Smart Democracy is informed democracy, and real information is at a premium where you have fundamental dishonesty among elected representatives and the press, particularly where the press serves the interests of governments that serve a corporatist élite. There is no conversation on health care, there is a "sponge" to soak up public input before filing it in the trash on the way to increased private profiteering in the health-care field. It's a long slog getting even a few people to awake to the reality of the level of plundering that's going on, and in the same time frame, our resources are being used by able, well-funded, compact and nimble groups to enshrine corporate policy in law.

Sorry not buying it!
Each such attempt has been sponsored by a lot of money and slanted to produce the result that the powers that be desires.
In other words a gloriuos waste of money!
Gordo is good at that, and not surprised that Harpo follows suit.
Maybe they really believe their own spin-doctors?

The citizens' assembly was a glorious piece of baffle-gab with the members self-selecting (yes they got an invitation, then they got to choose to partake or not), then pumped full of information that was planned and prepared by what essentially comes down to a 'lobby group'.

and

The largest 'problem' has to be the 'security' of any poll or any digital participant in any discussion.

Even here on Tyee many posters are accused of having a slant one way or the other too much, then of being a 'plant' or 'elvira' designed to either de-rail or direct a conversation in a particular direction. Whether these accusations here are true or not such events become more troublesome in a 'deliberative' forum that will actually have some real power...are we prepared to hand over our monies (thru control of the direction of our tax funding of a project or not) to a group of very savvy hackers?

Or to a deliberately sabotaged deliberative system with many 'back-doors' that would allow the 'powers that be' to adjust the results to their advantage?

We do have a long tradition of citizen deliberation in the jury system. It is not terrifically expensive and the room for self selection is limited.

That model of relatively short term, but compulsory, citizen participation could be adapted to other deliberative chores. For example: if we were to draft a dozen citizens (who would be paid for their time) to consider the issue of homelessness and its solutions (see today's lead) we might come up with more solutions than we currently have. However, we would also have to provide such a body with its own research capacity and allow it to hold hearings of some sort where it could compel witnesses.

The advantages of a panel of ordinary citizens considering policy issues lie in the fact they are not looking towards the next election. The disadvantages are that they are not going to have to implement whichever idea they come up with.

It would all depend on how these panels were selected!
Jury selection (as an instance)often includes people who just want to get the thing over with, and will vote either way as long as they avoid a stalemate!
The opposites are the people who just love to make themselves important, and will try anything to get "selected".
The simple fact is that we select people to make decisions when ve go to the polls; if we would take the time to elect sensible members of the various legislatures, then there would not be any problems!
In other words Voters wake up!

Interesting concept:

Rafe used to repeat this bromide on his radio shows as a quasi "Golden Rule."

(i)In a Democracy "The PEOPLE" have the FINAL SAY.

(ii)If given ALL the information "The PEOPLE" make the best decisions.

Yes, I believe this in theory,... but is it practical?

Quasi- Juries of peers /members of the public etc. as decision- making models and beyond simply just the Law Courts is interesting. However, Juries tend to be Uber - focussed on the particulars relevant to a given case. These same particulars may often be irrelevant outside the given case.

However, my further view is that important decisions are more and more being made without mandate, without public input , and the General Public is marginalized and pushed off to the periphery in " Trust us..you elected us.... we are Gov't " type -of -BS mode.

I mean, really, would an objective group of citizens TRULY representative of the General Public have voted for the Olympics...or the Rapid Transit System we have now ? My guess is a resounding "NO" but its obviously too late .

We continually defer power to those who can and do abuse it and are never truly held accountable. One day it will bite us in the ass big time, and we are one day closer each time. Something DOES have to CHANGE.

Surprised to see a couple of negative comments about the alternative voting system. I feel that it was a vast improvement over our first past the post system. It would have been a voting system with a much better nuance for capturing voters' interests rather than the yes or no method of first past the post.

When a CA member comes on the news and admits that STV is too difficult for the general public to understand, you really have to wonder how they arrived at it as their one and only choice for voters. While I too am frustrated with first past the post, the inherent unfairness in how votes are counted and transferred under STV make it unworkable in my opinion. By putting all our eggs into one basket (STV), we have stopped the discussion on other ways to reform the system. That was the big downfall of the Citizen's Assembly. If something like it happens again, perhaps we could get someone other than a Fraser Institute cronie to run it.

You're right, if it is too complicated to understand we shouldn't go near it. It would have to be tabulated by computers because of the vote switching, and my guess is that one of the hackable Diebold machines would be used.

Since the news about electronic voting hazards in the US, I even wonder about the optical scanners used on Vancouver
municiple ballots.

Venezuela used computers for counting up the results of their voting

Once upon a time there was this rather interesting idea. Power over social services would be devolved to a community level with Community Resources Boards.

The problem with the idea is that the CRBs were elected and very few members of the general community could be bothered running. Which meant that the CRBs were taken over by "activists" and then, rather quickly, abolished as unworkable.

Now imagine if they had been selected as juries are and composed of people who were focused on "getting this over." Essentially, the unwilling would tend to do their duty as best they could without trying to make a career out of it. You get the benefit of general wisdom and community knowledge without the difficulties of agendized (yech, what a word) people.

It is likely worth a try.

This debate will pit elitist, who think only lifelong politicians and biased academics, lawyers, union organizers, and developers can make real decisions against those of us who think people are smart enough to make good decisions when they have real information in front of them.

The Citizens Assembly was the best thing thing that had happened to this province in that it gave ordinary citizens the chance to decide what their values and the values of the citizens were and come up with a system that best reflected them.

The system they chose (Single Transferable Vote) is a highly legitimate system used in Australia, Ireland, certain New Zealand elections, soon to be Scotland, and I'm B.C will be as capable as them.

As for Chris H's point that it was run by the Fraser Institute, that is a weak counterpoint. The process was drafted by Gordon Gibson, who was a FI fellow, but his area of study was on federalism and governance rather than conservative economic policy. He was an assistant to Trudeau, and was a provincial liberal before the party was taken over by Campbell. He came up with the model for the CA, which was unanimously endorsed by the Liberals, NDP, and the Greens and then let the CA run autonomously.

The CA took it to believe in their own independence. They drafted 2 models, one based on MMP and one based on STV and worked out scenarios in BC under both. Various members called academics and politicians in jurisdictions using various electoral systems, and put that info in their final decision.

STV came out on top, because they thought that it gave the most choice to the voters and did the best job at reflecting voters interests. It satisfied the values they set for themselves.

Deliberative democracy has that power, in that it levels the playing field between convention and established needs. When citizens are given control, and told that no matter what outside forces say, your decision will be the one presented to the people, then they won't pick the most convenient or most promoted policy but the one that best matches their needs and values. When you pull in people from all walks and background, you will get the widest views represented at the table and at then end of the day, the ideas that best hold their own will be the ones that are established.

Wouldn't it be great if we had a government that asked us what we wanted, discussed it, put forward ideas and then let us to choose whether we liked the result!

"The system they chose (Single Transferable Vote) is a highly legitimate system used in Australia, Ireland, certain New Zealand elections, soon to be Scotland, and I'm B.C will be as capable as them."

And from the comments I've seen from voters in those places, they don't understand it either (ie. It's great because I get more than one vote).

"STV came out on top, because they thought that it gave the most choice to the voters and did the best job at reflecting voters interests. It satisfied the values they set for themselves."

From the comments I've seen from CA members, it came out on top because they don't like political parties, and not because it would more accurately reflect voter's interests.

Personally, I hope we can find some reforms that make sense. I would love to get rid of first past the post, but not at the expense of voter understanding and empowerment. The outright lies that proponents were saying about STV was too much to take. The STV debate is old and hopefully we don't have to do it again. It is one of the only voting systems out there that would stop me from being a voter.

If we are serious about reform in BC, a simple step would be to end corporate and union donations to political parties. The federal government has done it, so what is Campbell scared of?

Chris H
I think the results of the CA deliberation had a lot to do with the way the process was structured and organized by Gordon Gibson and Jack Blaney. I know when I suggested that in correspondence with Mr Gibson he reacted as if he'd been stuck by a hot poker.

I thought at the time that his anger and effusive denial revealled a good deal about what was actually 'behind' the process.

Of course he wouldn't agree.

The STV debate is old and hopefully we don't have to do it again. It is one of the only voting systems out there that would stop me from being a voter.

It could be a good thing if STV discourages certain people from voting. We don't give the vote to three year olds. Why would we want to give the vote to adults with minds of three year olds? If someone is so incredibly dense and/or impatient that they can't even figure out the concept of ordered preferences, their opinion is of little value anyway.

Do you think municipal elections are too complicated because there are many choices to be made? Do you think we should simplify things by only voting for a mayor who then appoints councillors, schools boards, parks boards etc. on our behalf?

Cycling commuter
DO you not acknowledge that the STV system can be gamed by an organized group?

I think the fact that it can - just as the Liberal party 'games' its conventions and often selects its delegates from unrepresentative pools of ethnic voters makes any kind of a multiple member preferential ballot far too susceptible to an organized fiddle for it to be adopted for elections of any importance. It’s not the complexity that is the problem – it’s the way if can be abused by partisan characters like the folks who currently rule the roost in Victoria that make it a bad idea. I wouldn’t go as far as Chris H does but I share his concerns.

As to municipal politics: The turnout for those little exercises in futility is hardly a vote of confidence for the system currently in place in that venue.

As usual, you're more interested in making rude and ad hominem remarks than you are in serious debate anyway.

Stv is almost impossible to game. There are tonnes of references tothat fact if you care to look into it.
I am so sick of people talking through their arses about how complicated it is. It has been in use since the early 1920's at least.
Speaking of diliberate democracy. What bunch of innumerate idiots allowed gordon campbell to get away with his 40% superminority? Think about it. What other country in the world allows 40 luddites to tell 60 forward thinking people what to do?
If campbell makes 40 no votes equal to 60 yes votes, hasnt he broken the democratic standard (one person one (equal vote). Now, (and only in Canada) some voters are more equal than others.
Thats an animal farm reference.
In Ireland (and in any country where people can do mathematics) a majority in a referendum is 50% +1 vote.
In canada a majority can range from 40%+1 vote to 60%+1 vote depending on what the politicians want to hear.
Sure doesnt seem like public participation to me.

Disagree Brian White.
Get 2000 - 3000 Liberal members of each riding who vote ONLY for Liberal candidates in a multi-member riding and see what happens. No 2nd , 3rd , 4th & etc choices at all. Just vote the slate.

Proportional Representation single vote is the only method that can't be gamed. More than one choice per person is absurd.

Just look at how the Liberals sign up members to game an inividual riding nomination as proof that they have both the pathology and the organization to screw with the results.

And if the other parties begin to play the same games the whole system is a failure.

Brian White.
It's not that STV is complicated that is the problem for most people - it's that it attempts a kind of allocation of secondary choices that is, in the end, meaningless.

Voters choose whom they want to represent them singularly and all the other proportional alternatives are irrelevant.

The legislature should be representative of voters’ actual first choices and the only way to do that is the method that's most often used to attain that end - mixed member proportional. So long as the party lists are established and publicized prior to the election there can be little or no problem with the fact that some members are directly elected and others are added to realize the necessary compliment of members in the house.

STV is just needlessly obtuse and tends to be confusing because 2nd, 3rd and 4th choices will tend to be either gamed - as I've described above – ignored; which would be my own tendency because I wouldn't want to give any help or comfort to any candidates who weren’t supportive of the platform I agree with, or selected on a completely random and arbitrary basis – almost on a flip a coin rationale.

As an intellectual exercise, STV seems to make sense among a group of people who've spent several months studying and reinforcing other AC members prejudices – especially when some of the CA leaders may well have had significant prejudices with respect to certain conclusions from the start. The enthusiasm with which STV forces have kept watch on this issue since tends to reinforce my conclusion that you guys are far from impartial.

As a practical step toward a more democratic way of choosing our servants, STV would have been better than the method we have now and I supported it on that basis. But only because it was the only option presented as an alternative to FPP. I voted for it with no enthusiasm.

If the CA process hadn't been so constrained and elitist in the first place, it would have permitted voters to choose between a range of options. I don't suppose that's the fault of a bunch of people like you who seem to be nothing more than flaks for a particular system.

Most people I know who voted against it did so not because they were against reform but because they didn't like the STV solution.

G West,

To be honest with you, I think you misunderstand STV as your comments represent exactly why we so strongly advocate STV.

One of the reason I like STV is that I as a voter have the greatest variety of choice in choosing a candidate. Right now, I am given 3 or 4 choices and my choice rarely gets picked. I don't see anyone in the legislature (let alone the government) who I can relate to. There is no one in their twenties, and there are few who have any understanding of how the internet can be used to communicate with their constituents, and I don't like it.

Do you feel the same way?

What hooked me on STV is the new relationship I can gain with my representative. My district will have ~5 MLA who will represent the area. And the chances are much higher that I will form a connection with one or more of them. It goes from 5/600, to 5/ 6 chance that my vote will go to someone who I really like.

Am I wrong in thinking that this may actually increase voter satisfaction and turnout?

This connection will not be based on party policy alone, but on how well I feel they represent me. If one of them doesn't listen to my concerns, I will turn to another and if they meet with me and listen to my needs, then they can be assured that I will be on the street campaigning for them in the next election.

Under STV candidates need to earn their votes. If a politician has done a good job then they are going to get re-elected, and you may always have 2 or 3 candidates who get elected for consecutive elections because regardless of party, they've gained the trust of a significant number of voters. They will be the first choice of a majority of voters, and most voters will happy that their first choices get elected. The other few seats are open.

I know, if given a choice I would vote for a candidate before a party and that's how i believe democracy should work. But if my first choice doesn't get elected, then I hope at least I can still have my vote considered to help somebody else get elected. Thats what STV is about, opening up 5 or 6 seats, and letting the best representatives get elected and giving each voter a unique relationship be between them and at least one of their MLAs. My first vote would probably be for a local small business owner or a environmental activist under 40, but if my favorite doesn't earn the support of the rest of my community, I still want to use my vote to support someone else who I think I could relate to.

STV seems to be a good mix between representational and deliberative democracy. It allows regions to vote for a council of 5-7 people who will represent them and promotes the forming of community councils brought together occasionally in the legislature.

Obviously, all of this may be theory, but it seems pretty plausible.

I challenge someone to tell me how under STV, less voters would feel their vote counted.

dangrice.com
More or less completely disagree with your optimism.

I think you miss the point. I'm not interested in a method that might guarantee a lot of peoples' second or third choices might end up in a legislature. That's how WAC Bennett was elected in 1952. It's a bad idea for a lot of reasons. It also tends to overemphasize the importance of multi-member urban ridings over large but more sparsely populated single member rural ridings.

The idea that anyone is going to have a unique relationship with his or her MLA is bizarre. It ain't gonna happen - especially in big urban ridings.

I think the objective is to have a house that represents - in its proportions - the 'first' choices of the voters and I especially don't like the way STV facilitates the forming of cliques of voters who game the system to maximize support for special interests. I can imagine all sorts of marginal candidates who would be elected under STV and I think it has the potential to be a disaster.
We have a disfunctional legislature now with only two parties - what would it be like with 13?
We don't need the multiplicity of 'individual' ginger groups in the legislature that STV would almost guarantee - in my view.

I'm sure voters would feel their vote might count - but that hardly means the governments so elected would be very effective or cooperative.

The party system may have its faults but I think they can be better addressed by a simple proportional system where each voter has one vote. I think STV creates as many potential problems as it solves and I still think it is a system which can be gamed by specific groups of voters - in fact your support seems to reinforce my view.

I can't understand why anyone would want that.

The point is not that one has a personal relationship with your MLA - it is that the nature of the deliberative body more accurately reflects the character of the whole electorate.

We need less elitist influence in the house and STV would give us more. In my view.

So no, STV is not for me. I'd have been okay with it if it had replaced FPP in the referendum - in fact I voted for it - but not because it was what I wanted. Since it was turned down I now think we should look for a better alternative.

The thing mostly wrong both STV and the newfangled 'deliberative democracy' is that it is wimpy. Where are the upright Canadians, who can make a choice, stand by it, lose or win, and go on and make the best out of a loss?

We are this hooked on 'talking about it' till we all wither and die, or everything we started out discussing becomes moot point.

Lobby groups of any kind are an abomination. The voters speak in an election. Everything after that is in the hands of the politicians they put their trust in. Attempts at extortion of special consideration from special interest groups are simply maneuvering to insert an element of mob rule into our democracy. If one has questions or concerns, the time to speak is before the election.

dorothy
I think you're exactly right - and maybe between the two of us we'll succeed in encouraging dangrice and the other parvenus of this silly system to look a little more critically at what it could mean if it's ever adopted.

I hate the all or nothing at all of First Past the Post but that's no reason to turn parliament into an endless sewing circle; or a huge quilting bee, if you prefer.

G West,

57% of British Columbians supported changing the electoral system and giving STV a chance. Thats the reason we are fighting for it, and why we think its unjust that people are accusing us of lying while stating things that have little to do with STV.

Do you know why WAC Bennett got elected? Because the Liberals and Conservatives of the 1950s thought they could use a preferential ballot to game the system. And do you know what, voters decided that given the choice, they would rather support a 3rd party out of nowhere than the two parties that had shown themselves to be out of touch with the people. And 2 elections lated WAC Bennett removed the Preferential Ballot because he knew that it made his government vulnerable to the will of the people. And that system had only 1 seat ridings, which removes the benefits of STV.

We want to see politicians afraid of the will of the voters.

That suddenly, if they do a poor job, they may move from being a voters first choice to their second choice, and you know what, most of the time and for most voters, its only the first choice that counts.

I really can't understand what you want in an electoral system.

You say you want proportionality with one vote (which is the Single in STV) but then you say you don't want to see 13 parties represented. How is any pro rep system going to keep out small parties, or ensure that the legislature works well.

You say you are afraid of the system being gamed? Every system is gamed. Look at our elections here? DO I need to give examples from recent Canadian and US elections on how parties play with voters?

In Israel, they have a strict PR system, one vote per voter, but you only vote for parties. And look at the leadership they get. In Germany, they have 2 votes, one for the local rep, and one for the party. Over there, parties will make arrangements to tell their voters to support another parties local candidate if they vote for the party. So many of the parties intentionally get no local representation but win a lot of list seats to make up the difference. You still may have a local rep who completely disagrees with your causes, and then who do you turn to?

There is no perfect electoral system, but if you put almost any system side by side with STV, you will see each has its pros and cons, and it all depends on your values.

Dorothy,

I will say that you have a legitimate argument. If you believe the point of government is to elect a strong leader every 4 years, and then go on with life, then yes, our current system is the best for you. I actually respect your view, as it is a legitimate view and it depends on exactly what you believe the role of government will be. Under a strong majority government, the most things get done, and you arguably get the most efficient government.

This is the fear we have, if people think the status quo is fine then what are we wasting out time on. (57% of BCers disagreed with you by the way)

If people actually believe all power should be within the Premiers office, and if he farts the whole province should take a deep breath, and full stream ahead with P3s, and Gateway and all other projects, then they've got the right government. Heck, the US gave Bush his mandate, and who are these Wimpy groups to protest that they shouldn't stay the course in Iraq, and maybe keep out of IRan and NK. He was given the trust of the American people, so he should be free to abuse it all he wants. Why the heck would anyone want deliberative democracy when it works well. (G West, are you sure you're fine with the Status Quo?)

But everyone has there right to their own view. If you believe government works best with strong leadership, then nothing should get changed.

If you think you would rather see bills really debated, see all representatives treated equally, power decentralized from the Premier's office, and representative elected to represent the diversity of our communities, then join Fair Voting BC and help us make a difference.

I really can't understand what you want in an electoral system.

It’s not that difficult.

I was very clear dangrice. Didn't you read what I posted? You just don’t want to listen – it’s pretty common in those who are disciples of a particular point of view.

I want a legislature represented by members directly reflective of the proportions of people who vote for each of several parties. Exactly what I said. I could care less who your second choice is – for God’s sake – or your third or 8th choice either. It’s utterly meaningless. We need to concentrate our minds a little, decide what we believe in and vote for it – and have a reasonable chance that if enough other people agree that at least some of the members of a party that shares those beliefs will have a voice in forming the body that governs us all. Not much really. Fairness and equity – but no illusions that every silly issue in the world is going to be the subject of parliamentary debate.

I don't want a system where a neighbourhood coffee klatch of one particular kind of special interest in each of several multi-member urban ridings can succeed in getting numerous ginger-group representatives into the house on a regular basis. It’s enough of a fruitless talk-shop now – as Dorothy rightly point out.

We've seen how groups like that just gamed the Liberal leadership campaign to get Stephane Dion elected. You can read about it in a Globe & Mail article from Dec 6 by Tarek Fatah.

I'm not fine with the status quo and I clearly pointed out I voted for STV - but only because the elitist and compromised CA process dreamed up by Gordon Gibson and the Fraser Institute and gamed by bunch of parvenus like you was the only option I had.

I apologize. I should have voted No apparently because now you’re trying to say that I and the folks I know who held their noses and voted for STV were expressing a positive reaction. We weren’t; in fact, we were just desperate.

So I'm still hoping for real Proportional representation and you can take that message to your buddies at Fair Voting BC . I like representative government - I'm just not happy with the way the representatives are chosen now. When you start to understand what’s wrong with STV and stop promoting nothing but that option, you’ll get my enthusiastic support. That’s a promise.

I sure don't want every Christian and Muslim and Jewish and Atheist and Humanist and animal rights and Cryogenic group gaming 'your' system to get their special interest groups into the legislature.

20 odd years of Wacky Bennett was a bad enough consequence of the other time we used a preferential ballot, don't you think?

There are more than enough whackos there now.

G West,

That had a level of clarity that I found your other posts lacking.

If I were you, I'd read your other comments carefully, as some of your criticisms about STV apply equally if not more so to party based proportionality system which seems to be what you are advocating. For your interest, STV in any political science book is classified as a proportional representation system and the difference between 1st vote allocation and party seats is usually between 3-5%. However the key difference is voters have more say in which members from a party get to sit in the legislature, and removes some of the barriers facing independent candidates.

I acknowledge that various people have various values and if the system I favor doesn't meet your values then its fine, but I'd rather argue about the purpose of our electoral system than to argue about whether nightmarish systems are plausible. Some people value strong government (which seems to be Dorothy's view), other people think that political parties are the cornerstone of our electoral district (Your View), and some such as myself believe that it should be the individual representative and their ability to stand up for their constituents that is most important. If your idea is party based, then thats fare enough and we should argue on that rather than on improbable results.

STV proponents believe that the voter should have the ultimate say, but I know others don't believe that voters have the education or the experience to make informed choices and that is what political party mechanisms are for. I personally find those views to be elitist, but they are valid views that have existed in political science since the days of Plato's Republic. If you believe this, then I believe the burden falls on you to explain to voters why their views are not as valid if they are not a member of a political party.

One big question~

1) You don't want every Christian and Muslim..Animal rights etc.. group to have a voice in the legislature. But why?

What good is a legislature if we don't allow divergent views in the system. I'd rather us give the righteous right one or two seats in our legislature, than have them infiltrate parties and work with hidden agendas like they do now. What harm does allowing special interests to come out in the open? Look at the infiltration of the business in the BC Liberals, the Unions in the NDP, religious groups in the federal Conservatives which exist already. Wouldn't you rather have them identify their affiliations at the time of running?

Anyways, I can't even understand why you raised this point if you are in favour of other PR systems.

The only system that can keep out special interest groups is a single member plurality systems like we have now. All proportionality system, including MMP, STV, Party List are going to allow groups who can get 5-10% of the vote to have a seat. Look at Israel or Germany.

2) WAC Bennett. It was single member preferential (or AV), not multi member preferential. And it gave him 4 years of government. Then they went back to plurality, and that gave him the other decades. STV would probably never have given him a majority, he was always around 35-40% of the popular vote.

Dangrice:

That's not what representative government is all about. This is not an exercise in direct democracy, which seems to be what you favour.

If you want that then I'm prepared to dissolve the legislature and give the land back to the First Nations. We'll set up a modified Swiss canton system and foregather a few days each year to make all the direct democratic decisions. Civil servants seem to manage to rake in the money and spend it pretty well without Gordon’s involvement now.

The current bunch doesn't spend much time on deliberation or in the house - if you hadn't noticed.

I'm perfectly happy with MMP systems like those that they have in Germany and Israel. But I don't want a system where special interest groups from the Fraser Valley can get members elected for something like the 'left-handed Jews and Christians don't abort a goat party'.

I know what system elected Bennett. I wish it hadn't. The fact that he returned to a FPP system shows he knew something you don't seem to understand. Preferential ballots are crazy - don't go there - especially for government that is a long way from the local level.

Choosing which members are your second, third or fourth pick is irrelevant in my opinion. This isn't a high-school civics lesson. If he or she doesn’t get the votes, I'm not interested in handing some idiot a loving cup just because he participated. Members who stand for election in ridings – in a MMP system – shouldn’t be eligible for the Party list anyway. I don’t want the list members to be nothing but also-rans who’d just been rejected by their local voters – which is exactly what’s going to happen in the big urban ridings in your STV boondoggle. So every party would have to very carefully consider whether they want their members to stand for election or be on the list.

I'm perfectly happy if a party that manages to get 10% of the total vote in this province also gets 10% of the seats - you're the one who wants more special interests in the legislature not me - 10% of the votes in BC is many people and they deserve representation.

As to the danger of having people who are dedicated to special interests over democratic principles and human rights I'd only have you look to our current Prime Minister or to the role of special interests in the election of Stephane Dion as Liberal leader.

This is a can of worms we don't need. Moreover, the recent vote about reconsidering the issue of Gay marriage proves it in spades.

As I said, I regret voting Yes in the referendum - it was a mistake born of desperation. I won't make it again, although I hope some politicians will one day make the changes needed to ensure fairness and equity - without the insanity of rampant special interests on a very local basis that STV would lead to.

STV makes sense in smaller local and regional elections for things like city council: For the government of a province or the whole country - not at all.

You don't read very carefully apparently. My views on this aren’t the least ambiguous.

Alright G West,

This is getting so frustrating. I'm reading every single one of your points and every time you raise a new one, it seems to weaken your argument. At least Dorothy was clear that she like strong government.

YOU: "I'm perfectly happy with MMP systems like those that they have in Germany and Israel. But I don't want a system where special interest groups from the Fraser Valley can get members elected for something like the 'left-handed Jews and Christians don't abort a goat party'"

ME: Israel isn't MMP, its strict PR. Please look at Israel's election. Go to Wikipedia. Israel only elects religious groups. Every church has their own party. 12 Parties got elected. (Including: International World Sephardic Association [of] Torah Keepers) If you can get 2.3% of the votes you got 3 seats. This must be the worst system around!!! I don't want this either, but if you have List PR, thats what happens. STV doesn't do this. No one is accountable in Israel, if a party does a horrible job there leader still gets re-elected. The rest of the list is useless, there is no local representation. Germany spends half of its time banning political parties so they don't get elected!

YOU: "If he or she doesn’t get the votes, I'm not interested in handing some idiot a loving cup just because he participated."

ME: STV eliminates these candidates and allows voters to transfer their votes back to a mainstream party or another candidate. Thats why we care about a 2nd choice on the ballot, we don't want to punish voters just because their 1st choice isn't electable. After the first round we say, sorry nut job, your gone, but lets find out by running who you stole votes from and we'll give them back. Its about being fair to the voters. If I go to the video store and want to watch a movie but the store doesn't carry it, do I not have right to choose a different movie?

YOU: "I'm perfectly happy if a party that manages to get 10% of the total vote in this province also gets 10% of the seats - you're the one who wants more special interests in the legislature not me - 10% of the votes in BC is many people and they deserve representation. "

ME: I just want fair elections and to vote for a candidate I can relate to, but I don't believe its up to either of us to say who should or shouldn't get in the election. If STV gives a party with 10% of the vote, 10% of the seats, would you be happy? (It does) The difference is, that I want to vote directly for the candidate. I don't want 10 people to start a party with an appealing name, and get them and their friends elected even if no one would normally vote for them as individuals. I want, and so do most people to vote for the best candidate.

YOU: You don't read very carefully apparently. My views on this aren’t the least ambiguous.

ME: I read very carefully, thats why I've tried to address point for point everything you say. You tell us you agree with Dorothy than a majoritarian system is best, but then you tell me you don't think a majoritarian system is best. You tell us you don't like STV because it allows special interest groups to get elected, but then you tell us you prefer Israel where its only special interest groups who get elected. You tell us you don't like that a preferential ballot got Bennett in, but you tell us that you are glad he switched back to a SMP system that kept him in. You tell us our current system is completely open to special interest groups, but then you think changing to STV will let special interest groups in. (And for some reason which you won't say, you think that other systems won't)

Have I misunderstood you on these. Can you not see why I'm a little unclear. Is there something between the lines I'm missing?

Quit complaining.

You brought up Israel; it certainly isn't STV. I prefer MMP because it ties results to the legislature much more closely than straight PR. I don't think there's a problem with what I've said - clearly.

You're supposed to be the expert - I don't want a transferable ballot or a preferential ballot. And I don't want STV. It sounds like a social disease and would be just about as bad if we ever adopt it. (That was a joke)

One vote per person. Chose your man. One member elected per riding.

The legislature topped up by members chosen from party lists to make up discrepancies between members elected in ridings and the balance of seats in the legislature. Easy Peasey.

Start your own party, fill your pants - if you get the minimum (5%) lets say - you get 5% of the seats. Simple.

The idea of multiple member ridings is absurd - riding boundaries should just be altered by a professional non-partisan body that operates completely independent of the government in power.

STV allows groups way too much sway in particular ridings with several members and preferential ballot just plays into that.

Clear.
I don't think anyone should vote for someone they can 'relate' to. That's just nuts - politicians do too damn much relating to people now. We need less, not more of that kind of stroking.

Bennett is an illustration of the terrors that the preferential ballot can deliver - I never said I was happy he gamed the system and I never wrote that I was glad he got elected once as opposed to the five or six times he actually was elected. A straight preferential ballot would likely have elected Bennett most of those years anyway – but some of the governments would have been minorities. I like minority government. The politicians are forced to be more honest if there’s a real opposition in the house – unlike the period 2001 – 2005 in BC.

I used Bennett merely as an example of what a stupid system the preferential ballot is.

I don't know what's unclear.
A. I want proportional representation so we can never have another result like 2001.
B. I don't want special interest group to use multiple member ridings and preferential ballots to game the system.
C. I don't think there's anything wrong with MMP.

D. I think your idea of voting for the candidate is a farce. People will vote for the party and the platform - except for those idiots in the Christian heritage party who'd use this dodge to finally get a member elected in a multiple member riding.

It's just too easy for people like Campbell and the Fraser institute to manipulate. We need more professional politicians who have some commitment to ideals and promises - people who aren't trying to relate to their friends and corporate enablers.

I'll ask you some questions: Why don't you support a straightforward MMP system that guarantees the measure of support actually determines the make up of the house?

Why would you want this insane system which is also going to require computer tabulation, which I haven't even dealt with?

Why do you pretend that 57% Yes actually means STV is popular when we both know it isn't?

Why won’t you and the rest of Fair vote BC admit you have an axe to grind?

1) While I think MMP is slightly fairer to the parties than our currwent system, it isn'r more fair to the voter. You are still faced with your local rep being elected by plurality, which mean the local rep who is supposed to be the first person to turn to for local issues is elected with the same 30% of votes they have now. So people have no local representative to turn to. The fairness is given to party list, so I as a voter only can help determine how many members of a party get in and not who from a party does. And do you know what, look at Germany and you see one party gaining a majority of local reps, and the others splitting up the list seats.

This for me is not representative democracy, because under an MMP system I still have no representative who stands for me. I have 10 parties, but my local issues may not mean a thing to them.

2) 57%. This is the number that says people choose moving away from the present system and towards the CAs recommendation. Its the level of disattisfaction with the current system who would rather try some new fangled abbreviation called BC-STV that the system we have now. I'm quite justified in saying a majority of people would rather try this alternative than our current system. I use this number when addressing people who say STV was rejected by the voters, or the current system is fine. I use this number when saying that we should give STV a chance, because thats what a majority of voters said.

The only reason we don't have STV today, is because half way in to the CA, the Liberals decided that 50+! (the rule for all other referendums in this province including the Olympics, the native rights bargaining etc) was too attainable.

3) I'll admit I have an axe to grind (but I can't do it for my other directors). I feel that my vote in the last few elections hasn't counted, because the person who I thought would represent me wasn't elected and I had no other opportunity to express my vote. I have an axe to grind with the two major political parties in this province who under majority governments were too arrogant to listed to voters. I have an axe to grind with a political system that allows 43% of voters end up with 3% of seats is unfair as in 2001, or a system that gave majority to the party with the secon most votes as in 1996. I have an axe to grind because their is no one in the legislature under 30 to represent the views ofd British Columbians. I have an axe to grind because to often special interest groups hijack nomination contests and voters in this province cannot vote for who they like. I have an axe to grind becuase the government of British Columbia does not respect the overwhelming support of a majority of Britsh Columbians. I have an axe to grind when people start making up a lot of lies about how STV can elected "abort a goat parties", when there is nothing in any STV jurisdiction to show anything close to that. I have an axe to grind with people are so self righteous in their political ideas that they would turn against a voting system because they fear it would allow a Christian to come out openly in the legislature. I have an axe to grind with people who say they support democratic ideas but think that voters are not to be trusted in their decisions. I have an axe to grind with plurality systems and their lack of demographic voting. I have an axe to grind with people who think we need fairness, but only if its limited to the left or the right. I have an axe to grind with people who think we shouldn't have strong representatives speaking out for local issues, and would rather have parties run by sinsiders choke up our political system. I have an axe to grinf with people who think that voters only for for political policy and don't want to vote for the quality of their representative. I have many axe's to grind!

G West, I think you should go around and ask some of your neighbours whether they have the same axes to grind. At the end of the day, I think you will see something closer to 70 or 80% of respondents say yes.

Big deal! I don't want a government where all you have to do to get something done is to plead your special circumstances with your MLA. We have too damn much of that now. I want to rebuild a professional and competent civil service like the one we used to have in this province. Instead of the millions of dollars Campbell is now spending on spin doctors and media monitors and public relations consultants they could actually be serving the citizens better that the opportunists in the legislature are now.

I have polled my neighbours and friends. That all agree with me that STV is just another way to pander to special interests. Why do you think I bother arguing with someone like you who clearly isn’t listening.

You really don't pay attention do you?

A solid majority want a legislature that is:
a) representative,
b) reflective of the actual proportion of votes for the whole province,
c) professional and careful and not subject to the kind of manipulation and domination by a particular single individual that the current variety is,
d) fair to all residents throughout the province and not weighted in favour of urban ridings with multiple members and people who have problems relating to the fact that plural society is a matter of compromise and not self-aggrandizement.

I think you and the STV acolytes are the self-righteous ones. Just because some of you spent a few months discussing arcane political theory under the aegis of the Fraser Institute, Gordon Gibson and his clone doesn't mean you've found the Holy Grail.

I think you and that gang have a huge axe to grind. STV lost, for whatever reason and it's now time to move on to something better. As I said, I voted for it and I wish I hadn’t and the vast majority of my neighbours and friends feel exactly the same way – people of all ages.

You give me 10% of the time and 10% of the money the CA had to create its current batch of disciples and I'll have 90% of the people supporting me. And I won’t have to make the kind of elitist case you and your gang have tried to foist on the voters of this province.

Moreover, it'll include a majority of the under 30 people too. They aren't all like you Danny boy and they are beginning to see the virtue of breaking out of the current me, me, me mode guys like you are stuck in. Get over it. Try and find another way to put some meaning in your life. You can join me at the soup kitchen next Saturday morning and I’ll introduce you to some folks with a real case for change. Positive change.

There is another very real referendum again on STV coming up in 2009, so our work is to make sure voters of this province don't get dissuaded by the kind of misinformation you wish to disseminate. You can call us self-righteous or whatever, but we're up against more than you and your petty name calling. We're up against real entrenched interests, which are very real in the system and fear change.

We are up against Big Business, who know that unless change happens the BC Liberals are going to have their hands on the reward purposes for the foreseeable future.

We're up against Big Labour, who know that STV will end their domination of the NDP riding associations, as their choices will no longer the only ones given to voters.

We are up against the political elite, who know that by providing voters with the ultimate vetting ability, "Special Interests" will have to come out of the backrooms and will be judged by the voters and while special interests may exist, at the end of the day the voters will have power.

Just because your little black and white (or blue and red) world may reach no farther than partisan interests, some of us still believe in deliberative democracy, and the value of having an individual representative.

You may not care if people in this province are not represented, but some of us actually do.

You may not care what voters really intend to do at the votes, whether they were voting for the person or the party, but we do.

You may not care about having people in the legislature who are willing to speak against their party heads on local issues, but we do.

Before you go on spreading your false characterizations, ask yourself why if STV is going to put this province in the hands of special interests groups, where were these groups the last time around? Why is the torch being carried by a pack of wayward Liberals, NDPers, Greens, and a bunch of independent people with no politcal affiliation.

You've had one pulled over your head by a whisper campaign, and I hope you understand that.

There is no sinister forces behind STV, it was chosen by 158 random British Columbians who were smart enough to cut through the crap.

Whether you like it or not, British Columbians are wanting to end the business as usual partisan bickering in Victoria.

If our MLA aren't accountable, if they don't represent British Columbians, not just the party of the moment, but in their composition, in their issues, then why do we bother with this facade called government?

What are you talking about? Who called anyone names? Your name is Dan, isn’t it?

What disinformation? You don't actually much like coming to grips with the realities I've spelled out - you much prefer making accusations. A tactic I see an awful lot of on these threads from some pretty right-wing people. Funny!

Sure is nice to have such marvelous self-appointed heroes out there slogging for us. Thanks, but no thanks.

You know something, if you want support you'd be wiser to deal with what I actually say and stop being so defensive.

You haven't, by the way, answered my very direct and very specific questions. Why not?

Just like Gordon Gibson, when called, you start laying down a stream of ad hominem smoke.

I'll tell you why more ordinary people don't support STV. Because they see its faults - the same faults I've tried very politely to point out to you.

If you really care about better governance, your behavior here hasn't proved it.

What it has proved is that you have a reason for supporting a radical and untried method of polling which seems more attuned to the interests of groups who aren't really interested in the broad range of average people who want honest government for all - not just folks who think they have the answers for the rest or us because they've spent a few months in a Fraser Institute hothouse.

How about answering my questions. I've been very clear about why I dislike STV.

How about a little more honesty and a lot less politics. I belong to no Political party, by the way.

I happen to think for myself and so do most of my friends. You're the only person who comes on these threads all the time with one purpose in mind - pulling people's heads over to support something you've been sold.

How come?

What is wrong with MMP voting? If it delivers a representative house why do we need the extra complication and risks attendant to STV?
Why do you care so much about urban voters to provide them with multiple member ridings?
Why do you care so little about rural ridings that they won’t get multiple member ridings?
Why do you support a complicated methodology that will require computer tabulation?
Why can’t you see the dangers of injecting more special interests into a government that is already rife with them?
If you believe in direct democracy, why don’t you support a switch to the Swiss canton system?
Why are you such a bunch of proselytizers for a particular ‘kind’ of balloting?
Why should I believe you aren’t a bunch of elitists just because the CA came up with a radical voting method that isn’t used by any country (except the Republic of Ireland, which is a much more homogeneous society than the one we have here in Canada) for elections directly analogous to the use it would be put in BC?

Direct enough for you?

I have a longer list of questions for you when you've finished with those, by the way.

I'm sorry Dan, I forgot it's also used in the tiny and also rather homogeneous country of Malta. Very convincing.

We've had enough wacky experiments in BC lately - like selling of huge parts of our social infractructure and resource assets.

Would it be wrong of me to say that if we're gonna change our electoral system we use a method that's working pretty well in a place like, oh, Germany.

I'd like something I know is going to work. I spend too much of my time with my fingers crossed now.

My last point in the post above would convey my meaning better if it read:

Why should I believe you aren’t a bunch of elitists when the CA came up with a radical voting method that isn’t used by any country (except the Republic of Ireland and Malta, which are much more homogeneous societies than the one we have here in Canada) for elections directly analogous to the use it would be put in BC?

I'm waiting.

Very iteresting debate,poor Dan has been given the "STV fan club" torch for now,when he get's tired B.C.'s own prince of darkness Bruce Hallsor will carry it for a while then some other former C.A. member who puts themself above the average person in this province will flail away in a desperate attempt to sway ones thinking.
G. West is right in that the ones that are the most "closed minded" are these fanatics that had no problem with the fact that Gordon Campbell purposely put a stop to the notion of the citizens actually choosing their favorite system for themselves, what was he afraid of ?
This good idea was turned into a big mess and if the NDP had a brain they would jump on it and put a promise forward to the voters of B.C. and offer an MMP system if elected, this is what over 80% of the public submissions asked the C.A. for in the first place. many voters want change,

But STV? "No" Thanks!

Rick
It's actually worth a short trip to Dan's own site Dangrice.com

It puts his attacks here that are directed toward various existing political entities into a nice context given that fact that his own 'political' connections are pretty much upfront over there. Interesting that he isn’t generating a lot of traffic though.

If he actually came round here more often than just to spread STV snake oil he'd learn that a lot of folks around here see that MMP would be a great way for 'GREEN' voters to actually turn their votes into some representation in the Legislature without turning the assembly into a snake pit of mindlessly selfish special interests.

Nothing worse than a true believer when it comes to most things!

It must also get up former Reformer Danny's nose a little bit that there is a grand total of one reader's comment on his whole 'media rich' (that's his term) website. Futility in action, I'd say.

Moreover, that one comment ain't exactly positive.

Who hoo! I got a comment!

Blogs are all about futility but everyone should have one.
Answers to your questions..

1) What is wrong with MMP voting? If it delivers a representative house why do we need the extra complication and risks attendant to STV?

The only local representation is plurality, which will end up being the exact same composition as now, some regions go all Liberal, others go NDP. If you live in the Fraser Valley, and you have a problem with the government policy, which rep will you turn to. Provincial closed-list top ups I have issues with, because I believe everyone in government should be elected, not added to a list in return for some party favours and given a free ride into the legislature. Also, unless you somehow conceive a regional list system, you have no way of guaranteeing remote areas of the province will get representation from the lists. Also, the representation is still not representative by demographic, only by party preference. Short of everyone in BC creating their own party (which tends to happen in party PR Systems) there is no mechanism for ensuring mixed representation locally.

I know MMP would benefit the Greens, but I still have issues that all representatives need to be tied to a constituency, and list for me are not a democratic system. I know a lot of Greens (especially the established party members) prefer MMP because it would guarantee a number of them got elected without having to actually run a campaign. I still think any representative who gets elected must show they can EARN the confidence of a significant number of voters. Our current system does that but denies to representation to more than it delivers.

2) Why do you care so much about urban voters to provide them with multiple member ridings? Why do you care so little about rural ridings that they won’t get multiple member ridings?

The goal is to create an average magnitude of about 5. I'd personally prefer 10 member ridings in Vancouver, but I believe its been capped out at 7. I think the plan is to have the interior ridings at a 3-5 members, with a possible 2 member riding in the Peace River ridings. This is currently before the BC boundaries commission sowe will know within the next year the exact boundaries. It should allow the top 2 or 3 parties in each region to secure a proper proportion of seats, as well as to possibly open it up to others. In an idea world, we would all riding at 5-7 members, but this would entail either leaving too large of a region or increasing the number of representatives in the house. (Which would need to be done under MMP anyways)

At the end of the day, we want to have as many voices in a regional council as possible but it was the rural voices who wanted to maintain smaller magnitudes. As long as you have 2 or 3 representatives for a region, its likely that people will send both a member of the government and a member of the opposition, so at the very least they someone to speak out against legislation as well as have an in with the governing coalition.

In urban areas, we find different needs. While rural areas are faced with infrastructure and land use policies and are slightly more homogenous, urban areas benefit most from a demographic based representation. There is no logical reason why Vancouver should have 10 geographical ridings, because almost every provincial issue affects more than one riding. However, if you look at Vancouver at a whole, you may see that we want to give representation to demographics groups.

We want to provide a voice for immigrants, for students, for environmentalists, alongside a representative for unions, for business, for land owners. The larger an STV magnitude the more accurate of a reflection it will provide. When you apply the transfers to a rural district, (we see in the rural areas of Ireland and Australia) you will actually find vote allocations actually spread out more geographically than demographically.

3) Why do you support a complicated methodology that will require computer tabulation?

They've been doing in manually in Ireland (yes Malta) and Australia for years, and STV has existed since the 1800s in various elections. Our preference is to use computerized counting with auditable paper records so as to minimize the time until results are known.

Maybe we are a bunch of computer geeks pushing this, but at the end of the day, whatever we can do to most accurately represent the intentions of the voters is what we should pursue. There are a few variations of the STV counting system, (as well as regional open-list) but they all give pretty much the same results for the voters, although a loosing candidate may have preferred an alternative system, (after the fact).

4) Why can’t you see the dangers of injecting more special interests into a government that is already rife with them?

I think there is two questions here. First of all, what kind of special interests do you think will get in. Any time you have a PR system you loose the idea of a "mean" candidate, and you open it up to "issue based candidates". However, their strength is negligible generally and if there issue is legitimate then the worst that happens is the government may prioritize their issue. But if an issue based candidate gets elected, this shows that its an important enough issue to get the support of their constituents (~13% in a 7 member riding) and probably should be considered anyways. Under any STV model though, a majority of seats are still given to the major parties, because they attract the best candidates and earn the support of the most people. This is why a candidate based system is essential.

One of the questions is how can special interests be removed from the system. Any PR system (including STV) is almost bound to eliminate majority governments, which are really the ONLY WAY special interests have any power. If you get rid a majority government, the opposition members can pull the strings on megaprojects, so the power of lobbyist is greatly reduced. Special interests will still exist, but in order to have any real power they would have to gather support from various factions and independents, which would be a lot more expensive than just donating to Kevin Falcon's campaign.

5) If you believe in direct democracy, why don’t you support a switch to the Swiss canton system?

I would love this although my personal preference would be for government to be run by randomly chosen Citizens assemblies with monthly referendum and ostracism such as the ancient Greeks had. And internet voting on every bill. But the reality is not everyone has enough time to deliberate fully on all issues and so that is why we elect representatives. And thats why we need to have a truly representative legislature composed of individual, elected representatives, because we can't go on calling ourselves a representative democracy when only 40% of people actually receive representation.

..I guess I went a little overboard on representative in the last one..

6) Why are you such a bunch of proselytizers for a particular ‘kind’ of balloting?

I know there are other regional open-list systems which I like, and even modifications to STV which I prefer. (I actually wouldn't mind seeing top up seats to ensure proportionality) However, we laid the task upon an independent open minded citizens assembly to come up with the system, and we're standing by the process and the results. Had we got 47% on the referendum we would probably have declared the process a failure and pushed the other method, however we received 57% and a pledge to have a revote (it was lamentably changed from 08 to 09). I have my issues with MMP, but those aren't reflective all of my associates, and had MMP been chosen I think you would have seen many of the same people supporting STV pushing MMP.

Really, we think the process was the best possible one and that BC deserves a chance to try STV. The goal all along is to have 2 STV elections, and then ask British Columbians whether they think the system delivers.

7) Why should I believe you aren’t a bunch of elitists just because the CA came up with a radical voting method that isn’t used by any country (except the Republic of Ireland, which is a much more homogeneous society than the one we have here in Canada) for elections directly analogous to the use it would be put in BC?

An elitist is defined as someone who believes that certain groups should be given favored status, and this is what we are completely against. We feel the present system is very elitist, because its always the same people and groups who have undue influence on are electoral system. We see that by providing a preferential ballot, we are going to provide voters with a mechanism for electing or rejecting candidates, which is currently dominated by a select handful of BC mega-organizers. We have no desire to give any group favored status, but instead to ensure that all groups have equal opportunity to gather representation. (Although David Suzuki spoke at one of our rallies, does that make us elitist?)

If you don't like elitism, then how can you favour a list based system that puts unelected individuals in the government because of their status in a party?

8) As far as political systems around the world, STV is used in both Irelands, as well as one of Australia's two houses, as well as half of their states. (Australia is probably much more identical to Canada and BC than any other jurisdiction) Its also used for a number of elections in New Zealand, and is being used in Scotland next year.

However is you look at broader components, multimember ridings are used in most of the scandinavian countries. Preferential ballots, (instant run off), are used in Presidential elections around the world as well.

Anyways, I'll probably have to ceed out of this threat as I'm sure it will go on forever, but hope you had a Merry Christmas anyways. I hope at the end of the day you realize, that while we may be fanatical electoral junkies, we don't have any hidden agenda, or big backers.

We have a few wayward Liberals who support us, a number of NDPers, a lot of Greens and otherwise unaffiliated community figures, but the establishment in this province hopes this will fail. If the Liberals thought this would advantage them, why didn't they change the referendum laws from 50%+1 to 60 & 60?

You're damn right the current system is elitist and inequitable.

We need real proportional representation. Period. Where did you get the idea that having 'your own' MLA was such a good thing? Believe me, those of us who work in the professional public service know it's nothing but a recipe for special favours and getting around the rules. I take it you've never worked for government.

You haven't dealt with the idea that this is 'representative' democracy and that we shouldn't be supporting a system, which lends itself to the 'bending' influence of special interests - especially in multiple member ridings.

What might be appropriate in civic elections where nearly all of the issues are local and neighbourhood based is completely inappropriate in a provincial or national government.

You've ignored the character of the Canadian electorate and its inherent diversity - using STV will merely accentuate these differences because the system caters to them. It may work in small cohesive societies like Malta and Eire but it would be an utter disaster here.

You haven't addressed the issue of professionalism in the civil service and the fact that STV tends to de-emphasize this in favour of more hands-on involvement by people with an axe to grind - people like Campbell and his clones.

I favour a mixed-member system. Voters choose a single local member (which we've gotten used to) and the balancing members are chosen - there may not actually be all that many of them anyway - are picked from a public list. How is that elitist? In fact, it’s precisely the opposite. I would expect most of the members on party lists would be people with wide experience and province-wide credibility – not unknowns. Tactically it would stupid to put up people on your list who weren’t of exemplary character and reputation – especially for small parties like the greens – it would be an incredibly powerful way to get your leader into the legislature. Think about it?

My comments about the necessity of computer tabulation stand. It is a bad idea.

The fact that this system is used in the Australian senate is a complete non-sequitur and you know it. Nothing that I see coming from Australia's 'democracy' should be emulated by Canada. If you know anything about the political situation down under you'll know what I mean.

How can you support multi-member ridings in one part of the province and not in another according to 'your' definition of what the relative issues are - more elitism.

You haven't contended at all with the compromised nature of the deliberative process, its leaders and its structure.

You haven't addressed the fact that the process provided no MEANINGFUL choice for the people of BC.

You haven't explained why you think your particular ginger group has any particular 'right' to continue to try and misrepresent the systems you’re promoting.

You haven't reconciled your own support for a particular party, a support which should disallow any further participation by folks like you who pretend to be impartial.

True proportional representation would encourage smaller parties and younger voters without entailing the risks and dangers of an experimental and dubious system in a province like BC which has great diversity - both in terms of land and population and in terms of ethnic divisions.

You haven't really dealt with the Swiss option - thanks for admitting it.

This:

is clearly a mistake - do you want to correct it?

I'm glad you haven't got a lot of support, but I'm not surprised.

Majority governments where the norm for decades in Ireland and Malta has them consistently (Malta is a mess by the way) they also had to ammend their constitution to stop the party with the lesser amount of votes from winning elections. Nothing in B.C.- STV can prevent a "wrong winner" scenario, this recently happened in the Aussie senate as well, put that on your website and maybe a few folks will thank you for being honest, the only way to get STV to pass is to B.S. an uninformed electorate and that is pathetic, your affiliations have nothing to do with "fair voting" just STV pushing.

You feeling ok? we all have representation, and if we all got what we wanted in our legistlature, it would be an even bigger mess than having random citizens hold monthly referendums,?

Sweet hey zoos! that's a hell of an idea! straight from the "mind of Dan Grice"

As I said, I have no problem with direct democracy at the canton structure, but try convincing politicians that they are no longer needed. We have enough of a problem convincing them they will actually need to work for their votes under STV.

Turkeys don't vote for an early Thanksgiving!

As far as my own impartiality, I have joined federal political party to help them organize, but that does not mean that I will give up voting for the person (and the personality) rather than the party. Parties should serve to identify candidates' political ideas rather than to dictate it to them. I still hold that to be essential element of our democracy, having representatives who will be your voice in the legislature.

I'd also like to see a seperation of our executive from the general elections, either through constitutional change or by working within the constitution and having a direct election of the governor-general and lieutenant general.. but thats a whole other issue,

Stop pushing STV and start promoting a reasonable system of proportional representation and you'll find yourself with a lot more friends and supporters Dan.

STV has a very bad reputation and there is little evidence – outside of a NON-REPRESENTATIVE group that anyone really supports it. It would be a disaster in this province or this country.

People want responsible representative government - and politicians who are open about their policy and committed to keeping their promises.

People don't want special interests and the kind of divisiveness that STV would bring to this country. Things are bad enough now.

I'm sold and selling on STV provincially for BC and municipally, but I do agree there are another whole set of issues at a Federal Level.

For reforming the Canadian Parliament, I'd prefer Sweden's open list PR, but I'll entertain a mixed member system. I'll agree, at a national level you want more cohesiveness, and you want to promote unity. But if we are to see any lists, I'd prefer them to be provincial.

I think an MPs job is to deal with Canada as a whole, to set national standards, handle equalization, deal with foreign policy and trade, things that should not differ from region to region.

However, an MLAs duty is to represent regions on building schools, hospitals, infrastructure, as well as dealing with land use, environmental protection and social policy. If the government wants to develop a project such as Gateway, I'd like to have community activists involved in the deliberative process. We don't need a Liberal, New Democratic, or Green government in this province, we need a consultative and deliberative assembly.

For a Federal government and our bicameral legislature, I'm all ears!

Well you haven't sold me or the majority of BC people.

You still skate blithely over the inherent problems with STV, its dismal failures elsewhere, and its complete inappropriateness for BC given the demographics of the province.

With the exception of the last 2 items the primary decisions you cite are local decisions and ought to be made locally and not at the provincial level.

As I said earlier, I have no problem with STV-type systems at the municipal and regional level - in fact I think they are a good way to represent the needs and wishes of local communities much more effectively.

But those arguments are not appropriate at the provincial level. I don't want a deliberative and consultative assembly at the provincial level and neither should anyone else. Tha last thing we need in Victoria is a government that is less professional and more subject to local and group manipulation. That's precisely what's wrong with the current system - it results in a group of legislators who couldn't give a shit about anything other than their own friends.

I want a system where politicians are never given that kind of power again - a system where people actually get the government they voted for and special interests - like you Dan Grice because that's exactly what elitists like you and your Fraser Institute friends are - can't use your phone ideas to manipulate the electorate the way STV will.

The deliberative assembly should be at the regional and local level where the rubber actually meets the road and where most of the spending, in the long run, actually takes place.

Keep that kind of talk shop nonsense out of the rock pile in James Bay. Force provincial politicians to be real professionals and cut their ties to their friends in business and elsewhere – turn them into real public servants. Elect them proportionally. Tie Provincial STV plans into a sack with several large rocks and sink them in English Bay – and the sooner the better.

Smart democracy is about not listening to special interest elitists like you Dan.

If you have a second team, I think you better bring them in because you're losing this battle.

Why, because I haven't convinced a paranoid conspiracy theorist like you?

I can assure you that most rational British Columbians do in fact want a "deliberative and consultative assembly", rather than a one-sided ideological government (be it left or right). They do want an MLA who works for them, whether you like it or not. They do not see a top heavy solution where you have Gordon Campbell and Carol James negotiation wage increases while the appointed placeholders worry more about where on the list they will be the next election.

You are on your own island, and have fun there!

Heck I don't mind debating political ideas, but for you to call me an "special interest elitist" shows how out of whack you are. Can I suggest Clozapine?

It's interesting that you're the one who always resorts to calling me names and using personal slurs. Very impressive.

I bit of a problem you might want to look into Dan.

If you object to the elitist label, you might want to look back through your own comments to see why I think I'm perfectly justified in using it to describe you.

I think you have it exactly backwards. I want MLAs who look at the evidence, utilize the advice of experts and make reasoned and logical decisions on MY BEHALF. They should be very clear about what their policy positions are during the election cycle and they should do their best to explain why a particular decision might not comport with a particular promise under special circumstances (much like the Flaherty did over Income Trusts). That is what representative democracy is all about. It is not about individuals and ginger groups whip-sawing the Legislature over anything. That's why we need a better way to ensure we have a 'representative' government that reflects the voting preferences of the people when it is election time. If you are so convinced that your ideas have merit, start a political party or join and existing one and see if you can get elected. I’d suggest you aren’t interested in the dedication and hard work involved – you just want to have some way to make sure your own selfish needs get looked after and you could care less about how wasteful and pointless that kind of lobbying and special interest politics is.

Have you ever looked at the power of lobbyists in the US system? I have. And I’m telling you that that’s what STV is going to mean here in British Columbia.

I happen to think the remuneration of MLAs should be a matter for an independent professional body but I certainly don't think the average voter should have say in it in the way you mean. That's simply a recipe for tyranny by powerful special interests or those who have the ear of special interests.

You still haven't told me why you have anything against MMP elections. Is it because it wouldn’t provide enough chance for your special interests to get their dibs in?

You don't debate Dan. You just play the same broken record and play childish games. And your method would make a broken system far worse than it is now. In these complex times we NEED professional politicians – but they need to be part of a system which ensures they do their jobs not a system which provides them with excuses for doing nothing and talking more.

And furthermore, I'm convinced I'm a lot closer to the grass roots than you are, so I think my views about what the majority of British Columbians think is far more reflective of reality than yours is.

I actually talk to and deal with people. And they have told me in no uncertain terms that they want nothing to do with STV. Most of them, like me, voted Yes last time with their tongues firmly in cheek.

If you're an honest man, you'd at least support a referendum that actually gave voters a real choice. How about it Dan?

Seems that's the way it should be decided - by giving a real choice to real people.

I'll be waiting to see if you have the courage of your convictions. I certainly don't have a problem as long as you and your buddies at 'fair voting bc' are willing to put a fair question to the people who actually ought to make such a decision - the voters.

I think it's time to put up or shut up Dan - otherwise it's all just talk.

Get over yourself. If you are going to call me an elitist and try to tie me into some shadow conspiracy, then I have every right to point that you are delusional and fit into the typical definition of paranoid.

Reread the thread. I addressed every systematic attack, and your response was to attack the process, attack my colleagues, and basically to engage in any sort of manipulation possible. You've made all sorts of claims about STV, but without a single bit of reference to back them up and you've basically resorted to FUD as a tactic. Your entire argument is that STV will cause disorder and appeal to special interests, well heck, show me where it has happened? You say the American system is full of special interests, but they use a plurality! And all you want to do is add top up seats to the plurality. Show me how STV has lead to dire consequences in Australia or Ireland. Ireland twice had a referendum to revoke STV and it outright failed.

Also think you can go around and attack my conviction. I'm not a paid lobbyist, but I probably spent more hours than anyone else trying to get STV through in the last election.

I had no part in any electoral reform group, and knew few of the people I now work with. I followed the Citizen's Assembly, but really didn't feel like I had anything to add. I hadn't heard of STV, but I knew I wanted some kind of PR, didn't want like the idea of having close lists, but wanted more independent MPs, and wanted to have regional representation because I hated the idea that whole regions of the province generally went Liberal while whole others went NDP. That's what plurality does, it take the "mean" vote or lowest common denominator, and thats what I can't stand. MMP keeps that in play.

When STV seemed to be the clear favourite, I went out and did research and realized there wasn't too much information. I attended a few of the final CA meetings, and saw them formalize how STV would work in BC. I knew the referendum was about 8 months off, and I knew nothing of FVBC or any organization at that point. I put together a website called STVFORBC, and began emailing everyone I knew. MLAs, City Councillors, Community Leaders, and from everyone except the MLAs, I got a pretty positive response. It was then that I got involved with another organizing group. I was on the pavement for half of the spring along with a few other dozen volunteers in Vancouver, as well as dozens more across the province trying to get information out. At first, no one even knew what was going on, but as we got closer to the election and people actually saw how the system was working, the response on the street changed dramatically. I wasn't there spreading lies, I was there trying to show how a preferential vote differed from our current system, and most people I talked to said they thought it was very fair, but the biggest challenge was that most people didn't realize how the transfers worked. People loved the idea that the parties would present them with 14 or 15 candidates and the voters would choose the top 7 per riding. They liked the idea of choice.

Prior to that, I was a student. I served on my Alma Mater Society and twice ran for executive positions. I ran as an independent because UBC still had slates, and thats where I first earned by dismay of political elections. I saw one or two popular class mates pulling the other slate members up by their bootstraps.

Since the last election I have been involved with an independent civic candidate and helped a party based federal election candidate. You may be involved with some sort of political movement, but you certainly have little right to claim that you have an ear on the rest of the province or that all grassroots feel the same way. Did you vote Liberal in 2001? If not, then consider yourself to be out of touch, because that was the only year I believe that a majority of British Columbians voters supported the party than time. I won't again, but I did.

You know what representative government should be, it should be no matter which party is in, your MLA looks at legislation and says this legislation hurts my constituents and votes against it or opposition members supporting government legislation. In 2001, we had two Liberal members who spoke up, and were kicked out of the party.

Do you think a candidate running on a list is going to speak up against their party? Do you think preserving plurality member is going to encourage local MLAs to think for themselves when without their parties nomination they don't stand a chance. Special interest groups do not attach themselves to backbencher, they attach themselves to those who have the power to shut others up.

You have a problems with issue based candidates? You have a problem with people who are outside the mainstream but want a fair chance at raising their issue? Political Parties are not the answer, 95% of British Columbians are not members of them. We have enough sheep in our legislature already, and you want to just mix up the herds. We want Politicians to know that come next election, I may vote for someone else from there party but I might now vote for them. I want to give my first vote to someone who is a decent individual, whether they may be able to get elected or not, but I don't want to see it wasted.

You like MMP? If you want to see it at its finest, take a look at How Berlusconi won the 2001 Italian Election. Both the Left and the Right Coalitions engaged in some of the dirtiest politics you have ever seen They ran decoy lists, set up fake parties, in order to game the system. They ran their local candidates under fake party names, but told their voters to vote for the real party at the proportional rep. They basically divided the vote into two to maximize the top off members. You look to create an artificial divide and capitalize on it as a party in the name of Proportional Representation. Everyone knew what the associations were, but how do you prevent people from gaming it. Do you think the Greens run strong local candidates in Germany, all of their representatives in parliament come from lists because they know know even if they fail to attract good candidates, they can win just as many seats.

Do you think closed lists are going to keep out special interest groups? Can you not picture a lobby group promising a party contributions in order to have their candidate placed on a list. Maybe not in the top 2 or 3 positions, but how about a little further down the list. Low enough not to raise attention, but high enough to sit on a committee dealing with something close at hand. Heck, they can even support more than one party, because who knows how the lists are chosen. Maybe get an old business partner or your nephew on the lists. Maybe even better, you get the P3 Promoters of the Party helping local candidates win plurality election, while helping another party win top off.

Sure you may get Professional Politicians on the list, who don't have to dirty themselves with running nomination contests. But who is to hold these politicians to account? If I wanted to start my own religious party, offer my votes for sale, who is to say that I couldn't manage to get enough votes across the province to keep myself and a few of my friends in. If voters didn't like me, but liked my colleague, who is to say that I couldn't ride my colleagues coat tails. What motivation do I have for working for any constituent, it I can manage pull enough fundraising and fancy enough of a name to do so?

Have you never studied modern Italian history?
I'd guess not. They don't need MMP to make a mess of government.

And you wouldn't ride your colleagues coat tails in STV? It would be even worse and far more likely to play into cronyism.

Every single example you quote, while possible but unlikely in MMP would be practically guaranteed in STV. Most of these problems can be addressed by changing election financing laws and you must know that, although given today's news, apparently Stephen Harper doesn't know - or care. Just another example of why FPP is the worst of all possible worlds and why (because it was the only option) people like me voted yes last time.

Why can't you just see that the only democratic method is to give the choice to the people your methodology doesn't appear to trust.

I don't really care that much about who my local member is anyway. I want representation for the ideas and principles that I support. That's what I never get now and I'm convinced I'd get an equally inappropriate bunch of local idiocy under STV - especially in big urban ridings. I think you need to re-think your premises and look again at STV's actual results compared with MMP in its many successful incarnations.

Show a little flexibility and realize you're not really all that important. Other people have a right and an obligation to make their views known too.

Although in Campbell's BC I can understand why a tyro like you might think he was the sharpest knife in the block. Let me assure you, you're not. Step back, look again, and realize the world doesn't start, or end, with you.

Start believing in giving real people real choices and stop trying to decide what's best for the rest of us.

You make a commitment to consultation and letting actual people make their choice from a range of real alternatives (and not phony BS from the Citizen's Assembly - even the name is a cruel anachronism) and I'll support you till your eyes bleed.

Otherwise, you and I are gonna keep tangling until I've convinced you and every one of your acolytes that you are the worst thing that ever happened to this province. You can't believe in democracy and real choice and behave the way STV fanatics behave.

The idea that an MLA is working for any particular constituent is what's wrong, by definition, with this province right now. Everything Campbell has done since he came to power in 2001 is clear and present evidence that we need to stop this kind of purblind favoritism.

You'd replace it with something as bad or worse, in my view.

And by the way. You get over yourself. You're the one who's pretending you have someone else's interests in mind when it's absolutely clear from everything you write that the only thing you care about is yourself and making sure you get someone elected who'll let you influencet them once they are in power.

You and your attitudes are dangerous exactly because you feel that way. As I said earlier, if you had any real experience with the way politicians use their office to help their friends and business partners now you'd understand why I don't want to go to a system which would guarantee more of the same - not less. We need to create a more realistic balance of power in the legislature so the needs of the whole province and not just the premier's friends get attention - but not by permitting every ginger group to have its fingers in the pie in the way STV would promote.

As I said, if you want direct democracy - say so. But until that time representative government is the best we can do and the average guy and gal likes it that way. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater and turn BC into Malta.

First of all, I don't know that that's true and neither do you, and second of all who cares? The Greens have had a lot of positive influence in Germany - a hell of a lot more than they have in BC. Moreover, Germany is a much fairer and more inclusive society than we have here in BC and believe me, I know of what I speak.

Who cares whether a good parliamentarian comes from a riding or a list. It just doesn't matter - they are either good at their job or they're not. It's silly to imply anything else. You just want them on short leash and I'd do everything I could to deny you that kind of control. You really should go live in the States if you want that kind of domination over your elected representative.

It's not the Canadian way and it's not for me or the majority of thinking Canadians.

Give people a decent chance to make up their own minds on a clear question and I have no doubt what the result will be. And I’ll live with that. But not the fixed game you and your buddies are promoting now. It’s sleazy and it’s dishonest.

You're either man enough to believe in real democracy or you're not.

The verdict is out until you stop trying to stack the deck.

I don't think one's support of a given electoral system is necessarily a reflection of whether some one is dangerous, kind to their neighbors, or otherwise a hard working individual.

Here:

"Every single example you quote, while possible but unlikely in MMP would be practically guaranteed in STV."

Show me your example under which STV itself can be misused in BC.

Do you think candidates would run under fake party names under STV? What advantage would this give them?

Do you think unprofessional people would be easily elected under STV? How do you see this happening?

If STV winners depend on at least a significant number of first votes, how do you see special interests fixing this?

I want voters to decide this, not political parties.

Right now groups like the Christian Heritage Party, which would never have a chance of electing anyone either in a single member riding or in a MMP system, are salivating at the opportunity to elect one of their crazies under STV in a riding or even perhaps two of them in the Fraser Valley.

That's just one example I can think of because I happen to know some of the people involved personally.

Yes, special interest people from ginger groups are very well organized and if you look at the Christian Heritage party as an example, they could easily poll enough 1st place votes to achieve their ends - they're already working on the organizational necessities.

Voters get to decide it now Dan, but under MMP proportional the actual results in the legislature will finally reflect their wishes and we won't descend into the depths of opportunity and special interest politics that STV would guarantee.

You really haven't got anything that's really positive to say about STV and I've got a huge amount of evidence to support MMP systems - as you well know.

We're only going to get one chance to change this so it's important to get it right and not take a chance on an untried system that just won't work in a multicultural society.

We have to do the right thing and the most important part of this is to take out you guys who're blinded by your own selfish experiences with the CA. It was a disaster from the start - and ended up exactly the way Gordon Gibson planned it.

It's time to provide the voters of British Columbia a real opportunity to make a real choice and not the kind of fixed game that we were presented with in 2005.

C'mon Dan, you're supposed to be a democrat who believes in giving people choices - or was that just talk?

I want voters to decide the system we use - from a range of real options - and not political parties or compromised ginger groups.

I don't mind the occasional gamble. Just don't ask me to play with your loaded dice.

Were you planning on sharing it?

If your whole case against STV is the Christian Heritage Party may find a way to get 10,000 votes in the Fraser Valley and earn a seat (up from their usual 200) then that really is case of fear mongering. If they are able to earn 10% of the vote, then why do you think Christians have any less right to representation than Athiests?

Who are they going to elect, a book burner like Mary Pollack or a conservative such as Randy White. We don't need a new electoral system for that.

But please, go on saying that Christians will get elected under STV. Next to Kamloops, the eastern Fraser valley was our lowest area of support.

Right now there's a big effort building to push Heather Stilwell to run for the Conservatives. She's been on the Surrey school board for donkey's years - If you don't think that bunch of characters would use STV to their advantage you aren't paying attention. STV is all they need for a springboard. I'm not just talking about the eastern Fraser Valley dude.

In addition, Christian Heritage is the least of my problems with STV. There's some nascent group of crackpots hiding behind every bush in the lower mainland…some of them holdovers from the Fraser Institute.

You still haven't told me why you think true proportional representation (without the quirks of STV) isn't worth presenting to the voters as an option.

It's that monomania about the CA and its disciples that bothers me almost as much as STV's untried and experimental nature in a diverse culture like BC’s.

I realize there were other option to how this process (the Citizens Assembly) could have occurred, and its not as much that I am against them or think they should not exist as I believe the process was the right one for this issue. I believe that a deliberative assembly is the proper way to produce legislation, and that referendum is the right way to affirm them.

Should they have produced one option, or more than one option should have been determined prior to the process, but at the time unanimous support for the process was given. (If you elect to be tried by judge, you cannot ask for trial by Jury after the fact)

The only part of the process that I personally disagree with was when the Liberals decided to change the acceptance factor from 50% to 60% midway through the process. I have no problem with requiring a super majority of ridings to support it, but the quota demeans the democratic will of the people.

Believe me, we would have rather STV passed or outright failed, than get a mulligan, because many of us believe so strongly in the process that we are compelled to keep the torch going.

Its not that we want to limit choice, we just want to see the original process completed democratically.

Maybe join with us, in favor or opposed, to push the government to have a 50/50 quota. We will know the riding boundaries, will have a proper information campaign and better funding for public forums. Like it or not, your elitist pro-STV forces spent under $500 per riding last time around, mainly on brochures and buttons and a very small radio run in rural areas.

That's just baloney Dan, and you know it. It was a bad process, badly designed and badly carried out and it has turned out badly.

I'll not be joining any process that prejudges what is rightfully the province of the people to decide. You cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Disband the phantom - they've been a colossal failure - let Campbell give them some kind of a medal for their trouble and send them out to pasture with a promise never to mention the fact they were part of the CA on pain of death and dismemberment. Establish a truly independent and professional electoral commission (from another province preferably) to supervise boundary revisions and add a decent question to the next provincial ballot - a question presenting REAL alternatives and not some ginger group's impression of what THEY want - and I'll join their forces any time. I trust the people of BC to make the right decision.

Otherwise, forget it.

Furthermore, even if one accepted your idea that deliberative processes have value as a way to produce 'legislation' as you've asserted above (which I'd argue isn't the case because I actually know how difficult and how much of a specialist's job is the production of legislation in the British Parliamentary tradition). Your assertion wouldn't apply in terms of providing a methodology by which the people as a whole give assent to the way they chose their political servants. It’s not a function that can be delegated – ever. Simply by definition – it is as fundamental as the principle of one man/woman and one vote.

It is by consent of the governed that the democratic process gains legitimacy. That contract is broken if the fundamental parameters of the methodology through which the people choose their servants has not been fair and equitable. The CA contract and process was both inequitable and unfair - and therefore it was, and is, completely illegitimate.

"people as a whole give assent to the way they chose their political servants"

That was the entire point of the referendum, to give assent.

Your stretching yourself way too thin by attacking the impartiality of the Citizen's Assembly. Now you are suggesting we need people from outside of this province to make decisions on our electoral system.

There was a reason that the CA was picked randomly, and it was to keep people like you and I off it. It was to pick unbiased British Columbians and have them make a decision.

No way danny! You cannot suggest, even for a minute that that compromised exercise had the ability to give assent to anything. Assent implies informed consent and this process had no informed consent. If you've been following some of the decisions of the Chief electoral officer of this province you'de know exactly why I say we have to get someone involved here who really is impartial.

That committee had the 'right' and the obligation to present reasonable alternatives - it didn't do that - it presented a fool's choice, nothing more. I don't surrender my democratic right to determine how we will choose our servants to anyone. No free person ever could.

On another matter: Are you aware of the contents of Order in Council 656 - dated Sept 12, 2006?

I suggest you go to qplegaleze and pay to download a copy. You might find something there to really worry about.

Because, as will be abundantly clear if you've followed the trail of crumbs - a lot more the $500/ BC Provincial Riding is being spent to promote something or other.

Over, and out to you Danny Boy. Promoting STV should be the least of your worries dude.

If its to promote another "BC is a great place to work" campaign to people who work here and hate their jobs...

I think I may just get up and move to Ireland, or lie down on a railroad and hope it doesn't derail before it hits me.

Promotion will undoubtedly be part of it. But in fact the OIC in question is a list of roughly 200 names - at least 185 of which (and possibly more) are entirely concerned with promotion, image formation, advertising, media, press releases and media monitoring. They want to determine 'what' you think, not just what you think about.

If you use the job description in the document and the pay category information for the public service (available elsewhere) you can actually calculate the size of the bill the taxpayers are paying for this kind of flackery.

And you won't have heard a word about it in the press. And that's just what rolling over one rock reveals....
I understand Ireland's a lovely place to live and work - I know some professional public servants who've left Victoria to go an work in Dublin... much better than the railroad option - since BC Rail ceased to be public property their trains seem to derail quite a bit.

We used to have a thoroughly professional public service in this province - now we have flacks looking over every shoulder.

Just wait until the fall '08 spending spree... you ain't seen nothing yet.

The stupid thing was, some of us actually thought.. (circa 1996) that the Liberals would be a moderate party after Fantasy Gardens, Bingo Gate, and the False Ferries. Except all they did was dramatically chop the civil service, claim a structural deficit (to pay for severance), and then two years later engage in a big pre-election spending spree.

Also, I came across this site:

http://www.opengovernment.ca

And I know you don't care too much for Gordon Gibson, but both he and the Canadian Tax Payers Association are coming down against the Liberals on their lack of accountability and transparency.

Then you and the rest weren't paying attention. You weren't paying attention to the way Gordon Campbell behaved as mayor of Vancouver and above you and they weren't paying attention to the way he won the leadership of the party. This man has been so thoroughly compromised by his connections to business elites, from the guys who started the development boondoggles and led the changes at Whistler (several of whom are now on the boards of the 'public' universities of this province) to every single development decision that's been made in connection with the Olympics and Rapid Transit… The list is too long for this forum and the larceny is continuing on a daily basis with the support of Gordon Gibson, The CTPA and the Fraser Institute (especially on health policy).

The peccadilloes of Campbell's predecessors, were they in scale and type the only larcenous activity I could slam Campbell for - and the blame all goes to him because he is, in his own words, the CEO of this province - would be as nothing to what this man has done to this province. That's why people like me, despite my absolute conviction that STV was a bad idea, could vote yes. Simply because I would accept even the mess it would bring to this province as a way of finding our way out from under the deceit, lies and thievery that Campbell has brought with him. STV and its prospect was, very much, the lesser of evils.

But now, alas the only hope for this province is that the media and the people themselves will wake up to the fact they are now citizens of a gangster state. A province ruled by organized crime.

For supposedly smart guys Danny, you fellows haven’t got the sense to turn off the heat in under the pot we’re all rapidly cooking in. That really is stupid. Thanks for waking up at last.

I was a young kid in Langley when he was Mayor of Vancouver, so I was probably paying attention to Transformers or Lego at that time. My only memories of any municipal politics in the 1980s were the ball rooms at expo!

I was actually more impressed with Gordon Wilson in the debate of 1993, (as an older kid) and I think at that time I figured the Liberals actually meant something, and by the time Gordon Campbell took over, I guess some us were hoping for an end of scandal. (Our hopes dashed by a certain Maui trip)

Also, while I can understand your dislike of the Fraser Institute, only about 90% of what they publish should be distasteful to the left. They still have a glimmer of hope as they have come out against the war on drugs, and they've been pushing a lot of governance reforms.

There's a dropped 'all' in the second sentence above here, it should read:

"You weren't paying attention to the way Gordon Campbell behaved as mayor of Vancouver and above all you and they weren't paying attention to the way he won the leadership of the party."

A few other minor edits would improve the text - but I'll leave them and plead mercy to the Spelling & Grammar Police - I was in a hurry.

I think you'll get my point Dan.

I hope so, because I perceive you're a decent man and you should be concentrating your efforts on other priorities before it's too late. Let the STV sink and concentrate on the myriad holes that are sinking this province's future faster than that hull tear caused the destruction of the Queen of the North.

Hmmm.

CONCLUSION: Sounds like a need to stock up on crucifixes, holy water,( maybe a clove of garlic for good measure ) and review the Exorcist and The Omen movie trilogies.

" 666 " mark is probably between their "left" ear and "left" eye .

PS Aha !!! the Spelling and Grammar Police is their mortal Achilles Heel.....hmmmm...

I guess we'll have to let truthiness decide this matter..

But I feel that as long as only sheep get elected, power hungry shepherds are going to keep leading this province aside. Like it or not, we need a few wolves in the legislature to keep this government honest.

And yes, grammar police can die on message boards. If we are not being paid to write, then we are not being paid to edit.