I have recently been alerted to former MLA Christy Clark's opinion on STV-BC. http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=77240258619&h=bKfp3&u=6Colq&ref=nf

I respect Christy Clark...clearly smart lady...however she should know better than anyone that no system is perfect.

My interests and income have no bearing on my vote...but because I'm involved in many committee meetings I know (and Christy should remember) that without a firm agenda it is often impossible to achieve anything. I can't help but wonder how 'stuck in the mud' government would be with numerous MLA's and no one agenda!

Have people forgotten the purpose of governent? Government is in place to keep things running. Different people and lobby groups have their own reasons for which parties they support and I think its very short sighted and dare I say 'pollyanna' to believe that simply changing the electoral system is going to radically improve their own power of influence.

It's all fine and wonderful to have fair representation - but at the end of the day -who will the MLA's represent? Their constituency will be huge and they'll all be competing against eachother! I see huge problems with egos and inauthenticity vying for your continued support.

That's my opinion - feel free to try to change it!


... Read More


  1. I agree that no system is perfect, but that's no reason to keep a poorer system like First Past the Post when there's a chance to switch to a better (though admittedly still imperfect) system like BC-STV.

    If the ability to implement a firm agenda as quickly as possible is the thing that matters to you most, even if that agenda is opposed by more than half the voters, then a dictatorship might be your ideal system. I agree that our current system is much closer to a dictatorship than BC-STV would be.

    If fairness, accountability to voters, and implementing policies that are actually supported by a majority of British Columbians is important to you, then you might have to trade a bit of the ruthless efficiency of a dictatorship for the time it takes to get a majority coalition of MLAs to agree on the best course to follow.

    I think the purpose of government is to implement the will of the voters. Our current system creates artificial supermajorities where something like 39% of the votes can give one party 100% of the power, while the 61% who voted against that party could just as well have stayed home for all the good it did them to vote for other parties. BC-STV will give much more proportional results, and about 80% of voters will be represented by someone they voted for.

    I don't think a new electoral system will fix *everything* in BC government. Of course that's unrealistic. Still, if BC-STV has great potential to improve our government, why oppose it simply because it won't do even more than it claims to?

    Why do I believe voters will have more power and MLAs will represent their district more effectively under BC-STV?

    The answer is because under STV, unlike now, effectively representing their district would be the only way they could retain their seat. The question you should be asking is, "Under our current First Past the Post (FPTP) system, with so many safe seats, with candidates nominated in backroom deals, and with such strict party discipline, why should an MLA today act in their constituents' interests at times when those local interests conflict with their party's agenda?"

    Who will the MLAs represent? They will have to represent the people who voted for them if they hope to keep their votes in the next election. They will have to represent as many people in their district as they can. They are competing against other candidates, but they will need to do it with their actions, not just their words, because the voters will be able to hold them accountable much more than they can today.

    Candidates may also cooperate more, in the hopes of gaining support through the 2nd, 3rd, or later preferences on their opponents' supporters' ballots. Mud slinging and dirty politics would backfire in that situation.

    Please check these refutations of many of the myths about BC-STV:


    I hope you change your mind and help BC take advantage of this great opportunity to try a system that I believe will be a big improvement over our current system.

  2. Fred,

    Thanks for your comments. I guess all I have to say is it has yet to be proven to me that STV will in fact BE a better system. There is a lot of rhetoric about how you will be more fairly represented, but no one is explaining HOW very well.

    Currently MLA's only maintain their seats if they do a sufficient job of representing their constituents...I'm rather confused why people believe that they would be better represented in a LARGER constituency??

    I believe that party agendas are necessary just like corporations require a "Mission/Vision Statement" so too should political parties. You can't achieve it if you can't see it and the momentum can be built when everyone is working toward the same goal.

    I'm going to vote No.