As an alum of UBC law I am heartened that the B.C. electorate didn’t buy into the snake-oil that was being sold under the guise of “democratic reform”.

The “new deal” would have, most likely, guaranteed four elected members from Kamloops, for example, and would most likely sound the death knell for small rural areas. Now, perhaps those representatives would be from two or three different parties – but, as we know, party nominees are determined based upon majority vote – and, well, tell me where the majority of the votes are going to come from in a contest between a candidate from Salmon Ar and a candidate from Kamloops.

STV was a recipe for urban domination at the expense of rural representation.

As for federal electoral reform, an addendum to your article. STV actually is on the radar federally. While I’m no fan of the current government, they have twice brought a bill before the House proposing senate reform, and both times they proposed that senators be elected by STV. The discussion on senate reform seems to be about whether to do it, not how to do it, meaning so far so good on STV being the system ultimately chosen when senate reform likely inevitably happens.

I think the Citizens’ Assembly again could have helped with the lack of interest – because people are interested in people, and so would be more interested in the story of the Citizens’ Assembly members!

How do you educate someone who isn’t listening?

Great idea on getting university student societies to adopt electoral reform. I’ll have to see if UVic would go in this direction.

With the 61% support in Victoria there is hope for municipal adoption here.

Mountain Equipment Coop adopted language in the Rules specifically providing for preferential ballots which will support STV. I intend to work for STV elections at MEC and VanCity as a start.

We should work together on this – my email is wbkmail@yahoo.ca

Bruce

I would have to say that the main reason I see for the defeat is that public awareness was at a pitiful low, and when asked whether you would support a change to something you have no idea about, odds are that you will stick with familiarity. I knew a friend working at a polling station and she said that a huge majority had no idea what the referendum was about, even asking if they needed to vote on it. That is where we lost, IMO.

I am saddened by the defeat, because I think it will be a long time coming before we can even bring this up again. Our only hope is to throw as much weight behind the Greens as possible, and use them and their situation as the main lobby for change. I like your idea of starting at the Universities, Ill be attending Capiliano U this September and will be quite active in the student politics, and this would be an issue that I think we could get some widespread knowledge out on that way. Great post.

As Mark suggests, the notion of municipal electoral reform is a good one, perhaps including proportional elections as well as campaign finance transparency.

The sad fact, though, was that I heard much more talk about the Canucks than about the election during the past week. What does that say about us?

The need for electoral reform resonated with me. While the Single Transferable Vote concept was not acceptable to BC Voters, I believe it would be a mistake to give up on electoral reform. I believe first-past-the-post voting system is wrong because it allows disenfranchisement and encourages voter apathy.

I would support a simpler electoral reform, such as a Two-Vote electoral system. The province would be divided into 43 constituencies which would elect two representatives. The ballot would allow a Voter to choose their top candidate using the traditional “first-past-the-post” method, and allow a second vote for Voter’s alternative choice of a political party or identified independents. Simple rule, between your two votes, you can’t vote for the same party twice (unless you wish to register an abstention).

This simple binary voting system would not be as perfect as STV, but would result in a legislature that is more representative. Knowing you have two representatives to choose from in your constituency would encourage greater voter turnout because their votes would matter and result in increased representation.

Could you support simpler Two-Vote electoral system?

The need for electoral reform resonated with me. While the Single Transferable Vote concept was not acceptable to BC Voters, I believe it would be a mistake to give up on electoral reform. I believe first-past-the-post voting system is wrong because it allows disenfranchisement and encourages voter apathy.

I would support a simpler electoral reform, such as a Two-Vote electoral system. The province would be divided into 43 constituencies which would elect two representatives. The ballot would allow a Voter to choose their top candidate using the traditional “first-past-the-post” method, and allow a second vote for Voter’s alternative choice of a political party or identified independents. Simple rule, between your two votes, you can’t vote for the same party twice (unless you wish to register an abstention).

This simple binary voting system would not be as perfect as STV, but would result in a legislature that is more representative. Knowing you have two representatives to choose from in your constituency would encourage greater voter turnout because their votes would matter and result in increased representation.

Could you support simpler Two-Vote electoral system?