Try an experiment the next time you are talking to a friend or neighbour. Ask: "What do you think about BC-STV?" In all likelihood you'll be greeted with a blank stare, if so, ask "Do you think BC should adopt the Irish voting system?" More blank stares will follow. Explain that the Irish voting system involves multimember constituencies of varying sizes which require multiple cycle counts where some ballots are counted more than once with fractional parts of a vote being allocated to different candidates. For most people who aren't political junkies, they'll expect you've had too much to drink. That may be why the referendum question calls for a vote of confidence in the Citizens' Assembly rather than a clear vote on the system they recommend.

I would agree with that Johnnypg. Good observation.

What is important though, is that people know they have a choice on their ballot, that they have a preference ranking available to them on their ballot and that the system itself works through a fully transparent and verifiable fashion... but for the voter that the end result is satisfaction from knowledge that the full value of their political preference was represented in the counting of their ballot.

For me simply to know I'm not held blackmail to a lesser of two evils is important. That choice will mean something to me.

Understanding the full inner working of the vote counting probably will not be understood by everyone, its part of a cost to have a more advanced system of measuring public sentiment that better reflects the public will. Most people will realize that the Citizens Assembly took a number of years of average people from various backgrounds and weighed and deliberated in a very serious manor all the implications... so for those people what is important is choice on the ballot and that the end result is a government that is more representative of the people.

My concern is that we should continue with a paper record... and I would furthermore like a random receipt I can take from my ballot to ensure on-line that my ballot was counted correctly without it impacting on the privacy of my vote. We have the technology and I think it would enhance peoples trust in the system, so I see no reason why we don't have that today?

I think this system is great for those who are incapable of making a decision...
I can pick ONE!...but for those who need to pick a bunch this is fine. I guess? Also gives the ruling party at the time a chance to manipulate the votes their way...I feel!
This is tgoing to be like the Performing center...it will never go away.....

the present sytem works just fine...so quit trying to "fix" it....

needs to be explained in a fashion that people can understand better. The way I see it you can still vote for the canditate of your choice and also for his opponent. If the canditate of your choice has enough votes than your vote could go to the opponent?? Makes no sense.

Absolutely right, BC Racer. This is like the Quebec referendums on separation, or Australia's on keeping the Queen ~ the question has already been decided. Why do we have to go through this time-wasting, money-wasting exercise all over again?

The threshold for passage called for a 'clear' majority BEFORE the last vote was taken. Everyone knew the rules. (In my opinion, the threshold shouldn't have been 60%, but 66%, the same as it is in the USA for their Congress to over-ride a Presidential veto, by expressing the will of a 'clear majority' of their constituents.) And it didn't attain that majority. That should have been the end of the story.

So, when it fails again this time, will it be? Or will we be re-visiting it again and again until those who want it finally get their way?

And if any of you have ever watched the Knowledge Network's documentary on how the Citizen's Assembly arrived at its conclusions, what was painfully evident was that most of that Assembly were being led in the STV direction like a bunch of sheep. It might do us all well to ask, "Why?" The essence of 'freedom' is your ability "to choose, or refuse, one thing at a time". This STV system just takes us one more step AWAY from that.

Until we get some integrity with our politicians all of this is a moot point. Who over is elected will just blame the other one for not representing you and any mistakes are of course caused by the other one. Having potentially MLA's from several parties representing an area they will just spend all their time passing the buck.

It is one thing to get to vote from a huge slate and pick a half dozen people you like, and vote for them. Then the statiticians will decide statistically which people will actually get a seat in the nut house. All you did was play Keno with names.

Then the party is over, now you have to live with it and and BC-STV government has to function, and it won't. There is no time. Those elected will fight for the next bunch of years over who gets to claim which ministery is theirs. The rest of the MLA's will be hunting for donations for the next election as it is everybody for themselves in these kinds of events. Those with the best connections to money get the biggest voice. You like that idea?

Meanwhile what about us people that need Ministrial government help with some issue? The focus of those ministers is on little turf wars that are going on all the time and no one is responsible and accountable in any serious way and paralysed over power struggles all the time. For example the movement of the Liquor Control from the Solictor General's minstery to Social Housing would never happen under BC-STV, it would be a huge power struggle.

Right now it is extremely difficult to steer the delivery of government in any direction other than what the civil servants believe in. It doesn't take long to wear out any Minister that isn't firm and disciplined in handling the civil service. Under BC-STV the government members have to spend far more effort keeping the ministery than exercising thoughtful policy changes.

It the end it doesn't matter whether it is the NDP or the BC Liberals or the Greens, as long as the taxpayers can lobby the body of the representatives as a party. A fragmented squabbling mob of BC-STV is of little use in any battle between the citizens and the tax collectors.

How can a person vote for something they don't understand?
I think the system is too complicated and most people in BC dont understand it. I don't. People, especially seniors need a system that is simple and straight forward. It needs to be a system that all people with varying degrees of intellect can understand.
I don't BC-STV will pass and that is probably good. I'm not convinced it would result in fair representation of all regions.

STV Sucks. We have enough problems in this Country without coming up with a system of voting that confuses voters. Some already have problems just making an **x** so why should we make it more complicated.

Voter apathy is one of our biggest problems in this Country so why do we need a system that will drive voters away.


STV Sucks. Leave well enough alone.

Single transferrable vote:
Enlighten me -
I never thought it was that complicated.
Don't we vote for the candidate we want?
Then we pick 2nd 3rd and 4th choices depending on the number of parties.
If I am right it doesn't sound complicated to me.

Palopu, I agree. To have one particular riding represented in Victoria by MLA's from different parties makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to me. Even if one assumes that they would set their conflicting political agendas aside and compromise on ANY issue for the sake of the province or the people - one has NO guarantee that wisdom and a co-operative spirit would trump politics.

There will be disagreement and stalemates and how much will actually be accomplished?
We certainly don't need that kind of chaos.

Just watch question period or read the papers. These two parties are so polarized and ridicule each others' ideas and actions so intensely that I for one can not imagine them working together on anything.

And if BC-STV would produce a Legislature consisting of more than two parties and the need to form coalitions - watch out, because we will have elections every two years or less.

No coalition would last longer than that.

Just say NO! X-BC-STV

I hope we are smart enough to understand a system of voting. If it were explained (in english, say) iam sure we would understand it better than we do the issues we are voing on anyway. Maybe if we had to actually think before we knew how to make our mark(s) we might actually try thinking about the issues rather than getting dragged around by our noses by pandering talking heads.
I am not the sharpest tool in the shed but i am willing to figure out the STV system. Now how about someone taking up the challenge in the paper and explain it for us all.

I would just like to add that I don't feel I have democracy right now. If I don't support the liberals and the ndp, which I don't, then my option is to not vote because my vote doesn't count anyways. This has been my dilemma come election time every time elections role around.

Should I even both voting when I know my vote doesn't count anyways, or should I participate in a lesser of two evils approach holding my nose voting for something I can't support for the sake of casting a vote fooling myself into thinking I just participated in democracy?

I would like to be able to vote and participate in democracy with my vote counting, and that is why I support BC-STV more than anything. I can't participate in the current flawed and undemocratic system.

I want to participate in voting for people that run positive campaigns, rather than a lesser of two evils campaign.

I want to be able to give support to a second or third choice type consensus candidate that represents the middle working class free enterprise citizens in our society, rather than the political extremes of powerful party politics put on platforms as our only choice.

For people like me I don't see what we have now as democracy when I am offered nothing I can vote for, or a choice that will never get elected because of the party controlled system. Its blackmail politics and nothing more.

Once the MLA's are elected it doesn't change the way our government forms government, or operates in the legislature... the liberals or ndp could still easily form a majority, just with MLA's that earned their position... the only thing it does is make politicians accountable to the voter for their record once elected where they would now have to beat out other candidates based on their record and their aspirations are because citizens would now have 'CHOICE', rather than MLA's that ride a party wagon to the finish line based on campaigns of fear.

We need politicians that are accountable in a campaign that gives them no guarantees other than their record to their constituents and not their record to their party. Then we are on our way to truly living in a democracy.

Time Will Tell

I noticed all those that oppose BC-STV vocally are the same ones with strong identification with a political party. Makes one wonder what their real motives are?

The current system is designed to elected two parties polar opposite to each other that neither one represents the middle class and free enterprise small business sector of our society.

So we in effect have more than half the society left with no real choice unless they are willing to sell their vote to one of the two extremes in the hope they can stop the other extreme from destroying our province. For people in the middle of the political spectrum and the small business types this is not democracy, but rather blackmail. We need democracy so we can participate in the political process.

I want to know why rich boy (Harper) runs ourcountry. He does not know what its like to be on welfare, nor E.I. When you have been there and done that don't you think you should rule that. I don't think he's been there so why do you think he should dicktate and tell us TAX PAYERS, WHOM PAYS YOUR PAYCHEQUE! PisT-off get it! The majority is not stupid. Eventuallyy......... Having a moment!

Good point Eagleone.
I noticed the same thing regarding strong party affiliations by those who don't seem to like BC-STV much.
While not a huge fan of BC-STV so far,I am willing to look at anything that isn't what we have right now!

perhaps we should just vote for the opposition party each election - rather than letting one party get to comfortable and stay in power for two, three or more terms. Let's just change them every election.

Eagleone's point is also valid in that the BC-STV supporters are the same ones that complain about lacking real power to change things. The kind of real power that is kindly described as "dragging us kicking and screaming into the real world".

Unfortunately the current system of government does not satisfy those kinds of urges that BC-STV supporters crave. It is also unrealistic to believe that the BC-STV system would provide the meaningful power that Eagleone hungers for either, and he knows it.

Therefore I have to believe that the true support for BC-STV is simply based on the fact that misery loves company. Miserable people can take revenge on everyone by replacing government by a seized up mess of noisemakers. That's what we deserve, right?

Just like those that didn't like the government getting out of the Choo-Choo train business. They say let's vote for BC-STV so that no government can ever make those kinds of changes in BC government priorities ever again. Under BC-STV BC will be frozen in time and unable to move.

Sure I'm a BC Liberal supporter. I'd support any party other than the NDP. I'm a polarized voter. BC-STV offers BC nothing but a opportunity for BC to stagnate and the north to die as under BC-STV the power all shifts into the lower mainland without a party system to lobby for something more than scraps for the north.

You think you have nothing now, wait until you try BC-STV.

Eagleone:- "I noticed all those that oppose BC-STV vocally are the same ones with strong identification with a political party. Makes one wonder what their real motives are?"
------------------------------------------
I oppose STV and I do not have any "strong identification" with ANY "political party". The "political party" I would like to have a strong identification with would be a "Social Credit" party that actually was FOR "social credit".

Which would mean, first of all, that it couldn't be a "Party". Since the original Social Credit philosophy favoured a "League" of independent MLAs each elected to "demand results" from the real 'government', the professional Civil Service, in regards to what the majority of their constitients wanted from government.

It would be nice to think we could achieve that through STV. But we can't. For the very reasons I, and so many others on here, have tried to explain. If we were simply choosing the best candidate with our vote, in order of preference, there might be some small advantage in having such a system. But we won't be doing just that.

Our 'one' vote is not only choosing a representative but also giving a blanket endorsement to some Party platform and some pre-selected Party leader. And that is already too much for 'one' vote to do without complicating the issue with second and third and fourth choices in all those things. You cannot even get a clear indication of what anybody really wants or voted for under such a system.

If I had my choice, we would put "None of the Above" at the bottom of every ballot, with a place for your "x" beside it, and counted as a vote. That would provide one sanction over those who run that they're not just participating in a 'beauty contest' but had to address constituency issues.

But some worry what would happen if "None of the Above" was elected, which, considering what we've had from the Liberals and NDP and all the present minor party alternatives, is a distinct possibility!

A better way would be to leave the present system of FPP just as it is. But have a mechanism for an effective "Voter's Veto". Where any piece of legislation enacted by a government could be, on petition of sufficient British Columbians, referred back to them directly by referendum. This would give the voters an opportunity to disapprove of certain major government proposals, (like the sale of BC Rail, dismemberment of BC Hydro, leasing of the Coquihalla Highway, etc.). Major issues that cut across "party" lines, which the people should have a direct say on without having to defeat the government itself.

If a government, having had its proposals overturned by the Voter's Veto, felt it still was necessary to proceed that way, it could then go to election on that issue. And if re-elected, proceed. That would probably be as close to a genuine 'political' democracy as we could get.

Some very good ideas socredible!
You pretty much nailed the frustrations myself and a lot of others feel with the "party" system as it stands now.
I think what most people want is to see that their votes matter, and that they don't continually end up with a self-serving government that rams their self-serving personal agenda down their throats!
I would truly love to see the rise of a "voters veto" policy.
If we had that, we might not have a farce like the Olympics sucking up tax dollars and leaving a legacy of debt at the worst possible time.
About the only good thing that may come out of the Olympics will be the permanent demise of Gordon Campbells self-serving political career!

Socred under BC-STV we would probably have that kind of voter plebiscite... as we witnessed in Ireland when they reject the EU (soviet) Constitution. Its no coincidence that little Ireland was the only country in Europe to have a vote on that.

I agree with your idea on a voter plebiscite law and think it could be implemented regardless of how we elected our MLA's to the legislature (BC-STV or FPP). I'd even one up you on that one and say the North should demand a form of regional veto on legislation. My idea was to divide BC into 7 regions, plus the natives and each elect one MLA to the legislature with the same powers as all other MLA's accept when a regional issue comes up for vote any 3 of these MLA's could veto the legislation. This way we don't create a wasteful second chamber, but we get what every state in America has that we don't and that is a recognition of regional democracy.

That said I think it is important to be able to say no to a John Rustad option and maybe support the Shirly Bond option instead while picking a good ndp guy that is taking their party in the right direction and maybe a strong independent that has some really good local issues. That would be a hypothetical democratic BC-STV ballot of choice to illustrate the point.

On the other hand a FPP ballot would just have John Rustad and some far left socialist ndp'er and some third parties that will never be elected... hence a black mail ballot that offers no real democratic choice if you're asked to endorse a choice you don't support with no other viable options available. What good is a local MLA anyways if he doesn't represent you? Maybe having a second or third one keeps everyone on their toes and all sides represented.

For my choice I would rather not be forced to support some multinational corporations agenda, or a public sector unions agenda, but rather be able to pick and chose the candidate that best represents my interests, and my values, and my local issues... and I want to have influence on getting as many of those people elected as possible. If I don't have a say because of a black mail ballot then the government mandate and their laws become less legitimate.

The idea is not to make government not work, but rather to make it work better for people and where people live and to give an option for the participating public to side step the puppets that the political parties will otherwise insist we vote for. Having a process worth participating in strengthens the legitimacy of the whole process.

So how we select our MLA's is very important. Once we can select them democratically then we should also address the regional democratic deficiency and the public plebiscite's on major issues. Problem is that only BC-STV is on this referendum ballot, so I will support that as part of a two or three part process.

BC-STV means you have to be a strong individual to get elected and not a diseased mind of a party puppet as a prerequisite to being elected.

BC-STV weeds the diseased party zombies out, whereas FPP puts them into the legislature to stab a SPF2x4 through the heart of our government.

"Having a process worth participating in strengthens the legitimacy of the whole process."
Well said Eagle one!
The way it stands now,I can find very little legitimate about our electoral system!

Eagleone has one thing right, the power would go to the people, just not the people he was thinking about. The power would shift to the Fraser Delta people.

It doesn't matter how smart or proper thinking candidate anyone might wish to send to the Fraser Delta. Our local BC-STV MLA by themself won't matter squat. It might make some of the locals up north happy to send a protest candidate south, but that would be all that candidate would be good for. Bawlin' and hollerin' doesn't make a government.

Not only that but the STV proposal reduces the number of electoral districts, where large population centres become multi-member ridings. It was calculated that in the proposed changes consolidating the present Capital region ridings around Victoria, an MLA could be elected with as little as 15% of the popular vote under STV! It's an utterly ridiculous system, far less representative of what the voters really want than FPP.

I am leader of the BC Refederation Party. we are one of those small parties that is supposed to be all yippee about BC-STV.
Well I'm not. Because some ridings need 34% of the vote to elect an MLA and the 604 ridings only need about 12.5% to elect an MLA... Based on voting patterns, the small parties will still not elect anybody and the small bit of control we have of our politicians will evaporate all together.

Then there is the cost of maintaining those MLAs in all of their ridings which will at least triple the cost of MLA ridings.

Then there is the sheer massive sizes of rural ridings. We already have problems seeing MLAs in rural and northern constituencies. Now let's triple the land and population densities. Many people will NEVER have access to their MLAs.

And don't even try to say that the work load of the MLAs will stay the same. In this area, an MLA serves about 40,000 people. In STV, the MLA will triple the population they are responsible for. 120,000 citizens per MLA. They may share the same 120,000, but they are still individually responsible for 120,000 citizens. Each will have offices in each town where there is one already. Each will have their own staff. That is an effective tripling of costs.

The YES STV side don't want you to think about that.

And for all of the hoopla, we still won't have any control of politicians.

Only one BC political party wants to offer you that, and asks to be governing party "JUST ONCE" to do it.

We are the BC Refederation Party. www.refedbc.com

Yama I disagree with you... the political parties would still dominate any legislature whether BC-STV or FPP... small parties would be lucky all combined to hold a quarter of the seats is my guess.

Under BC-STV the center of power in the parties themselves would shift to the rural regions... because in the rural regions its closer to a FPP election with fewer seats in the riding at two or three. In the cities however with as many as six seats per riding it will be far easier for small party candidates and rouge independents to make it in. So the parties will still be there as they are today, but the rural seats will be the easy pickings for the large established parties....?


Anyways regardless... even if BC-STV did hypothetically cause the Fraser Valley to think in terms of colonial empire and a fissure developed (can't see this any more than now)... I'm not so sure that wouldn't be such a bad thing anyways... enabling a Northern BC province if the Fraser Delta couldn't govern fairly would be a good back up plan I would think?

I'm not so sure Socred... because your vote for each candidate in a way is fractional to the amount of seats involved so thats a funny way of looking at it... I still only have one vote but now its broken up to fill 2-6 seats based on my preference....

votemike, STV does help parties too small to get seats under the existing first past the post system but there's a limit. You guys didn't get even 1% of the vote in any of the 4 ridings where you ran candidates. There are over 160,000 Green Party voters who didn't elect a candidate in 2005 - there's no reason why the 675 people who voted for you should.

Arguably, in addition to the Green Party, there would be room for another right wing party to get seats under STV. I don't think the Liberals really represent all of the people that are voting for them.

The percentages being tossed around don't mean a thing (and they're wrong in any case). The 604 ridings would need between 14% (for a 6 member district) and 20% (for a 4 member district). The only 7 member district (which would require 12.5%) is the capital district.

But look at the population within those districts. The only district that would require 33.3% is the Northeast District which is the combination of PR North and PR Sourth. It has a population of 64,411 (2006 census). 1/3 of that is about 21,500. The capital region has a population of just over 345,000. 12.5% of that is just over 43,000. That means that a candidate in the capital region is going to need about twice as many votes to get elected as one in the Northeast District.

You can call it what you want but it's hardly unfair to the North.

There is a lot of cynicism and misinformation in these postings. I encourage all of you to educate yourselves before you vote. Here are 3 websites:
www.stv.ca (yes campaign)
www.nostv.org (no campaign)
www.understandingstv.ca (neutral)

I'm completely in favour STV because it's more democratic, it will allow a lot of people to stop voting strategically and it will allow for a more natural spread of political voice in this province.

So Eagleone still thinks the political party system will dominate any legislature under BC-STV? Interesting. Why would that be the case when anyone can run for election, and win in a popularity contest. Garth Brooks could throw his hat in the race and win. The whole point of BC-STV is to eliminate the party system in favor of a free-for-all.

votemike, STV does help parties too small to get seats under the existing first past the post system but there's a limit. You guys didn't get even 1% of the vote in any of the 4 ridings where you ran candidates. There are over 160,000 Green Party voters who didn't elect a candidate in 2005 - there's no reason why the 675 people who voted for you should.

Arguably, in addition to the Green Party, there would be room for another right wing party to get seats under STV. I don't think the Liberals really represent all of the people that are voting for them.

The percentages being tossed around don't mean a thing (and they're wrong in any case). The 604 ridings would need between 14% (for a 6 member district) and 20% (for a 4 member district). The only 7 member district (which would require 12.5%) is the capital district.

But look at the population within those districts. The only district that would require 33.3% is the Northeast District which is the combination of PR North and PR Sourth. It has a population of 64,411 (2006 census). 1/3 of that is about 21,500. The capital region has a population of just over 345,000. 12.5% of that is just over 43,000. That means that a candidate in the capital region is going to need about twice as many votes to get elected as one in the Northeast District.

You can call it what you want but it's hardly unfair to the North.

There is a lot of cynicism and misinformation in these postings. I encourage all of you to educate yourselves before you vote. Here are 3 websites:
www.stv.ca (yes campaign)
www.nostv.org (no campaign)
www.understandingstv.ca (neutral)

I'm completely in favour STV because it's more democratic, it will allow a lot of people to stop voting strategically and it will allow for a more natural spread of political voice in this province.

votemike, STV does help parties too small to get seats under the existing first past the post system but there's a limit. You guys didn't get even 1% of the vote in any of the 4 ridings where you ran candidates. There are over 160,000 Green Party voters who didn't elect a candidate in 2005 - there's no reason why the 675 people who voted for you should.

Arguably, in addition to the Green Party, there would be room for another right wing party to get seats under STV. I don't think the Liberals really represent all of the people that are voting for them.

The percentages being tossed around don't mean a thing (and they're wrong in any case). The 604 ridings would need between 14% (for a 6 member district) and 20% (for a 4 member district). The only 7 member district (which would require 12.5%) is the capital district.

But look at the population within those districts. The only district that would require 33.3% is the Northeast District which is the combination of PR North and PR Sourth. It has a population of 64,411 (2006 census). 1/3 of that is about 21,500. The capital region has a population of just over 345,000. 12.5% of that is just over 43,000. That means that a candidate in the capital region is going to need about twice as many votes to get elected as one in the Northeast District.

You can call it what you want but it's hardly unfair to the North.

There is a lot of cynicism and misinformation in these postings. I encourage all of you to educate yourselves before you vote. Here are 3 websites:
www.stv.ca (yes campaign)
www.nostv.org (no campaign)
www.understandingstv.ca (neutral)

I'm completely in favour STV because it's more democratic, it will allow a lot of people to stop voting strategically and it will allow for a more natural spread of political voice in this province.

Sorry - don't know why that got posted twice.

:(