IMO this could be an historical precedence for independence of citizens in shaping the process of their own political system independent of politicians, lawyers, special interest groups, and banksters.

59% overall approval and a 50%+ majority in all but a single riding last election wasn't enough to get the partied politicians to pass it, so if we are to make history in the evolution of democracy then we will need to get the word out and the ensure people understand and support democracy in the next election.

Hmmm... I don't think "evolution", is the right word for turning the legislature into a House of Babble. More like devolution.

STV is the ultimate in the expression of theory vs practical. Kind of like the original theories on socialism. Socialism seemed great in theory where any peasant could rise up from the peoples of the land, but the results of that governing model was something entirely different than expected.

New Zealand is still suffering the hang over from the same drunken devolutionary step. Don't be bamboozeld by the "smart" people.

Who I vote for is important to me, and I don't want some statistical math wiz idiot "Transfering My Vote" TMV! Rights are precious, and that is why you do not want to give them up to schemes like STV. The right to make your vote count will be gone for good and the step we are being asked to take is only possible under our current system of government. Doesn't that tell you anything?

Absolutely right, Yama. Lets hope this idiotic, tax-wasting idea is buried for good when it's defeated this time. If you want a proper sanction on those we're asked to elect, put "None of the Above" on the bottom of every ballot, with a place for your "X" beside it. That would do more for 'representative' government than sending a bunch of self-serving, elected by default, 2nd or 3rd choicers to Victoria. With no one having a clear mandate to do anything except screw the public that sent them there, only then without any way to affix responsibility to anyone.

Democracy, in the final analysis, is "the ability of each individual to make his policies effective unto himself." In an election, it is not "rule" by a majority, but rather an expression of the desired policy of a majority. You're further away from that with STV than you are with FPP, since no one can ever clearly determine what the majority really wants under that system.

If there were no Parties, and each MLA were elected solely on his or her individual merits and advocations alone, STV might have some credence. But with MLAs primarily representing their "Party" and its "leader" to us, rather than the other way around, STV will lead to endless behind closed doors 'deal making' to the sole short- term benefit of "Parties" and a far worse government, long-term, for all of us.

It really does'nt matter what they say now (before the election) because they will do what they want after they are elected anyway,all parties included.They need to get the taxpayers trust back,if that is even possible and be held accountable for all their promises.It is very hard to hear anything else other than blah,blah,blah coming out of any politicians mouth when you can't trust them.

I oppose people getting elected without a majority, and I oppose political parties controlling politicians, so I oppose the first past the post.

New Zealand had a proportional rep. system implemented, and I oppose that system as not requiring a majority (5%required in New Zealand), and not representative to local constituents, but rather political parties.

In order of control by the political parties over the political process I would rank it as follows:

#1) Proportional Representation - as used in New Zealand and most of Europe where political parties have total control over the political system.

#2) First Past the Post - as used in the United States and Canada where political parties decide who gets on the ballot in a lesser of two evil election battles that often elect candidates without majority support.

#3) Single Transferable Vote - as used only in the Australian Senate and Ireland as leaders in this form of open elections for all regardless of party affiliation. Hopefully soon to be used in BC as only the third place in the world using a STV process and the first implemented by the people themselves.

I think there is some truth in what everyone is saying here.
I am not convinced that STV will change a damn thing, but at the same time,the way we are going now is hopeless.
SOMETHING has to change in they way we elect our "leaders"!
There has to be a way to control our politicians and the decisions they make without consultation.
The Campbell governemnt is a prime example of what happens when you have a government listening to the voices in it's own head!
I'm open to suggestions!

BC-STV is the only political process in the world that gives a reasonable chance for a non-party affiliated candidate to get elected to Parliament.

The "party" system was designed by politicians to benefit politicians.
That is the problem.
It is a system to control votes and concentrate power.
It has absolutely nothing to do with the electorate or what is good for the province/country.
Election promises mean nothing and they never did.
We all understand that completely and for the most part,we don't usually buy into too much said at election time.
So they in turn say whatever they damn well please because they know they cannot be held accountable.
But being able to hold those we elect accountable for promises made and broken for the sake of votes is one of the first thing that has to change,if that is even possible.
The dishonesty and the manipulation in our political system is incredible.
Governments survive on spin and lies, used to control public opinion, and that same public opinion they are controlling really doesn't mean much to them.
There needs to be a way to make public opinion worth something to these overpaid opportunists we elect.
If the system was fair and our opinions carried some weight,issues like BC.STV would never even come up!
I would support any political system that takes a certian amount of power away from an elected government and forces them into something like a referendum situation to some degree for certian things, but not all.
Should Campbell have been able to award himself and his crew two nice fat raises in 2 years?
No damn way!
Should they be able to sell off our resources to a private company(B.C.Ferries,B.C.Rail etc.)without some sort of consultation?
No way.
Should the government have been able to only go to Vancouver for support for an expenditure like the Olympics and to hell with what the rest of B.C. thought?
No, they should not have been.
And that is the kind of self-serving crap that has to stop.

There is a place for electoral reform in Canada, but STV is an extremely bad model which will fail to achieve everything it is supposed to do.

It's going to bamboozle voters with choices. Even in a fairly small riding like Prince George, we will have to choose from three Liberals, three NDP, three Greens and any number of independents. In someplace like Vancouver, they could well have over 40 candidates to choose from. How are you supposed to learn enough about each of them to make an informed choice?

In multi-MLA ridings you would now have to get three, five, seven or nine MLAs onboard with any local project. If they come from different parties (which is part of the point of STV) you could have some MLAs working actively to sabotage projects started by opposing parties within the same riding.

While merging Vancouver into one big riding might make sense, turning an area the size of France into a single riding will mean rural areas will be less represented. Each MLA will have to try to cover the whole area.

All of these factors, combined with a vote-counting system which is complicated and cumbersome, will not increase voter turnout in the long run. Once the novelty wears off, people will likely be put off by a complex, ineffective system and become even more apathetic.

The best system for proportional representation is a bicameral system with one house using the traditional "first past the post" system. Parties would then be allocated seats in the second house, based on their percentage of the popular vote. That way each riding gets the MLA or MP the majority of people in that riding voted for. But a vote for a party which probably won't win in your riding isn't a 'wasted' vote, because it will increase their percentage of the popular vote. If this system were used, the Green Party, for example, would have seats in the federal and B.C. governments' second houses, even though they didn't get an MLA or MP elected. Seats in the second house would be allocated to MP/MLA candidates who didn't get elected — in priority order of the number of votes they got. So, for example, you have a Green candidate who didn't get elected in your riding, but got a lot of community support and came in second or third. They would likely be one of the first candidates selected to represent the Green Party in the second house.

It would be a simple, effective system which would give smaller parties a voice in government and eliminate the need for "strategic voting." We could replace the current batch of political appointees in the Senate with elected, effective Senators. We could a second house in the provincial system to give parties like the Green Party a voice in government, while still maintaining local MLAs.

Overall, it would be a much better system which would engage voters without being overly complex.

I disagree Arthur. You are still talking about proportional rep in another dress at the provincial level... so that small parties with 5% of the vote provincially can get power. Your idea would have half the legislature not accountable to individual ridings... solely so that parties with lightening rod issues could have more power.

In any event your option nor mine are on the ballot, because the Citizen Assembly consensus arrived at different conclusions. I accept the deliberations of the Citizens Assembly as more legitimate than the views of any political party or individuals option for electoral reform.

The Citizen Assembly consensus is the only option in this referendum and this is likely the last referendum we will ever have on this subject, so for that reason I will support BC-STV as the only legitimate alternative to the current failed system at this point in time.

Those that worry BC-STV will take away privilege of the party insider will come up with all sorts of 'alternatives' to make a specific point that can be sold alone in their efforts to misdirect people to options that do not exist and do not withstand greater scrutiny.

The debate is currently between BC-STV and the First-Past-the-Post and the merits of these two systems and anything else is misdirection from the real issue people will be voting on.

BTW I think it is far more important to have regional representation in the legislature than politcal party representation and my hypothetical alternative to BC-STV would have that as its cornerstone... my thinking is that could be step two after the Citizens Assembly choice of BC-STV decides how we elect MLA's....

One person, one vote...everything else in my opinion is designed to give some party or another a leading edge. No thanks....I will decide who I want to vote for ...not some special interest group decidiing for me????...and if my person doesn't get elected...maybe next time....

"BC-STV is the only political process in the world that gives a reasonable chance for a non-party affiliated candidate to get elected to Parliament."

------------------------------------------

Nonsense. There are numerous instances of 'independent' candidates being elected to both the BC Legislature and the Dominion Parliament. Some held their seats election after election for years. Same with several minority Party candidates. All under FPP.

All any disciplined Party, (one like the NDP, for instance, that has certain, shall we say, 'skills' in that area the other, more 'democratic' Parties lack ~ [fortunately]), has to do to thwart STV is instruct their members to vote for only their Party's candidate, and no others.

Right away any other second choice votes their candidate receives from voters who have made some other Party's candidate their first choice go towards putting the disciplined Party's candidate over the top.

To prevent that, the other Parties will be forced to try to exact the same discipline on their members. That's NOT 'democracy', in my book. It's control from above, and it will be 'economically' exercised. By both 'management' and 'labour'. Who'll continue wasting their time fighting each other while FINANCE busies itself picking the pockets of both.

Socred your assumption assumes voters will vote like sheep and not exercise their right to choice. IMO democracy is when you have choice and whether or not one uses that choice is their own democratic choice.

IMO the only chance we have of having a party that represents citizens and the middle class average joe is if we have choice to side step the offerings that the parties force us to choose between. Voters given that choice might vote for fear (establish political parties) sometimes, but with enough choice they will weed out the fear mongers and vote for optimism and people that are representing their values and that is the power of BC-STV... the power to side step the fear campaign and have choice to vote for your values regardless of party affiliation.

The lesser of two evils campaign is dead with a BC-STV system of voter choice.

Eagle, you of all people should realize you cannot ever have a truly effective 'political democracy' so long as you do not first have 'economic democracy'. No matter HOW you elect the people you are sending to Victoria to represent you.

If I am in a position to deny you the ability to "get a living" through my ability to cut you off from what you need to get that "living" ~ an "income" ~ I can impose my will on you by simply doing that.

This is exactly the position you are going to more greatly empower both 'management-associations' and 'labour unions' with if you have STV. And nothing whatsoever can be done about it.

Why? Because no "group" of people elected to the Legislature has any indication from the voters just "why" they were sent there. No one has any 'mandate' to do anything. No "Party" needs to take any responsibility for what they have done, and no one "Party" can be held accountable.