If we already had STV, this kind of decision on teams would take at least another six months. The funding would take another year to sort out, because everyone would have to have a say.

The STV style of government attracts people that just love to talk... and talk some more. It's leadership by committee, the economy won't like it as committees play it safe. Big business wil like it and the socialist as they dream of being the committee chairman. The economy will hate it as STV is a recipe for stagnation and crown corporate control.

I agree. Why we're still considering this is beyond me. Government is already bloated and inefficent, the STV system will only exacerbate the problem.

IMO, the reason that it almost passed the last time isn't because people thought it was a good system, the STV people tapped into the general frusteration of the electorate and convinced them to thinking 'Any change must be better'.

The 58% could technically be rounded up to 59% :)

I'm not so sure about this Fair Vote BC group. They seem to tie all their BCSTV rallies to other issue causes (aids, gay rights, olympics, downtown homeless people ect) and all that does is confuse the real issue (electoral reform) with their host causes. Someone that is free enterprise or conservative isn't going to find that a very appealing messenger IMO. Is it by design? It also doesn't seem to have much for organization outside of downtown Vancouver.

As for the 'No to STV Society' you can only guess that they're a group of party hacks with political science degrees. They probably specialize in the bankster client type lesser-of-two-evils campaigns passed off as first-past-the-post illusions of a real democracy.

The goal of the 'No to STV' will be:
- Convince you that not requiring a 50% majority is democracy (34% will do for them (you can always split a vote))?
- Not having a choice on your ballot is democracy?
- Allowing the political parties to give you their only choice and not your ability to choose from a list of their candidates is democracy?
- Convince the voter that it is not blackmail in a single member riding to be seen to either support or not support the 'winning' party should your local riding chose wrong and thus be left out of the governing parties consideration?
- The no vote people will also have to be convincing that insider special interest doesn't control the current party political priorities as a result of their party insider control over the current nomination and then lesser of two evils campaigns?

"The STV style of government attracts people that just love to talk... and talk some more."

- See Exhibit 'A' above.

---

"As for the 'No to STV Society' you can only guess that they're a group of party hacks with political science degrees."

- No, we just think it's a silly system for the reasons already mentioned.

The government is bloated because of political patronage, and we have political patronage because we have a system that is controlled by political parties and not voters holding representatives to account.

BCSTV has nothing to do with the bureaucracy. BCSTV is about how we elect who will fill those 84 MLA seats in the legislature. The legislature will still run under the same rules that it operates under today. The only difference is instead of a bunch of people who are nothing more then clients for their party leadership... we will instead have 84 patrons of their constituents sitting as MLA's representing everyone of all political persuasions (they might be a second or third choice voter).

You can still have a majority party under BCSTV. The only difference would be a BCSTV majority government (like the BC Socred one elected by STV) would be a government where all MLA's have a majority vote endorsement of legitimacy... and all MLA's were elected running not only against their political rivals, but also against their peers as well. The party control over the nomination and thus election of the MLA's would be so minimal that their influence would be much diminished in a BCSTV majority government of majority elected MLA's.

I also notice all the media is calling it a referendum on 'STV', and then linking it to the Citizens Assembly. The BC Citizens Assembly endorsed a system they created specifically for BC called the BC-STV that differs greatly from a STV system.

The BC-STV system as endorsed by the BC Citizens Assembly is a multi member riding of 2-6 MLA's per ballot for the voter... whereas a simple STV system is a single member riding using the transferable ballot to ensure no one is elected without getting a required 50% majority to the single electoral seat.

This was part of an appeasement I figure to the green party (who still refuse to support BC-STV unless they get full proportional rep). The green party supported proportional representation for the whole provincial vote... this clearly would have been unacceptable for the rural regions of the province, because our vote in the North for example would have been utterly meaningless in such a system. This is also what the ndp would bring into through a simple vote in the legislature if they get another majority. After the olympic village they might just get their chance to fast ferry the liberals and do just that.

The BC-STV system allowed for 6 member riding in the Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island... so those regions could get proportionality at a local level that they demand, while still respecting the need to get a 50% majority to win your individual seat through a transferable ballot.

So to call this a referendum on STV is simply wrong and misleading the general public on what it is that they would be voting on. That is unless we are not voting on what the BC Citizens Assembly put forward (BC-STV)... and we are voting for something entirely different in this referendum than the last referendum last election??

The transferable ballot lets all remember only comes into effect if no candidate yet has a majority... but if a candidate already has a majority then there is no preferential consideration and the election is no different than one we have today where a candidate gets a 50%+ on the first ballot.

The transferable ballot for the voters preferential considerations only applies to seats that are not yet filled by a candidate with majority support of approval from the voters. I see nothing wrong with requiring all seats be filled with 50%+1 candidates... that is democracy IMO.

MrPG and Yama sled can have their 34% majorities and the corruption that goes about bringing them to life.

Yup, I'll take the admittedly imperfect current system over the complicated STV system any day of the week. By the way, thanks for proving that point in your three posts above.

Wonder who gets to manipulate the numbers?

I don't get why people would want to vote by giving everyone a vote but on a scale form 1 to ???
And who decides if they should use my first choice or my last choice??? surely won't be me....

Your first choice for each seat goes to that candidate. If no one gets elected on the first round then the candidate with the least amount of votes is eliminated and all ballots that cast him first have their second choice counted in the place of their first choice... and so on and so forth until enough candidates with to few votes are eliminated and all the seats are filled with candidates that have a majority support.

The beauty of this is that you can vote for a long shot as your first choice knowing they will likely get eliminated anyways (but they ran a good honest campaign) and you know that your second choice will then count as your vote.

Even better is that everyone in a way is forced to run a positive campaign on opportunities and ideas, rather than a negative campaign of fear. This is because you can't demonize other candidates from your own party, as well as the whole diversity of candidates against you, if you ever want to get a 50% majority.

In a simple first-past-the-post campaign of two parties that have a chance each candidate can win by character assassination alone... with no vision or ideas to inspire voters with.

Voting for opportunity inspired by ideas is what BC-stv will bring... and voting based on fear is what the current system is all about.

BCRacer I guess that means we would have to have a good paper trail. Especially for recounts.

Eagleone I like the sound of preferential voting. Would you explain to me very simply the difference between BCSTV and STV?
Thanks.

Hey Lamb.

The main difference is that in the BC-STV it is a multi-member riding meaning that you would have 2-6 seats on your ballot that need to be filled.

STV however is a single seat riding with only one spot to fill on the ballot.

With STV the preference ranking is straight forward with your second choice only counted if your first choice is eliminated for having the least amount of votes for the candidates remaining while still trying to get the 50% consensus for the appointment to the seat.

In the BC-STV since like in Vancouver you would have 6-seats up for grabs on one ballot... your top six picks would then count for the first ballot (adds proportionality for the urbanites at their local level). If any of your first 6-picks are eliminated after the first round for having the least amount of votes... then your next preference would be counted in the place of the eliminated candidate on the next round of vote counting until all 6 seats are filled with a majority consensus.

The biggest difference between STV and BC-STV is that STV is purely a preferential ballot for a single electoral seat, and BC-STV has an element of proportionality to the ballot through more seats on the ballot, although still requiring the consensus approval for all its seats just as in the STV. In both cases the only time your ballot is recounted is when you have as one of your top picks for a seat eliminated because they had the least amount of overall votes and the seat was not filled by a majority consensus candidate. If your picks are all the people that are elected with a majority then it matters little the preferential aspect of your ballot.

STV was used in the 50's to bring the BC socreds to power in their first election ever and they went on to build things like BC Hydro, and BC Rail, as well as develop the provincial highway system. STV benefits the new ideas and is a liability to establish political elites, which is why they will always oppose STV once in power, because then they would be more accountable to the voter. The socred got in with the STV system because the conservative and liberal plan to use that system to win the election backfired. Back then they made these changes with a simple majority vote in the legislature and there was no referendum or anything... just the political needs of the political parties in power to win the next election. The socreds once in power wanted to stay in power, so they switched back to the old way with their new majority in the legislature. Its easier to win an election with 30% support in a first-past-the-post election when all you have to do is incite your base and demonize your opponent so the elites in power will always favor that once in power.

Thanks!