BC-STV

ReeferMadness · February 23, 2009

On May 12, British Columbia will have the opportunity to adopt a new proportional electoral system. STV will not only bring increased proportionality to provincial elections, it will also have the effect of putting more emphasis on the individual MLA's instead of having all of the power with the party elite. Predictably, the two major parties are not in favour and have been largely silent on the matter, meaning that it will not receive much media coverage.

On May 12, vote YES for BC-STV. See STV for BC website

eyeball · February 23, 2009

If I see STV on the ballot I'll vote yes for it. I'll leave the rest blank until such time as we have it.

madmax · February 23, 2009

All forms of Proportional rep in BC died last time around. There was a real movement for change. I do not see it this time. I don't hear it. Regardless nothing is in the hands of the major parties. It is in the hands of the people. And I believe that STV will receive less support then last time.

When a government puts something like STV on the ballot, it takes away any thrust from the opposition to coalese around supporting it. If the opposition goes for it, the government says, we put it there. Thus there is no swing, no change.

So many hardcore STV supporters are living on an island today. The economy is collapsing around them, hundreds of thousands are losing their jobs, their life savings, their homes, their security and STV will change none of this.

STV isn't a bad thing. But it must be moved by a political party that implements it, not one that puts it to a ballot question, which is one of the ironies of direct democracy. A party with conviction that wishes to implement STV has a greater chance of making it law, while receiving roughly 40+% of the vote. Yet a party without conviction towards STV will make it a ballot question, and put the level of support required for change at 60%.

Regardless, STV will end up like MMP in Ontario.

The reason won't be because of STV as a system, or what the political parties think, it will be that the people won't give a rats ass about it. There are bigger issues that affect them today.

What is certain is that the Campbell Government have put STV on the ballot, you either support it or you don't. What else is certain, is that the Campbell Government hasn't been all that great, but people are likely to put up with it again, vs throw them out.

No other party is a significant player in this climate.

ReeferMadness · February 23, 2009

geez, Max. What a depressing post. I've just lost my job at a place I've worked for 15 years and I feel I should be cheering you up! :rolleyes:

I don't agree with your conclusion that PR in BC is dead. The campaign hasn't yet got off the ground but there is some strong organization behind it. It's been endorsed by quite a few notable individuals including David Suzuki, Preston Manning, Andrew Petter and Rafe Mair. It's also being endorsed by quite a number of newspapers including the Vancouver Sun and the Province.

The major parties won't get behind it for two reasons:

1) It will cost them seats to minor parties so they'll actually have to work with other parties to get things done

2) It will empower MLA's at the expsense of the party leadership

STV is good for democracy but not so good for traditional party politics.

You're right that there are a lot of economic problems right now and it's all the more reason people should be getting behind this. The best democracy and the best legislation results when politicians can get over their political differences and work together. STV doesn't guarantee that but it does make it much more likely.

Vote YES for BC-STV on May 12.

Wilber · February 23, 2009

Vote YES for BC-STV on May 12.

I believe it had a proviso the last time that if it was passed, it would be revisited after using it for two elections. Under those conditions, I would certainly vote for it.

eyeball · February 24, 2009

Shake it more than two times and you're playing with fire as Zappa would say.

madmax · February 24, 2009

geez, Max. What a depressing post. I've just lost my job at a place I've worked for 15 years and I feel I should be cheering you up!

It may be depressing to you. I find nothing depressing about it. I said, I haven't seen anything to suggest that PR has the momentum that it had in the last election cycle and I stick to that observation until it changes. There is also a huge difference in the mindset of the public. When things were good to ok, they could think about electoral reform.

Sorry to hear about you losing your job. Perhaps your workmates feel like you, and you can sign them up on your PR campaign. Maybe you can engage the 10s of thousands that are losing their jobs each month to support PR.

I don't agree with your conclusion that PR in BC is dead. The campaign hasn't yet got off the ground but there is some strong organization behind it.

The Campaign hasn't got off the ground yet and it shows.

You're right that there are a lot of economic problems right now and it's all the more reason people should be getting behind this. The best democracy and the best legislation results when politicians can get over their political differences and work together. STV doesn't guarantee that but it does make it much more likely.

If you say so.

I am not against STV. But living in Ontario, the noise supporting STV in BC in the last election cycle made big headlines here and television media coverage as well.

What will happen if the % of supporters for STV goes down???

BC-STV was supported by 57.69%[1] of the voters in a referendum in 2005 but the government had decided to not be bound by a vote of less than 60% in favour. However, because of the strong majority support for BC-STV, the government has promised to re-run the referendum in 2009
The then ruling Liberal Government, with the agreement of the opposition New Democrats, established the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform and gave it the mandate to come up with a new electoral system. The assembly designed and recommended a system that it named BC-STV (British Columbia Single Transferable Vote), and a referendum was held as part of the 2005 Provincial Elections.

When you talk of major parties, remember your BC history.

Throughout the 1940s, the province had been governed by a coalition of the Conservative and Liberal parties. Neither party had sufficient electoral support to form government alone, and the coalition allowed these parties to keep the left-of-centre Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) out of power.
By the 1950s, the coalition had begun to fall apart, resulting in the Conservatives and Liberals having to run for office separately under their own party banners. However, in order to ensure that the CCF was prevented from taking power, one of the last acts of the coalition government was to introduce an alternative voting system (known today in the USA as instant-runoff voting), which was implemented for the 1952 general election.

and Ironically

The unexpected result of using this voting method was the election of enough candidates of a new party, Social Credit (also known as “SoCreds”). This resulted in the SoCreds forming a minority government, with the CCF forming the official opposition. The Liberals were reduced to four members in the Legislature. The Conservatives (who changed their name to “Progressive Conservative” in tandem with their federal counterparts) were reduced to three.

STV isn't new

Alberta: STV was used in the Calgary and Edmonton and Medicine Hat ridings of the province of Alberta from 1926 to 1955. All other electoral districts used instant-runoff voting. In 1955 all districts were changed to First Past the Post.
Manitoba: Provincial elections in Manitoba were conducted partly by STV from the 1920s until 1958: the city of Winnipeg elected ten members in this manner. All other constituencies elected one member by instant-runoff voting. Civic elections in Winnipeg were also conducted by STV.

Nor was the landscape of politics changed dramatically when using either system.

Edited February 24, 2009 by madmax

ReeferMadness · February 24, 2009

It may be depressing to you. I find nothing depressing about it. I said, I haven't seen anything to suggest that PR has the momentum that it had in the last election cycle and I stick to that observation until it changes. There is also a huge difference in the mindset of the public. When things were good to ok, they could think about electoral reform.

Re-read your post. It isn't just STV - the tone of your entire post is just blah. The world's going to hell in a handbasket so everyone should just give up now.

Sorry to hear about you losing your job. Perhaps your workmates feel like you, and you can sign them up on your PR campaign. Maybe you can engage the 10s of thousands that are losing their jobs each month to support PR.

Wow, that statement of sympathy reeks of sincerity - well, it reeks, anyway.

I am not against STV. But living in Ontario, the noise supporting STV in BC in the last election cycle made big headlines here and television media coverage as well.

Well that must prove it. If it's not big news in Ontario, it can't be happening in BC, right?

Nor was the landscape of politics changed dramatically when using either system.

The landscape of politics will change when people demand it. Systems can only encourage specific types of behavior. The current system encourages two-party systems. If you happen to feel comfortable with one of the two parties and are willing to live with near-dictatorship, then you might be happy with the current horse-race system. If you like your politics nuanced and creative, not so much.

madmax · February 24, 2009

Re-read your post. It isn't just STV - the tone of your entire post is just blah. The world's going to hell in a handbasket so everyone should just give up now.

That depends on your state of mind, not mine. If those facts are untrue, then say so.

Wow, that statement of sympathy reeks of sincerity - well, it reeks, anyway.

I am involved with thousands of people who have lost their jobs. If you have followed any of my posts over the last 2 years on Job losses, you would know of my sincerity. You mentioned that you lost your job and STV was on your mind and an important factor. I have suggested to you to get the support of those who are losing your jobs to back you. This is not the first time that economic circumstances have forced political change and electoral reforms.

I stated that 10s of thousands of people have lost and your answer was to confirm that you had lost yours too.

I am suggesting that economic circumstances have taken over the mindset of the public, and distracted from the STV movement. People are still going to vote, but I am going to suggest that less people will vote in 2009 then in 2005. What is not certain is if those who voted for STV in 05 will stay home in 09.

Well that must prove it. If it's not big news in Ontario, it can't be happening in BC, right?

Absolutely not. What made news was the movement towards STV and what continued to make waves was the strength of the STV vote yet not making the 60% threshold. All media looks for a story, and if the STV starts picking up steam, then it will get the media attention. Why? Because it is news and it is change to the political system.

GOOGLE STV and select NEWS and you get ZIP, NADA, NOTHING from BC today.

There are 4 stories from February 13th.

There is One Story from February 18th with an NDP MP supporting STV.

And that's about it on page #1.

http://news.google.ca/nwshp?hl=en&tab=wn&q=STV

There is this neat quote on page two of the google search, the only reference to STV in BC.

"I'd almost be better off campaigning for that then the Green Party," she says of the STV electoral system. "It's way more democratic. I almost don't care who you vote for, say yes to STV."

With just over two months to go, till Eday, I thought that the STV movement in BC would be well in Gear by now, knowing that STV was going to be on the ballot. The 3 Main Political Parties are well on the campaign trail, STV support should have been ready for a fixed election date and the ballot question.