come on bc, show us what democracy looks like

Tomorrow, people in British Columbia have an historic opportunity to expand their democracy. For all the info, see BC-STV: Single Transferable Vote.

Ontario voters didn't move things forward when they had the chance in 2007, likely confused and misled by the entrenched interests who want to maintain the status quo. You out there on the west coast, show us how it's done!

Power Up Your Vote!.


richard said...

STV is an overly complicated system which gives undue power to larger centres to the detriment of rural areas and the many small towns that dot BC. While the principle of proportional representation is laudable this one is bad for rural communities like the one in which I live.

I expect it to win, though.

L-girl said...

I think it's exactly the opposite. Representation ends up much closer to what people vote for, much more than it is now, especially outside of big cities.

L-girl said...

Info relevant to representation for rural communities here (pdf).

richard said...

It will win because people in cities and larger centres know how much power it gives them.

I just discovered this short video which pretty much sums up all that I know about STV - It's good for cities and bad for rural areas. Since I live in a rural area this is an easy vote for me.

Fix the system. But surely we can do better than this - http://tinyurl.com/okuoty

L-girl said...

Well, like I said, everything I've read says just the opposite, except what's written by the entrenched interests of the Liberal Party.

A system in which 90% of voters will see their choice reflected, as opposed to the current 50% or less, is better for everyone.

MSS said...

The first comment above claims that STV gives "undue power to larger centres to the detriment of rural areas..."

I have heard a lot of arguments against STV--some of them even fairly cogent--but that's a new one on me.

Worth noting: In order not to have geographically "too large" districts, both Ontario's MMP and BC's STV proposals have countenanced over-representation of rural areas. (That's not and STV or MMP effect, per se, but part of the package proposed in these provinces.)

All indications are the referendum will lose. Memories are short, and FPTP just has not been behaving badly enough in BC recently. If only people kept 1996 in mind. Or even 2001, not so long ago...

L-girl, on "entrenched interests of the Liberal party," maybe. But let's at least give Liberal premiers and their caucuses credit for having initiated the Citizens Assemblies.

And the NDP is not exactly friendly to STV in BC, either. Indeed, less so, probably.

L-girl said...

Woops! That's what I get for making assumptions. I was thinking of the federal Liberals in Ontario, and their media mouthpiece, The Toronto Star. Both campaigned hard against pro-rep for Ontario, while the federal NDP here would benefit from it, so wants it. Glad to know that is not the case in BC.

Thanks for the info and the link. For anyone here who doesn't know MSS, he is an expert on elections and electoral systems, both in his professional life and through his blog Fruits & Votes.

I knew Richard's argument was incorrect, but I don't have the facts at my disposal to argue coherently, so I only liked to the Fair Vote site. So thanks for that.

richard said...

My (very limited and very rural)observations are that the Liberal, Green and fourth parties voters tend to like it while BC-NDP voters (like myself) don't. That's why I suspect it might win. We'll see tonight.

I may be completely out to lunch on all of this, of course ;-)

Get out and vote, people!