Moot article as Referendum has only one choice

Whatever; the referendum question is yes or no to STV!

And whatever the flaws I am choosing change (STV)!

I hope will force a new politic and hopefully force out status quo thinking MLAs, lobbyists, eco ego maniacs, political profiteers and wanna be MLAs and bring a range of perspectives to governance to face the challenges and bring about a sustainable present; which we are far from despite the glorification of the SYMBOLIC Carbon Tax David!

There is nothing to fear.........

.....but fear itself.

The STV (sounds like a disease) and first past the post (sounds like a fixed horse race) debate is one of power, not democracy.

We do not live in a democracy, but an autocracy, where the voters trundle out like sheep and vote for a party or person and then expected not to utter a word until the next showcase election.

STV may, and I stress may, give some power back to the people. but the current system absolutely will not.

It is my belief that the current system is so broke, so discredited that Carree criminals now hold the reigns of power. A completely neutered media just glad hands the criminal elites running the show, in hopes of an "order of Canada' or a Senate seat comes their way.

Voting for STV is a vote for change, a change we so desperately need!

Change

It should be clear that the only reason this is on the ballot is the Libs know people want change. So they will offer you a venue that does not actually result in changing government.

Don't be fooled. The only change a vote can actually wield is changing government.

I am not dissing Pro Rep I am only talking Liberal tactics.

PR is great, but, as everyone knows, we held hostage by a small group of highly manipulative, highly resourced political fixers. BC STV only changes the goal posts for these guys and in so doing also obfuscates who is actually responsible for reaping the hardship upon us.

You want change? Change the government first, then vote for STV if you like what it offers.

politico

You've got it backwards!

Changing the clowns in office won't do anything until we change the underlying system of how we elect them!

More choice between parties and between candidates - THEN maybe we'll see some change.

two-party politics / Western Australia

David Schreck writes:
> It is not the fault of our electoral system
> that from time to time some of the parties
> coalesce for what they think is their
> common electoral interests.

Actually, that is precisely the fault of our electoral system. In political science, this is known as Duverger's Law, "a principle which asserts that a plurality rule election system tends to favor a two-party system."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law

Neither respondent answered the question about whether any jurisdiction in the world has a map "like" the one proposed for BC-STV.

In some sense, the answer is "no" -- BC-STV is unique in allowing such a great range, from 2 seats to 7, to take account of our considerable variations in geography.

But if the question means, "is there an STV jurisdiction which is as large as BC?", then the best example is the upper house in Western Australia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Australian_Legislative_Council

Western Australia is larger and more sparsely populated than BC, but the two jurisdictions are similar in that they are remote from their national capitals, and have a population heavily concentrated in one built-up area. Western Australia uses 6 regions. At one time it was six 6-member regions; at another, four 5s and two 7s.

BC's map is, in my view, better than Western Australia's, because it has more regions, and in the north they are much smaller.

Irish Greens

This is, indeed, a very educational debate. I did not realize that the reason the Irish Greens were more successful than the BC Greens was that they spent more money!

I had obviously been mislead by the fact these better-funded, better-resourced Greens in Ireland were only able to mobilize 4.7% of the vote (2007), whereas the less-organized, under-funded Greens in BC managed to draw 9.2% of the vote.

But I suppose if they had had as much *money* as the Irish Greens, they would somehow have found a way to turn their 9.2% into seats???

Gerry Mandering

Check out the BC-STV ranking system in action:

http://bc.demochoice.org/

I am not pleased with either of the so-called choices being offered in this referendum. I think BC-STV smells the least worst of the two, but I don't really know enough about it.

Some things coming out of Elections BC seem suspect. I think that Elections BC is Gerry Mandering as the boundaries can change up to 25% or more in "special" circumstances regardless of which system is used. My so-called "local" candidates are unknowns because they are no longer from where I live.

This process wreaks of manipulation.

Good debate. One STV

Good debate. One STV advantage that I didn't see mentioned is that the politicians under that system don't particularly like it, and have proposed return to FPTP or other proportional system. Only one problem: the public prefers it, so it stays. This safeguard doesn't exist for other systems.

Another advantage which has been referred to eliptically is that under the present system, voters sometimes have to hold their noses and vote for their party's candidate, even if that candidate is inferior. Under STV, I can vote for competent people who support my party -- and either give up my other choices, or even support really good people who aren't party members.

Another advantage which has been referred to is that under STV members have much more incentive to examine issues and vote their conscience or their electors' views. By the same token, parties have to spend more effort reaching agreements with opponents to get things done. I am tired and sick of a situation in which one man (increasingly) takes all the decisions. Only a saint could resist the tendency to be corrupted by this. I've yet to see any saints elected.

Even John Cleese supports

Even John Cleese supports STV - check this out!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSUKMa1cYHk

how is this aspect of Irish politics different from BC?

"Many candidates for the larger parties are of such low calibre that their party will actively discourage them from debating with their opponents!"

This could also be said of the BC Liberals and the federal Conservatives. It doesn't seem to be something unique to STV.

Schreck's strange take on the Irish Greens

Mr. Schreck's invocation of the Irish Green Party as defenders of FPTP is bizarre. In Ireland, the Green Party manages to win seats with less than 5% of the popular vote. Here, the Green Party can't even land a seat with 12%. Does Mr. Schreck seriously expect us to believe that the Irish Green Party would prefer a system that would deny it representation? Or is perhaps Mr. Schreck taking the quotes out of context?

And what are we to make of Schreck's claim that the BC Green Party would get no seats under STV? The BC Green Party has endorsed BC-STV. Does Schreck know something they don't? Or is this just more disinformation from the anti-STV campaign?

Party insiders like Mr. Schreck like to protect the privileged position the current system gives them. Examine what he says carefully for double-talk.

No to STV!

Is STV really pro rep? It may be marginally but not like what the 'spin' portrays it. Even the Greens would have trouble winning seats under STV as seats are not guaranteed even if a party gets 10% like 'list pro rep' or 'mmp'.

If people do not want majorities why not either proper full pro rep or a mixed mmp system that works well in New Zealand?

MMP was also on the table but the citizen committee picked STV. Why not let us vote on all alternatives then vote on the final 2? Let the people decide, all of us, not just a group.

I would of voted Yes for Mixed Member Proportional or Out right full pro rep (list Pro Rep). I think they are way better than STV.

Plus how long will we have to wait for the results?

Unlike here , New Zealand got to vote for what system they wanted, there were more than two choices and MMP smoked STV.

Yes, Dan, STV really IS pro-rep

STV is proportional representation. That is according to Dr. Dennis Pilon, a political scientist. If you're arguing otherwise, perhaps you could cite some evidence.

In Ireland, the Greens get seats with 5% of the popular vote. You really think the BC Greens going to get shut out with twice that much? Or are you just repeating Schreck?

If you really wanted MMP, you should have convinced the citizens assembly. STV is on the ballot. MMP is not an option.

BTW, for those observers who might be thinking that STV is somehow second best, it isn't. With STV, you vote for people, not parties. And you can vote for as many or as few as you like.

Vote yes to BC-STV.

STV is a lamentable choice.

STV is a lamentable choice. We should have a form of proportional ballot. The rulers like FPTP because it allows a minority to dominate the rest of us. With proportionality all governments would have to reflect the will of the majority and thus it would be far more difficult for the reactionaries to shove their policies down our throats. Furthermore, it would allow smaller parties of the left to have seats in parliament/legislature which could then put pressure on the NDP to remain true to their platform rather than waffle to the right.

Political Homesteading.

My friend from Dublin thinks we're nuts, do you think these guys and I say "guys" because no women are involved, this looks pretty comfortable not accountable.

Longest service (in one role)
List of longest-serving members of Dáil Éireann, just a few:

Paddy Smith 53y 11m as TD
Frank Aiken 49y 6m as TD
Neil Blaney 46y 10m as TD
Tom McEllistrim, Snr 45y 10m as TD
Séamus Pattison 45y 8m as TD
Seán MacEntee 45y 6m as TD
James Ryan 45y 2m as TD
Seán Lemass 44y 7m as TD
James Everett 44y 4m as TD
Oliver J. Flanagan 43y 8m as TD

No safe seats?
This is a joke!

STV? BIG MISTAKE!

No small parties under FPTP?

Exerpt from Gordon Wilson paper:

What the STV provides is a venue for the lazy or ill-informed voter to choose a marginal or fringe candidate, who will then have a shot at being elected. If a candidate is top-notch, hard-working, and espouses a vision that resonates with the majority or a strong plurality of the electorate he or she WILL get elected. Oh and as for who does or does not get into Cabinet, that is the choice of the Premier and this electoral system won’t change that, nor should it.

The next point that the proponents of the STV put forward is that “The current first past the post system doesn't hold the government responsible to the voters: When 40% of the votes can win 60% of the seats and 100% of the power, the government believes it has a mandate to do what it likes, rather than what the voters want.” This is a very tired, old argument that has everything to do with effective opposition of those elected under our current system and nothing to do with putting out a smorgasbord of candidates and providing “hedge your bet” voting. With an effective opposition, change can happen regardless of the breakdown in the seats.

Then there is the argument from proponents of STV that our current system “favors political parties over voters: Where parties have "safe seats", nomination meetings count more than elections. And political parties would rather keep a weak, elected MLA than risk replacing one”. Answer to that, get off your ass and get involved in the political process rather than weaken our electoral system so that we can have a government made up of second and possibly third choices. Talk about weakening government: let’s fill the Legislative government with a bunch of people whom few wanted as their first choice to represent them.

Andrew Coyne writes in support of a change to an STV system that small start up parties such as the Green Party knows what it’s like to run and not get elected. Come on Andrew. They don’t get elected because they haven’t put forward any policy or candidates that are electable.

And, to be clear on this point, in 1991 I was the leader of a party in British Columbia that had not elected anybody to the Legislative Assembly for almost two decades despite contesting every election, it was called the Liberal Party. Through hard work, yes very hard work, door knocking, good candidate recruitment and solid policy work, the Liberal party not only elected members but formed opposition. And we did it using the current system. If that isn’t proof enough that the current system works if you are prepared to get off your ass and work hard, I helped found a party that didn’t exist in 1994 called the PDA. We ran candidates in the 1996 election and I was elected as its leader in the riding of Powell River-Sunshine Coast. The Green Party has been running candidates for over 20 years; if people wanted to elect any of them, they would have.

Sounds good

"with the Marxist Nudist Vegan Party holding the government hostage"

Its about time, bring it on!

"... the quality of candidates is so bad that

parties actively discourage their candidates from attending debates for fear that they will display their ignorance and stupidity." Which brings up the interesting point that the bc liberals are discouraging most of their candidates from attending debates icluding the debate at the senior's 411 center in downtown vancouver, as I read somewhere today...

As to stv my objections are manifold and may require two posts in a row.

First off, I would NOT care to pick ANY bc liberal candidate as my trillionth choice, let alone as my fourth or fifth; forcing a voter such as myself to endorse even a micron of support for such a reactionary, undemocratic pack of, in my opinion, parasites, is profoundly UNDEMOCRATIC.

Second, it's really not nude vegans that worry me(we should be so lucky!) it's the possibilty of electing candates even farther to the extreme right than the bc liberals, candidates who would need only 12% of the vote to stay in office in perpetuity. If you think this can't happen in beautiful bc then you have never read some of the posts in the comment section of the province newspaper where astonishingly reactionary and racist commenters post regularly and often get at least three agreements. Imagine 3 such mlas holding the power in a minority rightwing government, then imagine their demands...

Objections to stv part 2.

Then there are stv's highly troubling bc origins...I mentioned the extreme right manipulating the choice of stv over much more democratic proportional representation systems. I was thinking in part of gordon gibson, who can make rich coleman sound like a communist. Gibson was present from the start at the selection of stv over other systems, and gary lunn supporter bruce hallsor (sp?) is also a big fan. Which brings up the question, what's in stv for the right? Is their support based on the facts that their pockets are so much deeper than the pockets of progressive parties? Could not the enormous amount of money neccesary to mount a campaign in the huge 8 member ridings we'll be seeing under stv be a major factor in their support for stv? American politics has become such that only those with access to tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars have a voice...do real progressives really want that for bc? Prove me wrong...

facts

I find it very telling that opponents of BC-STV frequently can't even get basic facts straight.

Frenchy McSwede wrote:
> huge 8 member ridings

There are *no* 8-member ridings under BC-STV. The *limits* of the allowed range are from 2 to 7. And the boundaries commission, which has already produced the map which *will* be used if BC-STV is adopted, has used those very sparingly. There is only one 7, and one 6. Most voters will live either in a 5-seater or a 4-seater.

The rest of what Frenchy says is just as wrong. Gordon Gibson may have designed the seating chart for the Citizens' Assembly (I mean, how many members, from what parts of the province, etc.) but he didn't tell them what to think. You would know this if you made even a cursory attempt to observe how the Citizens' Assembly actually functioned.

"First off, I would NOT care

"First off, I would NOT care to pick ANY bc liberal candidate as my trillionth choice, let alone as my fourth or fifth; forcing a voter such as myself to endorse even a micron of support for such a reactionary, undemocratic pack of, in my opinion, parasites, is profoundly UNDEMOCRATIC."

You're right. If there were a system that forced you to endorse a candidate you didn't like, that would be undemocratic. Fortunately, STV doesn't force you to vote for anyone. You can choose to vote for just one candidate or many. You have *choice*. Compare that with the current system.

safe seats etc

Listing the long-serving Irish MPs does not prove safe seats under STV. Maybe it means these are the politicians who consistently get the support of their constituents over other candidates from the same party because they have proven themselves trustworthy and hard-working.
Also, Frenchy let me reassure you, you do not have to mark anyone down as your trillionth choice even. STV allows you to rank as many or as few as you feel comfortable with. You don't have to rank anyone you don't want to represent you.

We can argue and make points

We can argue and make points all day long about which system is better (or worse). My points are; 1) is that the system we have now is corrupt where all the power is in the Premiers office and all the other MLAs are just fence posts with hair who nod or shake their heads when their great leader tells them what to do. 2) if we don't change now, the whole issue of election reform will never raise it's head for at least a generation. If we do vote for change, and a number of years down the road we feel it doesn't fit, we wouldn't be so shy to try something else. Also the citizens forum, with no political interference, was the body who reviewed all the options and in their opinion the STV was the best fit for BC. 3) as for this business of having too many political parties in the legislature depends on what persentage of the popular vote that we allow whether it's 3%, 5% or 7%.

STV supporters come from all sides

"Which brings up the question, what's in stv for the right? Is their support based on the facts that their pockets are so much deeper than the pockets of progressive parties?"

frenchy mcswede, your paranoia is showing. Go look at the people endorsing STV on the website stv.ca. They include such "radical right wingers" as David Suzuki, Naomi Klein, Maude Barlow and (count 'em) 4 federal BC NDP members of parliament.

The unifying force behind the STV campaign is not political ideology, it's a desire for positive change. It's a grassroots organization. That's why the yes side has hundreds of volunteers and thousands of lawn signs.

Which leads me to the question: "What is it that makes the no side so fearful?"

I agree with Van Isle

I'm a supporter of STV but even so I think it would be good to have a referendum on it again in 2017 or 2021.

That would give us just 2 or 3 elections to decide for ourselves if its what we want and this time we'd have the real world to talk about.

The important thing is, as Van Isle says, that we break from FPTP and that we keep the idea of electoral reform going.

If in 2021 we decide to switch to MMP or even back to FPTP that would be fine too.

But if we vote No to STV now then there's no chance of electoral reform being back on the agenda at any time in the next 20 years.

STV naysayers

Funny how those that support the un-effective carbon tax say you should vote Liberal to keep the Symbolic Green Wash Carbon Tax, yet...

many say you should vote no against STV because it is not effective enough

If you want it both ways you should bend over and open your mouth!

Fair and Democratic

Whatever else BC-STV will do, it will certainly bring more fairness to our electoral system. I think many people have been living with our current disastrous system so long, they cannot imagine how this kind of change can work or be good for us. I look forward to the first election with BC-STV.