their job on ensuring that it will be implemented fairly and accurately.

If there are concerns about STV, address them. If you think we need more MLAs to improve rural proportionality, why not ass your MLA to add more. If you are concerned about transparency of results, lobby to ensure that paper ballots are kept, that the learning resources are in place to eliminate misconceptions, and to help people understand where there votes go. This system and its details are now not set in stone, even if the direction has been pointed

allan, actually my big problem with Meech is that there was no referendum. Mulroney and the premiers were just going to shove it down us.

This quote is from,

elections.bc.ca/ge2005/finalrefresults.htm

"To pass, at least 60% of the valid votes province-wide must be in favour of the referendum, Â*
Â*
and
Â*
the referendum must also receive the support of more than 50% of the valid votes in
Â*at least 48 (60%) of the 79 electoral districts."

To advocate that the gov't now ingore this bar is advocating for the theft of my democratic rights and everyone else who voted in good faith in this referendum, whether they voted yes, or no, so that you can get your own way.

Personally, I think STV is a terrible choice, one that removes transparency, increases the opportunity for electoral fraud and remedies NONE of the problems that make most people unhappy with the way things are now, such as corruption, kick backs and special interest lobby groups controlling government. It ties the hands of government ensuring PNAC's plan for Canada comes to fruition. I don't understand how it got past the assembly.

But, even if this weren't so, and STV was the greatest thing since sliced bread, my democratic rights and yours, were fought for and hard won by people of a much greater generation. Many of those people died for our democratic rights. They mean something. Something very important. They are not to be taken so lightly.

http://www.elections.bc.ca/elections/ge2005/finalrefresults.htm

I'm not advocating that the rules be changed after the fact. I advocated before the referendum and after the referendum that 60% is garbage. Lucky for the people of France they didn't need 60% to block the new EU constitution.

I just wish a government needed 60% support or we could go without. That'd be great.

I think being ruled by a group that only got 46% of the vote is theft of my democratic rights. I think 43% of the people deciding what voting method we use is a theft of my democratic rights.

I think that a system that has proved that it encourages minorities ruling with majority control of the house, encourages corruption and control of government by money and which turns people off voting altogether and which still gets 43% support in this province is an outrage and a theft of my democratic rights.

I think the Sponsorship Scandal, the Free Trade sell-out and a kazillion other scandals large and small which are due to minority domination of the majority due to the skewed results of FPTP elections is the real affront to those who died for our democratic rights.

And now I offer my favourite muppet saying "this is an outrage!"

http://www.jeffyorkes.com/images/JY3D_SamTheEagle.jpg

I know you're not advocating the bar be changed now, Frank. My post wasnt' directed at you although I can see that it is right under yours and so looks as though it was. My post is for those who are advocating it to be implemented anyway.

There are more than 43% of people who voted no. People also left their ballots blank. Not all yes voters want STV And, imo being ruled by 43% when the bar is 60 is not theft of your democratic rights, even though I can understand it sure feels that way. It is a failsafe measure to ensure wise action about a very important long reaching event that radically alters a century of our tradition, within a democratic process ie the referendum. etc etc etc. and etc. [insert more of my opinion here] Phew! :)

Thanks for the muppet pic. It made me smile.

Good morning to all.

Norman, you write:

"...what the STV-niks aren't telling you is that the Supreme Court said that, in the event of a clear majority on a clear question, federal and provincial governments would simply be required to negotiate in good faith with Quebec toward securing a constitutional amendment, with no guarantee of success. Talk about a stringent hoop!"

I take no issue with what you say - except I suppose your comment that I am expressing a view based on what I've been told by STV-niks. For better or worse these comments and thoughts are my own. (Unless of course "my need for change is exploiting me" or whatever)

I don't say that the law requires implementation of STV. I am advocating not for immediate implementation of STV based on 57% in 77/79, but for reference and deliberation on the issue in the House - the optimal "citizens assembly". I think given the result that should happen. I think given the politics it will happen. I think it would be preposterous to rule out STV in that deliberation; better to use it as a starting point. I'm agnostic on STV itself and think it could at least do with some tweaking.

But returning to your point, we are talking about a consitutional amendment arent we? (The province's constitution). You would think that the Quebec Secession Reference case stands for the proposition that in the face of a clear majority support on a clear issue such as STV, government now has a duty to respond in good faith - but of course not necessarily to implement. I make this point in response to those who say Government can sit on their hands the 60% threshold having not been met. Contrary to that view, I think they want to act by taking the matter on in the House, and likely will for a variety of reasons included a lack of viable political alternatives.

p.s. I also appreciated the muppet.

Let me commence this by saying I voted no. I did so for many reasons which are not worth stating for this response. In many ways I feel we are now playing symantics. Certainly this failed from a perspective of forcing government to adhere to this and having to implement this. But, there can be no doubt that a vast majority of British Columbians wish this system to be put into place. The only difference is that government doesnt have a legal obligation to initiate this. However there can be no doubt based on the results that it certainly has a moral one.

Tom, my concern on the gov't implementing STV anyway is that the allans, normans and red river girls of this province are totally against the system and believe, rightly, that the referendum failed in a fair vote (although the bar was too high) and it shouldn't be rammed down their throats.

And I agree with them. I think STV is the best system I've heard of but it can't be snuck in a back door.

In fact, I thought the Citizen's Assembly was a great idea to avoid this problem because politicians wouldn't be telling us what's good for us, a la Meech and Charlottetown. I, naively perhaps, believed that FPTP was such a despicable system that no thinking person would ever support it and that whatever the CA came up with would be better and we'd all rally around it with a vote of 90-10 or something.

Didn't happen, as usual we became polarized on it.

Solution 1, government bowing to the majority and implementing STV anyway is a non-starter for me. Smacks of unfairness.

Solution 2, a new CA being struck and another referendum in 4 years is such a bad idea for reasons of "do-overs till my side wins", I don't believe anyone would support it.

Solution 3, having a new referendum like NZ's where people get to select from more than one system should have been how the past referendum was done. I would support it if there was an accompanying information campaign but still think there's an air of "do-over" in it.

Solution 4, accepting the wishes of 43% of the population and throwing the whole process out and continuing on with our current system works for me because I can rail on about the unfairness of it endlessly, and I will, on every thread. :)

There was supposed to be a smiley at the end, even I wouldn't do that, well, not every thread.

Frank, I think you are arguing with a straw man. Who is saying implement it anyway? Not me. I haven't anyone say this, but maybe I'm wrong.

Solutions 1-4 aren't solutions at all, I agree.

What is wrong with Solution 5: send it to the House for deliberation. Isn't that what the House is for? They come up with policy and legislation from time to time, including reform. Why do you have a problem with this course?

I'll check in again at 1pm - but nice chatting with you all.

Frank, thank you for pointing out my Meech Lake screw up. You are right, only the politicians got to vote on it.

I guess my memory has morphed Elijah Harper's successful opposition in the Manitoba legislature into one big collective step for all of us small people.

Morning all, I agree with Tom and redrivergirl, this is all just semantics at this point
By the Yes folks. With all respect to John I will clarify some points.

1) Name one riding ever that gave a NDP or Liberal less that 15% of the popular vote, will never happen. Even when the NDP were hated they still managed to pull in 15% in their traditional ridings. SO having said that under STV MLA'S of the major parties never have to worry how badly they perform because pulling in 15% for their party is no big task.

2) If have trouble getting any support from your local MLA now , try it when you have 3-5 MLA's in each riding.

3) I don't know about you folks but I'm not willing to try this experiment at the expense of
Monster ridings and flushing Rural BC down the toilet. No one even knows the new parameters in the north yet. We just have to trust them.
Larger Ridings = Less power = more rural urban split. We are not Malta or Ireland. We are not a tiny Island country. Basing representation on population density and not geographic areas will create huge inequity.

4) We were given rules, those rules created this result(57%) . If the parameters were different the result could have been much different. To change the rules after the fact is immoral and pure insider political maneuvering . Just like Gordo said he would not sell BC Rail, He didn't , we still own the tracks and the lease is only 1000 yrs. LOL

5) And let me try this one more time, the CA picked STV as their choice, they derived that choice from submissions and public consultation . They took all submissions as a basis for discussion, STV was not the first or even the second most popular choice. It blew allot of folks minds as to why they went with STV, you didn't hear that threw all the media hype.

6) My comments about being right wingers, I believe John, Allen and others who seem like such good spin doctors are imbedded out of personal interest and not the civic good. Urban rich, city riding usually support the Fiberals, so STV gives more power to the right. Short and simple.

7) I support John on one point, electoral change is good. But any change for the sake of it is dangerous. Okay, I should work now. TTFN

Stuart,

1) You're forgetting or ignoring that multiple candidates from the SAME party will be running in those multi-seat ridings. The NDP or Libs aren't going to run only one guy in a 5 seat riding.

2) I think your chances of getting satisfaction improve when you have more local MLA's, especially since at least one, maybe more, that you voted for. Under MMP, you still only have 1 MLA in your local riding which would double in size to make room for "at-large" MLA's.

3) There is no flushing rural ridings, down the toilet, at least rural voters don't think so since in every rurual riding they got over 50% support.

4) I agree.

5) It doesn't matter how many submissions were made to the CA from groups about MMP. That's not a scientifically valid way of saying that's what the majority of people want. That'd be like CKNW saying their callers are a representative sample of the province, they're not.

6) It increases fairness, shouldn't matter if it helps the right.

John, not a straw man at all because I wasn't picking on you. There have been comments in the STV forums on the Tyee that 57% means we should implement it anyway. I know YOU didn't say that but there have been those suggesting that course.

As for solution 5, I agree that politicians are there to decide on public policy but I don't believe they should be entrusted with deciding how they themselves get elected. I think that should be in the hands of something like a Citizen's Assembly? In the hands of politicians I'm sure they'll pick MMP and guarantee their re-election for life.

So no, I don't like solution 5.

... can't resist...

Frank, I know you weren't picking on me. I'm just not aware of ANYONE who is saying let's just implement STV automatically and as presented. Here's what I think should now happen in small steps (1) house takes it on , debates it, churns it through committee, consults public through committee stage and by MLA in their communities (2) house comes up with a proposal if they can - a bill - and puts it to the public in a referendum for public ratification, in November if possible but I think that is too soon. I'm suggesting a process not an end result. Doesn't this address your fair concerns, and isn't this better than doing nothing and putting up with a system that few seem fond of?

Now I'm off till 1pm.

Allan thanks for validating my arguments. This whole thing is going in circles.
Allen says
"5) It doesn't matter how many submissions were made to the CA from groups about MMP. That's not a scientifically valid way of saying that's what the majority of people want"

LOL, so please can anyone explain why the majority of submissions is not a scientific way of judging what people want. Oh I see a select hand picked group of intellectuals know better than the 1000's of submissions. Why have the charade of the submission process. Just have this select group make their decision. STV was one of the most unpopular choices, so ask yourself , Who picked the members to the assemble and what is their political leanings. Lets see, Gordo set up the assembly, it gives the right wing an advantage . Tough question.

It does flush rural ridings, the north and other places will have the largest most underrepresented ridings in Canada maybe even the G8. And their uninformed 50% plus vote does not made this point invalid. If every person in the north had the proper info they would have voted differently. The campaign was the change is good mantra , very low in content. The vote would have been the same for any new system.

And no one has ever shown me how multi member ridings improve fairness . The right is just scared of another 1996 where they lost due to lack of interest in Rural BC, this will rap it up for them. And how can you say it improves fairness if by your own words you admit STV. "helps the right" At least your being honest unlike others in the forum.

SOrry last Post was directed at Frank not allan, TTFN

Stuart, its why we have elections and referendums, we don't just count the number of people that show up to to push their agendas at meetings. You may think STV was unpopular based on the submissions from people with an agenda but it seemed to do pretty well when put to a province-wide vote. Why do you think that is? Or should we just check the CKNW poll of the day to decide what public policy should be?

Where do you get the material for these outragous statements like northerners would have voted differently if they were as smart as you?

I think whatever system improves the representation of the people is better, it doesn't matter if it means the right will dominate. They are the majority after all. Should we instead continue on with a system where a gov't can be elected with a majority based on 39% of the vote? Guess so since we have no problem with 43% deciding what voting system we should all operate under.

John, I'm at work but I can go back through the various dialogues here and get the handles of those who said we should implement STV anyway.

Since the Liberals are a majority in the leg it would mean the Liberals deciding, after making a show of a debate, what our electoral system would be. I think they would prefer MMP since there would be no chance of cabinet ministers ever losing their jobs again.

A few things about why I think MMP would be a bad idea, for the most part I think the version of the system using party lists is worse than our current FPTP.

First, bigger ridings operating under FPTP but still have the same single MLA for representation.

A number of "at large" MLA's who are selected on their place in the party list. How many of these MLA's get selected from that list is dependent on the number required to ensure proportionality.

Obviously the first point is not attractive. Ridings get bigger but their representation does not grow with it. Forget northern ridings, this is worse for everyone in the province. Even the MLA's themselves will be less accountable because they know where thay stand on the party list is important so as long as they please their party it doesn't matter if they lose their own riding, they can still get elected.

The at-large MLA's are beholden only to the party as they have no real constituency they can point to. Whether they are elected or not depends completely on where the party places them on the list. This is open to abuse. Don't toe the party line? Right now it means you will probably not get your nomination papers signed but if you're an at-large MLA you can simply be moved down on the list until your only chance is for your party to get 80% of the vote, in other words, you're gone. Now if you're fine with this increased party control over MLA's then fine, but I think its not a good thing.

Frank: "Since the Liberals are a majority in the leg it would mean the Liberals deciding, after making a show of a debate, what our electoral system would be. I think they would prefer MMP since there would be no chance of cabinet ministers ever losing their jobs again"

Me: I am suggesting free votes, committees, and finally a ratifying referendum probably a couple years from now. I think for a variety of political reasons this is a good idea for the liberals, the NDP and utlimately the public. As it looks to me that it's in a variety of interests, I think it'll will probably happen and I'm excited about that as an opportunity for political renewal - even if ultimately STV isn't the result. In fact, it could be that no consensus comes out of the leg. Or maybe as you suggest the liberals would unify around MMP for some reason, and start by excluded the one system that a majority of voters have gotten behind. I doubt it, but if they did come up with an MMP system they have to go back to the public and seek 60% if they went along with what I am suggesting.

Just so understand exactly where are you are coming from, are you saying that if STV (maybe modfied) were presented in another referendum after passage through the house you would now vote to reject it on principle? And if so, what is that principle?

No I wouldn't, I'd vote for it. But I still think that my "solution #3" would be the best way for any new referendum to avoid the "run referendums till you win" criticism. That is, give people a chance to vote for what they want not just to say no to what they reject.

Put every system with any degree of support on the ballot and let everyone pick their favourite. Winner take all and no do-overs.

Of course I'd rather that the ballot allowed you to list your favourites on a 1,2,3 and... hehe

Well your joke I think reveals the problem. Let's say STV 32% 2. MMP 27% 3. FPTP 11% C.T. (Coin toss) 4% Other: 26%. Not a recipe for harmony! (But actually a STV referendum isn't a bad test drive!) Have more confidence in the your elected representatives why don't you? (I know this is hard) After all, you may or may not have voted for one of them!

Later if I have the time I think a may take a stab at writing the sort of speech the premier might give on this subject.

In the meantime, I'm in mourning: if we had STV or any other sensible system, that twit Lorne Mayencourt would have lost.

Last STV(Sexually transmitted Vote) post, this is getting silly, IT DID NOT PASS, IT DID NOT PASS, get over yourselves, anyway you play fast and lose with the numbers your basic premise is the same, I really want STV so lets just you know ram it down the thoughts of the public, very self serving for what I see as a couple of right wing lobbyist.

"Where do you get the material for these outrageous statements like northerners would have voted differently if they were as smart as you? "

Be honest Allen, how many folks understand what would happen to them under STV and how many are just voting for change as this thing was presented. The whole STV thing was pushed by bashing the FPTP system, what's the word I'm looking for "exploitation for change" nice try fell short.

First of all , any vote for change with all the feel good right wing media messages would do good at a province wide, poll, and it's so funny that you feel the 1000's of personal and email submissions are just special interest or special agendas, the public in general is always a special interest group while the 160 hand picked members on the CA, no their not special interest. Only the great unwashed public that did not pick STV but preferred other systems. Why did the CA even have the charade of public input. CKNW polls are targeting their red neck audience while anyone anywhere could and did submit to the CA, put their majority choices got in the way of the CA's choice to pick the least popular system that gives advantage to the right by your own submission. *** The media should have demanded an explanation from the CA, but hey its not a perfect world. ***Some folks value a good job more than clear conscience

"we don't just count the number of people that show up to push their agendas at meetings. You may think STV was unpopular based on the submissions from people with an agenda but it seemed to do pretty well when put to a province-wide vote."

You're going to have a stroke Stuart. STV is a popular alternative apparently. Our lawmakers will probably consider it because elected officials like popular alternatives. They think it may make them more popular and as elections are popularity contests they like more popularity. I am not sold on STV but apparently my view is a minority one among voters. The politicians will not ignore the views of a majority of voters, that's all. Not very contraversial really...

Stuart, are you telling me you can't see the difference between those making submissions and a referendum?

That a web poll on the Fox News web site might get a different result than one on CBC's web site?

How many people voted in the referendum? Compared to how many submitted their wishes to the CA? A few hundred compared to over a million? Which would be the most accurate as a reflection of majority opinion?

As for the CA itself they were randomly selected.

Why were the submissions pushing MMP? What were their reasons? What are your reasons? What do you like about it? It favours the political right you know.

And why shouldn't a voting based on proportionality favour the side with the most people? I favour majority, not right-wing, rule.

Stuart, would you point out the posts I filed from which you have determined I am a "right winger" or in favour of STV as you stated in posts above?

I did vote in favour of STV, but if you had paid attention you would have read I did it simply to push for change and not specifically for STV, which I don't support.

There was no mechanism available to truly show you object to both STV and FPTP so, assuming the vote would not pass anyway I thought the best showing would be close, as it was, thereby indicating voters want something, but not necessarily STV.

Question my wisdom on that if you wish, but don't accuse me of being an STV yesman.

But that right winger comment is just too much. You have been around Tyee long enough to have picked up a sense of where regular commenters stand politically.

Is it that you simply don't read beyond the first few words in a post before responding or did I actually write something that since has burned R-W onto my forehead from your perspective?

BTW, have you stopped beating your wife, Stuart?

The premier, say September 15th, 2005.

"Good evening my fellow British Columbians.

These are exciting times. Tonight I would like to talk about an opportunity that all of us have to come together in a non-partisan fashion and engage in a process of political renewal.

Sometime ago your government asked an assembly of British Columbians to come together and make an assessment of the manner by which representatives are chosen to govern this province. To put it frankly, this citizens assembly was asked to assess our current electoral system without any preconceived bias. It was open to that assembly to endorse the current system; the very system that elected me and other members of my government, as well as the opposition. But equally they were free to reject that system and recomend an alternative.

And after great personal sacrifice of time, and much thoughtful deliberation, that is exactly what this assembly of British Columbians has done.

This initiative and the resulting recomendations by our fellow citizens are both unprecedented and historic. We have taken a step like no other in our nation's history. Of that we can be justly proud.

As you know your assembly has made a recomendation to change our electoral system in a profound and significant way. Given the significance of the reform, it was only right and proper that ratification require a special majority of voters.

As you also know, that special majority of 60% was not acheived.

But boy, was it close!

At the end of the day, a majority of those of you who voted throughout the province voted in favour of your assembly's recomendation. That is also something historic and unprecendented.

Think about that for a moment, region by region, across ages and ethnicites and backgrounds - and across the political spectrum - 57% of voters supported a citizen generated initiative. That is remarkable anywhere. In a province known for partisan, polarized politics that is a staggering result.

It is also a staggering opportinuity that I am inviting all of you to embrace across political divides in a spirit of non-partisanship and for the benefit of all British Columbia present and future.

Tonight, after consultation and with the endorsement of the leader of the official oppostion Carole James I am announcing the begining of a legislative process aimed at achieving electoral reform.

Tomorrow, your government will table in the legislature a bill respecting electoral reform. It is proposed legislation based on the recommendations of your assembly on electoral reform.

I propose that your legislature debate that proposal. I propose that the legislature seek to hear from British Columbians throughout the course of that debate, including by presentation to a legislative committee which will travel to all parts of our province to hear from citizens who wish to be heard on this significant reform.

I propose that all members of your legislative assembly will be free to act in disregard of their party alliance; as you and their experience may guide them - to seek to amend the proposed electoral reform piecemeal or by whole cloth, to debate, deliberate, and ultimately support or reject that which emerges from the deliberation free from partisan political constraint.

I am proposing in short something that would have been unthinkable in this province not too long ago, but what has become possible because of the work of an assembly of British Columbians, and the clear expression of support of a majority of voting British Columbians.

In the end of the legislative process I have outlined, I hope and believe what will emerge will be consensus on electoral reform. If that occurs as I beleive it well, all citizens will be given another opportunity to directly express their view of this sigificant reform by another referendum. We hear you now and we will hear from you directly again.

My fellow Briitsh Columbians tonight I have outlined a road ahead that may seem long in the hearts and minds of those who are impatient for reform. But it is a road brimming with promise of arriving at a destination representing a consensus as to the aspirations of all British Columbians. And besides, we have come too far down this road together now to abandon the journey.

You have every right to be proud about what as occured thus far, and every reason to be excited about what the future holds.

I thank you and wish you a good night.'"
-----------

Schmatzy at times I know (I tried to drop "frankly" and candidly" in there so that it would sound like our premier) but you probably get the idea.

We'll I've had my word on the subject and then some. I'll leave you be.

Oye, Oye, John, with that speech I almost shed a tear!

Our legislature actually listening to the will of the people rather than making them jump through hoops. And think of the results, our passing this would put extreme pressure on both governments within Canada, but almost as importantly, the supernation to the south of us, to engage in a similar process. Let Campbell have his legacy, let me have my future!

"If STV were adopted in B.C., the province could become ungovernable. We'd have fragmentation on the left and the right, and ethnic groups -- famous today for mass membership sign-ups -- would likely form their own parties", Norman Spector.
That was printed in the van sun on friday 13th of may and another big paper a couple of days before the referendum.
My question th Spector is this, who are you talking about?
My second question to Spector is, who were you talking to?
I am guessing you were talking about indo canadians?
And talking to? Yeah, I thought so.
and also in the same article"In Ireland, a party with less than five per cent of the seats holds the balance of power".
I see a trend. Exploit fear of minoritys.
Didnt matter that the Irish government with the little party in power did an economic boom and got reelected.
http://members.shaw.ca./nspector3/vansun79.htm
I think it is worth a read as a masterwork of propaganda.
He somehow linked (in his mind) the current instability in canada, and the usa with STV (even though neither country uses it). Well, if it isnt a masterwork of propaganda, what is it then? Your thoughts and dissections please. Please identify the animal.
Just for the record, In the UK under first past the post, the ethnic scots have their own party, as do the ethnic scots
in northern ireland and the ethnic irish there too and the people of wales have their ethnic party too.

Right on Brian. I also got uncomfortable with the "We" and "They" style of that commentary.

There isn't much evidence of the inevitable rise of an assortment of right wing parties in Ireland. In addition to the two main centre left/right parties now in the Irish parliament, Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil, the other (ahem) non-left (?) partes seem well represented: Sinn Féin), the Irish Labour Party, the Green Party, the Socialist Party and the Workers Party. I see no "ethnic" parties - except I suppose arguably Shin Fein. Despite all of this Ireland seems to have governed itself rather well in recent years?

Oye, oye DanG.

It is not often that I agree with Rafe but on this topic, he's right on the money.

I can not fathom why people are so opposed to STV. Is it complicated? Yes, at first. If one reads the short example produced in the Vancouver Sun (I know some of you think the Sun is evil but), it isn't difficult to comprehend. My parents, who are both over 70 and have a Grade 8 education understand it after taking ten minutes to read the aforementioned article in the Sun.

If you believe the system needs change (and it does) then keep the pressure on Campbell and James. I know I will.

So hopefully will the 67.9% of voters in James' riding, and the 64.2% in Campbell's riding who voted in favour..

Here's my prediction John. Our second term premier has rather a full slate of unfinished business in his lap and a desire to get as much hay cut early in the season so he can.
He will try to soften a bit before heading off to a speaker's bureau.
Prior to his transformation into Mr. Nice Guy, he will not have time or focus to drop the dismantling wrenches and actually ponder things like improvements to voters rights.

The speech (not bad), unfortunately didn't include the inevitable cheap shot at one group or another and certainly didn't reflect his bent to over-empathize his party's activities

How's this for a grand compromise to get most supporters of STV and MMP on the same side:

A STV system exactly like the BC-CA's model with a 20 seat open-list top up? The legislature could be expanded by 20 seats to accomidate this. We could call it BC-STV-MMP.

This kind of compromise would probably satisfy a lot of people including Adrianne Carr, Carol James, Nick Loenen, Gordon Gibson, and Rafe Mair.

Brian White,

If you liked my Globe column, you'll love the one in today's Sun/Times Colonist, which concludes:

"In reviewing the single transferable vote campaign, you have to admire the success of the yes side in framing the debate as one between citizens and politicos. In fact, former and current political insiders were present on the pro-STV side, too, as statements by Nick Loenen, Rafe Mair, Bill Vander Zalm, Gordon Gibson, Bruce Hallsor and Preston Manning attest.

However, there was one big difference between the two camps. Former B.C. premiers Dave Barrett and Bill Bennett, who opposed the single transferable vote, had both been big winners under the existing system. Electoral success had given them a unique opportunity to experience the difficulties of governing B.C. And majority governments had made it possible for them to change the face of our province for the better.

On the yes side were people whose personal ambitions -- or whose campaigns against aboriginal rights, or against the Nisga'a treaty, or against a woman's right to choose, or to restructure rather than abolish the Senate -- had been frustrated. Not surprisingly, given the unpopularity of some of these views, they prefer Ireland's single transferable vote, where a party with five per cent support holds the balance of power. Nor is it surprising, alas, that some hard-liners want to change the rules of the referendum after they lost."

http://members.shaw.ca./nspector4/tc7.htm

Allan,

Agreed. But that's part of the charm from his perspective of focusing on electoral reform. It's a big attention grabbing non-partisan cause that's apparently popular that will make him look statesman like. It'll give him a big lofty initiative, with the bonus of political cover if he chooses to work on whatever other plans he has. Jailing the mentally ill for the olympics, for example. Or continuing to improve public transit in GVRD for the benefit of developers. Oh yes, and there's his vision of placing automated cellular scenic narration in in the hands of all Chinese tourists as they drive through the north by 2015 (I'm pretty sure that's what he was saying ... it was hard to tell as, frankly, and to be very candid about it, I was distracted by his robotic arms).

Some hard liners! You pompous bastard Spector. There were thousands of us from around the province that will keep fighting this and you know it. The no side basted in their public interest, but I didn't see them do anything but photo ops. The Yes side ran campaigns in nearly every riding, rather that trooting out the has beens. Ask the no side how many people citizen's they had. Oh they had Rick Dignard and his personal vendetta against the rest of his group, and the Gills.

But here's the twist Bennett and Barrett both won because of the flaws in the system. Barrett won when a revived Liberal party and the SC split the vote, and Bennett and his father has an iron grip on the province for over 3 decades. Why would they like the system, because it worked for them. Neither deserved a majority, they had it handed to them.

The no side was mainly retired fear mongering has beens such as yourself Spector. Pushing a message that it is too confusing, and making comments like it would create a riding from whistler to hope.

You and them did their best to mischaracterize STV. And you articles are meant to be nothing but inflammatory.

Well you know what the No side had on board. A contankerous fool like yourself who was debuty minister under Bennett before moving to Mulroney, during the time he was trying to screw the west over. Before becoming a Tabacco lobbyist. You and your buddy Jack Munro, and Bill T, have obviously learnt that elections and referendums are not based on policy nor logic. There based on tying to attack you opponents, characterize them as something undesirable, and trying to persuade the public without presenting them with one glimmer of truth.

Norman,

Other than your scholastic attack on STV - linning up luminaries to face off against each other - your opposition seems based on two notions:

1. Fragmentation on the left and the right making the province ungovernable

Earlier I had understood your concern to be that STV would favour right wing fringe groups and propel them in to positions of power. But now I see your concern has changed slightly. There is a plausibility to your concern given the politics of the province: I can see Christian political groups and other social conservatives obliged to allign themselves with small business free enterprisers and Howe street interests on one hand. Unions, social democrats, environmentalists and progressive liberals awkardly coming together on the other.

My God, you're right THIS COULD HAPPEN AND IT'S TERRIFYING - oh, wait a minute it is happening, and has been happening for some time. I feel better now (I guess).

The advantage of STV is that whatever coalitions might be necessary would be derived from a clearer expression of popular will and the bargaining would be done more openly and with less centralized party control. I think that is a great improvement. I guess you prefer backroom deals made by pros and hacks. So be it.

2. Ethnic groups -- famous today for mass membership sign-ups -- would likely form their own parties

I know a guy who was born in the Punjab and happens to be a died in the wool Marxist from a long line of Marxists. I'm talking about Marxism here - not a Swedish view of how cars should be made - Marxism: the sort of beliefs held maybe 20 years ago in remote areas of Albanian. He's entertaining when I've seen him, but our political beliefs have far little in common and I can't imagine the two of us in the same political party. It is harder still for me to imagine my Marxist Punjabi friend in the same party as Herb Dwaliwal. I guess I draw from this thought that ethnic groups are comprised of individuals with a variety of political views. Maybe you've had this experience too?

Frank Says"How many people voted in the referendum? Compared to how many submitted their wishes to the CA? A few hundred compared to over a million? Which would be the most accurate as a reflection of majority opinion?"

My goodness, how dense can you be. .... Lets try this one more time.

The referendum for STV that was on the ballot was picked by the CA. The CA job was to gage public input and choose the best opinion based on information and 100's of submissions , have debates etc and come up with the best choice. STV was not even on the radar, 100's of folks wanted something else, so of course the CA went with the most obscure confusing and least popular choice. That just happens to favor right wing parties in the polls. WHY even bother to have the charade of public input, why not just have this committee pick something based on their intellectual leanings. LOL, Any new voting system would have done well on a yes or no question, so we should be asking ourselves why STV, why the least popular choice, why the assemble who does not value public input.

It's like asking a community what they think and then saying, you folks are stoned, you need a landfill not a community center. Your all just special interest well we have your best intentions in mind.

How about a new referundum that gives you some choices as to what system you like the best instead of a question that confirms Gordon Gibson's ability to determine the points of reference for a large group of people (i.e. CA).

It would be interesting to see how the public would vote on the three choices of STV, MMP, and FPTP. If STV or MMP got more than 50%, it would be an easy justification to switch.

YES, Chris , I knew a sober voice would show up. Stop talking about Ireland and Malta and let us have a real choice, not what the CA feels is best based on anything except public input.

Maybe if you stopped drinking alone Stuart, so wouldn't have to wait for a sober voice to show up.

Chris, I think your idea isn't a bad one. My only concern is that I don't know what you would do with a result where one option got less than 50%, say, where 36% vote MMP and 25% vote STV for instance. Vancouver did something llke this a few years back as I recall: a referendum where voters were given 3 choices: at large (status quo), wards, and other. I think wards and other got the majority. The whole process I think was fairly seen as a bit cynical and designed to divide those calling for reform. Putting together an assembly (where there were oodles of opportunity for public input, Stuart. Opportunity ad naseum in fact) seemed to be a much better way of going about it. They came up with a alternative that wouldn't have been my first choice, but such is democracy.

Norman,

Your most consistent argument is to say "so-and- so is for STV and so-and-so is bad therefore STV is bad. So-and-so is against it and so and so is good so therefore STV isn't good. It's the way important issues of the day were resolved in the middle ages. It fell in to disfavour when some insightful monk realized it led him to unsoundly conclude that Socrates was a dog.

But your comments did lead me to wonder why Barrett and Bennett would agree on this. I had suspicions as to their motives and still do, but I wondered what they would say were their reasons.

You say Bill Bennett is against STV because as a political leader of great achievement he learnt the art of compromise. He didn't leave me with that impression when he retired. And this isn't the reason Bill Bennett himself gives for his opposition. Bennett says it's because he doesn't understand how the votes get counted. Here's his reason in his own words (?) from his May 17th letter as posted on the KnowSTV cite:

"Our parliamentary tradition is seated in the tradition of one person equals one vote. A citizen selects a candidate or a party to represent them and votes accordingly. In this proposed system you end up with partial votes determining the outcome because of the complicated counting formula. It allows a few to manipulate the outcome of the majority in favor of biased minorities".

Dave Barrett, who as you rightly say, achieved great things while in office, has a similar objection (expressed in a remarkably similar writing style?):

"My opinion is based on both appreciation of our history and hope for our future. In BC for over a hundred years we have followed the British Parliamentary system. It is based upon responsibility and accountability. One person--one vote. The citizen is responsible to cast their vote wisely. The person elected is accountable to all the citizens irrespective of their vote. The proposed system loses this principle because the complicated counting formula replaces clear voter choice with academic theory.".

Complicated counting formula? Academic theory? The simple counting in STV is not very different than the system that put both Barrett and Bennett at the top of their parties in their respective leadership contest, as they both must surely know! It is really quite incredible that these two former premiers would sign these disingenuous letters. I wonder if they even read them.

Now Norman, I give you credit for not personally advancing this nonsense that STV involves complicated counting. I have poked a bit of fun at STV proponents who chose to describe what is a very, very simple count in Algebra rather than English. And I'm not surprised that opponents leaped on this weakness in presentation to advance their opposition. But its damn near Orwellian to describe the system as one which will "replace voter choice with academic theory". Whatever whoever ghosted these letters for their purported authors may think, I doubt either Bill or Dave sincerely holds this view. If they do, they are either profoundly uninformed or surprisingly stupid.

Of course, the possibility the 'first past the post' may have succeeded in placing cretins incapable of understanding simple arithmetic in high office is another argument against it.

Hello Frank,

Well, I've looked over the posts and read some commentary elsewhere. I can't find any voices in support of the "implement it anyway" strawman. Campbell and James both sound like they support taking up the next step in Victoria. I like it. Beats your "do nothing" approach, I think?

Stuart, what ever you're on, it certainly appears to get you extremely confused about who said what and just what they said.

Pharmaceutical or just for fun? In any case I sure wouldn't be driving.

I made this comment elsewhere but it is worth repeating.
Is 60% social engineering? (Because this referendum is a really really important one,( unlike all the others that went before), we shall use 60% instead of 50% +1 as the pass mark.
Its kinda like in animal farm when the pigs wrote 4 legs good, 2 legs better. Basically it speaks to me that for all future referenda, the 60% mark will be retained. They have taken away voter power with the extra 10% ruling. They can still impliment any referendum that gets between 50% and 60% but only if they want to. It is typical of politicians that in a referendum that would have transfered more power to the voters they stole power away from them! The tresholds were 60% with over 50% in 60% of the ridings while we actually got 57% and over 50% in 97% of ridings. That is amazingly broad support by the way.
Anyway, Norman Spector didnt answer my questions.
And Why not?
Could it be that he gets his inspiration from little cartoons in farenheit 911?

All political partys are coalitions. There is a range of views in all of them. STV lets candidates from different wings of the same party compete against each other before the VOTER.
This is the crucial defining advantage of STV. There is fear of that Randy White guy in BC and a possible hidden agenda in the conservative party. In STV Randy White would be nominated along with, say, 2 other conservatives. We would finally find out if his voters voted for him because there was no other conservative there or because they agreed with Randys views.
Other Conservatives all across canada would say, i agree with Randy, vote for me! or Randy is an extremist, vote for me and I will cancel him out. We would finally see which part of the conservative coalition had greater public support.
So, far from obscuring things, STV shows things as they really are. There would be less reason for religous fanatics to infiltrate the conservative party and promote guys like Randy White and possibly Harper. We do not need secret agendas.
STV would make the agendas clear and open.
Paul Martin probably got back in power because of fear of the "Secret agenda" as much as anything else. With STV, people could have voted conservative and got rid of the secret agenda urban legend (or infiltrating cell) all at once.
Paul martin would have had to campaign on policys and not on fears. By the Way, Norman spectre used fear of the federal ndp supporting the minority liberals in exchange for implimenting some of their agenda in his article too. Please add up the popular vote % for the federal ndp and the federal liberals% at the last election . Is it more than 50%?
And what does democracy mean if it isnt listening to the voice of the people?

I was making a generic argument about STV, as did the Globe and Mail in its editorial recommending against STV:

"Moreover, STV promotes single-issue groups and ethnic-based politics. In a five-member district, for instance, it takes only 16.7 per cent of the vote to get elected, so candidates could be elected by appealing to a narrow minority, while candidates who appealed to broad-based constituencies might be penalized."

The Vancouver Sun, in its editorial endorsing STV, said we should look to the current parliament in Ottawa to see how it would operate, issue-by-issue. That's true. And, in a multicultural country like Canada--unlike relatively homogeneous Ireland--the last thing we should encourage in designing our institutions is fragmentation along sectarian lines.

Coalition governments work well throughout the world. Why wouldn't they work here. Germany's political system has been more stable then ours. How many Chancelors have they had over the last generation? How many premiers have we had in BC over the same time?

A vote between FPTP, STV, and MMP would be very simple. A preferential ballt could be used. One of the systems would get a majority of the votes in at least 2 rounds. This is the kind of voting we use to pick our political leaders. If it's good enough to pick our leaders it should be good enough to choose an electoral system that can be replaced if it doesn't work out.

I think the reason a lot of people like Barret and Bennet dislike STV is simple. They're very partisan supporters of their parties. They do not ever want to rank candidates that do not belong to their respective parties. It should be remembered that to fully optimize a STV ballot, voters should rank all the candidates on the ballot. Would someone like Barrett like ranking non-NDP'ers? Would he enjoy ranking a Green candidate as his 3rd choice because it is in the interest of the NDP to do so?

A lot of politically partisan people would have to hold their noses when filling out their STV ballots.

JKR may be correct about the reasons some past premiers don't want STV. It does go against the grain to vote for your political opponents, even when it is unlikely that vote is ever used. I have also heard older New Democrats say that the NDP lost an election many years ago because of STV, and they are adamant that they will never vote to put in such a system again, although I understand the previous form of STV is somewhat different from the current one being recommended.

Really, though, those kinds of comments reflect voter conditioning to the FPTP system, with it's "WE are the Government now" approach to politics. Changing the voting system also requires changing our expectations as to the meaning of electing a government. The intensely partisan approach we now have, often referred to as BC's bloodsport, needs to change to one based on the willingness of those elected to work together to accomplish what the electorate wants. Changing the voting system while retaining the partisan attitudes will make it quite difficult for an STV elected house to be effective. Perhaps that is why so many want an MMP system with party lists, because it retains the "US" versus "THEM" partisan approach.

Why does Norman Spector think this?
"Moreover, STV promotes single-issue groups and ethnic-based politics. In a five-member district, for instance, it takes only 16.7 per cent of the vote to get elected, so candidates could be elected by appealing to a narrow minority, while candidates who appealed to broad-based constituencies might be penalized."
How exactly do the candidates who appeal to a broad based constituency get penalized? They are still going to get at least 4 seats. What ethnic minority group here is going to get 16.7% of the vote? The east indians are multi ethnic, in case nobody noticed. Chineese probably bring local rivalrys with them too. The only ones that might get 16.7% in an area might be ethnic north americans. You trying to stop them getting a few seats? And here is how the partys stop an ethnic insurgency, they just nominate a few ethnic candidates.
Problem solved.
If ethnic based politics will increase under STV, perhaps Norman will explain why in northern Ireland the Westminster elections (first past the post) produce a much more hardline ethnic based group than the local elections (which are run under STV? In northeren Ireland, the moderate partys are alliance and SDLP. The hardliners are UUP, and the extreme hardliners are Sinn Fein and DUP. (Just in case anybody wants to check it out for themselves). Over the last 10 years Sinn Fein have moderated somewhat but they are still out there in hardline terrortory.
People should bear in mind that extreme right wing partys rarely get to even 10% support in most countrys and as I said earlier, stv will allow greens (with broad underlieing support for their ideals) to get elected with 10% first preference but the lack of transfers from the broad majority blocks the extremists.
Irish STV elections are online in a few places so feel free to check it out.
The other 2 systems do not block the extremists. MMP allows them in to politics on 5% support usually. And first past the post has an incredibly weak nomination process. Thats where they get into first past the post. Simply buy up a couple of hundred party memberships, Stick a tight lipped extremist into a safe party seat in first past the post and hey presto! Step one to hidden agenda is complete.

N,

Do you really see a danger in relatively unreligious Canada of "fragmentation along sectarian lines". I really don't. I think the days of that sort of concern in BC are really long gone, and I see no danger of orthodox parties... maybe your CV is showing here?

While I was a bit dubious at first with the low popular vote required for an individual candidate to win a seat in a large, multiple member district, I'm less worried about that now that I've thought about it.

When I first voted in a provincial election I voted in a riding (Vancouver Little Mountain, I think?) that covered an area now represented by numerous ridings. The dividing lines between the ridings are arbitrary. So, where once one MLA represented a community, now man MLAs do. You could say that means that each individual MLA now has to draw a much smaller popular vote out of what was once a larger consituency, but so what? This concern I now think is really quite specious.

By the way, do you agree that the counting is easy- and would have been easy to understand had pro-STV not explained it by reference to the math short cut?

Comments by Norman Spector

"Rafeis blowing smoke. He's part of the political elite that lined up on the yes side".
I thought the political elite lined up with Norman for no?
"it is still too early for those of us who prefer parliamentary over U.S.-style government to celebrate".
The USA has first past the post.
Ireland has the same Westminster style of government as here (with longer question time, and not such big swings from right to left).
It is IRRATIONAL to use the US government as an example of STV.
About asymilation. STV gives a choice. There will be enough candidates and views aired so that peoples choice is registered clearly.
Natives might elect candidates outside or inside the party system, they can elect abstentionist candidates if they want greater self government. Either way, their views, whatever they are, will get a better hearing than now.
Anyways, Norman, you still havnt answered my ethnic questions.
I expect a good answer. No evasion.
I do not think it is fair to use the racial paranoia of others to further your aims.
Actually, I think it is dispicable.

Norman has lots to answer. He has become the champion No rep here - amazingly near as I can tell without advancing a single substantive objection of his own.

JKR brought up Germany, which today is a basket case, unable to make the hard decisions essential to keep up in a changing world.

I'm comfortable quoting The New York Times' Tom Friedman as I am in quoting the Globe and Mail on the effect of STV):

“It was extremely revealing traveling from Europe to India as French voters (and now Dutch ones) were rejecting the E.U. constitution - in one giant snub to President Jacques Chirac, European integration, immigration, Turkish membership in the E.U. and all the forces of globalization eating away at Europe's welfare states. It is interesting because French voters are trying to preserve a 35-hour work week in a world where Indian engineers are ready to work a 35-hour day. Good luck….

Voters in "old Europe" - France, Germany, the Netherlands and Italy - seem to be saying to their leaders: stop the world, we want to get off; while voters in India have been telling their leaders: stop the world and build us a stepstool, we want to get on. I feel sorry for Western European blue collar workers. A world of benefits they have known for 50 years is coming apart, and their governments don't seem to have a strategy for coping.”

For those of you who prefer my words to the words of a New York Times columnnist or Globe and Mail editorialist, I give you these on Gordon Campbell, who's behind the process in BC that brought us to where we are today:

"I've never voted NDP, but came closer in 2005 than ever before. I thought we needed a strong Opposition, and am pleased that we will have one.

What can you say about a premier who flouted centuries of parliamentary convention by refusing to recognize the NDP as the official Opposition?

A premier who violated the basic underpinning of our legal system -- the sanctity of contracts -- by tearing up the HEU agreement?

A premier who put an arcane and little-used electoral system up to referendum without ensuring that voters had sufficient information to make an informed judgment?

While many in the wake of back-to-back majorities are comparing Gordon Campbell to Bill Bennett, I'd say that another former premier more accurately fits the bill. Like Campbell, who's now held two, Bill Vander Zalm was a fan of referendums.

And, while Bennett opposed STV -- another onslaught on our parliamentary system -- Vander Zalm joined with other politicians and political insiders on the Yes side to change the electoral rules under which they had failed."

While Rafe Mair is presenting himself as a man of the people these days, he's no less a political insider than several on the no side. And there was no shortage of such people on the yes side, notwithstanding the spin bought by many in the MSM:

"former and current political insiders were present on the pro-STV side, too, as the words of Nick Loenen, Rafe Mair, Bill Vander Zalm, Gordon Gibson, Bruce Hallsor and Preston Manning attest. ...

On the Yes side were politicos whose personal ambitions -- or whose campaigns against aboriginal rights, or against the Nisga'a treaty or against a woman's right to choose or to re-structure rather than abolish the Senate -- had been frustrated.

Not surprisingly, given the unpopularity of some of these views, they prefer Ireland's STV--where a party with five per cent support holds the balance of power. Nor is it surprising, alas, that some hard-liners want to change the rules of the referendum after they lost.

Finally, to conclude my contribution to this interesting exchange, in my view the yes side has yet to make the case that we'd be better off under STV:

"In endorsing STV, the Vancouver Sun said it would work out much as things are unfolding in parliament, where “the governing party [has] to achieve majority support across party lines on an issue-by-issue basis.” In contrast, the existing system gave British Columbia about as good a result as you can get in an election: a majority government and a strong, moderate opposition within shooting distance of replacing it.”

Good stuff Norman. I still think that Campbell will have to turn this momentum his process over to the legislature, and I think that will be interesting. But I agree with a lot of what you say above and appreciate you taking the time to say it. Not so sure I share your concern about STV being a system where a party with 5% popular support could hold the balance of power. One could argue that this very scenario is playing out in Ottawa now with a FTP system. It was certainly odd wasn't it that First Past the Post federally put a separtist party in place as the 'official oppostion' though they certainly enjoyed far less than 5%. Though I think Campbell slept walked in to all of this, I think he will turn it over to the leg to deal with now, and we could be in for some interesting developments. I remain agnostic on STV (mostly because of the way it tries to deal with regional dynamics, and also because I'm not convinced that the current system is as shitty as the given would have it) - I have benefited I think from the exchange. Bye for now.

Where is the integrity and leadership in putting forward a referendum that had failed so miserably in educating the public about the choice they were about to make?

You have no way of knowing what the 57% indicates because of the careless wording of the referendum. Some voted for STV because they specifically approved of it. Some voted yes simply to register their disapproval of FPTP but they did not want STV. Others voted yes, because they wanted a change but they had no idea specifically what STV itself was. Some did not place their X at all on the STV ballot and apparently this counted as a yes vote as well.

The first question on the referendum should have been: Are you in favour of changing our FPTP electoral system?

The next question could then encompass the question as to whether or not the voter agreed with the CA's recommendation of STV.

At least then you would have some means of determining a somewhat more accurate reflection of the voter's real intention in casting his vote.

I would venture that 57% is not applause for STV alone but includes many hands clapping for the need for electoral change in itself.

A hurried, sloppy final act to a very important question.

.

Perhaps, the first question as citizens we should ask ourself: Is what does real electoral reform mean, what real changes must it encompass? Otherwise, all this "re-arranging" of the vote becomes quite meaningless if the real obstacles to democracy remain as firmly embedded as ever.

Real electoral reform allows the voters to choose which wing of their party represents them. Only STV allows that to happen.
If the voters dont have control of the stearing wheel, who does? The Back room boys. If Randy White hadnt opened his mouth and scared half the voters in eastern canada, there would be no minority liberal government now.
And everyone (including conservative backbenchers) would finally get told the real conservative platform.
That is not a safe situation but thats the poker game that first past the post gives you.
Norman Spector learnt this "never answer a question"policy well as anyone reading this thread should realize.
I guess he pleads the fifth.
In poker, you mislead the voters by not answering policy questions.
In STV, randy would have been in competition with someone lefter in the conservative party. Randy would have had to speak clearly about what his intent was from day one and Harper would not have been able to put a gagging order on him.
Because when you are in competition with a member of your own party in front of the voters, you cannot lie by ommision and win. One thing I respect Randy White for is that he did say what he means. Harper never did.

I lived in Germany for a while. It is an awsome country. Back in the early 90's they took in a huge number of yugoslav refugees. Many were not even official refugees. It might have been over a million people and the war was not officially even happening at the time. Imagine the bitching that would go on here if a million penniless foreigners came in in one year.
And they supported the rest of europe economically for years before that.
Sure, the population in europe is ageing, just as it is aging here. They are probably not saying stop the world at all. Europe has a council of ministers, and a european parliament.
I suspect that the european council (not directly elected) were getting way too much power) and voters were unhappy with that. The council have been pushing loose american software patent law, and genetic engineering laws down european throats and there has been resistance.

I don't understand why the fact that those on the NO side happen to have won elections under the current electoral system adds to the credibility of that side - it's simply self-interest. As they say in Washington DC, "you dance with the one who brought you.."

It is interesting and somewhat ironic that a number of the supporters of STV, who wax on about how STV is more democratic and allows for more choice in the end are at the same time the ones who tout that STV is the "only" choice and the "only" answer... and again are largely unwilling to accept that under the rules of game the will of the people have spoken on this referendum.

Norman, France's electoral system does not produce proportional results. The French use a two-round system that produces false majority governments just like our FPTP system does here. France's socialist leanings have nothing to do with proportional representation.

And it should be added that FPTP hasn't prevented Manitoba and Saskatchewan from electing many NDP governments.

Electoral systems are not powerful enough to dictate what policies are popular within different countries.

In BC, the rules change a whole lot. Why not answer the 4 legs good, 2 legs better question? It is from animal farm.
Which electoral system did you support, Lynn?
It is sickening to see people who got 42 and a bit percent crowing about how they won. What a joke. Take a look at yourself as others see you. With the wonderful first past the post system and the qualitys that it brings out in people,
it will not be long before politicians in Nigeria look to Canada for inspiration. But everyone else? It is like a cheap soap opera gone bad.
60% was set like that for a reason. They knew that if the CA recommended change, and a change that they didnt like, all they had to do was ignore the information stage and it would fail.
Ireland barely got 60% approval for stv after 50 years using it! They probably looked at previous referendums on voting systems before coming up with 60%.
It is amazing that BC got so close. I guess people liked the idea of the CA studieing the problem from a voters perspective and chosing the system that gives most voter choice.
Like I said before, they never needed a referendum. They could just have gone with the CA proposals.
But that would have given away power to the CA.
And 50% +1 would have handed the power to the voters.
NAH, lets keep all the power for ourselves with 60%.
Did they need a referendum last 2 times they changed the voting system in BC?

Spector wrote
"What can you say about a premier who flouted centuries of parliamentary convention by refusing to recognize the NDP as the official Opposition?

A premier who violated the basic underpinning of our legal system -- the sanctity of contracts -- by tearing up the HEU agreement?

A premier who put an arcane and little-used electoral system up to referendum without ensuring that voters had sufficient information to make an informed judgment"?
I fully agree with the first 2 paragraphs.
Arcane is an incorrest term for STV. I notice that you like to brand people bad and associate them with STV but you never go into any detail about STV itself.
Are you a die hard first past the poster? or is there any form of pr system you find palatable?
What do you think of the British result where Labour got less than 40% and an overall majority? Is that ok with you?
First past the post is daft and over 57% OF BRITISH cOLUMBIANS think so.

Lynn, I agree with your read of STV, but you are never going to win a debate with some of the creatures who inhabit this issue.

It's full on, 24/7, and it doesn't matter if it's political scandels in Victoria, mining in the north or the price of a cup of coffee in Burnaby.

All they can focus on is the fact their prized STV didn't make it over the doorstep.

It is unfortunate because if they were rational in their thoughts on this rather than obsessed, they might realize that working with others who want change is more likely to produce change than all this spitting into the wind.

It would appear that rather than trying the usually more reliable compromise approach to political issues, they have learned from Gordon Campbell and his cronies that if you deny reality enough times and just force change onto people some will applaud.

Geez, Allan - that's a bit harsh, isn't it? You voted yes to STV because you wanted electoral reform. So do the voices you hear "denying reality". There's no denying the result. Voters apparently want electoral reform. People like Norman Spector don't think reform is necessary, and they may be right. but the majority and the momentum is against them at least for the moment. Let's have that debate and thrash it out!

John, I thought I was being diplomatic actually.

Very sage advice, allan and I agree there is no winning here... but as the kid who had to step in every mud puddle...oops here I go again...

Brian, I don't think there were any winners in the referendum and that is the point...it was badly done. As Kegler commented on another STV thread there should have been public debate on the entire PR issue. Kegler advances the referendum should be worded like this:

"Are you in favour of changing our electoral system from its 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

Kegler adds that it is vitally important, the second question should only be addressed after the first has attained the required percentage of votes.

If, Brian, the limitations imposed on the CA restricted them from taking such an egalitarian approach... an approach that in effect denied the citizens of this province both the possibility of real debate and real choice, then you have to ask why was the CA set up this way in the first place? Was it really about electoral reform or was it an intentional much ado about nothing...to cleverly distract from the real lack of democracy presently occurring in this province?

At the last moment I almost voted for STV, like allan, to register my dissatifaction about the present system...but my real vote would go to a system that dealt with real electoral reform, that puts participatory democracy back in the hands of the people...no mere changing of a "new" voting system will accomplish this...the lobbying, the special interests, the hidden money will all find their way through again... they will just create new, more inventive... in the end more deceptive routes to do so that's all...it is the inner workings of the whole structure of democracy itself that must change... electoral finance reform, accountability, openness of government, the role and rights of citizenship upheld above all... and much more... my final word on this one...for now at least...

should read "leading instead to an approach that in effect denied..."

LOL, come on Lynn don't talk that way. You will upset Allan and JOhn, they hate choice. Its STV or Not , the CA picked and knows whats best for you, public input always gets in the way in such matters. The majority that picked other systems in the CA were all special interest , the minortiy of folks who wanted STV and the CA have your best interest in mind. Trust them and and vote YEs or not, it must be good if Malta uses it,

Stuart, I don't hate much of anything, and nothing that Lynn has said has upset me. I respect literacy. If you read any if posts you would see that (a) I am not a proponent of STV, (b) I think public input through debate in the legislature is the preferred and only reasonable course. I understand Allan (like Lynn) is a no to STV but yes to reform.

Stuart, I don't hate much of anything, and nothing that Lynn has said has upset me. I respect literacy. If you read any if of my posts you would see that (a) I am not a proponent of STV, (b) I think public input through debate in the legislature is the preferred and only reasonable course. I understand Allan (like Lynn) is a no to STV but yes to reform

Stuart, welcome back, but please read the posts. You seem to still be tripping through here in a fog, not quite sure who wants what.

I would be amazed if allan really voted for STV.
He was one of the most unyielding of the stubborn.
Now, lynn, read what you wrote below and tell me the solution?
What electoral system do you have in mind? And why the hell didnt you do your civic duty and make a presentation to the CA about it?
Sitting on your hands is not going to achieve anything, eh?
The only way to change something is to change something? Correct? So you voted for the continuation of crappy first past the post. Your actions dont match your words.
"At the last moment I almost voted for STV, like allan, to register my dissatifaction about the present system...but my real vote would go to a system that dealt with real electoral reform, that puts participatory democracy back in the hands of the people...no mere changing of a "new" voting system will accomplish this...the lobbying, the special interests, the hidden money will all find their way through again... they will just create new, more inventive... in the end more deceptive routes to do so that's all...it is the inner workings of the whole structure of democracy itself that must change... electoral finance reform, accountability, openness of government, the role and rights of citizenship upheld above all... and much more... my final word on this one...for now at least..."

There is a reasonable argument to be made that the problems that need to be addressed have little to do with the electoral system, i.e. that seeing first past the post as the problem is really a distraction. Gordon Campbell is clearly not a fan of the British parliamentary system - his denial of official opposition status to the NDP was an assault on that tradition as has been pointed out, but in my view more damage was done and lack of understanding shown by other actions. I am thinking now in particular of that really quite remarkable letter that Campbell sent to all his ministers after he first appointment them, making clear that whatever the constitution and convention say, each minister served at the pleasure of the premier, and was to toe the line or get the boot. So much for being first among equals.

I agree that once Campbell sent this file to the CA, the current electoral system had the deck stacked against it. This was hardly fair for genuine proponents. What I think took Campbell by surprise was the degree to which CA participants and other citizens saw political parties as the problem. I tend to agree that party reform is what needs to be addressed. The CA I think chose STV because it gets at that. My view is that there are other routes to reform (looking at the pernicious power of money and patronage, for example) that don't involve electoral reform per se, but I understand the CA wasn't really positioned to look at those other types of reform directly given its mandate.

What I am hoping now is that the law of unintended consequences will come in to play and that Campbell will be more or less obliged to have the leg take on the issue of reform in all its glory, with all sorts of opportunity for public input. STV can't be excluded from the possible results, but whether this all leads to STV or no is secondary I think.

ahhhh... I should have listened to allan.

Brian, I didn't vote "for" anything, I don't remember any choice on the ballot but STV, that was the problem. Shouldn't you have had at least forty-nine choices on the ballot in the true spirit of STV? :-) Or is multiplicity just divine in theory but not to be practiced in reality... eg. instead we get the divine right of kings idea that the only possible outcome is an STV outcome.

Now you may be right that I shirked my civic duty in not submitting a proposal... but let's just say that even though I'm sure there was a lot of good people on the CA I have little faith in anything that Gordon Of Campbell initiates or touches, especially in conjunction with the other Gordon of Gibson who lives on and on it seems in Fraser infamy.

Then there remains the always haunting question as to whether or not any proposal other than STV was ever seriously considered... I'm sure the good intentions of the many hard working and sincere members of the CA deserve the benefit of the doubt on that one.

Change just for the sake of change doesn't really change much of anything especially if all the same weaknesses and vulnerabilities that underpin a system still remain in place....thus whatever voting system reigns, it reigns with the same risk of corruption and at the same mercy of a flawed system... until those underlying flaws are themselves addressed and remedied.

I quite like Peter Dimitrov's proposal on the other STV thread (much like Coyote's proposal of a Magna Carta-like legal foundation that places sovereign power back in the hands of the people)... an elected constituent constitutional assembly that would forge a new constitution, a legal foundation that would ultimately vest sovereignty in the people of this province rather than the Crown... thus addressing many of the flaws, inequities and imbalances that presently exist.

Probably wouldn't be perfect but it might be a whole lot better.

So, Lynn, how are you going to impliment it?
Lets be honest here, there are not details whatsoever to the proposal. As it gets fleshed out, less and less people are going to like it. And how are you going to elect the constitutional assembly? First past the post? Guess who will win? The BC Libs. And guess what they will do? They will find every flaw and kick it badder and imbed it in the constitution. And then they will appoint a supreme court of bc who are ameniable to opening up said flaws.
Brian
Lynn wrote"I quite like Peter Dimitrov's proposal on the other STV thread (much like Coyote's proposal of a Magna Carta-like legal foundation that places sovereign power back in the hands of the people)... an elected constituent constitutional assembly that would forge a new constitution, a legal foundation that would ultimately vest sovereignty in the people of this province rather than the Crown... thus addressing many of the flaws, inequities and imbalances that presently exist.

Probably wouldn't be perfect but it might be a whole lot better".

Very late, very sleepy, Brian ...here goes...the members of the constituent constitutional assembly that Peter Dimitrov proposes would be elected by the people. A referendum would be held first to determine what kind of voting system would elect the members...FPTP, MMP, a PR list system... and I can't quite remember the last one...what was it?...SCTV?... no, that's not it, but second city, Radner et al would definitely get my vote...STD? won't go there...oh now I remember it's something called STV I think... you may have heard of it...here and there...there and here....

sorry Brian, just teasing, can't resist...you should read Peter's proposal on the other thread though for yourself...I'm probably not doing it much justice by my explanation...

STV has its fine points no doubt, I just have too many reservations about certain aspects of it.

Nighty-night now ...

I know I'm beating a dead horse here, but we have an elected consituent assembly IT'S CALLED THE PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURE. With an engaged public and a dose of non-paritisan volition, it can take reform on. You know, it has happened before...

And I'd be amazed if you could show any sign you are not obsessively attached to something here BrianWhite.

The problem is the Crown for far too many years has granted privileges to big Capital, acting in their interests rather than in the interests of the citizens of this province and this country...giving away our forests, our watersheds, our rights, in order to serve those special interests ...revealing time and time again where its real loyalties lie. Sovereignty should be vested in the citizens of this country... our rights superceding the Crown's claim to them.

I don't like dead horses either so I think I've said enough on this one.

I think I said that badly above. The present structure itself allows politicians like Mr. Campbell and high level government bureaucrats as Ministers of the Crown to sell off this province far too easily, using the sovereign power of the Crown to do so...now if sovereignty rested with the people... let's just say BC Rail... and its profits would still belong to the people of this province.

It's not that holding a referendum to determine what voting system might be used to elect an assembly of citizens to decide on a voting system for the province, etc, isn't a nice idea. It just won't happen. The problem with reform minded people is that we end up dividing ourselves up in to fanciful camps missing oportunities for real practical change and lapsing in to abstract catatonia. It is a characteristic first spotted by Machievelli, which is rarely missed by defenders of the status quo. Here comes a real opportunity to oblige government to take a serious look at political reform - a current context of sponsorship scandals, influence peddling, corruption at the top of the political agena, along comes a majority of voters suporting electoral reform: bringing political pressure to bear, with opposition and government leader making receptive sounds - and once again, all potential practical action by would be reformers is sicklied over by the pale cast of thought.

I understand the point you're making, John but I don't see thought as the enemy... "effective" action demands it...in determining what specific changes or reforms will really make a difference as opposed to those that just re-arrange the seats on the deck of the You-Know-What. Thought doesn't have to be pale, it can be bold as well and invoke a call for bold action....

Thought isn't the enemy unless it becomes paralysing. Seize the moment, is all I'm saying...

Shame on you Lynn: *Some did not place their X at all on the STV ballot and apparently this counted as a yes vote as well.*

That's an incredible leap. I guess you should take it upon yourself to throw out all the ballots because of the widespread conspiracy taking place?!

We could all be lead to a true democracy with you as the Immortal President for Life!

More and more pie in the sky diatribes here. "If it's not perfect in my opinion it has no worth and anyone who is a proponent of it is a member of the greater conspiracy!"

Come on people! No government in north america has had such an overwhelming majority as the STV vote did. Even the Bloc Quebecois has more detractors.

"It didn't meet the arbitrarily applied threshold, it's worthless, I'm not going to play your game, I'll cry if you don't agree that 42% is enough to override the majority."

Come on, grow up. I have issues with every electoral system out there, none of them are perfect. Any system where more than 3 voters take part begins to break down ... but anyone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together can see that STV is better than FPTP. It'd be a step in the right direction. Further groom it ... alter it to make it work better, add in aspects of MMP, PR, etc. Do what needs to be done but the apathy shown to change what hasn't been working ... ever, is appalling.

We have a democracy do we? Yes that's a question not a statement! I've felt for my entire life that what we have is a semblance of representation ... that most of the process merely plays lip-service to representing anyone or anything aside from those that pay the bills for the parties they represent. Very few MLA's, Mayors, Councillors, MP's, etc. truly represent their constituents ethically and conscientiously and for the most part that is a procedural problem. Votes are public, thus the party Whip can whip you into line. Party lines tied to ideological lines are more important than voting by conscience or by the views expressed by your voters.

I voted for STV, and it's a darn sight better than FPTP. It's not perfect ... but few things are and no 100 people are necessarily going to agree without reservation to the same procedural construct to faciliate electorial reform. The Citizen's Assembly did that, and not without detractors. What I am a strong proponent for is change and change from FPTP to STV is a positive change and not the ending point.

I'm tired of people lining up supporters and detractors as if that means anything. Any election based upon a cult of personality is a complete fallacy and a cult of detractors or supporters based upon this point is just as fallacious.

Can we all agree that change needs to take place? Does anyone seriously support FPTP over STV? If you really support FPTP over STV then convince us? It's easy to shoot down an alternative, let's try to do something constructive for a change.

/End of line

Amazing at this late stage in society's evolution the signs of power and greed are still ignored. As long as you continue to ask what's in it for me, the circle will continue to spiral down until will use up all of our capitol. You should be asking what's in this for our children and their children. Perfect does not exist in nature and less so in humans. If you can't see that STV is better than FPTP then you are supporting the status quo. You're accepting that what we have is good enough. The NDP and Liberal's in BC playing ping pong for the next dozen years....yeah that's got me all tingley for our future....

Wow, this is getting pretty close to an evangelical crusade for the true believers of STV...

What will the Libs and ndp do?
Well, I guess they will discredit the 57% to the best of their ability? They probably have a few rabble rousers already at it!
After all, those 2 partys have a lot of money. Union officials will spend union money to stop stv so they have an inside track with the ndp in 3 or 4 elections time when they return to power and Corperate people will influence the media directly and the libs will launch a new "best place to live in the world blitz" with the proviso that the editors do their best to discredit the CA.
Come to think of it, it started in the times colonist imediately after the result came in.
Have you being reading or seeing any "messages from the government of BC" lately? How expensive are these ads? and which advertizing agency is dilivering them from the government to the media? And are these adverts given to all media on the same terms or do some get better deals? and is this work that is tendered or is it just given to friends of friends?
Wouldnt it be interesting if they some with strings?
commentor: clubofrome
posted: 1 Day Ago
Amazing at this late stage in society's evolution the signs of power and greed are still ignored. As long as you continue to ask what's in it for me, the circle will continue to spiral down until will use up all of our capitol. You should be asking what's in this for our children and their children. Perfect does not exist in nature and less so in humans. If you can't see that STV is better than FPTP then you are supporting the status quo. You're accepting that what we have is good enough. The NDP and Liberal's in BC playing ping pong for the next dozen years....yeah that's got me all tingley for our future....

Lynn, if you weren't so laughable you'd be funny.

I have to say that the title "Big Unions" used to confer a inference of collusion in the STV debate is also a ridiculous example of Red-Baiting.

The Fiberals are an example of "Big Money" and all things being equal should be no less villified in comparison.

All Political organizations have an issue with STV because it decentralizes power. It makes it harder for any lobby or interest group to canvas the power brokers if the people have the power to elect individuals instead of just parties.

It'll be hard for a corporation or interest group to support a party and know their money is well spent because of how conscientiously people can vote. They can't ignore all but the top two parties ...

I feel this means that STV will also help disarm the special interest and lobby groups, corporate and Union funding will have to be much more strategic and being that there will be less bang for the buck maybe they'll choose to stay out of it a bit.

The problem with any special interest group openingly campaigning for a candidate or party is the assumptions or prejudices people might have against that organization become intermixed with that of the candidate. Example: If a large contingent of Ultra-Right-Wing entrepreneurs wearing Fraser Institute Pins started campaigning loudly for Gordon Campbell in his riding before the election and went on and on about their Ultra-Right-Wing ideology Gordie would have lost because people would subconsciously start to associate Gordie with their views over his cosmetically more-moderate view.

Campaigning under STV will have to be much more careful ... much more strategic and people MUST take their democratic rights more seriously. If nobody votes we have democracy fo the few and an autocracy for the rest. Apathy does not improve government, society or our world.

/end of line

Hi all,

There's been a lot of discussion on this thread about whether or not it would be right for the government to implement STV given the 58% support the proposal achieved when the binding level was set (partway through the process, as has been noted above) at 60%.

Actually, Justice Tom Berger anticipated this result in 2004 when discussing the choice of threshold for the Vancouver City referendum, so I'll let him speak: in his report, he said that "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." Pretty accurate guess! With 58% support and 97% of the districts in favour, the argument for adoption is even stronger.

Justice Berger made stronger comments about the city referendum, but his arguments seem to apply to STV as well: "I do not think it is right to insist upon a 60 per cent majority. A majority of 50 per cent plus one should be sufficient to guard against the main concern I have expressed – that of future Councils arbitrarily changing the system [this addresses Stuart's 'coin toss' comment]. It should be remembered that, faced with a binary choice in a referendum between wards and the at-large system, the 60 per cent threshold requirement does more than set a high standard for wards: it sets a very low standard for atlarge. That is to say, given the choice between the two systems, the at-large advocates prevail with anything above 40 per cent of the vote. This seems to me to be wholly undemocratic."

I agree with this assessment. Furthermore, Justice Berger also wrote that "the imposition of the 60 per cent standard for a change to wards has called into question the legitimacy of the at-large system when three referendums in favour of wards have been passed and never implemented." I believe that the current referendum has seriously damaged the legitimacy of the current system. In the Nordic Research poll released recently, only 19% of the 42% who voted 'No' said that their main reason for voting 'No' was that they thought the current system was fine - that means 92% of the voters actually want some significant improvements. I think that for the next government to have any legitimacy, the next election cannot be run under existing rules, so it must be changed.

While I agree that larger issues of legislative reform must be dealt with and that changing the voting system is not the whole answer, I think it's a key component - with such changes, we can elect people who are committed to further changes in the operating rules of government.

In short, my argument for passing STV (perhaps in some slightly modified form) is the following:

1. The referendum shows that the vast majority of British Columbians do not regard the current system as legitimate.

2. The process by which STV was recommended by the Citizens' Assembly was widely lauded and was as free of politicization as possible.

3. In a direct comparison with MMP, the CA voted 4:1 in favour of STV.

4. The voters supported the recommendation with a clear overall majority and widespread regional support. The evidence shows that the more educated people are about STV, the more they favour it, and the majority of people voting against it did so precisely because they felt they did not understand it.

5. The legislature is free to act on this 'advice' from the people.

I therefore recommend a combination of further public education about STV and a motion in the house to pass it.

As for any modifications that the legislature might consider, I think that's tough - I haven't heard anyone talking about what those modifications might be. There is a fundamental trade-off between local representation and proportionality. If you want more proportionality without increasing the number of representatives, you must have representatives covering larger districts. BC-STV allows each region to make this tradeoff in its own best interests, so I see the variation in riding size as recognizing citizens' autonomy, rather than a kind of unfairness, as some on the 'No' side have claimed. As has been pointed out, MMP breaks the local link by having province-wide lists and doubles the size of all ridings, thus doubling the workload of constituency MLAs.

Some tweaks to STV (or issues for discussion) I could imagine are:

1. JKR's suggestion of a mini-MMP component to deal with proportionality. I would suggest that there be four regions set up in the province, each with about 5 proportional seats and 20 STV seats - this would give 'resolution' of about 4% (ie, the mismatch between party vote and seat percentage should be within half this - +/-2%). Since STV is much more proportional than FPTP, a much smaller number of proportional seats ought to be needed than under conventional forms of MMP. This would have to be balanced against concerns about fostering small parties (I think STV strikes a nice balance here - with a mini-MMP component, maybe you should have to get 8% of the vote or one constituency seat before your party would be eligible for a proportional seat).

2. Give different voting power to representatives from different regions and increase the number of reps from the North. If riding size is widely recognized as being a big issue, shrink the northern ridings, have more northern reps, but give them each a vote in the legislature proportional to the number of voters they serve. Unconventional of course, but the principle of 'one person, one vote' really ought to apply primarily to the voters, not to MLAs - if a northern MLA is asked to serve 10,000 voters rather than 20,000 in the south, each of them should have half the voting power of a southern rep, but they would make up for this in numbers. I'm sure this would pass the constitutional test of equal 'effective' representation.

3. I haven't heard anyone talking about issues of First Nations representation. As a part Maori myself, I'm aware of the New Zealand solution: a Maori roll in addition to the standard electoral roll. Maoris can choose to register on one or the other rolls (the Maori roll is not geographically based, but covers the whole nation). If my understanding is correct, about 4% of BC's population is First Nations - this would entitle them to 3 or 4 seats that could be allocated as a separate provincewide STV district. Does anyone know of any discussion of this issue, particularly amongst First Nations communities?

Tony, you seem to be missing the point.

Not enough people voted in favour of it whether you prefer it or not.

To suggest that some firm later polled those who voted and determined most are against FPTP is meaningless.

I could churn up hundreds of differenct opinions on how this should be handled simply by mining this Tyee thread.

Everyone appears to have their own fix, so instead of trying to guess at what people want - and you do note many of us have stated repeatedly, there ought to be much more on the table than the simple voting process - let's go back, broaden the options and then narrow down the field based on what voters see rather than what a group of individuals who were backed up against a deadline and a pressure group, settled for.

Please, let's move along and find a winning process rather than trying to tweak a loser. How man more clothes pegs can we dangle from our noses for the sake of sore egos.

I don't have a problem with those who prefer STV to other voting systems, everyone is entitled to their own opinion - what I have a problem with is those here who persistently won't admit that the results never cleared the bar necessary for a win and that the process itself was botched.

When Gordo and his wily crew didn't fund the last lap, (the education of the public on STV) the CA should have been outraged on the public's behalf, refusing to go forward without the funding. If they were really interested in democracy and electoral reform, they would have seen this as a vital and necessary element of it. Instead, they pushed even harder to drive this thing through regardless that the public had little understanding of the STV process itself. That says quite a lot in itself.

The CA never confronted the present government as to "why" this integral part of the process wasn't funded nor did they demand it be so, failing the legitimacy of the process in this regard...content to remain in denial that the process had now become seriously flawed.

Let's move on as allan suggests, and broaden the options next time... doing it right from beginning to end, and let's make sure we're not subjected to another electoral reform ruse by demanding next time that the integrity of the process must trump any attempt to manipulate the outcome in any way.

Allan,

I don't think I'm missing the point. I understand that the result is not legally binding on the government, but the government is certainly free to act as it sees fit. To my mind, the imperative to act increases as the vote approaches the 'magic level' when that level is set significantly above 50% (I'd be more receptive to your argument if the level had been set at 50% - in that case, I'd accept 49.9999% as defeat). However, if 1,020,681 (ie, 60%) of the voters had chosen 'Yes', there would now be no discussion about what to do. Are you telling me that if only 1,020,680 of them had said 'Yes', you would conclude that the proposal had clearly failed to generate enough support, even though only 680,000 or so opposed it? (ie, so that it was clear that support was much higher than opposition?)

In my view, the world is not black and white - if someone sets a rule that says 1,020,681 votes are enough that they'll commit themselves to a course of action, I say that a few less votes than that have essentially the same force (what if a supporter got in a car accident while going to vote and couldn't cast her vote?) and it's at least worth talking about whether they should carry out that action anyway.

In response to Lynn, I have no problem with saying that there were problems with the process and that the vote didn't clear the bar *for a binding result* - my point is that the level of the bar is arbitrary and we should now exercise our powers of reflection and consideration in determining what to do next. I think the results came close enough that we should seriously consider just implementing the proposed system, and I have a hard time understanding why some people feel like coming a few votes shy in a flawed process means that we have to start all over again. It's not like any of the other proposals are so demonstrably superior to STV - they all occupy positions just a little this way or that on some sort of tradeoff curve between proportionality and local representation. Virtually all (was it 95%?) of the CA would have supported either MMP or STV over FPTP - they just preferred STV 4:1. Personally, I'd take either for 2009, though I agree with them about STV.

I also think that it's not the end of the world if we implement STV and later decide to change it. The CA recommended a mandatory referendum/review at the time of the third election in any case, so they weren't viewing the first version as something we'd have to live with unaltered into the indefinite future.

What is clear to me is that FPTP is thoroughly discredited and I think we cannot in good conscience have another election under it. The Referendum Act actually is symmetric with regard to the results - a 'No' vote would not have been binding on the legislature unless it got 60%, so the headlines actually should have read 'Push to Retain Status Quo Falls Short by a Whopping 18%; Reform Now All But Certain'. If STV is flawed, then presumably FPTP would do even worse against another contender, so 42% is the best support it'll ever get - how can we possibly go on with it? That's why I think we should ask the legislature to move forward with some lightly modified version of the current proposal and then turn our attention to the other critical electoral reform issues that we all agree need attention.

What is our individual vote worth if you don't pay attention to it? Isn't that what true electoral reform is all about? "A few votes short in a flawed process" is exactly the point...why continue to uphold the results of a flawed process... and why are you not honouring the democratic principle that if you don't get the required votes ...you don't win. People lose elections by a few votes shy all the time.

Let's move on and do it better next time....

Lynn, I don't want to belabour this, but I'm saying it was a few votes short of what was required to bind the legislature - the legislature is free to act on the advice of the referendum (do you dispute this? strong legal minds such as Berger's don't, nor is Campbell acting as though the result can be ignored). In effect, by falling in this grey zone, we had a plebiscite rather than a referendum, and the government can choose what to do. Politically speaking, there is a strong reason for the government to respect the wishes of the 58% that said yes, rather than the 42% that said no - to my mind, that is honouring the democratic principle. I'd turn your question around - what are a million votes worth if the other 700,000 don't pay attention to them?

BTW, in a regular election, I have no problem saying that one who has a few votes less than another lost (eg, Stevenson vs Mayencourt). Would you accept future election results if the current party in power passed a new law that said incumbents could only be replaced if a challenger got 60% of the vote? By your logic, it seems to me you'd claim that a challenger who got 58% to the incumbent's 42% would have to accept defeat and you'd charge anyone opposing this result with not honouring democratic principles.

Tony, I think you overlook why 60% was set in the first place. That was the agreed upon terms because a fifty-fifty split says nothing about the "momentum of support" for STV by the electorate. Neither does 58%, because 60% was purposely set as that indicator. 60% and above would indicate a growing tendency of public support. There has to be a line drawn, the line in the sand was 60%.

I would hazard a guess that even at 51% STV supporters would still feel there is room to negotiate. So why bother with the 60% at all?

To feel you have genuinely won a game, you must honour the rules. In other words 580,000 votes to 420,000 votes does not indicate overwhelming support for real change.

Lynn, the 60% level was not 'agreed upon' by anyone other than the Liberal party - it was chosen by the government of the time which had 97% of the seats; we, the people, were given no choice in what that level was.

Your notion of 'momentum' is interesting, but is not a generally accepted notion in democracies. Would the Americans have accepted Bush saying that Kerry had to get over 60% to demonstrate momentum for changing the presidency? I think 1 vote more than Bush got would have sufficed.

I also don't accept your claim that a line must be drawn (or, if it must be, why wouldn't it be the 50% that's always used for referendums?). I agree that we shouldn't bother with the 60% - 51% would be enough to make me say STV should be implemented. Of course, I'm also consistent - I'd say that if we had a subsequent referendum and FPTP got 50%+1, we should go back (though I might fight hard on the 'keep STV' side prior to the vote).

Finally, I don't think of this as a game - I think of it as democracy, and a fundamental characteristic of democracy is discussion prior to decision. If you don't consider having over 300,000 more people voting for STV than against an indication of support, I don't know what to say to you. To me, this result means that the suggestion of passing STV at least merits discussion, if not outright approval.

If you bet on a Basketball game, the bookies will put a spread, and you may have to have your team win by 7 points to get your bet.

That is the results. STV won, but it didn't make the spread. The government therefore can ignore the result if they wish, this doesn't mean they should.

The government was never under any obligation to examine electoral reform, but they did. They were never under obligation to form the CA, but they did. They didn't have to have a referendum on it, but they did. And doing so they should have never had anything less a simple majority, but they did.

For supporters to say we should implement it, of course we are biased, for opposers to say otherwise, you cannot say you are any less biased, (especially when those opposing it to begin with are the same people claiming it should be dead) and you have no higher card. The question is not whether we should accept STV, but should the government want to proceed with this, ignore this, or go through this over and over again until people get sick of the whole process. There is a clear validation of some part of the process, is it change, is it stv, is it the citizens assembly? The question is not whether it passed or failed, the question is what does the government do next.

I say this government should pass it. Let it be tried, and then, let it go back to a referendum to see whether people like the alternative or not. Accept the results with skepticism. With a clear acknowledgement that this is an experiment supposed to meet a criteria.

But then again, once tried, will STV opponents will have to stick with the truths. As will proponents. We all know how FPTP works, and many don't like it, if we learn how STV works in BC and feel the same,
move on until we have the best, and stop when we do.