My biggest issue with the STV system besides the much larger districts and the related issues that would cause is the fact that you could end up with MLA's from various parties representing the same area. This would work, if it wasn't for the fact that politicians are forever blaming the former party whenever anything goes wrong instead of just saying yes we screwed up and need to fix it now. It always amazes me how they can blame a party that hasn't been in power in 8 years for something that just happened.

I thought STV was a good idea, until I talked to people that have to live with that kind of government.

The resulting babble that ends up running government, just go no where as there is no ability to put the power of government into any direction. Government is completely tied in a knot.

With the government frozen in it's tracks, the power shifts to the civil service. We have experienced a bit of that when the NDP is in power as the NDP quickly realize their ideas make the economy dry up and the NDP have no place to turn to but the civil service.

The best place to be is in the civil service if the NDP get in, so better start looking for a job in government if you are voting STV.

I visit with these folks from New Zealand that thought STV was a great idea at the start, every year. They say it's not getting better and the government is in a real mess down there. They say don't go to STV!

Why would BC want to try something that obviously has a serious downside?

We are better off letting the NDP in occasionally, and when things get bad enough booting them out again.

If you vote STV there is no ability to flush out the NDP because it is an ideals based proportional system. It's like giving the church a permanent block of seats in government. To them facts do not matter just faith. And if something happens that they believe needs sacrificing, they will do it in the name of their agenda. And you can not get rid of that block of people. You end up with the faithful and the practical people freezing government as the two camps have nothing in common.

That's what New Zealand is up against.

You know you have the right system of government when you have the ability to even consider a system like the STV.

Under the STV it will be practically impossible to go back to first past the post, as you would need the government to agree to let it happen. STV would never agree to go away.

Yama, I agree with most of what you're saying, only New Zealand doesn't have STV but another PR set-up called MMP, or Mixed Member Proportional. Which is just as bad, in my opinion.

And, according to the New Zealanders I regularly correspond with, much worse. Many down there thought it would provide an opening for the minor Parties to have an effective voice in their Parliament.

That didn't happen, and all the perversions of back-room party politics there are worse than ever.

We had STV here in BC for two elections back in the early '50's. Alberta had it back in the early 1930's. Both Provinces wisely went back to the present First Past the Post, or Westminster system.

In both Provinces, the STV system was responsible for the election of their first 'Social Credit' governments. Only in both Provinces that DIDN'T result in the adoption of 'social credit'.

In BC, even though Social Credit was elected in 1952, it wasn't at all clear that the majority of people that made them their second choice on the ballot, which put them over the top, wanted what they were proposing. Most of their candidates that strongly campaigned in 1952 on the official 'party platform' of monetary reform were defeated. Including their Leader.

In Alberta, in 1935, Social Credit won an overwhelming majority of seats under "Bible Bill" Aberhart. But because of the
STV system, they had the same problem.

Did the majority REALLY want what they were proposing, (when it should've been clear to anyone who knew anything about 'social credit', and was, that what Aberhart was proposing wasn't really 'social credit' at all)?

Or did the second choice ballots that gave them such a large win really reflect the public's desire for Aberahrt's programme?

STV just clouds the whole political equation. It makes "Parties" and backroom deals between or among them the order of the day. The "Parties", whether they're left, right, or centre, will be in it for THEIR OWN benefit. Not OURS.

Stick to what we've got. It's not perfect, but far better than the STV alternative. If we want to make those we elect more accountable, enact a provision for a Voter's Veto, where any particularly unpopular or undesired legislation can be overturned by petitioning to have a referendum on it.

Over a million dollars to fund interest groups on both sides of the issue!

If these interest groups believe strong enough (fervently) in their cause one would think that they would be willing to part with their wisdoms for free!

Again, the taxpayers bear the cost of something that should not cost one cent!

YDCP: "We are better off letting the NDP in occasionally, and when things get bad enough booting them out again."

That is just one opinion. Others may disagree strongly.

I don't believe in giving known losers an opportunity to make things bad again. The recovery process is too expensive.

I don't like the NDP any better than you do, Diplomat, but one thing I will say for them is that they became progressively more moderate the longer they were in. Their first Premier, Dave Barrett, was terrible, but he was absolutely better than those who preceeded him in the old CCF. Some of whom were out and out communists.

Harcourt was almost as bad, and Clark, though he got what he deserved for his incompetence in the Fast-Cat and fudget budget fiascos, not much better. But Dan Miller and Ujjal were both just "would-be capitalists without any capital." And it's hard to imagine anyone, even Carole James, being worse than Gordon Campbell.

If you don't have anything more encouraging or persuasive to say about the NDP or Carole James I think I will stick with the *devil I know* or any new promising party that happens to come along!

I am still trying to fathom how during the NDP decade the famous *Asian economic flu* affected only British Columbia - none of the other provinces were affected by it, they all grew positively during the *Asian flu epidemic* except Lotus Land!

Yes, there was an economic slowdown in Japan, but the Asian Flu and its selective influence on B.C. myth has been thoroughly debunked as political fiction - although the closer we get to election time the more frequently it is going to be posted in letters to the editors again.

I yet have to hear a reasonable explanation for why B.C. nosedived from #1 province to #10, dead last and almost *have-not* - all during the socialist manipulation decade. Did the rest of the world put B.C. on some kind of a blacklist?

Yes, I can indeed imagine any number of candidates who could be far worse than Gordon Campbell.

B C exported a great deal more of its products off-shore to Asia than did the other provinces, Diplomat, so, yes, the Asian meltdown DID effect provincial revenues in the 1990's.

The situation would've been a whole lot worse if the NDP had slashed spending, even though much of that spending was grossly mis-managed.

As for our becoming a "have-not" Province, for just about the first time since Confederation we actually saw the flow of funds reverse. With us getting more out of Canada than we've put into it. After years of being treated by Ottawa as "a goblet to be drained", as old WAC Bennett used to say, we were finally on the receiving end of transfer payments. And Gordo reverses that? To whose benefit? Certainly not OURS!

Gordo's big failing is that he and his cohorts, many of whom have had previous careers in various forms of 'land-pimping', cannot discern the difference between 'prosperity' and 'inflation'.

They think that because prices are higher this means everyone must be more 'prosperous'. Otherwise prices couldn't have risen. What they fail to see is that those price rises have been engendered by an exponential growth of debt which will be difficult , if not impossible, to continue to service. Let alone ever amortize.

Carole James is really little better, though there'll likely be far less chance of her willingly "selling the store" just to pay the incoming bills. She will "sell" it, too, but not until she's "forced to", (because, like Gordo, she really doesn't understand "finance" either.)

"...Diplomat, so, yes, the Asian meltdown DID effect provincial revenues in the 1990's. "

Yes, it did. That is understood. But the claim that this alone totally devastated the finances of the province to the point of becoming a dead last province is ludicrous. Also, the admittance by the NDP that everything was beyond its control is unbelievable. Who made the policies that led to that impotence? And who kept pursuing them until everything was up the creek?

With all the problems of the last few years, like SARS, the Okanagan fires, the pine beetle infestation, the collapse of the US housing market, the restrictions of the unfair Softwood Lumber agreement, the high Canadian dollar, etc, etc one would think that B.C. would have already slipped back into the *have-not* status again!

Well, it hasn't!!! Somebody must be doing something right...in spite of all the anti-Gordon rhetoric and bashing of the present government's policies.

Over and out.

The change in status to a have not status has been delayed by the continual sell off of public entities that in 5-10 years will come back to haunt us. Most of our major services are now done by US corporations and not BC Based companies. Entire profit centres for the government have been sold off and now we have to pay foreigners for service in our own province.

Thanks, lunarbase, that's often very conveniently overlooked. It's another one of the (many) failings of Gordo the Global Groupie.

Like I said, he's just induced an 'inflation' that always comes first masked as 'prosperity'. But it isn't. And the ability to really benefit anyone by continuously causing more 'inflation' is a proven failure.

Just wait til all the bills for the 2010 steroid circus start to come in, complete with the cost over-runs that are going to make the final price of three Fast-Cat ferry boats pale in comparison.

But I do agree with Diplomat over the ridiculous waste of any further taxpayer money on that failed STV nonsense. Let the proponents and opponents pay for making their own cases for or against. It's an issue that was already discussed widely, and even though it came close to being accepted, it didn't get the required majority (which, in my opinion, should've been 66%, not 60%, but that was the pre-determined necessary threshold and it simply didn't have enough support.)

I suppose the privatization of BC Rail is going to come up again. Why would anyone think the government should have a Choo-Choo train to play with? Just for the thrill of pulling the whistle maybe?

Or how about all the money that has ben thrown at the PG Airport lately? Is that a bad place for the "Gordon Team" to put some of that Choo-Choo money?

Has the Fort George Park got their little train running this year? If so go for a ride and maybe that will make you feel better. It's a government train!

lunarbase, under STV you'll know exactly how each of your representatives voted. Since they need your vote to get elected, if you disagree with them (or don't believe their explanation about how it's the other guy's fault) and don't vote for them again, they're much less likely to get elected. That's accountability!

YamaDooPolCat, New Zealand is experiencing better legislative processes, with legislation that more accurately reflects the will of a majority of voters. There's less partisan 'winging it' and more reflection. Sounds good to me - think carbon tax and/or fast ferries. There's also no obvious way to boot out someone with our current system because there's little linkage between the popular vote a party gets and the number of seats they win. 40% support has resulted in as few as 20% of the seats or as many as 70%. With STV, a 10% shift in the popular vote will lead to a roughly 10% shift in the number of seats a party wins. Again, that's accountability.

socredible, we never had STV. We had multimember districts with preferential ballots. This means that your vote couldn't transfer to another candidate from your preferred party the way it would with STV.

Diplomat, STV will lead to more stable arrangements where the NDP or the Liberals will only be able to take power when the voters give them (and any coalition partners) true majority support. When the party you don't like does take power, it will generally face a strong opposition and close examination of proposed legislation. That means that policies will be more moderate and will not need such severe 'corrections' afterwards.

For all these reasons, STV seems to me to be the best way forward - we voters get the MLAs we actually vote for and we can hold them accountable once in power.

lunarbase, under STV you'll know exactly how each of your representatives voted. Since they need your vote to get elected, if you disagree with them (or don't believe their explanation about how it's the other guy's fault) and don't vote for them again, they're much less likely to get elected. That's accountability!

YamaDooPolCat, New Zealand is experiencing better legislative processes, with legislation that more accurately reflects the will of a majority of voters. There's less partisan 'winging it' and more reflection. Sounds good to me - think carbon tax and/or fast ferries. There's also no obvious way to boot out someone with our current system because there's little linkage between the popular vote a party gets and the number of seats they win. 40% support has resulted in as few as 20% of the seats or as many as 70%. With STV, a 10% shift in the popular vote will lead to a roughly 10% shift in the number of seats a party wins. Again, that's accountability.

socredible, we never had STV. We had multimember districts with preferential ballots. This means that your vote couldn't transfer to another candidate from your preferred party the way it would with STV.

Diplomat, STV will lead to more stable arrangements where the NDP or the Liberals will only be able to take power when the voters give them (and any coalition partners) true majority support. When the party you don't like does take power, it will generally face a strong opposition and close examination of proposed legislation. That means that policies will be more moderate and will not need such severe 'corrections' afterwards.

For all these reasons, STV seems to me to be the best way forward - we voters get the MLAs we actually vote for and we can hold them accountable once in power.

Real Rep., we DID have STV. It was put in place by the BC Liberal government that preceeded WAC Bennett's first Social Credit government. With the complicity of the BC Progressive Conservatives.

It was seen as a clever way to keep the CCF (NDP) out of power after the two old-line parties ended their Coalition. The thinking was that a BC Liberal would make a BC Conservative his second choice, and vice versa, and whichever of the two Parties' candidates first got over 50% of the vote by combining first, second, or even third choice votes would be the winner. If that isn't STV, then perhaps you can explain to us the difference.

In 1952, what they didn't count on was the sudden rise in interest in Social Credit, whom enough voters, even CCFers, made their second choice to put them in. We had that system for one more election after that, and then, wisely, went back to FPP.

New Zealand does NOT have STV, as does Ireland and Israel. It has MMP, where each Party has a "list" of candidates who can be "named" into their Parliament, not elected in some riding, based on the TOTAL percentage of votes that PARTY got in the election in ALL ridings.

It hasn't increased New Zealand's standing in the world as one of the best overall places to live. It used to be third. Last I heard it was twenty-third, and still falling.

Ireland has STV, and it's often pointed out that that's worked wonders there. Ireland was long the basket-case of Europe. Like Spain. A 'depressed area' where people would work for practically nothing, because they had practically nothing. They got 'development', mot because of STV, but because capital flows to where labour is cheap for any job that is labour intensive ~ like manning a call centre, for instance. They also got inflation, with the average house over there now being priced even further out of reach of the average, now-employed, Mick than it ever was.

There's no sense talking about Israel, it's politics are already in the news enough.

Real Representation says "..YamaDooPolCat, New Zealand is experiencing better legislative processes, with legislation that more accurately reflects the will of a majority of voters. There's less partisan 'winging it' and more reflection..."

Heehee! You are full of it. STV doesn't work in the real world. The only thing missing is the "C". As in SCTV the comedy.

Stable arrangements with the NDP?? Are you really from BC or is this a re-ocurring pipe dream you have been having for for the last fifty years? The fox and the chickens have a better chance of living in the same house! Good grief.

"The change in status to a have not status has been delayed by the continual sell off of public entities..."

So the debt ridden BCR was sold off to Canadian National. What are the other public entities that are *continuously* being sold off?

STV is a non-issue with me. I like the present first-past-the-gate winner-tales-all system. It's clear, precise, predictable and fair to the voters who know exactly what the rules are.

The BC NDP had a strong opposition, in fact very strong - still, it passed whatever legislation it wanted to pass, as if there was no opposition at all.

That is what majority governments do in a two party system.

It is perfectly legal in BC to start new parties and advance a platform that appeals to voters sufficiently enough to elect MLAs to send to Victoria as third party representatives.

That would surely change the political landscape.

STV is not required to accomplish this.

socredible, we didn't have STV. We had what were in effect several parallel elections in a multimember district. There were separate ballots for each seat and each voter got to cast a separate vote for each seat. Ie, the ballot for seat 1 featured one candidate from each party (Lib, Cons, Socred, NDP, etc). Preferences could only transfer ACROSS parties, not between different candidates of the same party. Not too surprisingly, all the seats in a given district tended to go to candidates of the same party. Under STV, there's only one ballot per district and all candidates are listed on it. Most transfers happen within parties (ie, a voter says 'I prefer candidate 1 of Party A, but my second preference is for candidate 2 also of Party A'), though cross-party transfers are allowed. This means that parties will win seats in close proportion to their support in the population - ie, virtually all voters will be able to elect a candidate they actually support. Cross-party transfers will play a more secondary role under STV than under what we had in the 50's.

BTW, we went back to FPTP because it was in the Socred's partisan interest to do so. If you consider that it was bad that the Socreds emerged, why do you support a system that locked them into dominance? STV would have made it so that real shifts in the voters' perceptions of the Socreds could have shifted the balance of power back towards the Liberals or Conservatives instead of relegating them to oblivion (in 1956, the Liberals won only 2 seats on 22% of the vote).

Re: New Zealand's experience: I don't know what stats you're looking at, but on the UN's Human Development Index (hdrstats.undp.org/buildtables), New Zealand has been steadily rising (Canada and Ireland in second and third columns respectively for comparison):

1975: 0.854 0.873 0.823
1980: 0.860 0.888 0.835
1985: 0.871 0.911 0.851
1990: 0.880 0.931 0.875
1995: 0.908 0.936 0.898
2000: 0.927 0.946 0.931
2005: 0.943 0.961 0.959

Post-MMP, NZ rose 0.063 while Canada only increased by 0.030 in the same period (and Ireland rose by 0.084). I don't see how you can argue that MMP has been bad for NZ or STV for Ireland. BTW, Israel uses pure party-list proportional, not STV. Israel is as relevant to this discussion as Zimbabwe is as a model for FPTP.

YamaDooPolCat - please try not to resort to ad hominem arguments. STV has worked extremely well in Ireland, Australia, Scotland and other places. You may have misinterpreted my comment about stability - right now, BC swings wildly back and forth in its policies whenever the party in power changes. With STV, single party majorities ('dictatorships') will be less common (though the Libs would still have won one in 2001), but because the opposition will be stronger, proposed laws will be more closely examined and the legislative committees will have more input - this will lead to legislation that better addresses all points of view.

diplomat, the fundamental problem with our current system is that our legislature doesn't represent us - barely half the voters want the representative they're stuck with. I take representation as the foundation of government - let me choose who I want, regardless of who you want, put both our representatives in the legislature, and let them go at it.

In my view, FPTP is far from precise, fair or predictable. If a party wins 40% of the popular vote, how many seats will it win? 20%? 70%? Both have happened historically in BC. What's predictable about that? How fair is it for an NDP supporter in a Liberal stronghold (or vice versa) to vote for decades for their preferred candidate and/or party and NEVER have them elected? STV is far fairer and more predictable.

While it may be legal to start a third party, a system that won't give you a single representative until you come first in at least one riding is hardly fair. In BC's electoral history, no new party has ever emerged unless one of the established ones was imploding first - the present-day Liberals are essentially descendents of all the Socreds who jumped ship when Vanderzalm's government was going down.

diplomat, the fundamental problem with our current system is that our legislature doesn't represent us - barely half the voters want the representative they're stuck with. I take representation as the foundation of government - let me choose who I want, regardless of who you want, put both our representatives in the legislature, and let them go at it.

In my view, FPTP is far from precise, fair or predictable. If a party wins 40% of the popular vote, how many seats will it win? 20%? 70%? Both have happened historically in BC. What's predictable about that? How fair is it for an NDP supporter in a Liberal stronghold (or vice versa) to vote for decades for their preferred candidate and/or party and NEVER have them elected? STV is far fairer and more predictable.

While it may be legal to start a third party, a system that won't give you a single representative until you come first in at least one riding is hardly fair. In BC's electoral history, no new party has ever emerged unless one of the established ones was imploding first - the present-day Liberals are essentially descendents of all the Socreds who jumped ship when Vanderzalm's government was going down.

diplomat, the fundamental problem with our current system is that our legislature doesn't represent us - barely half the voters want the representative they're stuck with. I take representation as the foundation of government - let me choose who I want, regardless of who you want, put both our representatives in the legislature, and let them go at it.

In my view, FPTP is far from precise, fair or predictable. If a party wins 40% of the popular vote, how many seats will it win? 20%? 70%? Both have happened historically in BC. What's predictable about that? How fair is it for an NDP supporter in a Liberal stronghold (or vice versa) to vote for decades for their preferred candidate and/or party and NEVER have them elected? STV is far fairer and more predictable.

While it may be legal to start a third party, a system that won't give you a single representative until you come first in at least one riding is hardly fair. In BC's electoral history, no new party has ever emerged unless one of the established ones was imploding first - the present-day Liberals are essentially descendents of all the Socreds who jumped ship when Vanderzalm's government was going down.

Hi all - just checked back on this site and saw that my last comment somehow got entered three times. Sorry about that - I have no idea how that happened. If the editorial staff can delete the extra postings, please go ahead and do so.

Real Rep., in the 1952 BC election, and the one that followed it, we HAD STV. We did NOT have 'multi-member districts'. You voted for the candidate, or candidates, of your choice in order of preference on one ballot.

You could vote for just one of them if you pleased. (That is what the CCF leader advised his supporters to do ~just vote for the CCF candidate ~ many didn't listen, and voted for the Socreds as their second choice, and that's what helped put the Socreds in).

Or you could vote for two of them, or any or all of them, simply by indicating who was your first choice, your second choice, third, etc. on your ballot. When the ballots were counted if there was no clear winner on the count of first choice votes, (over 50% of the ballots cast in that riding), then the second choice votes were counted, or, possibly, even third, until the combined first, second, third, etc. votes for one of the candidates exceeded 50%. That is what we HAD, and like diplomat said, it was a cumbersome, time consuming process.

And no more 'democratic' than FPP, since in the 1952 election the Socreds and the CCF were tied, with the CCF having slightly more of the overall 'popular vote' than the Socreds. Only Mr. Bennett got to the Lieutenant-Governor first, and the rest is history.

If you want greater 'democracy', you need a set-up that better enables you to choose or refuse ONE THING AT A TIME. STV goes exactly opposite to that.

Yama wrote:- "I suppose the privatization of BC Rail is going to come up again. Why would anyone think the government should have a Choo-Choo train to play with?"

The 'government' shouldn't, Yama. The shares in BC Rail should've been given equally to each and every British Columbian. They are OURS ~ we paid for them, many times over. And if CN, or anyone else wanted to buy them, they could put their offer directly to us.

Failing that, a referendum should have been held on whether the railway should be sold the way it was, and, if so, whether each of us wanted the 'government' to 're-invest' OUR money from its sale, or make a cash distribution of the proceeds.

The way they did it stinks to high Heavan. There's just too much room for payoffs to Liberal Party supporters, and no overall accountability that they got us good value from re-investing the funds received.

In regards to New Zealand, they once had the third highest living standard in the world. Then the International Financiers put the squeeze on them, with only their fledgling Social Credit Party that was willing to call the money-men's bluff.

Their Labor Party government, "lefties' like our NDP, caved in to the dictates of Finance, and encouraged the sale of Crown and domesticly owned private assets to foreign interests, and privatization of things that worked just fine under public ownership, and all the other 'financial' prescriptions that were supposed to put them "back on track." They joined in the worldwide 'race to the bottom', in other words.

Their other Parties, just like the Parties here, ALL subscribed to that same overall 'policy'.

Their Socreds, which then opposed it, at one election, when the crunch first hit, had 22% of the popular vote, but that didn't translate into seats in their Parliament. So they wanted STV, figuring that would give them a foot in the door. They got MMP instead, which did absolutely nothing for them. Just the same as STV would have done nothing for them.

The point is, you can't have real political democracy, no matter what system you elect your representatives under, unless you also have economic democracy. So long as any one person or group can deny you the right to a living except on 'terms' ~ THEIR terms ~ you won't achieve what's desired.

socredible, we did not previously have STV - we had what's more commonly known as the alternative vote (AV) throughout the province, which was mostly single member districts, but there were several multi-member districts as well. In the multimember districts, voters were given a separate ballot for each seat available and only one candidate from each party was listed on each ballot. Each seat's results were counted separately, so the same group of voters got to elect 2 or 3 MLAs (the group of voters was 2-3 times bigger than in the single member districts, so the ratio of MLAs to voters was unchanged).

From the Elections BC website: "Please note that reference to use of a ‘single transferable vote’ system in the general elections of 1952 and 1953 is not correct. As indicated in footnotes to the 1952 and 1953 election results, the system in use was actually an ‘alternative voting’ system."
http://www.elections.bc.ca/elections/electoral_history/part4-5.html

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Columbia_general_election,_1952 to see which ridings were multimember.

As for the result, you're right that in 1952 the CCF had a slight edge (31%-27%) over the Socreds. However, the AV is just as bad as FPTP when it comes to producing proportional outcomes. The Liberals and Tories, which between them had 40% of the vote, ended up with just 20% of the seats. With STV, the CCF would likely have been the leading party and could have chosen a coalition partner.

Given your account of NZ history, I'm surprised you're not more of a fan of STV - it seems that the Socreds there got blocked out when they only had 22% support (not surprising with FPTP); with STV, they would likely have been a significant force in parliament and might well have been listened to.

I would paraphrase your final comment as "so long as anyone can deny you the representative you want, you won't achieve what's desired". Improved representation - for me, that's the basis of representative democracy, and that's why I support STV.

Real Representation: "...diplomat, the fundamental problem with our current system is that our legislature doesn't represent us - barely half the voters want the representative they're stuck with."

The legislature represents the majority of those who bothered to vote. Even if only 60% of eligible voters actually exercised their privilege to vote then the one who is first past the post can claim to have a majority support of those citizens.

Of course, it is not a real majority, but only a majority of those who cast a ballot.

STV is an effort to make some change but the real change that is needed and that would make a far greater difference is to somehow achieve 100% voter participation.

Then, and only then, would we have a true indication of what exactly people want. The make up of the Legislature may have looked a lot different in past elections had everybody voted.

I have been living in a federal riding which has predictably (over and over again) sent an MP to Ottawa who I did not vote for. Is that fair to me? Of course it is. The majority in this riding keeps electing a candidate whose party I can't support.

Still, my riding is indeed represented in parliament. I have asked for assistance with a problem from the MP who I did not vote for and I received the same attention as a party supporter would have. Nobody asked me who I voted for.

Yet, democracy has worked just fine, imho. If enough voters in the riding choose another candidate he/she will go to Ottawa.

BTW: Socredible makes some very credible comments!

C'est la vie!

diplomat - the legislature doesn't by any stretch of the imagination represent the majority of those who chose to vote. The only time in the past half-century in BC when that happened was in 2001 when the Liberals won 97% of the seats on 57.6% of the vote. In every other case, we've had a majority government supported by a minority of those who chose to vote.

I agree that the constitution of the government might change if more people voted, but even if everyone did, on average only about half the voters would be represented by an MLA they support. More people voting wouldn't make FPTP any more representative of those who voted than it is now. Regardless of how many people vote, STV will accurately translate those votes into seats, so our legislature will be an accurate reflection of what those who voted actually wanted.

You're one of the rare people who feel fairly represented by your MP. The vast majority of Liberals and NDP and Green supporters in Alberta and Tory, NDP and Green supporters in Ontario feel quite differently from you (as I'm sure do many NDP supporters in the Okanagan and Fraser Valley and Liberal supporters on Vancouver Island and in the Kootenays). You may have gotten reasonable constituency service from your MP, but that's not the same as representation on policy issues, which is what most people are actually voting for. I've been waiting over three years to see my MLA on a policy question - he's not interested in talking with me about it - and I can't go to any other MLA who may be more interested because they're not my representative. They won't ask what party I voted for, but they will ask whether I live in the riding. If not, I'm out of luck. STV will ensure that I have an MLA who's willing to listen to me.

You seem to be saying that STV is all positive, there are no negative aspects to it and once we have STV all our complaints will have been taken care of.

http://www.understandingstv.ca/

A visit to this website will show some of the pros and cons and it isn't all as rosy as some STV supporters make it out to be.

"STV will ensure that I have an MLA who's willing to listen to me."

I hope that you will not be disappointed because that kind of assurance is not a mandatory feature of STV either.

It boggles my mind to think that one riding could have multiple MLAs representing parties who have diametrically opposed policies on certain matters.

The Legislature may and up in complete gridlock over a simple matter such as do we build a new bridge to twin the Port Mann bridge!

They will be arguing until 3:00 am every night and not much will get accomplished.

We all know how good they are at arguing, mudslinging and never giving an inch to the other side.

Good Luck! We would need it!

I would second what Diplomat says he feels about the representation he receives from his MP. I didn't vote for one of the previous MPs that was elected in our riding, in fact I was diametrically, and publicly, opposed to his Party's (NDP) stance on most issues.

Yet he did represent me very well when I had a problem with a government agency, Canada Customs. And without his help I doubt whether the dispute I had with them would've ever been settled favourably and fairly. He did everything that is the primary job any MP, or MLA, once elected, in my opinion. To be the 'representative' of ALL the people in that riding. Not the 'delegate' for some political party.

I personally can't see any advantages to a STV system at all. But if you're successful in meeting the threshold necessary for its passage, which I hope you won't be, I'll certainly be willing to accept the policy of the majority.

As far as I'm concerned, the best change to the voting system we could make would be to put "None of the Above" below the candidates' names on every ballot, with a place for us to put an "x" beside it.

That single step would probably re-vitalize the whole political process. For then those running, if they want to be our 'representatives', have to find out what exactly are the results that the majority of their constituents want from their government. And commit to trying to obtain them.

Right now, the 'results' from any election are about as predictable as asking something like, "What's so great about Canada?", and then giving four or five pre-selected answers from which to choose. I might feel that's something entirely different than what's on the list of answers I'm supposed to choose from, but those are the only choices I'm given. It's no wonder so few people even bother to vote, and I sure don't see STV changing that.

Real Rep.:-"Given your account of NZ history, I'm surprised you're not more of a fan of STV - it seems that the Socreds there got blocked out when they only had 22% support (not surprising with FPTP); with STV, they would likely have been a significant force in parliament and might well have been listened to."

Real Rep., as long as most Party's "still dance to the tunes of Finance", those Socreds that 'MIGHT HAVE' been elected to the NZ Parliament, proportionally, under STV, would've been just about as effective there as the Socreds that WERE once elected here, under FPP, as the third most numerous Party in the Canadian Parliament.

They can talk, and talk , and talk. And many did. But until they are numerous enough to have the votes to govern, who's listening? Not the other Parties. They ALL subscribe to the exact SAME policy, that whatever it is they promised so faithfully to do before the election can't be done after it, "...because we don't have enough money." Those six little words are a tacit admission that it is not we, the voters, no matter what voting system we use, but THOSE WHO CONTROL THE MONEY who will have the final say. And right now "THOSE" ain't usn's.

If any Party I vote for, whether it's my first, second, or third, etc. choice, has to coalesce to get those votes, as they would be far more likely to have to do under a STV set-up, am I REALLY then getting 'representation' that'll demand the RESULTS that I thought I voted for? Or just the NAME of a political party, that's willing to abandon all its principles just to hold office, or get a bit closer to it?

diplomat, I'm not saying that there aren't any debatable issues about the impact of STV, but in my view, the pros are strong and the cons are weak.

What I meant when I said that STV will ensure that I have an MLA willing to listen to me is that (a) every STV district in the province (with the possible occasional exception of the 2-seat Peace River district) will return at least one government MLA and at least one opposition MLA, and (b) since MLAs are only elected if they receive nearly a full seat's worth of votes, there's a stronger structural incentive (as measured by how many votes of margin you have for losing your seat next time around - on average, you're much closer to the line with STV - 'no safe seats' is the way proponents describe this) to be responsive to your constituents. Under FPTP, if you've got a margin of 30% over your nearest opponent, you don't have to worry so much.

I disagree with your characterization of the twinning of the Port Mann bridge as a simple matter - it's a very controversial regional issue and I think it's an excellent thing to have substantial debate on a multi-billion dollar expenditure. This is exactly the situation where consensus-building is required. If one party goes ahead and forces something through and then the other party takes power and tries to undo it, we'll be in a far worse state (and end up wasting far more money) than if we'd worked out a compromise in advance. One of the reasons the politicians spend so much time slinging mud is that they're rewarded for this at the polls because small shifts in the popular vote can swing large numbers of seats - this is what's playing out federally right now; with STV, seats swing in proportion to the shift in popular support, so there's little incentive to go to the polls early - the voters will send them back in roughly the same proportions as before, so the MLAs have to learn to get along better. Most people I know would welcome a shift to a political process that would encourage and reward more collaborative behaviours (and punish MLAs who don't get it).

socredible, I'm glad your MP gave you good constituency service, as he should have. I was disgusted with Harper's move to appoint a 'liaison' to the Conservative Government for Skeena - Bulkley Valley, essentially usurping Nathan Cullen's role http://blogginghorse.blogspot.com/2007/08/conservatives-begin-replacing.html.

However, I don't see how an MLA can represent me on policy questions when they hold a diametrically opposite stance. Did you really feel that your MP was giving you good representation on the various committees he was sitting on? Wouldn't you have preferred a non-NDP MP who you'd actually voted for to be pressing your case? I know I would want that if I were you.

I don't see how a 'None of the Above' option would change anything - you already have the option to not vote and one might interpret the declining turnout rate as evidence of a NOTA mentality. Would you imagine the seat could go unfilled? I see that as more a feel-good measure.

Re: the NZ Socreds - they had their chance under FPTP and got precisely nowhere. Presumably their views got as much coverage as those of the Democratic Reform here in BC. Even if they didn't seize the reigns of power (and how legitimate would it have been if they'd done that on 22% of the vote?), under STV their voice would have been heard and they could have had influence. They could have built on the toehold they would have won in parliament and maybe could have built up to a viable alternative party that could at some later date have taken power.

Right now, we're locked in stasis - we have an overly simplified binary choice in a complex modern world and our current voting system doesn't let the voters guide the direction of the two main parties through their votes. With STV, we will be able to choose not only between parties, but between candidates from the same party.