I'm hoping that people actually research what STV is and don't just vote for it because they don't like the current system. Maybe first-past-the-post isn't ideal, but at least everyone understands it, which is more than can be said for STV.

I have also noticed there does seem to be a lot of support for STV this time around.
People also seem to understand it better than they did before the last election.
Considerng how close it was the last time we went to the polls,this will be very interesting.
I am not sure whether I support it or not, but I do know the present system favours the ruling government.
That comes as no suprise,ruling governments were the ones who designed the present system in the first place, so what did we expect?
It was designed to benefit politicians, not the voters.

Of course in any democracy there will be a ruling government. That's the whole idea about democracy. The party (or a coalition of parties) that has the majority of voter support rules.

I would be surprised if it was otherwise.

Shouldn't a country be run/administered with the with consent of the majority of voters?

I feel that this new system is fine for those who are incapbable of making a choice and living with it. This, I pick this person, but if they loose give my votes to that person and if they loose give my vote to someone else....give me a break...
In myopinion it si a big cop out and strictly to the benefit of the ruling party at the time of election....
otherwise why would they push it so hard?

This is how I see it the way it stands. Let us use the Green party for an example. 16% or so of the people in BC voted for this party in the last election, yet not one body from the green party sat in the house. Do you not think that 16% of the voters deserve representation if for no other reason but to keep the other parties accountable? It is just a thought.

CaringSoul, that's not how STV works though. Switching to STV won't mean that 16% of the legislature will be Green Party representatives.

No Hon, I realise that. But it will but at least someone in there, right?

Sorry, that should read: But it will PUT at least someone in there

I think this needs to be examined very carefully as I think that we rural British Columbians will loose.

A few super big ridings and then a bunch of people put in place that we don't know and have no accountability to a particular riding.

"Do you not think that 16% of the voters deserve representation if for no other reason but to keep the other parties accountable? It is just a thought."

It is a good thought. But I think that the Green Party should have worked very hard and appealed to a sufficient number of voters in at least ONE riding - voila, the Green Party would have had one MLA in the Legislature!

After that, who knows? Lay out the platform in the Legislature, become more well known, and so forth.

Soon, it may have a majority support in a sufficient number of ridings to form the government and rule.

That is how other parties won the right to represent and rule.

That is the kind of democracy we are trying to install in Iraq, in Afghanistan and elsewhere! Shouldn't we have forced them to have a STV system if that is the only one that is truly democratic?

I visited the official website of the BC-STV and educated myself about how it is supposed to work.

I don't like it.

I think that STV is the way to go.
metalman.

Will somebody please bring a definition of accountability? Because when that word is used in connection to a political campaign, it is used to make voters think they are getting some element of control over MLAs.
IT DOES NOT DO ANYTHING OF THE LIKE!!

The only thing that will bring control of politicians to voters is DIRECT DEMOCRACY and only BC Refed is poised to offer the greatest control and power to voters.

anything a politician says at election time can not be held against them.
HAve them be in charge of a majority government and they can't be held responsible either it seems.
Vote your hearts all.
Our like and dislikes are not going to be the same....
so all I can say is VOTE!

STV sounds to much like a saxual transmitted disease. So no to stv sounds good to me.

With STVs they will be spending at least the first six months figuring out how to match up their coalitions. Israel has STV. Then in BC politics it will be, "Who's yer friend?"

This is BC. We only have one centerist party. There is no second choice.

One vote for one candidate is how it should be. I do not have a second choice. I will not be voting for STV.

People are attributing a lot of bad things to STV that it just doesn't do.

First, STV, unlike our system now, guarantees majority rule. You have to have the support of the majority in order to get a majority of the seats. So majority rule is a reason to vote for STV, not FPP. It's amazing to me that all this time we've had a system that doesn't ensure majority rule - a principle we all agree on!!

It does this on the level of the riding. In a 3 member riding, if a party has 2/3 of the vote, they get 2/3 of the seats (this is what the vote transfer process ensures). And, repeating this from riding to ridin, it ensures majority rule at the provincial level. Under STV, to get 60% of the seats you have to have 60% of the vote.

Second, it will not take away representation from the North and rural districts. The North will have the same number of MLA's as before. STV is an improvement for the North because each constituent will now have more than one rep they can go to, if one is not responsive. And these two reps can hold each other accountable to voters. It also increases local accountability by giving voters a choice between different candidates of the same party. Competition within the party is good and STV gives voters power in that process.

Finally, it does not result in Israeli style politics. Not all PR systems are the same!! Under STV, we might get 3, 4, 5 parties. This is because it has a relatively high threshold (15% in even the biggest ridings) to get a seat. Some have very low thresholds (like Israel) and some don't (like STV).

The beauty of STV is it gives you pretty good proportionality while also increasing local accountability and maintaining a high threshold for election.

At first glance, I agree that enlarging the ridings seems problematic. But STV is not like block voting, where city voters and candidates can sweep all the seats. Instead, as the citizens assembly found in Ireland, STV forces politicians to go into each area to get votes. There is no part of the North that politicians could afford to ignore.

The same cannot be said about our current system. Unders STV, 70, 80, even 90% of voters get an MLA they voted for. Under block voting (like many cities use) or FPP, this can drop down to 40 or even 30%.

I also agree with the sentiment that "not everyone can be a winner". The problem with FPP is that it goes too far and actually MAXIMIZES the number of losers, that is, it needlessly creates losers. This is because it tries to represent an entire riding with just one MLA, one point of view. Thus, you end up with only half the population "winning". And even then, those winners may not be satisfied with the one candidate the parties put up, yet they have nowhere else to go.

STV on the other hand maximizes the number of winners. You can only do this through having multiple MLAs representing the same riding in a ratio determined by voters.

STV has something for everyone. Those who are happy with their party will have more say over which party candidate gets elected. Those who are not may now have other parties to choose from. No matter where on the political spectrum they fall.

At first glance, I agree that enlarging the ridings seems problematic. But STV is not like block voting, where city voters and candidates can sweep all the seats. Instead, as the citizens assembly found in Ireland, STV forces politicians to go into each area to get votes. There is no part of the North that politicians could afford to ignore.

The same cannot be said about our current system. Unders STV, 70, 80, even 90% of voters get an MLA they voted for. Under block voting (like many cities use) or FPP, this can drop down to 40 or even 30%.

I also agree with the sentiment that "not everyone can be a winner". The problem with FPP is that it goes too far and actually MAXIMIZES the number of losers, that is, it needlessly creates losers. This is because it tries to represent an entire riding with just one MLA, one point of view. Thus, you end up with only half the population "winning". And even then, those winners may not be satisfied with the one candidate the parties put up, yet they have nowhere else to go.

STV on the other hand maximizes the number of winners. You can only do this through having multiple MLAs representing the same riding in a ratio determined by voters.

STV has something for everyone. Those who are happy with their party will have more say over which party candidate gets elected. Those who are not may now have other parties to choose from. No matter where on the political spectrum they fall.

Don, BC-STV will create larger ridings, however, that certainly does not mean you won't know the candidates.

Under BC-STV because of the increased competition both within political parties and between parties the candidates will need your vote. As such they will come to you and present their views and policies to garner your support. Furthermore, in this age of instantaneous communication it is very easy to follow the candidates positions on various issues and distances become less relevant.

It is untrue that MLAs are unaccountable to an electoral district. Each MLA is accountable to the voters in their electoral district and voters have the ultimate say on whether their elected representatives have done a good job.

Would you rather have an elected representative who does not represent your interests or have one that does that may live further away?

Accountability for MLA's or even for MP's is a myth perpetuated by politicians to benefit politicians,plain and simple.
If we get a rotten egg,as is not unusual,but what format do we have for getting rid of them other than the ballot box?
Recall?...ya right...designed to be impossible to use successfully and the politicians know that very well.
Our long time election process has been setup and fine tuned to benefit politicians and render them all virtually untouchable.
Nothing of the present electoral process is designed to benefit voters.
It is protectionism at it finest and it needs to change.
I will support anything that gives control and fair play back to the voter, as opposed to political public trough pigs who give little in return for our support.

AF: "Recall?...ya right...designed to be impossible to use successfully and the politicians know that very well."

I am fairly sure you know that the implementation of recall legislation was a priority with Glen Clark's government. I am paraphrasing now but he said something like this: = Sometimes it is just not good enough for and possibly unfair to the voters to ask them to be patient for five years before they can do anything about the conduct of an elected official, therefore recall will be the tool that enables them to take action before the next election. =

I venture to say, if the parameters that were set for it (when it was enacted at that time) were designed to ensure failure - then whose faults is it?

Whose idea was it then to frustrate the will of the people and only create the APPEARANCE that recall actually was a tool to empower the electorate?