Another million bucks down the tube just to keep the loosers happy. What we need is fewer political parties. Last count there were 23 registerd parties in BC. Two would probably do it.

Untill the early 1900s BC had no political parties at all. To reduce the confusion in the legislature a two party system was interduced. We just love to go backwards.

Cheers

Are they buying votes?

What an utter waste of taxpayer dollars. If that stupid STV system had passed last time around would the FPP advocates get another referendum? It failed to win approval last time, and that should be it. Stick with what we've got. (We tried STV once before, for two elections in the early 1950's, and then, wisely, went back to FPP.)

STV Sucks.

What a huge waste of money.

All the efforts by the Northern Health Authority to PREVENT STD's and now they want to have a referendum about them?

That's just stupid.

Well we wouldn't be saying it was stupid if we were stuck with another NDP government. No government would ever get the taxpayers by the throat under STV.

But I still favour FPP because we were only able to recover from the NDP economic redistribution system by giving another party total control to burn the NDP monster paralysis that was strangled and constipated the free economy. People don't work because they like it.

Therefore FPP works because we die if there is no competition to out perform. STV is just a hodge-podge government that is uncompetitive. No fight - no life.

socredible - Actually, it passed last time with 58% support, but the gov't refused to implement it. What are they so afraid of? Almost everyone on the citizens' assembly, including almost everyone from the north, thought it would be much better for us to actually get the MLAs we choose rather than wasting our votes.

I for one want elections to be competitive so that our MLAs have to really work to get our support and can be more easily kicked out if they start taking us for granted. That's why I'll be voting for STV next time.

By the way, we've never had STV before. We've had the preferential ballot and multimember districts, but in the multimember districts, each seat was treated as a separate election, so the same minority of voters decided who won each seat.

I can't honestly say if STV is the answer or not,but I WILL vote for any system that allows us to hold these eleceted demi-gods accountable!
It's about time they learned that they are ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES and they DO have to answer to us whether they damn well like it or not!
And not just every 4 years!
Let's face it,this joke we have for an election process now sure isn't working!
All it's doing is creating mini-dictatorships, not good government!(unless you live on the lower mainland)

Stewart, the necessity for STV's passage was 60%, not 58%, or any lesser number.

That was pre-determined as being the 'clear' majority needed. Not 50% plus 1% more. It didn't achieve the 60% required, and that's that. Or should be.

If all involved didn't want it to be decided by a 'clear' majority, then there wouldn't have been the level set that was set.

Regardless of how many 'Parties' are represented in the Legislature, the one that commands a majority is going to have its way. And STV does absolutely NOTHING to break the perversion of 'Party' rule. In fact, it enhances it.

There is an old saying, perhaps it originated in the Bible, or elsewhere. "No man can serve two masters." Yet that's precisely what we're setting up wherever there is more emphasis on 'our' elected 'representatives' serving their Party, and its 'leader', than in serving we who elect them. Their primary role is as 'representatives', OUR representatives. Not as 'delegates'. And there is a BIG difference.

If you're truly serious about giving a voice to the "people", instead of just hearing more voices from political "Parties", the solution is simple.

Put "None of the Above" on the bottom of every Provincial election ballot below the list of candidates running. And a place for your "X" beside it. And count it as a vote.

For why, in the name of all that's Holy and everything else, should we be 'forced' into voting for 'one',as now under FPP, or 'many', as under STV, if we don't believe ANY of them are up to REPRESENTING us?

Their job is to find out what WE want, and demand that we get it. It is not for them to determine "How", because the "how" is a matter of technique. Technique is for technicians, those in the civil service we pay all those grossly inflated salaries and severence packages to.

The average MLA we elect couldn't even find his office when he gets to Victoria, unless someone from the civil service showed him where it was, and that's just the 'start' of his 'education' as a Legislator.

When we send such people there, and pretend that they are now 'first-rate experts' at governing, and that THEY are going to be able to 'direct' the REAL first-place experts already there in 'how' to do their job, and that that's the way things will get done, we're dreaming in technicolour.

With "None of the Above", we have a 'sanction'. Either those running find out what WE actually DO WANT, and agree to try to achieve it for us, or they ALL face rejection at the polls. A 'clear' rejection, too. Not one that the pundits will have to spend days and months and years trying to analyze. Either you want 'democracy' or you don't. And if we do, then the best place to start is to get the power of "Parties" and "Leaders" out of the way.

socredible. Good post. You did however miss one important point and that is because we live in a democracy we have to become involved by giving our elected representative some direction as what we need.

In The last election there was a lot of chest thumping because we had a 47% turnout at the poles. Tell me what were the other 53% thinking by leting the next guy do it.

Changing the method of voting will not change how our governments preform. Getting out and voting will certainly help.

When I vote my vote will have to go to the party that I support not to the guy that the method of voting will support. I would have to say "none of the above" or not bother to vote at all.

Cheers

Very good point Bridge!
A 47% voter turn out is pathetic, and also why our politicians have such a lack of respect for the electorate in general!
So the question is,how the hell do we educate people to get out and vote??

Yup waste of money. Sore losers...prov Libs throwing a tantrum and our taxes out the window --- AGAIN!

The Prov Libs want STV with the change in electoral boundaries because they figure they can maintain a stronghold.

Ram-it-acts and now RAM IT BACK at the voters. Have they forgotten they had the largest voter turnout for that referendum??

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Thanks, Bridge. Yes, you're right, we do have to give our elected representatives 'direction'.

But we also need some way to ensure that they are actually listening to what we're telling them. That when we get a computer generated form letter back from them after expressing our concerns, that our concerns have actually been noted. Not just the fact we sent a letter in, and bothered them.

Personally, I think the low turn-out at the polls is not simply a sign of voter apathy, (which, no doubt, some of it is), but more a sign of voter frustration. For if we look at the 'Policy' of our two major BC political parties, and also most of the minor ones, it is almost exactly the same. Only the 'Methods' of implementing that 'Policy' are different.

We never get a vote on whether the 'Policy', which is determined FOR us by the Party heirarchies, is what WE want, or not. I don't think that by having "None of the Above" on the ballot we would be seeing "None of the Above" win election. But those who wanted our vote would have to get around and find out just what it is we do want from government, rather than just offering up their own Party's pre-determined 'platform'.

Our system is wonderfully flexible, in that the individual MLAs could determine the best 'Policy' to pursue to truly serve our needs, provided we have an available sanction over them to ensure that's just what they do.

socredible - Actually, it passed last time with 58% support, but the gov't refused to implement it. What are they so afraid of? Almost everyone on the citizens' assembly, including almost everyone from the north, thought it would be much better for us to actually get the MLAs we choose rather than wasting our votes.

I for one want elections to be competitive so that our MLAs have to really work to get our support and can be more easily kicked out if they start taking us for granted. That's why I'll be voting for STV next time.

By the way, we've never had STV before. We've had the preferential ballot and multimember districts, but in the multimember districts, each seat was treated as a separate election, so the same minority of voters decided who won each seat.

Sorry - not sure how that comment got posted a second time. I was just returning to this story to see what the responses were.

socredible - I understand that it didn't 'pass' with 58%, given that the Libs imposed an unprecedented 60% threshold for a referendum question without any debate (only 2 NDP MLAs at the time with other things to think about), but I certainly feel that it was approved by the only people who really should matter - the voters of this province.

One of the main reasons the Citizens' Assembly liked STV was that it gives MLAs more ability to be representatives rather than delegates - I completely agree with you that that's what they should be doing.

I'm not quite clear what you think a 'none of the above' will do in practical terms - do you really want no-one to go to the leg to represent your riding? With STV, you can pick the person you respect the most, and if you don't like any of them, run yourself.

Voting for "none of the above" accomplishes absolutely nothing. When the ballots are counted such a ballot is declared spoiled and put in an envelope with all the other ballots that are spoiled. They are not counted as separate votes, so putting that on a ballot is exactly the same as not bothering to vote in the first place.

in a democracy there is no rule that an issue can only be presented once and once only. The BCSTV system can be presented to voters at every single election from now until doomsday and still be democratic. If it passes this time, it can be presented next time to be reversed. That is the essence of democracy. Voters can decide what they want, when they want, and however many times they want. Live with it - there should be no limits on the cost of democracy.

Fine, ammonra, present it to the voters evey single election from now until doomsday. But let those who want it pay for it themselves, out of their own pockets. Not hit the rest of us perpetually in taxes for funding and re-funding endless referendums on something that's already been voted on and rejected.

The required level for passage was set at 60% to ensure it would only come in with a clear majority. In my opinion, that should have been 66%, or 2/3 of those voting. Which is what it takes to over-ride a Presidential veto by Congress in the USA. But if 60% is what it's to be here, then that's fine. But one vote on it, at public expense, is quite enough.

And you are fully entitled to that opinion, socredible, as I am also fully entitled to disagree with you. I am in favour of revisiting this issue after a properly advertised campaign of the issues surrounding it. I remind you that this was not done last time and is one of the reasons that it is being held again. Another being that it did pass one of the criteria but failed another by 2%. The defeat was not cut and dried at all.

There should be no limits on the cost of democracy. It is the fundamental basis for our society and whatever it costs is well worth it.

Incidentally, what happens in the US congress is of no relevance. This is Canada. We set our own rules and precedents.

Yes, we do set our own rules and precedents in Canada. As we should. But the 'rule' set was 60%, and that was obviously as acceptable to those in favour of changing the voting system as it was to those of us against changing it.

The reason is simple. To obtain a 'clear' majority, either way, so the issue can be decided and put to rest, and we move on.

If it had been accepted, and made into law, and we tried it once or twice, or maybe more, and we found it unworkable, or we didn't like it, THEN we could come back and re-visit the issue.

But when we have a referendum with pre-established rules for passage, and the proposal does not pass.....? It becomes like Quebec separation, or the Australians trying to decide wheteher to remain a constitutional monarchy or become a republic. The losing side is never satisfied with the result,and wants to continually repeat the process, ad infinitum, until they win. It becomes a silly waste of time and money, and a mockery of 'democracy', which is not the 'rule' of the majority, but a clear expression of the 'policy' of the majority.

Would the federalists in Quebec, and the monarchists in Australia be afforded another chance at another referendum if they'd lost, in those cases, the two previous ones? In a pig's eye they would! Anymore than the FPP supporters would get another chance right away if STV had been adopted.

And, incidentally, I think the public was quite well informed on the features of STV before the referendum last time.

I do understand your reasoning and your opposition to a repeat referendum. However, its defeat was not really as cut and dried as you contend. There were two targets that had to be met for it to pass, not one. These were the number of constituencies approving it and the overall percentage of votes in favour. The constituency approval target was met clearly, the overall vote in favour was a near miss.

The rejection was therefore not clear. To make it clear whether a majority is in favour or opposed makes another referendum with proper advertising campaigns necessary.

The advertising campaigns are necessary because it was noted repeatedly by people working in the polling places that many voters had no idea what the referendum was about. Some didn't even know there was a referendum. Not every voter is a political junky. Some vote then don't pay much attention until the next election. Getting through to those people takes some effort, but it has to be made if they are to participate in a referendum and the true democratic will expressed.

I disagree that the 60% was agreeable to both sides in the vote. There was a lot of disagreement with many vocal objections that under our system of voting it should have been 50% plus 1. The 60% came about, many believed, because the government in power wanted it to fail and had the surprise of their life when it was almost successful. Political considerations thus necessitated a second referendum. There may be a grain of truth in that, but it is overstated, I believe.

Everyone I discussed the subject with before the last referendum seemed to be pretty well informed on it, whether they were for it or against. There were innumberable letters-to-the-editor of probably every paper in the Province extolling its virtues, or condemning them, or advocating that MMP would've been a better choice.

The Knowledge Network carried a documentary showing the Citzen's Assembly at work, and some of what they deliberated before recommending STV, (which seemed to me to be what they were being 'coached' into recommending, but maybe that's just the way it appeared on camera.)

And that's been aired numerous times. So I think those who want to be informed about it are already pretty well informed. And those who don't want to be informed are likely to be just as ignorant after another adverising campaign as they previously were.

So personally I really don't see the point of re-visiting it with more money spent over and above what's already been spent. But compared to $ 40 million for the Olympic opening ceremonies, and $ 50 million for a new art gallery for downtown Vancouver, I suppose half a million more wasted isn't going to bankrupt us, if that'll be the end of it.

Now I admit to being prejudiced against STV, mainly because I don't see it doing anything meaningful whatsoever in enhancing democracy. 'Political' democracy without 'economic' democracy is really a sham no matter whether a government is chosen through FPP, STV, MMP, or outright revolution.

And I certainly can't see how adding the voices of more "Parties" to the Legislature is ever going to move us closer to 'economic' democracy. If anything, in my humble opinion, it will further retard any possible progress in that direction as various 'coalitions' are made and broken.

And our politicians, in their even more divided quests for power will prostrate themselves further than they already all do as they continue to dance to the tunes of Finance.

And don't tell me that's not what they ALL do, because every one of them that's ever got into office has told us at one time or another that even though they 'promised' to do such and such if we'd vote for them, they now can't "...because we don't have the money". Those six little words are a tacit admission that it matters not a whit WHO we elect or HOW we do it, those who have the power to control the figures with a "$" affixed in front of them still call all the shots. And that ain't "We the people...",

We might have all the men, and materials, the knowledge, the skill, and the desire,and the need, but can we make it happen any easier with STV than FPP when neither bears upon the 'real' problem?

As long as one person can deny another person a livelihood through controlling the means to that livelihood, i.e. "money", we can never have 'democracy' in the sense that it should apply to each of us as individuals ~ for in reality, true democracy is the ability of each of us as individuals to make our own policy effective unto ourselves to the highest degree possible. To achieve that, if democracy in that sense is what's desired, we'd best direct our attention and energies to things other than a new voting system.