We can do that with a system far less complex than STV.

Our system is already setup such that the parties have to work together, look at Ottawa right now and the minority government that makes deals with the devil (aka the PQ) to get things to pass.

How is STV going to change this when BC is essentially a 2 party system? At least nationally there are 4 parties, and they still cannot work together.

I like STV, but it looks like it won't pass (polls indicate only 45% are in favour). After this election, electoral reform is dead for the next 50 years as far as I'm concerned.

Besides, the real problem I think we should look at is declining voter participation. Voting on a new electoral system won't save that problem - it's akin to putting the cart before the horse.

VOTE GREEN PARTY.

all of this gang violence and innocent people being killed would STOP.

They would decriminalize marijuana, and theoretically kill the gangs #1 income.

We could do it with a system less complex than STV. But we CANNOT and will never have proportional and fair results our current system.

There are other systems out there, but STV is what was recommended and it's the only choice we have right now. Why should we keep our current system if something far better (but not perfect) is available?

As for your other points, yes minorities can work together, which is why minorities that form under STV will not be a problem. Right now FPTP delivers false majorities and that's a problem.

Second, the only reason BC is a two party system is because of FPTP. Greens have enough support to be a ligitimate 3rd party but our voting system prevents it. Hence we need a new system!

VOTE FOR BC STV.

No thanks. I'm not into popularity contests but more about appropriate representation of each community.

Which is why you should vote for STV. MLA numbers stay exactly the same. Community representation is improved.

Example: North Vancouver - 2005 Results (across the 4 ridings)

Voting Results: 50% Liberal, 30% NDP, 20% Green

Election Results: 100% Liberal

Fully 50% of voters in North Vancouver with NO representation. Does that make sense to you?

I'd rather not have the STV and keep the NDP numbers down.

That's a fairly short-sighted viewpoint. The STV system wouldn't even kick-in for 4 years. By then who knows what the Liberals or NDP might look like. Carol James might even be gone.

i HATE bc-stv, but i agree with tapioca. the real problem is having shitty voter turnout.

i like this year -- 5 days of voting. there is NO excuse not to vote. i'm going early because that will be my day off. all elections should be like this, where you have pretty much an entire week to vote.

i don't have to advertise 'vote no' to stv, because i'm sure people outside of the lowermainland will already vote no on their own free will. vancouverites are EXTREMELY self-centred, even moreso than toronto people. alot people in vancouver think bc ends at the port mann bridge.

Voter turnout won't really solve anything.

62% of people voted in 2005. Do you think we'd see different results if 100% voted? If polls can do a reasonable job of assessing voter preference with 1000 people, 1.7 million BC'ers casting their opinion pretty much sums it up.

One of the reasons you will continue to see low voter turn-out is that many people feel their vote counts for nothing.

What's the point in voting if the riding is a 'safe' seat for a party? During the last election, NDP and Green voters in my riding might as well have not shown up. Half the Liberals could have stayed at home and the Liberals still would have won.

There's no point in more people voting if the only thing it will mean is more wasted votes. That's why we have to change to a system where a greater portion of votes actually count for something.

STV will mean 80-90% of voters contribute to getting someone elected. Right now that number is a terribly low 40-50%.

Ranked ballots give voters more choice. It will help end protest votes as people can voice their opinion and still have their vote count.

Elected officials will have to be more accountable to their ridings. Otherwise next time around a candidate from their same party could steal their seat.

STV will increase voter turnout. If your vote actually matters, you'll be more likely to cast one.

How does the Green Party winning a provincial election lead to decriminalizing marijuana that involves the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (a Federal Statute)?

Voting green. I don't trust those NDP assholes and I don't trust those Liberal assholes.

Why are there only 2 options???

I think I might vote Green, looks like they're the only ones for decriminalization of marijuana.

:haha::haha:

didn't people get to vote for stv in the last election and it got shot down??

Wouldn't it make the competition in other markets (cocaine, crack, ecstacy, etc) more fierce which would increase violence as gangs try to keep afloat?

the stupid and the lazy will always vote NDP

Brain cells are too fried to think straight.

This is the type of simplistic idiocy that plagues "legalize marijuana" advocates. ideologically, im not against legalizing marijuana at all, but to say it will eliminate gang violence is retarded.

Each growup costs like what, 500k (ballpark figure) to run + operate. that's a sunk cost. you really thank gangs are going to STOP dealing weed simply beacause it's legal?

and how does anyone know what the gang's #1 source of income is? it's not like they open the books to auditors or whatever, they could make more money from cocaine, crack, heroin etc etc

I'd like to vote for the Liberals... but how can I possibly support a party that implemented a $6/hour training wage, kept an $8 minimum wage, and did nothing about skyrocketing tuition prices.

First, I will NEVER vote for NDP.

At their 2008 convention they voted for "proportional representation" to run more female candidates and from minority groups. One of the NDP candidates in Vancouver is a Filipino blue-collar woman with no education. No thanks, I want the best candidate for the job, not one stuck in their to meet a quota system that will not represent the majority in that district.

I bolded my problem. Proportional representation only works by increasing the size of the districts, now instead of the majority, even if it is only 41%, has to bend over backwards to minorities to get stuff done, such as making a deal with a party that gets 10% of the vote to push through a motion. How does this benefit the other 49%, when the 41% and 10% can push through their every desire?

We see this nationally where the minority government has to bend over and take it from the PQ in order to get motions to pass, and 7.5M Quebecers end up with significantly more $$$ from the budget than the rest of Canada.

No thanks to proportional representation, no deals, that only makes for bad politics.

Wait till you pay taxes after graduating, you'll completing switch your argument.

That's the excuse the media rams down out throats.

The truth is politics is just not that interesting to most of society. We live ina great society with few real issues to get fired up over. The rest is just political grand-standing inorder to gain control and abuse government $$$.

We don't get much value from politics anymore, so people don't care. I'd prefer to see voter turnout drop, so that only the informed vote, cause the sheep that don't care to educate themselves on the issues should not be allowed to ignorantly voice their concerns via a vote.

Yeah, I mean look at what happened when prohibition of alcohol was lifted. It's like Mad Max out here.

There may be short term problems but it'll be better long term.

So a poor candidate is in Vancouver right now and you are worried that STV might bring in poor candidates?

Right now voters in that riding are stuck with a less-than-desirable candidate. Voters are forced to vote for an undesirable candidate in order to support the party. Too bad they only have once choice with FPTP.

With STV, voters can pick from a diverse set of candidates and only the best will win. If a majority exists in a STV riding, there will be more elected MLAs from that party than the other parties.

Well what if the split was 49%, 31%, 20%? Then we are talking about 69%. Is that acceptable? We can both make up numbers, they are irrelevant until they are real.

Enough deals are made right now within single-party majority governments. I want some accountability.

There's nothing good about FPTP.