The following was sent off to the editors of the Victoria Times-Colonist, the Cowichan Valley Citizen and the Cowichan NewsLeader. Whether it will get published to those media outlets, we don't know.* In the meantime, here it is, written from the perspective of an Irish-Canadian unassociated with the BC-STV campaign.
--
STV or Proportional Representation (PR) is just another logical step in the evolution of democracy and in historical terms, will be viewed much like allowing women the vote or the reduction of the voting age to eighteen.
If one looks at the newly emerging democracies around the world - South Africa, the Welsh and Scottish Assemblies, Hungary and many other countries - this progression is clearly evident.
It is greatly to the credit of the current BC legislature that they have agreed to revisit the work of the Citizens' Assembly that brought forward this suggested system and it is a historic opportunity that we as voters should use to vote a resounding Yes to.
I grew up under a PR system in Ireland and saw first hand how this was a more democratic system. One did not have to "hold your nose" and vote for the better of two bad choices or risk wasting your vote. In Ireland it has also given small or new parties a voice. For example, the Greens currently hold the balance of power in Government; a historical first.
With this system you can vote your conscience first and your next best choice can be a candidate you can live with.
Under larger ridings you will always have a representative in government to work for your region and interests and on whose door you can knock, unlike today where you may not have a MLA for 20 or more years.
Sincerely,
Frank Ryan
Crofton
--
* We have noticed a huge disparity between the number of unique online comments pro-STV vs. those pro-FPTP. The latter often try to fill out their numbers by numerous comments by the same person. Still STV supporters outnumber the FPTP camp by at least six times. Whereas in print it's consistently one letter published for STV, another published against STV. Thus, British Columbians aren't getting a sense, at least through their print media, of the support for STV on the ground.
The other side rarely 'fesses up to the fact that essentially they're backing the status quo. Yet there are TWO electoral systems on the referendum ballot: FPTP and STV, not NOT STV and STV.
About This Blog
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Waving Wednesday - April 29 AM - Duncan
We had our first Waving Wednesday event this morning, from 7:30 to 8:30 a.m., down at the Trans Canada Highway overpass just south of the Silver Bridge near Duncan.
Here's the report from Sandy McPherson, our boundlessly energetic lower mid-island volunteer coordinator.
Many thanks to Marilyn, Anne, Jo, Alan, Susan and especially Randy our "Awesome Sign Guy" who made modifications to the yard signs for easy waving.
We had waves and honks too numerous to count. All in all a really positive and motivating experience.
Way to go, team!
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
VIDEO for BC-STV - Help Give it Air Time!
You can help put this advertisement on the air and help reach out to voters across the province. The more people know about BC-STV, the more they like it!
Example costs to run a 30 second ad:
Local TV
Evening News in Terrace, $105Late News in Kamloops, $135
Daytime TV
Oprah, $891Jeopardy, $920
Dancing With the Stars in Victoria, $1320
Primetime and Playoff Advertising!
BCTV Newshour, $2,430NHL Playoffs, $2,730
Learn more or donate to the STV campaign today!
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Libby Davies to Vote BC-STV
Just picked up on Twitter. Here's the source, from Libby Davies' own hand, written to her blog today:
The bottom line? People say to me - this is the best chance we have to get democratic electoral reform through, now and not in the distant future, especially as the last referendum was so close. This is a good point. Like many, I want change - progressive change - and I want to see the cynicism that people feel about politics and the political process change too. Not that STV will answer all that - it won't. But maybe it’s a first step to affirm change brought forward by citizens, not political parties.
So here I am, in answer to all the questions about my position - I can't duck it any longer. I'm voting YES to STV. I'm a bit of a reluctant comer to it and I’ve got my issues about it. But I've come to the conclusion that it’s the right thing to do.
Thank you, Ms. Davies. Your support means a lot.
Have readers been counting? That's three female NDP MPs so far who have come out in support of BC-STV: Denise Savoie, Jean Crowder and now Libby Davies.
The bottom line? People say to me - this is the best chance we have to get democratic electoral reform through, now and not in the distant future, especially as the last referendum was so close. This is a good point. Like many, I want change - progressive change - and I want to see the cynicism that people feel about politics and the political process change too. Not that STV will answer all that - it won't. But maybe it’s a first step to affirm change brought forward by citizens, not political parties.
So here I am, in answer to all the questions about my position - I can't duck it any longer. I'm voting YES to STV. I'm a bit of a reluctant comer to it and I’ve got my issues about it. But I've come to the conclusion that it’s the right thing to do.
Thank you, Ms. Davies. Your support means a lot.
Have readers been counting? That's three female NDP MPs so far who have come out in support of BC-STV: Denise Savoie, Jean Crowder and now Libby Davies.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Response to Pro-FPTP/Anti-STV Analogy
Discovered over at the Victoria Times-Colonist today:
BC-STV, the Smartier Way to Vote from Reena Meijer Drees on Vimeo.
No gummy bears were harmed in the making of the following video.
Gummie Bears for BC-STV from Grant Fraser on Vimeo.
In the anti-STV article by Bob Plecas Sunday, he provided a fascinating analogy between hockey playoffs and STV. It would apply perfectly in the U.S., which has a two-party system. In B.C. we have three or more parties running. The analogy breaks down when there are four teams out on the ice at the same time.Now Smarties or gummy bears, they play an entirely different game AND they allow more than two teams!
BC-STV, the Smartier Way to Vote from Reena Meijer Drees on Vimeo.
No gummy bears were harmed in the making of the following video.
Gummie Bears for BC-STV from Grant Fraser on Vimeo.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Letter to Editor, Cowichan NewsLeader
The following response appeared in the April 22nd edition of the Cowichan NewsLeader. No online versions of the response or original article are available.
Dear Editor:
After reading Patrick Hrushowy's column (STV will add to confusion of voting, government, April 18), I didn't know whether to laugh out loud or scream. I ended up doing both. How stupid does Hrushowy think British Columbians are?
No one arguing in support of the Single Transferable Vote (BC-STV) is claiming it will correct everything that is wrong with our politics and government. However, changing the way we elect our MLAs is one crucial, giant step. Unlike the current first-past-the-post voting system, BC-STV will encourage more co-operation among candidates, MLAs and parties and therefore produce a less fractious political atmosphere. That, in turn, could result in more work getting done to produce policy which aligns with the values of the voting majority, not those of a minority comprised of elite special interests.
Nor will BC-STV "force an over-empowering of fringe political parties." First, how many fringe parties does Hrushowy know that can run candidates in every electoral district and have the money to fund ambitious campaigns? Second, each candidate in a BC-STV electoral district must achieve a minimum number of votes to be elected. For example, if a total of 10,000 votes are cast in an electoral district for which four MLAs are to be chosen, each of the four winning candidates must receive at least 2,001 votes. That's a lot of votes for a fringe candidate to earn.
Finally, Hrushowy calls BC-STV "complicated" and decries the "mind bending confusion" that will befall us should we choose it over the status quo. The Irish have been using STV for almost 100 years. Is he suggesting that British Columbians can't do what the Irish can?
Chrystal Ocean
Duncan
Dear Editor:
After reading Patrick Hrushowy's column (STV will add to confusion of voting, government, April 18), I didn't know whether to laugh out loud or scream. I ended up doing both. How stupid does Hrushowy think British Columbians are?
No one arguing in support of the Single Transferable Vote (BC-STV) is claiming it will correct everything that is wrong with our politics and government. However, changing the way we elect our MLAs is one crucial, giant step. Unlike the current first-past-the-post voting system, BC-STV will encourage more co-operation among candidates, MLAs and parties and therefore produce a less fractious political atmosphere. That, in turn, could result in more work getting done to produce policy which aligns with the values of the voting majority, not those of a minority comprised of elite special interests.
Nor will BC-STV "force an over-empowering of fringe political parties." First, how many fringe parties does Hrushowy know that can run candidates in every electoral district and have the money to fund ambitious campaigns? Second, each candidate in a BC-STV electoral district must achieve a minimum number of votes to be elected. For example, if a total of 10,000 votes are cast in an electoral district for which four MLAs are to be chosen, each of the four winning candidates must receive at least 2,001 votes. That's a lot of votes for a fringe candidate to earn.
Finally, Hrushowy calls BC-STV "complicated" and decries the "mind bending confusion" that will befall us should we choose it over the status quo. The Irish have been using STV for almost 100 years. Is he suggesting that British Columbians can't do what the Irish can?
Chrystal Ocean
Duncan
BC Civil Liberties Association Endorses BC-STV
From their media release issued April 15th:
"There are many different voting systems, all of which represent voter preferences to some extent,” says Tom Sandborn, executive board member of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association. “The BCCLA believes that STV strikes a better balance between local representation, proportionality and voter choice than first-past-the-post."
...The BCCLA acknowledges that there are many different potential voting systems, but has chosen to endorse STV over the current First Past the Post system because the results of the STV system more closely reflect the actual voting preferences of British Columbians.
“The systems we choose to govern ourselves should seek to maximize a citizen’s ability to participate effectively in the democratic process,” said Sandborn.
VIDEO: Dennis Pilon, STV Explained
This video, by Lazarus Productions is airing at various times on Shaw Cable, channel 11 in Victoria and Saltspring Island, channel 4 in Duncan and the Cowichan Valley.
If you are interested in the Single Transferable Vote (BC-STV) - the new system recommended by the Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform which is being offered to voters in the referendum on May 12th - Professor Dennis Pilon has lots of information for you: how it works, what are the benefits, and what are the problems with the current First Past the Post system...
What about coalition governments? Has STV ever been used in Canada? If you have questions, he has the answers...
If you are interested in the Single Transferable Vote (BC-STV) - the new system recommended by the Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform which is being offered to voters in the referendum on May 12th - Professor Dennis Pilon has lots of information for you: how it works, what are the benefits, and what are the problems with the current First Past the Post system...
What about coalition governments? Has STV ever been used in Canada? If you have questions, he has the answers...
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Single Transferable Vote vs. First Past the Post
... or, BC voters (65% and rising!) vs. David Schreck.
The following was received by the Georgia Straight on April 17th. It was written in response to a column by David Schreck, one of the lead proponents of retaining the first-past-the-post system. (Read the comments below Schreck's column. The pro-STV side vastly outnumbers the pro-FPTP side - in fact, at time of this writing, only two comments are pro-FPTP and they're by the same person.)
---
I am a proud Canadian and a proud British Columbian. We live in a place where the future is embraced, where taking a leadership role is considered the way to go, and where the passionate exchange of ideas is considered a part of everyday life. So when I read David Schreck's article ["Adopting STV could make B.C. politics worse", April 16], my first thought was. No, really? Really?
In cancer care, HIV policy, the environment, wellness—and many other issues—we are well in front of much of the world. But we're also trapped in an inflexible electoral system that puts ultimate political power in the hands of party leaders. No, not party grassroots: leaders. Any party in power can pick an eejit insider and we're stuck with them if they've got a majority until the next election. And when the leader of the opposition is a knucklehead, our adversarial political system falls down like a broken bicycle.
I have family in Ireland, the U.K., the U.S., Australia, and New Zealand. Each of those countries have aspects of their political culture that are good or bad. In the UK it's still first past the post (FPTP), but most parliamentary votes are conscience votes; in the U.S., ditto, except all votes are "free votes."
Australia compels voters to rank all candidates or to select a single party: if you're inclined to rank up to 75 candidates for six senate seats it's great...but if you only choose one party, they can sell your vote to another one—even one you'd never vote for. New Zealand has mixed-member proportional, which does adjust the number of seats based on overall party support: it does this, however, by giving parties seats without constituencies, whose seat holders are wholly beholden to the party leadership. More party power as a tradeoff for proportionality.
Ireland has STV; ditto Malta. Ireland has had it since the '20s and routinely produces stable coalition governments. Malta has used STV since the '70s and still hasn't sent a single third party candidate to parliament. Funny that Schreck uses Malta to prove his point, when it disproves it: voters there are split between two major parties and those two parties split the seats proportionately. Ireland elects smaller parties and independent all the time, by the way.
What Schreck doesn't acknowledge is that no one needs to do anything differently if they don't want to under STV. You like FPTP, vote for one candidate. You want to rank all candidates, go for it; if you only want to rank five, go for it.
Every single person I know would like to be able to consider sending a strong local advocate or a Green or Conservative some support, but under FPTP that has almost always been a wasted vote. Whatever party I've supported in the past, I don't want any party given the keys to Lotus Land when they haven't earned a clear majority of our support. STV would reduce the likelihood of that happening. And a few more voices would probably get into the Legislative Assembly, and anything that broadens our embarrassing left/right socialist/free enterprise political discourse could only be a very good thing for B.C.
If you want change, vote yes to STV. If you want things to stay the same, vote yes.
> John P. Egan / Vancouver
The following was received by the Georgia Straight on April 17th. It was written in response to a column by David Schreck, one of the lead proponents of retaining the first-past-the-post system. (Read the comments below Schreck's column. The pro-STV side vastly outnumbers the pro-FPTP side - in fact, at time of this writing, only two comments are pro-FPTP and they're by the same person.)
---
I am a proud Canadian and a proud British Columbian. We live in a place where the future is embraced, where taking a leadership role is considered the way to go, and where the passionate exchange of ideas is considered a part of everyday life. So when I read David Schreck's article ["Adopting STV could make B.C. politics worse", April 16], my first thought was. No, really? Really?
In cancer care, HIV policy, the environment, wellness—and many other issues—we are well in front of much of the world. But we're also trapped in an inflexible electoral system that puts ultimate political power in the hands of party leaders. No, not party grassroots: leaders. Any party in power can pick an eejit insider and we're stuck with them if they've got a majority until the next election. And when the leader of the opposition is a knucklehead, our adversarial political system falls down like a broken bicycle.
I have family in Ireland, the U.K., the U.S., Australia, and New Zealand. Each of those countries have aspects of their political culture that are good or bad. In the UK it's still first past the post (FPTP), but most parliamentary votes are conscience votes; in the U.S., ditto, except all votes are "free votes."
Australia compels voters to rank all candidates or to select a single party: if you're inclined to rank up to 75 candidates for six senate seats it's great...but if you only choose one party, they can sell your vote to another one—even one you'd never vote for. New Zealand has mixed-member proportional, which does adjust the number of seats based on overall party support: it does this, however, by giving parties seats without constituencies, whose seat holders are wholly beholden to the party leadership. More party power as a tradeoff for proportionality.
Ireland has STV; ditto Malta. Ireland has had it since the '20s and routinely produces stable coalition governments. Malta has used STV since the '70s and still hasn't sent a single third party candidate to parliament. Funny that Schreck uses Malta to prove his point, when it disproves it: voters there are split between two major parties and those two parties split the seats proportionately. Ireland elects smaller parties and independent all the time, by the way.
What Schreck doesn't acknowledge is that no one needs to do anything differently if they don't want to under STV. You like FPTP, vote for one candidate. You want to rank all candidates, go for it; if you only want to rank five, go for it.
Every single person I know would like to be able to consider sending a strong local advocate or a Green or Conservative some support, but under FPTP that has almost always been a wasted vote. Whatever party I've supported in the past, I don't want any party given the keys to Lotus Land when they haven't earned a clear majority of our support. STV would reduce the likelihood of that happening. And a few more voices would probably get into the Legislative Assembly, and anything that broadens our embarrassing left/right socialist/free enterprise political discourse could only be a very good thing for B.C.
If you want change, vote yes to STV. If you want things to stay the same, vote yes.
> John P. Egan / Vancouver
Thursday, April 16, 2009
VIDEO: Antony Hodgson Explains BC-STV
... and why he's working so hard to ensure BC gets a new, fairer voting system.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Poll: 65% of British Columbians Favour BC-STV
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Poll: 65 per cent of British Columbians support BC-STV
Younger voters overwhelming in their support
Vancouver, B.C. – The numbers are in and British Columbia voters are giving a big thumbs up to electoral reform with 65 per cent saying they will vote for BC-STV in the upcoming referendum on May 12. That is the top line result of a major survey conducted by Angus Reid Strategies. Support for a new way of electing our MLAs is particularly strong among younger voters – those 18 to 34 – at 74 per cent.
“The survey results indicate that British Columbians and particularly younger voters are ready to embrace a new electoral system in British Columbia,” said Catherine Rogers, vice president, Angus Reid Strategies. “A large majority are looking for electoral change and want an electoral system that is fair and that elects MLAs who are more accountable to them.”
When presented with the question that will appear on the ballot, 65 per cent said yes to BC-STV while only 35 per cent chose to keep the current first-past-the post system. Angus Reid Strategies conducted the online survey March 9 to 12 and polled 702 British Columbians across the province. While support for BC-STV continues to grow, awareness of the upcoming referendum is at 44 per cent.
The campaign team leading the charge to adopt BC-STV is working hard across the province to raise awareness of the ballot question and to encourage all British Columbians to learn about BC-STV and join the discussion about electoral reform.
“Building awareness is key for us. When the Citizens’ Assembly was formed in 2003, its mandate was to make sure we had an electoral system that was fair and representative of the voters’ wishes,” said Shoni Field, a former member of the Citizens’ Assembly. “The more we researched different systems the more support there was for this particular one. When our group of 160 average British Columbians were fully aware of the issue, 95 per cent of us backed BC-STV.”
“To win, we will need voters to turn out in big numbers on election day, and there are groups that have a traditionally low voter turnout who could be the difference, such as people under 34 and people who are so fed up with the current system that they sometimes don’t vote at all,” continued Field. “Fortunately, President Barak Obama has inspired a lot of these voters that change is possible. If they vote on May 12, we could see historic change in BC.”
On May 12, in a province wide referendum on electoral reform, voters will have a chance to change the way politicians are elected. British Columbians will choose between the current “first-past-the-post” system and the STV system that was recommended overwhelmingly by the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform in 2004. In the last election, BC-STV received more votes than any political party, nearly 58 per cent. However, the referendum requires 60 per cent approval to be adopted.
More information about the STV system and how British Columbians can get involved in the campaign is available at www.stv.ca or by calling 1-866-835-7612
- 30 -
Poll: 65 per cent of British Columbians support BC-STV
Younger voters overwhelming in their support
Vancouver, B.C. – The numbers are in and British Columbia voters are giving a big thumbs up to electoral reform with 65 per cent saying they will vote for BC-STV in the upcoming referendum on May 12. That is the top line result of a major survey conducted by Angus Reid Strategies. Support for a new way of electing our MLAs is particularly strong among younger voters – those 18 to 34 – at 74 per cent.
“The survey results indicate that British Columbians and particularly younger voters are ready to embrace a new electoral system in British Columbia,” said Catherine Rogers, vice president, Angus Reid Strategies. “A large majority are looking for electoral change and want an electoral system that is fair and that elects MLAs who are more accountable to them.”
When presented with the question that will appear on the ballot, 65 per cent said yes to BC-STV while only 35 per cent chose to keep the current first-past-the post system. Angus Reid Strategies conducted the online survey March 9 to 12 and polled 702 British Columbians across the province. While support for BC-STV continues to grow, awareness of the upcoming referendum is at 44 per cent.
The campaign team leading the charge to adopt BC-STV is working hard across the province to raise awareness of the ballot question and to encourage all British Columbians to learn about BC-STV and join the discussion about electoral reform.
“Building awareness is key for us. When the Citizens’ Assembly was formed in 2003, its mandate was to make sure we had an electoral system that was fair and representative of the voters’ wishes,” said Shoni Field, a former member of the Citizens’ Assembly. “The more we researched different systems the more support there was for this particular one. When our group of 160 average British Columbians were fully aware of the issue, 95 per cent of us backed BC-STV.”
“To win, we will need voters to turn out in big numbers on election day, and there are groups that have a traditionally low voter turnout who could be the difference, such as people under 34 and people who are so fed up with the current system that they sometimes don’t vote at all,” continued Field. “Fortunately, President Barak Obama has inspired a lot of these voters that change is possible. If they vote on May 12, we could see historic change in BC.”
On May 12, in a province wide referendum on electoral reform, voters will have a chance to change the way politicians are elected. British Columbians will choose between the current “first-past-the-post” system and the STV system that was recommended overwhelmingly by the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform in 2004. In the last election, BC-STV received more votes than any political party, nearly 58 per cent. However, the referendum requires 60 per cent approval to be adopted.
More information about the STV system and how British Columbians can get involved in the campaign is available at www.stv.ca or by calling 1-866-835-7612
- 30 -
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Team Mid-Island at Duncan Farmers Market
Our first photo shows three members of the Mid-Island team, on location near the Duncan Farmers Market, April 11th. Look at those happy faces! We're energized and enthusiastic about spreading the Power Up Your Vote! message.Saturday started out as a cold, blustery day. Then the sun cast its warm rays upon our heads and a collective "aaahhhh" was heard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)