There is a lot of rhyme and reason to the numbers.
(1) If a large number of people left Prince George to seek employment in other areas, and then the Prince George economy picked up. Those people who were unemployed would get jobs, thus reducing the unemployment number, and of course those who left would still be gone.

(2) The same thing applies to vacancy rates. If people leave town, then of course there is going to be a high vacancy rate, however once those unemployed, and those staying at home get jobs they would then move into Apartments, houses, etc; this would reduce the vacancy rate.

(3) Building starts are up because people who are now working can afford to invest in a house, and those people who were between the age of 15 and 20 10 years ago would now be in the 25 to 35 age bracket and would be building or buying houses. I sure we all know some young couple that has either built a new home, or is purchasing an older one.

So in effect there is no mystery here. The Mayor has never been happy with the Federal Census, however he uses it when it suits his purpose. The Provincial Numbers are a little higher because they use a different system, so I would think that the population is in the area of 76,000.

It means little to have a representative of an electoral district that covers 149,000 plus miles if 99.95% of the population is located in two or three areas. We do not need representation for Moose, Deer, Bears, or other wildlife. So the square miles mean nothing. Take out Prince George, Fraser Ft George numbers and you get one representative for approx 33000 people. Not bad I would say.

If the number of representatives is directly tied to the cash inflow to our area, I am not interested in reducing that. I don't believe we receive enough as it is.

I wonder how many of their recommendations and submissions came from our community? I would be surprised if we suggested reducing the number of representatives in this area? Chester

The represented special interest groups down south would like to have PG become politically irrelevant by having only two riding in PG, before they implement the BCSTV process, so as to assure that there will always be one NDP seat and one Liberal seat from PG. Unless an unheard of landslide, nothing would ever change other than what party representative was 'elected' in PG.

A third riding at least makes the BCSTV riding competitive as intended by the Citizens Assembly process with independent 3rds standing a chance to upset the apple cart.

Furthermore there is no consideration of the geographical facts, and only consideration for population numbers with Vancouver alone making 'the rest of BC' irrelevant politically. The head of the commission makes no bones about it on CBC that he operated purely on population numbers alone.

The Citizens Assembly was banned by Gordon Campbell in their mandate from addressing the rural/urban divide, and now this new Electoral Boundaries Commission was operating under the same political constraint. Both show IMO a liberal bias from the get go against rural BC and this commission report further backs that up.

They mention one riding could represent urban interests in PG, but fail to come clean that this is mute and pointless when the people of BC inevitably opt for the BCSTV process as this new urban riding would surely be lumped into the 'rural riding for the now '2-ridings' under the BCSTV ballot in PG, rather than a 3-ridings ballot it would currently consist of.

No wonder the liberals and the n.d.p. opposed implementing the BCSTV process despite 59% approval in 98% of the ridings in the last election. They had to find another way of stealing elections from us for their party hacks and keeping their party power in power before the citizens of BC could approve of the BCSTV beyond their ability to stop it.

This report is pure political manipulation in favour of the 2-party process and majority rules where ridings measured in blocks are now more represented than ridings covering hundreds of thousands of square miles consisting of dozens of independent communities with unique concerns.

Stealing more local representation from many communities in favour of majority rules, and then turning around and saying it would increase urban representation in the north, is Orwellian doublespeak at its finest.

IMO the province of Northern BC is the only answer to this theft of our democracy and our diminishing role in a province that is truly beyond a doubt a Vancouver centric resource wealth extraction empire. Deals like Alcan-Kemano, CN-BC Rail, and the privatization of BC Hydro transmission are the clear end result of our political lame duck status.

Considering that only 62% of the elegible voters, voted in the last election, and that when you take into account those registered voters, who did not vote, and those eligible to vote but who did not register you come up with 1,274,884 people in the Province who choose not to vote in the last election.

We can safely assume that this 1,274,884 people have no interest in the BCSTV system of voting or any other for that matter. Now if we look at the number of people who acutally voted we get 1,774,269 of which 59% voted for approval of the BCSTV in the various ridings. I think that we could determine quite quickly that the majority of people who voted for BCSTV would be in the lower mainland, and therefore are trying to influence how elections are held, and are trying to export this bizarre way of electing a Government to the North.

Lets put the BCSTV system in an envelope and mail it back to Europe, or Austrailia or wherever it came from, we dont need it here.

Palopu lets put it in perspective with real facts and not assumptions. BCSTV was passed with more than 50% of the vote in 78 out of 79 ridings and the lone holdout was from Vancouver area with only a percent off from the majority sweep across all ridings in the province. The highest approval ratings came from the rural ridings with most well above the 60% required with the provincial total coming in at 59% overall.

So the 60% of ridings holding a majority in favour passed with 98% of ridings holding a majority, and it was only the overall 60% of voters requirement (arbitrary by Campbell liberals) that failed to make it by less than a percentage point. If rounded to the nearest percent this would have ensured the world first grass roots work of the Citizens Assembly could have set the precedence for citizens deciding on their political system and not political parties. The party hacks triumphed over the will of the people and a fraction of a percent on a technicality circumvented democracy long enough for them to come up with other ways to blunt democracy of the people, so they can continue with democracy of the party elite funded by the vested interest crowd.

Otherwise we would be electing our next government with BCSTV in 2009. I don’t think it will ever happen now. The multinationals and the party hacks will not allow it to happen because they want to control our democracy and will not give up their power.

Palapu must be Dick Harris, because only Dick Harris makes the arguement against infrastructure spending and empowering our local voice in democracy....

People that don't vote don't count. You can not assume they would vote one way or another to make your argument. If they are indecisive their vote would likely not be an informed vote anyways. It is irrelevant to argue, 'but they didn't vote' so add all their votes to those that oppose? How stupid an argument is that. Facts are voter participation was up for the last provincial vote.

Chadermando. I pointed out the number of people who didnt vote to give an indication of the lack of interest in politics in general and the BCSTV in particular.

It matters little what the percentage of the vote was in different ridings because it appears that this situation was settled on the basis of a simple majority vote. The rules clearly stated that the approval level must be:
(a) at least 60 percent of the TOTAL votes in the province AND
(b) more than 50 percent of the votes in at least 48 of the 79 electoral districts in BC, so simply put **you lose** had the situation been reversed I doubt if we would be hearing anything from you as you would be happy. As it is Im happy.

I suspect that a large percentage of the people who actually voted didnt know what BCSTV was all about. Maybe they thought it was a Television Station. In any event we have a bad case of voter apathy in this Province, and if we were to bring in BCSTV in would immediatly get worse.

People have enough trouble putting an X beside one or two names, and you want them to weed through a whole series of names to determine 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, choice etc; etc; etc; Then of course you have to go through all the variations for the counting of the ballets.

In addition if no candidate has the minimum number of votes (quota) needed to be elected, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. All of the eliminated candidates votes are then redistributed to the second-preference candidates as marked on each ballot. So if I understand if correctly if the communist votes are the fewest votes they will eliminated, and a portion of their votes could go to a Conservative Candidate, or to a Liberal etc; The problem is in a democracy why should someones vote go to a party that they have absolutly no use for.

As I said this whole BCSTV process is about as hairbrained an idea for electing representatives as the Jirga's in Afghanistan. Not exactly a democratic process.

In any event the assumption is that candidates elected under a BCSTV system would be more representative than under the FPTP system, however you can get bad, or useless candidates under each system.

Chadermando. I pointed out the number of people who didnt vote to give an indication of the lack of interest in politics in general and the BCSTV in particular.

It matters little what the percentage of the vote was in different ridings because it appears that this situation was settled on the basis of a simple majority vote. The rules clearly stated that the approval level must be:
(a) at least 60 percent of the TOTAL votes in the province AND
(b) more than 50 percent of the votes in at least 48 of the 79 electoral districts in BC, so simply put **you lose** had the situation been reversed I doubt if we would be hearing anything from you as you would be happy. As it is Im happy.

I suspect that a large percentage of the people who actually voted didnt know what BCSTV was all about. Maybe they thought it was a Television Station. In any event we have a bad case of voter apathy in this Province, and if we were to bring in BCSTV in would immediatly get worse.

People have enough trouble putting an X beside one or two names, and you want them to weed through a whole series of names to determine 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, choice etc; etc; etc; Then of course you have to go through all the variations for the counting of the ballets.

In addition if no candidate has the minimum number of votes (quota) needed to be elected, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. All of the eliminated candidates votes are then redistributed to the second-preference candidates as marked on each ballot. So if I understand if correctly if the communist votes are the fewest votes they will eliminated, and a portion of their votes could go to a Conservative Candidate, or to a Liberal etc; The problem is in a democracy why should someones vote go to a party that they have absolutly no use for.

As I said this whole BCSTV process is about as hairbrained an idea for electing representatives as the Jirga's in Afghanistan. Not exactly a democratic process.

In any event the assumption is that candidates elected under a BCSTV system would be more representative than under the FPTP system, however you can get bad, or useless candidates under each system.

Palapo, so you're saying simple is best when giving out the power of the state... so why not just have one dictator in each town all report to the top dicator and call it a day?

Also why do you assume someone is going to vote for party X or Party Y? Are you so party programmed that that is all you think?

Clearly the real choice is to say I like this individual and that individual and really what the BCSTV does is transfer the power from the party hacks to the people in removing party hacks from the appointment process that is a party nomination for a 2-party system in FPTP. The FPTP is a guarantee of bad candidates getting elected based on party politics.

FPTP (First past The Post) is a misnomer with the post being a moving post depending on the vote totals from other parties with the post these days being near 40%.

BCSTV ensures only candidates with 50% of the vote can get elected thereby bringing candidates to the center ensuring extremist party hacks can't reach the fixed post of a majority 50%+1. Extremist party hacks are limited to their growth as a second choice to get them past that 40% they need in the FPTP.

A typical BCSTV voter understands they have the power to circumvent the party hack appointee and only vote for individuals who may or may not be associated with party labels. Hypothetically a typical BCSTV voter has the right to say in my three riding constituency I chose to elect Mr Simpson (n.d.p.), Mr Bell (liberal), and Hillary who ever (green), and I support the issue of Jim (for two boots) for my forth preference. Another BCSTV voter goes all liberal and renews his membership for another four years. Then if enough other people feel those individuals represent their interests they are the individuals that are elected to represent the people who voted for them and not the party hacks who appointed them. Maybe an n.d.p maybe a liberl, and maybe an independent are elected, but it was the citizens that decided and not the candidates chosen in a party back room and forced on the voters.

Palopo has a very shallow understanding of what is democratic. The first basis of the power of any state is where they derive their authority from. BCSTV was the creation of an independent jury process that saw cross section of B.C. citizens create their own unique to the world voting system that would represent them the best. That is a better genus then any for any democracy in the world today. To say that a system devised by lords and people herders is superior in democratic principle is laughable if it weren't reality.
.

BTW the FPTP Palopo talks about was not endorsed by a referendum of the citizens in BC, and only required MLA's with 40% of the vote to make and change the rules as their parties saw fit.

Thats 20% less of the vote then the BCSTV got for its endorsement hypothetically assuming FPTP can be considered supported in a vote purely by saying a vote for an elected MLA is a vote in suport of the FPTP. But the MLA and its 40% trump the 60% BCSTV?

When WAC changed the system or the liberal-conserveitves before him they used their vote in the legislature to change the voting process. Nothing stops this legislature from doing the same in light of the high support well over the traditional 50% threashold in referendum. What does stop them is party hacks and party hack elected MLA's that turn their back on the stated will of the majority in favor of Gordon Campbell 60% concocted edict faithfully followed by Carol James and all minion ops MLA's below them.

The must irony of irony is John (TILMA hero) Rustad is now going to lose his seat with the boundary change that favours the party hack machine he faithfully supports. Irony also because he was one that didn't support BCSTV because his version was better than that of the Citizen Assembly.

A guy that supports the trade agreement over democracy and insists his version of democracy or nothing loses his seat in the most undemocratic of ways. ROTFLMAO

Wow. What a mouthful. A few problems with your scenario.

(1) Those people who get on the ballot under the BCSTV system, would in all probability be *Hacks* of one party or another. The reason that this system is so sought after by the NDP, Green, Socialists is that it is almost gauranteed that they would get more seats, and maybe even form the Government.

(2) You assume that those people elected under the BCSTV system would better represent the voters, however I disagree. In my experience over the years with politicians in general, and NDP, politician in particular, I find that the NDP is found wanting. They are very close minded, and opinionated, closely connected with the Unions, and seem unable to run a Government, other than into the ground. They are second cousins to the Liberals who are presently in power.

(3) The major fallacy of the BCSTV system and those that support it is that they suggest that if someone is elected with 40% of the vote, then 60% of the people who voted are not represented. That of course is crap, for the simple reason that no one knows who the 40% that voted in the MLA are, and the MLA himself doesnt know who they are, and therefore once the election is over this individual represents all people in the riding not just those that voted for him.

(4) Using the BCSTV system we will have more people in Government representing more vested interest groups, and we will have periods of gridlock, as they haggle and argue with each other. This has already been shown to be the case in I beleive New Zealand and some European Countrys.

(5) The FPTP system used in Canada and other Countries in North America seems to work well. To suggest otherwise is inane. We are one of the richest, best off, well paid Countries in the world. We have very few problems that couldnt be solved with a few tax reductions, and spending money where it should be spent, rather on **Goofy** Government projects like the **Island Highway** and **Fast Ferries** for the NDP, and the **2010 Olympics** and **Sea to Sky Highway** for the Liberals. Just to name a few.

(6) This Country does not have a democracy problem, or a money problem. We have a problem with greed, and avarice, and the quest for power, along with a lot of people with huge ego's. We drive around all day looking for a bargain at Wal Mart or somesuch place, burning gas like its going out of style, and then complain about the price of gas. We support gambling establishments that take $40 Million dollars a year out of the community, and then when business's start to go broke, or at least find they are making less money, we wonder what happened.

BCSTV would only make politics and government more complicated than it is to-day, and beleive me it is complicated. The Governments of to-day have thousands of ways to rob the taxpayer and spend money as they see fit, with little or no oversite. This also applies to Municipalities. What we need in this Country is a moratorium on Government that would force them to do nothing but maintain the status quo for the next 10 years. This would have the immediate effect of stopping the stupid posturing every four years to get re elected. The only money they would be allowed to spend on new projects would be money that they saved by getting rid of old and useless projects. This of course would never happen, but one can dream.

I see, so Paladickpo wants to be an autocrate for ten years, and he wants things to be simple by removing parties while he dictates, and preferably shut down free debate because it is troublesome posturing.

Your whole argument seems illogical to me.

Chadermandoer. Not so. What I want is to get rid of self serving Politicians, and those that **suck up to them**

There was a time when your elected representative had your best interests at heart. I suspect that this is no longer so. A little honesty and integrity in Government would go a long way.

For a bunch of **Hack** politicians to be elected under the BCSTV system, that more times than not will create a minority Goverment, getting huge dollars in salaries, to sit around and argue with each other as to who is going to get the biggest piece of the pie, can hardly be called debate. In the case of Minority Governments, it provides leverage to some groups who then get legislation passed that in effect is not good for the whole. It creates a simple form of blackmail. Give me what I want or I wont support you, and we will have to have an election.

A simple majority Government under the FPTP provides the best form of Government. Thats why we have parties in opposition, to keep the Government on track and to get their message out. If Governments screw up, its up to the voters to get rid of them. If they are too lazy to put down their hot dogs, and get off their butts to go and vote, then they should get the Government they deserve.

We dont need a bunch of self proclaimed **Do gooders** getting themselves elected on the 4th or 5th ballot coming into Government under the guise of **better representation** and in fact making Government worse not better.