ReeferMadness

It needed 60. It got 58. The 60% figure is arbitrary. There is no legal requirement for 60%. Actually, there is no legal requirement to consult the people at all. STV was used in Alberta and Manitoba in the early part of the 20th century. When the politicians decided they didn't like it, they simply passed legislation. If Scheck had his way, not very many. Scheck probably understands but doesn't want anybody else to understand. The more people understand STV, the more they like it. That's very close to the truth. With a 60% requirement and a poorly understood subject, the yes side has to be clear and persuasive. All the no side has to do is spread fear, uncertainty and doubt. And they're doing it very well. The riding is now 100,000 votes large and you need 16,667. Simple. Not even close. No system gives all perspectives an equal voice, nor should it. But you need to go back to the fundamentals of democracy. Democracy is rule by and for the people. Representative democracy is democracy through proxy - ie someone else represents your interest. But there are 2 big problems with our democracy. First, 15-20% of the voters cast a ballot for parties that don't get any seats - meaning they essentially have no voice. And that doesn't include the portion of the remainder that reluctantly vote "strategically", meaning they vote for someone they don't like to try to block someone else they like even less. Second, the governing party in a majority government normally gets less than half the popular vote, meaning that they don't really have legitimate authority to make all of the decisions. The whole idea behind proportional representation (of which STV is one type) is to ensure that the strength of the voice is roughly proportional to the number of people that hold a set of views. Not all views can be represented and their are different types of proportional representation with different thresholds for electing representatives. In some countries, the threshold can be as low as 2%. In many, it is 5%. STV (like FPTP) doesn't have a set percentage province-wide but you need regional support of anywhere from 12.5% to 33% depending on the number of MLA's in the constitency. Under FPTP, parties with support across the province typically don't get seats until they reach about 20% popular vote. That can equate to a lot of wasted votes. In practice, it equates to a lot of frustration because people either don't vote or they vote for someone they really don't want to win. I don't know of any political parties in BC that I would call special interest groups. That's a term a lot of people use to discredit organizations with whom they don't agree. Which doesn't give you the right to arbitrarily determine what is or isn't a political party. Again with the "special interests". The funny thing is that the party in Canada with the most narrowly defined interest is the Bloc Quebecois. And they are the largest beneficiaries of the first past the post system. So, your favorite political system is helping people break up the country. Not everyone's viewpoint can be represented but setting the bar at 20% of the population is unreasonable and unnecessary. There is no reason to believe that broadening the democratic coverage of viewpoints will destroy us. Quite the opposite, most of the worlds democracies use some form of proportional representation and I don't think that any of the recently democratized countries have chosen FPTP. FPTP is a holdover from the British Empire in the days when only wealthy men were allowed to vote. In Ireland, STV has survived for 90 years despite 2 attempts by the largest political party to get rid of it. The people voted to keep it. Now you're saying that the NDP is a special interest too? Are all parties special interests by your definitionl A ridiculous statement. Ireland had STV when it went through the major exercise of lowering taxes and reducing regulation to become the 'Celtic tiger'. Prove it. Wow. What optimism. Personally, I think it will pass and it should. I believe in democracy and that stronger government results from fresh ideas. Politics in BC currently is like World War I. Two sides dug in with very little movement.

Your scored -3 on Moral Order and 5.5 on Moral Rules. The following categories best match your score (multiple responses are possible): 1. System: Socialism 2. Ideology: International Socialism 3. Party: No match. 4. Presidents: Jimmy Carter 5. 04' Election: David Cobb 6. 08' Election: Dennis Kucinich Of the 538,204 respondents (9,080 on Facebook): 1. 3% are close to you. 2. 65% are more conservative. 3. 20% are more liberal. 4. 4% are more socialist. 5. 3% are more authoritarian. This scale is somewhat richer than the traditional (brain-dead) left-right model but still leaves much to be desired. People's belief systems are many-dimensional.

And why not? The whole country has a habit of making politicians out of second rate actors. Geez, the nutbars are overflowing the shopping cart.

Well, have fun with it then.

Yes. It passed last time 58% to 42% but still we have to do it again. How undemocratic. You're referring to Dennis Pilon of the University of Victoria. He is an endorser of BC-STV but he doesn't "head" anything. See stv.ca for the organization of the yes committee. I've heard Dennis speak a few times. While he's very knowledgeable, his frustration at the hysteria and misinformation being pushed by the no campaign sometimes shows through in what he says. Why is that a problem? It's a free country. You can possibly get elected under our current system. STV actually raises the bar in terms of the number of votes required to elect an MLA. Say you are a candidate in a riding where there are 20,000 votes cast. You get 7,000 votes. Candidate B gets 6,500 votes, Candidate C gets 4,500 and Candidate D gets 2,000. Congratulations - you are elected. Note that if there were more candidates or the voting was more evenly spread, you could get elected with even fewer votes. But wait. Now your riding is combined with 4 others to make one riding with 5 MLA's where there are now 100,000 votes cast. Now, how many votes do you need to get elected? The formula is 100,000/(5+1) = 16,667 votes. You need more votes to be elected and it doesn't matter how many candidates run for election. Sure, your vote can be spread over a wider area but you need more than twice as many votes! Who are you to say what should and shouldn't be a political party? I think that a lot of legislation that doesn't benefit the province is passed. Unlike you, I think that, as much as possible, everyone's viewpoints should be represented in legislature. This point firmly establishes what I've been thinking from the beginning - that you don't know what you're talking about. People who've endorsed STV include Preston Manning, Deborah Grey and Andrew Coyne. In fact, STV has attracted supporters from all political stripes. STV supporters tend to be independent thinkers as opposed to herd followers - and BC residents tend to be independent-minded. BTW, the no side is being headed up by David Schreck and Bill Tieleman, two long-time NDP insiders.

OTOH, there is a real poll conducted by Angus Reid that says 65% of British Columbians would vote yes to the STV question.

This poll is worthless. Five people - what's your margin of statistical error - 97%?

Well, how many things can I find wrong with your statement? First, I didn't comment on what he is doing, I commented on what he would like to do. Harper is currently constrained by having a minority government. If he does anything that can easily be used against him, he's going to find himself leading the opposition. Second, he's now a politician. That means he's not necessarily going to say what he thinks. Go back and review the speeches he made before he was a politician to see how deep his spite is for this country and how much he admires the Republicans. As an example of a politician who has been very successful by not saying what he will do, look at Gordon Campbell's (who's party are very different from other Liberals in this country). Third, "centre", like "right" or "left" is highly subjective and relative. If you're from Alberta, centre might mean something different than if you're living in Ontario. Also, if you remember the pre-Reagan days, the centre has moved a whole bunch. Even allowing for these shifts, the terms are gross generalizations and if you can think in more than one dimension, they're quite limiting.

For once, I agree with you Oleg. Send him home. The word is that Brian Mulroney's going to need a bunkmate!!

I was wondering when you would show up. In the first place, I wasn't defining Canada. Harper certainly doesn't come anywhere close to representing the wishes of most Canadians. I believe the Conservative vote would be far lower if they knew what he was really about. In the second place, the terms left and right are largely devoid of meaning and used mostly by people to sound intelligent while having nothing of substance to say.

Harper is a knuckle-dragging troglodyte who wants to remake this country in the image of neo-cons to the south. He once derisively called Canada a "second-tier socialist country." The fact that Mulroney was able to help him polish his image is a tribute neither to Mulroney or the short memories of Canadians who voted for Harper's government. Speaking of short memories, the premise that Mulroney could improve anyone's image is amazing in itself. Here's a guy who won his party leadership by backstabbing a guy who was too nice and too honest to be successful in politics. Free trade wasn't his brain child (he campaigned against it in 1983). The idea was an unintended political gift from Trudea via the McDonald Commission. In any event, the FTA and NAFTA are deeply flawed implementations that give foreign companies rights that domestic companies don't have. The result has been that international trade has grown faster than interprovincial trade. But let's move on. After free trade, Mulroney's courting of Quebec sovereignists for his own political gain and 2 poorly conceived attempts at constitutional reform led to the formation of the Bloc Quebecois and almost to the death of this country. What was amazing to me was that in 1993, there were still 11% of Canadians that claimed to support him. Now I'm sure there must be a perfectly logical, innocent explanation why Mr Mulroney accepted bags of cash from a man who is alleged to have spent his career bribing people. Instead of putting it in the bank (as one would expect of honestly gained money), he put it into a safety deposit box and "forgot" to claim it on his income taxes for six years. Or maybe there isn't. And maybe Harper knows that Mulroney is going under and doesn't want to go with him.

You're absolutely correct. Canada owes its first cannabis laws to bureacracy. It was added to the list of banned durgs without parliamentary debate. You're also right that the states banned cannabis even earlier between 1915 - 1925. And it wasn't due to greed and corruption, it ws just good old fashioned racism. Marijuana was the drug of choice of Mexicans and a number of states banned it to control the immigrants.

Although somewhat dated, this Macleans article says that marijuana is a cash crop of staggering value. The pretense that prohibition is somehow a positive factor is idiotic and demonstrates denial of reality. I understand that the US repealed alcohol prohibition during the 30's because they were cash-strapped and needed the tax revenue. Maybe history will repeat itself.

That's very funny. But seriously, I'm starting to wonder how much as really changed.

Hear, hear. Democrats and Republicans have a whole lot more in common than most people like to think. The range of political discourse in the US is so tiny it's ridiculous. The moral justification for criminalizing a voluntary activity that doesn't directly harm anyone else is shaky at best. When you consider that most of the harm is actually due to the laws, it becomes downright ludicrous and you wonder what is actually behind drug prohibition. The key to ending prohibition in Canada is dealing with the perception south of the border. I think Chretien would have certainly decriminalized and possibly even legalized marijuana if it weren't for fears of the border snapping shut.

OK, but check out the comments that follow the video. There are an awful lot of racist xenophobes out there.

Hmmm..... would you mind moving out? We'd be a lot safer without you next door.

Well, if they were to add a few more clauses, I could live with it: Such as Recognizing that some religious texts make reference to violent acts and these references are occasionally interpreted by certain individuals as justification for actual violent acts Noting that, like all major belief systems, major religions have at many points in history served as confluences for extreme individuals who engage in violent and destructive behaviors Further noting that in some cases, the leaders of major religions have countenanced said violent and destructive behaviors Am I an international criminal now?

We have to choose between the US and China? Better let us get back to you on that.

I think it's problematic, even in theory. Even if you accept that the only legitimate role of government is to minimize criminality (and we could have an entire discussion on that point), how do you define criminality without a broad consensus? I'm pretty sure you'd get a different picture of criminality from a group of retired conservative Christians in Alberta than, say, a union local in BC. Democratic legitimacy demands consensus and consensus requires broad representation.

Interesting. Would you consider yourself a Libertarian, Pliny? Or perhaps an anarchist?

And as long as we're on the topic of misinformation and fearmongering, the no campaign is doing a poll with questions that allow no way for respondents to express a favorable opinion of STV. From The Public Eye If you're fighting a referendum and have nothing good to say about your position, I suppose all you can do is a hatchet job on the opposing position. The poll has been attacked as a "push poll". In fairness to the no campaign, it might be just a way of test-marketing some attack-messages. BTW, these points are all refutes by actual experience with STV.

I'm not "going all lawyerly". Read what I said not what you'd like me to have said.

Riverwind, it really sounds like you're being deliberately obtuse but I'll give you the benefit of a doubt. I already said a couple of times I don't know who McHale is so it's ridiculous for you or anyone else to suggest I support his election. I only said he sounded less scary than some other people who have been elected over the years based on the limited information provided here. I did cite a report saying that in Ireland, STV elects more independents but it didn't say the independents were "like McHale". In summary: Nothing I've said indicates the support of the election of McHale or any other individual candidate. There is nothing to suggest that STV will increase the odds of McHale being elected. I do, however, believe that voters are able to decide for themselves who should represent them.

BTW, everyone following this should be aware what sort of debater Madmax is. He went over to the rabble.ca forum on STV and accused me of supporting the election of Max McHale. Check out this stunning bit of blatant dishonesty: