More than 90% voted in a process that was boycotted by numerous people who were opposed because they felt the whole process was a racist setup. To claim that 90% voted in favour under such conditions is to distort the facts. At the very least, if the intention is to discuss matters rationally, it should be noted that the numbers were distorted by the boycott and the whole disgraceful affair was invalid.

In any case, of course, human rights and the constitution are not subject to political whim or majority vote.

Regardless of the results about STV, there would not be an STV legislature in 2009 anyway. If it is passed the first such parliament would be in 2013, the election after it is approved.

Ammonra if 90% of voters agreed to a motion regardless of those who boycotted, the motion should be carried regardless. Those who boycotted had a chance to vote but didn't. If you don't vote or refuse to vote don't complain if a motion is adoppted

Don't think for one second the old boys club is going to do anything to allow the PEOPLE to endanger their goldmine.

Even if the 90% vote is accepted, the Constitution is still not subject to a majority vote. Ergo, the results of the vote have no force.

Most of the polls and studies I've seen show that support for STV is very strong (70%-80%) amongst those who understand what it is and that it was arrived at by a citizen-based, non-partisan process. The biggest problem in the last referendum was that the government made no plans to ensure that the majority of voters were aware of the proposal - estimates of public awareness range from about 30-50% - which virtually ensured that it wouldn't get 60% support since few people will vote for something they don't know about.

The government can make it look like the proposal failed a second time by doing precisely what it's doing now - continuing to insist on a 60% threshold, underfunding public awareness campaigns, and refusing to distribute information about the referendum.

Just recently, the Attorney General said that he had no plans to republish the Citizens' Assembly's report or to distribute it to British Columbians, saying that it's available on the web for anyone who's interested. What a great way to stimulate public engagement!

The funding the government has announced is also pathetic - at $500,000 each for the proponents and opponents, that may sound like a lot, but it's a drop in the bucket of our province's nearly $40,000,000,000 budget and works out to only about 25c per person. In New Zealand's 1993 referendum, the government there achieved close to 90% awareness by spending about $4m for building awareness with an advertising campaign widely lauded for its balance, fairness and informativeness. Surely we can do just as well.

As Meisner asks, do we voters really count? The politicians may rarely pay attention to us, but the STV proposal belongs to us and it's up to each of us to help get it passed. I encourage everyone to sign up at http://stv.ca and start spreading the word.

What has it changed in the places that have it? Nothing, that I can see. The Parties all still promise to do this or that before the election. And then afterwards tell us that what they promised to do can't be done "...because we don't have enough money." Even when all the men, and materials, skills, and knowledge, and public desire to see something done are all in existence, "...we don't have enough money." Is combining all those promising Parties into coalitions going to enable us to "...have enough money?" Doesn't seem to have where STV is in place. So why should we expect it will here? Leave the threshold for it where it is, and let those in favour of it do their own promoting of it out of their own pockets. If people really want it that bad they'll put it in. I don't want my tax dollars used to pay for their eventual disappointment.

Real Rep. wrote:- ".... few people will vote for something they don't know about."

You mean to say all the people that voted for Campbell's BC Liberals in 2001 really "knew" about what he was going to do? Or all the people that voted for the BC NDP a decade earlier really "knew" what they were going to do? I find that hard
to believe, especially after the defeat of so many Liberals in the last election.

MANY people vote for all kinds of things they don't know about. In fact, most of the time people are NEVER given a chance to vote on things they DO know about, i.e. what THEY as INDIVIDUALS REALLY WANT.

It might be hard to believe for the proponents of STV, but true 'democracy' is NOT the 'rule' of the majority. It is, properly, the "ability of each individual to make his own 'policy' effective unto himself." It involves the freedom to choose, or refuse, ONE THING AT A TIME.

At election time, whether it's FPP, MMP, STV, or AV, we don't get to vote on matters of 'policy', but are instead only given a choice as to the 'method' of administering A SINGLE 'policy' that is exactly the SAME in each of the Parties we're being asked to vote for.

It would appear that both major parties here in BC opposed this before and will do so again this time. I guess they have to protect their dictatorships (right or left) Iwould vote for anything that would make politicians accountable, be it a fair STV or recall, not the joke we have now. Cheers

socredible, I have a great deal of sympathy for your views about Social Credit. However, government is about making policies that apply to everyone - you can't have five different monetary policies. With FPTP, as you point out, it's virtually impossible to start electing any true proponents of Social Credit. With STV, you can make a start. With representation comes visibility. Visibility and seats can lead to influence, and influence can eventually lead to exercising power. It's not an overnight thing, but there's a real possibility of effecting change. Without STV, you're just railing from the sidelines.

Real Rep., whenever we get a government that strays too far from being 'middle-of-the-road' towards being either hard 'left', or hard 'right', the voters turf that government.

It happened here in 1972 during WAC Bennett's last term in office, when his approach to inflation became too 'right-wing' for most people's tastes. It happened with Dave Barrett's only term in office, when much of what his government had done, or was about to do, was just too 'left-wing'in it's methods for the majority to swallow.

Bill Bennett would have been turfed in 1986, after he veered too hard to the 'right' with his Austerity Program. If he hadn't resigned as Premier first. As would Bill Vander Zalm in 1991. And Mike Harcourt, too.

Certainly any 'popularity' the Campbell regime has at present is the result of Campbell's retreat from the hard 'right' approach he took in his first term of office. One which would have finished him last election if the lingering memory of the NDP's decade of ineptitude in the other direction wasn't still present in most minds.

Why do we need STV? Would that have prevented any veering to the 'left', or to the 'right'? I don't think so.

If we look at the CAUSE of such hard turns they are almost entirely 'financial' in nature.

And NONE of the current Parties, be they committed to the 'left', the 'right', or even trying to stay in the 'centre', are willing to even EXAMINE that CAUSE. Let alone attempt to do anything about correcting it.

The overiding POLICY of each of them assumes that the money system itself is perfect, and that any problems we face are the result of (a.)those on the 'left' "not working hard enough" and being "overpaid" for what little they do do; (b.) those on the 'right' being "too greedy, and wanting too much profit at the expense of the workers"; or (c.) those in the 'centre' believing there's too much of both of the above. So what changes to that do STV REALLY make? None whatsoever. It's 'pie-in-the-sky'. The places that have it are NO BETTER governed in terms of the satisfaction of their citizens with their governments than we are here with FPTP.

But don't take my word for it, go ahead and waste your time trying to get it through. If you succeed, you'll see for yourself.

socredible, Actually, proportional representation systems like STV are associated with an average 19% increase in satisfaction of citizens with their government ('Patterns of Democracy' by Arend Lijphart, 1999). To me, that's well worth going after.

I still don't see why you wouldn't support a system that has the capacity to break the binary system you describe above. FPTP will make it virtually impossible for politicians you support to win election and start the public conversation about the money system that you obviously want. STV will give you that opening. Why not seize it?

Something that many people may find hard to believe is that "...the money system you (I) obviously want" does NOT require a Social Credit "Party" to be implemented.

It could be implemented by ANY of the existing Parties, major or minor, if they chose to do so. It is fully compatible with what they all "SAY" they passionately believe in.

Yet, once in office, NONE of them will even deign to publicly examine the concepts involved. And where there have been "Social Credit" Parties, both here and abroad, and they have got some seats in a legislature or a national parliament, the other Parties suddenly display an amazing unity amongst themselves in ensuring the concepts are NEVER given any public or parliamentary consideration whatsoever.

Such was the case in Canada's Federal parliament in the 1960's when the old Social Credit Party of Canada held more seats with a broader national represntation than the NDP did. They were able to influence the governments of the day, which were alternately minority Conservative and Liberal ones, on several issues, but NONE concerning their advocacy of 'monetary reform'.

Try to bring that up, and the other three Parties were as one in ensuring the proposals wouldn't even be talked about. Why? Well, Real Rep., there's an old saying, "Money talks." Not only that, it gets listened to.

And "money" DID talk then, quietly, behind the scenes, and it told those 'actors' we think govern us just what they were to do. And that will NOT change with STV. But again, some things will probably have to be learned the hard way.