[Bonka]

Official campaigning starts today until voting day May 12. Let's get some serious discussion going on. Do we want another 4 years of Campbell or do we usher in the NDP (or Green Party)?

I haven't decided yet but it would be interesting to see what others here think, notably with the major issues at hand: economic stimulus, crime and going green.

[Roach]

Liberals mainly because I never want to see the NDP in power again.

Kev

[m!chael]

Why would anyone in their right mind vote for the ndp

[urrh]

i'm not a fan of campbell... but i don't see any other option

[iEatClams]

when it comes to politics, it's the better of two evils.

Liberal are bad, but NDP is worst, so Liberals get my vote.


Plus, it seems that everytime someone tries to take a run at the liberals, that party (NDP)seem to increase the deficit and run up the debt. NDP's proposed policy will have more spending, but will dramatically increase the deficit and double the provincial debt compared to the Liberals proposed Policies.

[keifun]

I don't like some of campbell's policies ex. gas tax; but overall, his party is wayy better than the NDP for sure!

[TheKingdom2000]

i don't really think the green party should even exist ?

they would mess everything up imo.

NDP effed everything up when they were in power.. they gave money away like it was candy... well everything was fine and dandy. i mean there was soo much money thrown around everything seemed alright...

until, we got the bill and BC was in HUGE DEBT... the country needs to be run like a modified business... we can't just give money away..
it was the Liberals that got us out of the NDP debt..

i don't agree with alot of campbell's policies or decisions but there really isn't any other choice imo.

besides, i've seem him play golf.. he's pretty good

[Vulgate]

Definitely Liberals. NDP are a bunch of idiots that will be giving money away to people who don't deserve it. NDPs are too closed to unions.

[treize]

definitely liberal for me. ndp messed up waaaay too much last time they had a chance

[CRS]

Reading through this thread pretty much sums it up for me too.

When the liberals make mistakes, it is usually a very minimal mistake (usually due to scandals or whatnot that I could care less about) but when NDPs make mistakes, it renders the province in HUGE debts and fucks everything up.

So I'm voting for the government that doesn't say or says the least about making homes/stuff for the homeless.

[Eastwood]

Probably Liberal, I'll have to see what their running for this year however. I don't like over-spending that comes with with NDP.

I might vote Green, just to make a point, if it doesn't take waste my vote from voting Lib.

[murd0c]

Same thing for me. Can't stand the NDP either and not happy with the Liberals but I have to go for the lesser of the 2 evils.

[Bouncing Bettys]

don't for get we are also voting on the single transferrable vote (SVT). it seems too few people really understand what it is all about. its scary to think it might win due to so many unwitting voters voting yes. i was listening to cbc radio and they had a guest with a PhD in political science and even he admitted he didn't know what the STV could ultimately mean for BC. the STV supporters will just keep putting it on the ballot every election until it wins.


as to the election, i can't bring myself to vote NDP EVER and that has very little to do with how poorly the province fared during their tenure that the above posters have mentioned -i might share a story on that in another thread perhaps. anyways, the liberals i haven't been to happy with - they are really only liberal in name. the conservatives - ha. so at this point i don't really know who i will be voting for. perhaps the greens or marijuana party if they have a representative in my riding as a big FU to the major parties, but i would need to see a platform.

[taylor192]

The NDP has NEVER run a province without incurring debt. It was true here in BC, and moreso in Ontario.

The BC Liberals are NOT the federal Liberals. The BC Liberals are very conservative with budgets, preferring cuts to more taxation.

The NDP released their financial platform, showing a larger deficit than the Liberals with increased spending on social programs. This is exactly the mentality that caused the NDP to rack up huge deficits and put BC into debt before. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Campbell should be held accountable for the scandals where money has been wasted, yet this can be done while he is in power, not by ousting him and electing the NDP. The NDP will waste more money than the Liberals fraudulently hand out.

Carbon trading is just the next banking system failure. Companies are paying lots of money to hide emissions, not actually decrease them. Its cheaper to buy more credits than actually update equipment.

[taylor192]

don't for get we are also voting on the single transferrable vote (SVT). it seems too few people really understand what it is all about. its scary to think it might win due to so many unwitting voters voting yes. i was listening to cbc radio and they had a guest with a PhD in political science and even he admitted he didn't know what the STV could ultimately mean for BC. the STV supporters will just keep putting it on the ballot every election until it wins.
Is SVT being pushed by the greens?

Might as well call it what it is: proportional representation.
I understand its supposed to make candidates represent themselves and their constituents, not just follow the party lines, yet for parties like the NDP where all candidates tow the party rope, it doesn't make much sense.

[hotjoint]

Liberals cuz can't stand ndp

[Eastwood]

What's this SVT? I didn't understand the given explanation. Can you go more in-depth.

[taylor192]

What's this SVT? I didn't understand the given explanation. Can you go more in-depth.
Google and Wikipedia are your friends. Learn to use them.

[Rich Sandor]

Wow I'm surprised to say that I agree with everything posted above.

[LethalLaw]

The BC Liberal team as stated above is very different from the National Liberal team.

They are the best choice right now for BC.

Screw the NDP.

[johny]

I don't want either but the liberals are the better of the 2. I'm likly going to spoil the ballet or vote for one of the other partys. would be nice to make the election close to scare gordo a bit.

[johny]

http://www.members.shaw.ca/smac/fastcat_small.jpg

[nataku]

http://www.members.shaw.ca/smac/fastcat_small.jpg

These Cats are a lingering reminder of what the NDP will do if elected. Every time I ride the sea bus I see them there. All 450 million of our dollars just floating there. Which we sold for about 40 million, and they wonder why the province is losing money every year.

[johny]

I think the new convention center is 400 million over budget too though. so gordo's got one on his back. at least it's not for sale though. (yet)

I also think it was the liberals who sold the ferries after taking over power. So some of that loss is their fault.

[Gh0stRider]

wow..so much hate for the ndp.

[lilaznviper]

never actually lived though what the NDP did... but seeing how they are spending even more money that the liberals and us tax payers having to pay up to fix the debt
im going to vote for liberals

[quasi]

wow..so much hate for the ndp.

Well deserved, Bingogate, fastcats, casinogate. All of that doesn't include policies like fair wage where on all Government projects contractors were forced to pay union wages which meant paying guys over $20 an hour to sweep up. It really wasn't that big of a deal to contractors except the paper work but the end result was the cost of building things like schools and hospitals was way higher then it needed to be and the only person that suffered was the tax payer.

I loathe the NDP, I'd vote green before voting NDP but I'd burn my vote before voting green. The Liberals are far from perfect but like said above the lesser of two evils.

[Graeme S]

STV. Single Transferrable Vote.

It's like this: Right now, whoever wins in each electoral division thingie wins period. So if across the entire province, every NDP person won with 50% + 1 vote, the NDP would completely control the legislature.

With STV, your districts are larger, and you pick a first, second, and third choice. If your first choice (NDP) will not be in the top three then your vote is transferred to your second choice (Liberal) and if they won't win, your third (Independant).

This is the difference between "first past the post" (50%+1 wins) vs "proportional representation" (percentage of votes = % of seats).

[RTS]

for once I agree with an RS thread on politics.

the NDP during a recession? that would be like throwing gasoline on a bonfire.

[Pochacho]

fuck the ndp.

[?NR]

4 in this thread's poll voted NDP


:D

[taylor192]

These Cats are a lingering reminder of what the NDP will do if elected. Every time I ride the sea bus I see them there. All 450 million of our dollars just floating there. Which we sold for about 40 million, and they wonder why the province is losing money every year.
Wow!

Having just moved here I'm not familiar with the BC NDP, just the Ontario NDP (aka Rae days).

This is a stunning example of why public companies should not do R&D. Fast ferries are a great idea, as long as they are equally quick to load and don't create more noise/wake... seems like the developers ignored this in typical public over-sight that a private company would've never condoned.

[q0192837465]

Wow!

Having just moved here I'm not familiar with the BC NDP, just the Ontario NDP (aka Rae days).

This is a stunning example of why public companies should not do R&D. Fast ferries are a great idea, as long as they are equally quick to load and don't create more noise/wake... seems like the developers ignored this in typical public over-sight that a private company would've never condoned.

For one, NDP will literally give money to the homeless just because it is the humane thing to do. For that reason alone I'll not vote NDP, EVER

[taylor192]

For one, NDP will literally give money to the homeless just because it is the humane thing to do. For that reason alone I'll not vote NDP, EVER
I've a true conservative and even I won't agree with this.

We pay taxes to pay for certain social programs, and likely those with money will be paying for services used by those without. It is humane to help out your fellow citizens.

What I don't agree with is how. The bleeding heart lefties made it impossible to keep the mentally ill institutionalized. I would prefer my tax dollars go towards providing the mentally ill (who make up a large portion of the homeless) proper care in a facility, even if it is against their choice, its for the best of society. Giving them money to roam the streets as prey for drug dealers and slumlords is not for the best of society, even if it is their free will.

For the rest of the lazy worthless homeless, they need some help to get back on their feet, yet if they are unwilling, then cut their support off, society doesn't need them.

[misteranswer]

STV. Single Transferrable Vote.

It's like this: Right now, whoever wins in each electoral division thingie wins period. So if across the entire province, every NDP person won with 50% + 1 vote, the NDP would completely control the legislature.

With STV, your districts are larger, and you pick a first, second, and third choice. If your first choice (NDP) will not be in the top three then your vote is transferred to your second choice (Liberal) and if they won't win, your third (Independant).

This is the difference between "first past the post" (50%+1 wins) vs "proportional representation" (percentage of votes = % of seats).

FPTP doesn't require a majority, only a plurality.

[pure-euro-trash]

FPTP - our current system - is very unfair. It delivers disproportionate results because winners only need to win the most number of votes. That doesn't necessarily mean a majority (greater than 50%).

In 2005, MLAs won with anywhere from 68% of riding to just 37% of the riding. How an MLA with just 37% support can represent a riding is beyond me.

At the provincial level, the combined riding results mean a party can win 40% of the popular support but gain 60% of the power in Victoria. In 2001, 58% of popular support became 97% power in Victoria. 42% of voters were represented by just 3% of MLAs.

STV is better. STV is a form of proportional representation. The % power in Victoria is much closer to % voter support in the province.

You will be allow to rank candidates - 1,2,3,etc. and you can rank and many or as few as you want. Within one party, across parties, it doesn't matter.

If your 1st choice gets more votes than they need, a portion of your vote can be transferred to your 2nd choice. If your 1st choice doesn't get elected, your whole vote can be transferred to your 2nd choice. So it goes until everyone is elected or your vote is used up.

Riding are made larger and multiple MLAs will be elected in each region. The number of MLAs doesn't change. Chances are you will have an MLA in your region that you voted for.

This system has been recommended by the Citizens Assembly. 160 regular people that spent a year learning about different voting systems and picked BC-STV as the way BC should elect our MLAs.

If you want fair election results and better representation, vote YES ON BC-STV MAY 12th

www.stv.ca

Former BC LIBERAL endorses BC STV:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhccpzI4lbQ

STV explained - with Gummy Bears:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=887sGavI9kY

[impactX]

STV will just confuse the shit out of people.

[eurochevy]

i get it ..but all the transfering at the end and shit i see the gov screwing that up totally..i know somewhere down the line they're just gonna be like ok we need everyone to re-vote because we thought there was a bigger surpus but there wasn't blah blah ppl cheating and shit..so just keep it the way it is

[eurochevy]

oh and ndp sux

[Presto]

I loathe the NDP, I'd vote green before voting NDP but I'd burn my vote before voting green. The Liberals are far from perfect but like said above the lesser of two evils.

Ditto. Screw the NDP.

[taylor192]

You will be allow to rank candidates - 1,2,3,etc. and you can rank and many or as few as you want. Within one party, across parties, it doesn't matter.
This assumes a few things:

1. People will not vote along party lines, checking all candidates from one party and none from the others
2. People will be informed on what their local representative will actually do for them and vote for the best candidate, not the party policies.
3. Each candidate will campaign on issues for their district, and not hold the party line.
4. Candidates will honour their commitments to their district when deciding on issues, and not hold the party line as the parties encourage.
5. Parties will work together to accomplish goals. I doubt this, its a 2 party system with too much hatred. This system works much better in multi-party systems in Europe where parties have much more experience working together since a majority, or even a strong minority is rarely achieved.

I don't see any of these happening.

If your 1st choice gets more votes than they need, a portion of your vote can be transferred to your 2nd choice. If your 1st choice doesn't get elected, your whole vote can be transferred to your 2nd choice. So it goes until everyone is elected or your vote is used up.

What the STV doesn't advertize is that 100/X % is needed to elect OR most of remaining votes.

Thus if there are 10 MLAs to be elected in a riding, each needs 10% of the vote to win. Lets say 50 candidates are running (one of each Liberal, NDP, Green, Conservative, Communist) so 5 candidates get the full 10% needed, then the remaining 5 are decided by transferring or throwing away votes for the lowest vote total candidates.

Its the "throw away" votes that matter in this case, lets say the Communist party gets the lowest votes, yet none of the Communist voters voted for other candidates of other parties. These votes get thrown away. Lets say the Conservative and Green parties did the same, so their votes are thrown away too. Now we have a handful of NDP and Liberal candidates that have < 10% of the vote, were obviously low on voters ranking, that got elected.

How does this end up being more "fair" than the current system? That's right, its just a mirror image of the current system if people vote along party lines.


Riding are made larger and multiple MLAs will be elected in each region. The number of MLAs doesn't change. Chances are you will have an MLA in your region that you voted for.
So now we can have a system like the Vancouver city council, where all candidates could in theory be from the same district and regional representation is lost.

No thanks.


This system has been recommended by the Citizens Assembly. 160 regular people that spent a year learning about different voting systems and picked BC-STV as the way BC should elect our MLAs.
Without a doubt, if voters are INFORMED then this system is great.

The problem is it took 1 year to inform these random participants before they could make the STV work. Good luck informing the masses.

[q0192837465]

oh and ndp sux

Well, NDP does say that they'll axe Gordie's Carbon Tax. We'll see about that.

[7seven]

I loathe the NDP, I'd vote green before voting NDP but I'd burn my vote before voting green. The Liberals are far from perfect but like said above the lesser of two evils.

This pretty much sums up my exact feelings, although I would add everytime I see Carole James I have an urge to find a 16 wheeler and run over her face with one.

[pure-euro-trash]

Re-voting? You really think that would happen? Ballots are ballots. You do a recount, not a re-vote. Elections BC does the count, not the government.

It's actually a pretty simple method of counting and transferring votes. STV has been used for almost 100 years. We'd probably use computers to do it here in BC, but you can do it by hand as well. There would still be a paper ballot - none of those Florida style screw-ups.

I'd like to think people are smart enough to grasp STV. We would have 4 years to educate people. At most, people have to know that they could rank their candidates, 1-2-3. It's easy. Even a single X or check-mark is valid - if you want to vote for just one candidate.

www.trystv.ca

[taylor192]

I'd like to think people are smart enough to grasp STV. We would have 4 years to educate people. At most, people have to know that they could rank their candidates, 1-2-3. It's easy. Even a single X or check-mark is valid - if you want to vote for just one candidate.

Its not about educating people on STV, its about educating them on each candidate so they can appropriately rank them.

Can you tell me about what each candidate in your district stands for? More than just the party lines, what each candidate brings to the table. If you're going to quote party lines, then voters will use STV to vote along party lines, leading to a lot of "throw away" votes, the exact problem STV is supposed to fix.

[pure-euro-trash]

This assumes a few things:

1. People will not vote along party lines, checking all candidates from one party and none from the others
2. People will be informed on what their local representative will actually do for them and vote for the best candidate, not the party policies.
3. Each candidate will campaign on issues for their district, and not hold the party line.
4. Candidates will honour their commitments to their district when deciding on issues, and not hold the party line as the parties encourage.
5. Parties will work together to accomplish goals. I doubt this, its a 2 party system with too much hatred. This system works much better in multi-party systems in Europe where parties have much more experience working together since a majority, or even a strong minority is rarely achieved.

I don't see any of these happening.

Go to www.trystv.ca and you will see that people definitely vote with a preference within a party and across party lines. We don't have co-operation right now because our system doesn't require it.


What the STV doesn't advertize is that 100/X % is needed to elect OR most of remaining votes.

Thus if there are 10 MLAs to be elected in a riding, each needs 10% of the vote to win. Lets say 50 candidates are running (one of each Liberal, NDP, Green, Conservative, Communist) so 5 candidates get the full 10% needed, then the remaining 5 are decided by transferring or throwing away votes for the lowest vote total candidates.

Its the "throw away" votes that matter in this case, lets say the Communist party gets the lowest votes, yet none of the Communist voters voted for other candidates of other parties. These votes get thrown away. Lets say the Conservative and Green parties did the same, so their votes are thrown away too. Now we have a handful of NDP and Liberal candidates that have < 10% of the vote, were obviously low on voters ranking, that got elected.

How does this end up being more "fair" than the current system? That's right, its just a mirror image of the current system if people vote along party lines.

If a person only picks a single candidate with STV then they have decided it's OK for their vote to be wasted if their candidate isn't elected. It was their choice.

Right now, if 40% pick PARTY A, 30% B, 30% C - 70% (minus 1) of the votes are wasted.


So now we can have a system like the Vancouver city council, where all candidates could in theory be from the same district and regional representation is lost.

In theory they could be, but there would be too much vote splitting. They'd have to branch out. If all the candidates from one party run in one area, they'd lose seats. It's to their advance to spread out to be more competitive.


The problem is it took 1 year to inform these random participants before they could make the STV work. Good luck informing the masses.

We'll have 4 years.

[pure-euro-trash]

Its not about educating people on STV, its about educating them on each candidate so they can appropriately rank them.

Can you tell me about what each candidate in your district stands for? More than just the party lines, what each candidate brings to the table. If you're going to quote party lines, then voters will use STV to vote along party lines, leading to a lot of "throw away" votes, the exact problem STV is supposed to fix.

Right now all a candidate has to do to get elected is tow the party line.

In my district I've got a diverse slate of candidates. A long-time Liberal, a former local-mayor NDP, a well-educated Green, and then all the no name new-comers.

Under STV, candidates can't just follow party lines anymore. They have to connect with voters to be picked over other fellow-party members.

So even if people stick to party lines, we at least get the best people from the party, and not someone you've never heard of - but you vote for them because they are your only choice in your riding.

[taylor192]

Go to www.trystv.ca and you will see that people definitely vote with a preference within a party and across party lines. We don't have co-operation right now because our system doesn't require it.
I don't see how that shows it.

Here's an example, lets assue everyone votes along party lines:

My my area, Vancouver West, the Green candidate Kettlewell had 5.5% of the vote after the first round. Here are the other Green candidates:

Violini 3.4%
Shaw 2.2%
Read 2.0%
Kronstien 1.9%
Toriel 1.4%
==
9.9%

Add that to Kettlewell's 5.5% and its > 14.3% so he's elected and the system works for proportional representation.

YET Kettlewell had the 7th highest vote total after the first round, so more people thought one of the other candidates, MGinn, would have done a better job. Yet McGinn loses cause most of the NDP votes are transferred to Hansen and Lehan to get them elected.

So what we end up is a very complex system that only solves one thing: proportional representation.

---

I want to see a breakdown of which parties each voter votes for.
Did voters vote along party lines?

STV will not release this info, cause they know its true. [/QUOTE]

[taylor192]

Under STV, candidates can't just follow party lines anymore. They have to connect with voters to be picked over other fellow-party members.
Not exactly, and voters don't have to connect with them.

If I'm more interested in towing the party line as a voter, I'll just check all the Liberal candidates. This guarantees my vote will use used to get a Liberal candidate towing the line into a seat.

Now that would be dumb as an educated voter, yet most voters are sheep, so I can really see this happening.

[pure-euro-trash]

Not exactly, and voters don't have to connect with them.

If I'm more interested in towing the party line as a voter, I'll just check all the Liberal candidates. This guarantees my vote will use used to get a Liberal candidate towing the line into a seat.

Now that would be dumb as an educated voter, yet most voters are sheep, so I can really see this happening.

Oh I agree. Most people will just go 1-2-3-4 for Liberal/NDP/Green. But there's preferences within those choices and with the quota system, a single candidate can't eat up 60% of the vote when they only needed 25% to get elected.

The result would be that the best candidates from each party are elected, 80-90% of us are represented in our riding, and the power in Victoria much more accurately represents voter support.

Sounds good to me.

[taylor192]

Oh I agree. Most people will just go 1-2-3-4 for Liberal/NDP/Green. But there's preferences within those choices and with the quota system, a single candidate can't eat up 60% of the vote when they only needed 25% to get elected.

The result would be that the best candidates from each party are elected, 80-90% of us are represented in our riding, and the power in Victoria much more accurately represents voter support.

Sounds good to me.
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.

[Tapioca]

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.

[ynot-llat]

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.

[pure-euro-trash]

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.

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.

[CRS]

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 of 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.

[pure-euro-trash]

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?

[Presto]

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

[pure-euro-trash]

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.

[carisear]

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.


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.

[pure-euro-trash]

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.

[impactX]

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.

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

[Eastwood]

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

[Nightwalker]

Why are there only 2 options???

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

[ZhangFei]

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.

:haha::haha:

[lilaznviper]

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

[m!chael]

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.

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?

[ctsport]

the stupid and the lazy will always vote NDP

[impactX]

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?

Brain cells are too fried to think straight.

[Sid Vicious]

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.

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

[yson_3]

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.

[taylor192]

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?
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.

[taylor192]

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

[taylor192]

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.
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.

[Nightwalker]

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?

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.

[pure-euro-trash]

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.

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.


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.

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.

[pure-euro-trash]

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.

I'd say we don't get much value from voting. What's the point in me voting in North Vancouver? I can tell you right now it's going to be 4 Liberals.

It's a waste of everyone's time with FPTP because we all know the result.

[carisear]

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?

from what i understand, STV was *the ONLY option* the citizens assembly talked about. People have written in letters-to-the-editor and called in radio shows about how they went to discuss other options, and were muzzled. It was basically a year long push by the stv proponents, who didn't even discuss other avenues.

[carisear]

Right now all a candidate has to do to get elected is tow the party line.

In my district I've got a diverse slate of candidates. A long-time Liberal, a former local-mayor NDP, a well-educated Green, and then all the no name new-comers.

Under STV, candidates can't just follow party lines anymore. They have to connect with voters to be picked over other fellow-party members.

So even if people stick to party lines, we at least get the best people from the party, and not someone you've never heard of - but you vote for them because they are your only choice in your riding.


are you kidding me?! under STV, more people than ever will vote their parties full slate of candidates. i don't have to know ANYTHING about my candidates, because 99.9% of people HAVE to follow their party. parties will become THAT much more powerful, because in order to get elected, you will need to affiliate yourself with one. what was the statistic? of all the nations that use STV, there have been ZERO independants ever elected? (i heard something like that on the radio, didn't research it to check it's validity though)

I can see it now. people with last names starting with the letters A or B or C will have the highest number of "1" votes .. and people with Z last names will have lower nubmered votes.

my friend actually suggested something that would take power away from parties. on the ballot, do NOT put any affiliations down. only their name. that way the voter has to at least know who they are voting for.

although a person like me, votes by ideology, and not by what a person has to offer. i'll vote for a mentally retarded 6 yr old if they are in the party that i want to win.

[Great68]

you really thank gangs are going to STOP dealing weed simply beacause it's legal?



When alcohol was re-legalized after prohibition, bootlegging came to a halt pretty quick...

[Great68]

I can't decide who to vote for, I have likes and dislikes for all three major parties.

[taylor192]

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.
This is the only good thing I can think of that will come from STV, it'll show the NDP that when they run candidates against each other, their "proportional representation" system doesn't work and only results in their mandated candidates losing.

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.
But the numbers are real cause we know BC is a 2 party system and the greens will only get a handful of seats. So if either the Libs or NDP end up with a minority, they have to cater to the Greens, and 42 or 44% of voters lose out while 10% win huge.

No thanks. Until there is a viable 3rd party, STV does not make sense. No chicken before the egg BS either that STV will create a viable Green party. If enough people supported the Greens it would show up in the popular vote, instead they only get 10%.

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

There's nothing good about FPTP.
Accountability needs to be in ANY government, it doesn't come from votes.

[taylor192]

I'd say we don't get much value from voting. What's the point in me voting in North Vancouver? I can tell you right now it's going to be 4 Liberals.
Then move.

Even STV doesn't solve this problem if you live in an area with overwhelming support for a single party. The rural areas will be very similar.

[pure-euro-trash]

parties will become THAT much more powerful, because in order to get elected, you will need to affiliate yourself with one. what was the statistic? of all the nations that use STV, there have been ZERO independants ever elected?

I think the talk was about Ireland and Malta. Bill Tieleman wrote in the Vancouver Sun that Malta has not elected an independent since the 1950's.

BC has not elected an independent since 1949. The resources needed to compete against a major party are simply not available to people. STV could mean more independents elected, but wouldn't guarantee it.

On the ballot, candidates will be grouped by party. There won't be a lot list of names.

[pure-euro-trash]

Then move.

Even STV doesn't solve this problem if you live in an area with overwhelming support for a single party. The rural areas will be very similar.

You're wrong. Ralph Sultan won in 2005 with the highest level of support for a riding. 68% of West Vancouver-Capilano voters picked him. No one else had that high a level of support in the province.

Even with that high support, and similar support across the North Shore, STV would likely elect 2 Liberals, 1 NDP, and 1 Green. Far closer results to real support than what we have now.

Rural ridings are less proportional because they are smaller. That was done intentionally to preserve local representation while still giving voters a choice.

[wahyinghung]

Not much choices to pick from for me it is either GO GREEN or NO SHOW !

[taylor192]

You're wrong. Ralph Sultan won in 2005 with the highest level of support for a riding. 68% of West Vancouver-Capilano voters picked him. No one else had that high a level of support in the province.

Even with that high support, and similar support across the North Shore, STV would likely elect 2 Liberals, 1 NDP, and 1 Green. Far closer results to real support than what we have now.
How am I wrong, you just posted that a Liberal candidate won overwhelming there, which was exactly my point.

I really hate the whining NDP voters about "my vote doesn't count". Its a 2 party system out here, either you're with the winning party or your not. FPTP, STV, or otherwise the NDP and Liberals have 42 and 44% of the vote respectfully and one will most likely take a majority of seats.

Rural ridings are less proportional because they are smaller. That was done intentionally to preserve local representation while still giving voters a choice.
You mean it was done cause the NDP doesn't hope to win many rural seats with proportional representation.

I have taken note on trystv.ca that the districts were defined large enough to have enough MLAs that it gives the Greens a chance of winning at least 1 seat.

---

Now here's a real STV question:
iIf Ralph Sultan wins with 68% and all he needed was 20%, then 48% will be transferred.

How? Randomly or statistically?

Lets say 50% of those who voted for Ralph picked a Liberal candidate next, 25% picked a NDP candidate next, and 25% picked a Green candidate next. I would assume that would be split evenly amoung the 48% transferred - please explain how that would work.

---

Ultimately this is all moot. STV will fail and hopefully be history, cause there isn't a hope in hell of educating people on the issues.

[In_MODeration]

whats so bad about the ndp? can someone clarify?

[Sid Vicious]

whats so bad about the ndp? can someone clarify?

Let's recap....
The Fast ferries fiasco
They're proposing adding 3 billion to bc debt
increased liquor taxes
i'm not 100% sure, but many years that the NDP was in power they ran a pretty big deficit...they seem pretty fiscally incompetent, which to me is the most important issue.

[taylor192]

whats so bad about the ndp? can someone clarify?
Instead of the negative, how about the positive about the Liberals. Please read this:

http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion/Campbell+Liberals+have+earned+right+third+term/1575371/story.html

Until the recession hit, British Columbians were enjoying the benefits of solid economic growth, in part due to major tax cuts and regulatory relief that the Liberal government initiated. Unemployment had fallen to record lows and government revenues were increasing fast enough to support a string of balanced budgets.

Those same tax cuts have allowed workers to take home more of what they earn.

Real disposable income per person was flat between 1992 and 2000 when the NDP was in power. But with the Liberals in office it rose 2.4 per cent a year between 2002 and 2007. By 2008, take-home income was 15 per cent higher than it was in 2002.

Campbell and the Liberals would like us to see the NDP governments of the 1990s — a decade of economic malaise that most British Columbians would like to forget — as the best indicator of how we would fare under a James-led NDP government.

After all, when the NDP was thrown out of office, B.C.’s real GDP per capita was $4,040 less than Canada’s and real disposable income per capita was $552 lower. By 2008, the Liberals had closed the GDP gap to $2,165 and the income gap to $237.

As for the NDP criticism of the Liberals, having moved from Ontario I can tell you what its like to have a "left" government in control.

Health care costs continue to spiral upwards and growing demand fuels stubborn waiting lists, despite investments in training more doctors, nurses, other health care professionals and new systems of delivering specialized care.

Then again, no Canadian premier of any political stripe has been able to deal effectively with spiralling health care costs or get a better bang for the dollars spent.
The Ontario Liberals (unrelated to the BC Liberals, more like the BC NDP) dealt with it by adding a $500-1000 health care "fee" (aka tax) to every working person.

This is why we rightfully worry about the NDP increasing taxes, why the Liberals chose to cut services, as hard a choice as that is.

[pure-euro-trash]

How am I wrong, you just posted that a Liberal candidate won overwhelming there, which was exactly my point.

Even STV doesn't solve this problem if you live in an area with overwhelming support for a single party. The rural areas will be very similar.

You are wrong because even in the part of BC where Liberal support is at its absolute highest, STV would allow other parties to be elected.


You mean it was done cause the NDP doesn't hope to win many rural seats with proportional representation.

I don't know how they would do. In the 2 MLA Northeast riding the NDP would probably win 1 seat based on 2005 results. The vote was reasonably split.


I have taken note on trystv.ca that the districts were defined large enough to have enough MLAs that it gives the Greens a chance of winning at least 1 seat.

Hardly. I don't think the Greens will be able to elect someone outside of the Lower Mainland. Anything less than 4 MLAs in a riding and their share of the vote is too small to elect an MLA.


Now here's a real STV question:
iIf Ralph Sultan wins with 68% and all he needed was 20%, then 48% will be transferred.

How? Randomly or statistically?

Lets say 50% of those who voted for Ralph picked a Liberal candidate next, 25% picked a NDP candidate next, and 25% picked a Green candidate next. I would assume that would be split evenly amoung the 48% transferred - please explain how that would work.

Sure, no problem. Let's make it easier and just say Ralph got double the votes he needed. (Needed 20%, got 40%).

1) Ralph is elected. He has more than enough votes.

2) All of Ralph's ballots are sorted according to their #2 choice. (not a random selection and not just the excess)

3) Looking at a single vote, half of the value already went to electing Ralph. The unused half can be transferred to the #2 choice on that ballot.

So, if the #2 choice of Ralph's original 40% was split 20% Liberal, 10% NDP, 10% Green - the transferred amount would be 10% Liberal, 5% NDP, 5% Green.

[impactX]

Whatever.

Whatever keeps the other party's amount of seat down is good. If Liberal manages to get lousy later down the road, there will be overwhelming support for the other party; similar to how Liberal came into power 8 years ago.

[goo3]

The current system's crude. If not us, then I hope somebody in Canada gives STV a try so we can test it.

Everywhere else in life, ppl learn from before and find new and better ways of doing things. It's like we're still using those mainframe computers from 1960s when quad core CPUs are selling for $300. Think of how much better govt could be if we designed one based on what we've learned so far.

Maybe I'm out to lunch, I don't know.

[Tapioca]

Voter turnout won't really solve anything.


Voter turnout is a good indicator of the political engagement of a society. If we have a higher voter turnout, we have more people who are engaged and who may actually want to be involved in politics - whether it's volunteering or running for political office.

Like most of us, I'll have to pinch my nose when I cast my ballot in this election. Elections shouldn't be this way - we should have leaders who are inspiring, intelligent, charasmatic, and so on. Instead, we have a leader who comes off as a whiner, a leader who's probably overstayed his welcome, and and old lady who should probably stick to knitting.

[Hondaracer]

Even if the ndp had the better platform I couldn't bring myself to vote for carol James

[taylor192]

Even if the ndp had the better platform I couldn't bring myself to vote for carol James
I hate the NDP policies, yet hate ignorant voters even more.

Politics is not a popularity contest. Pick the candidate based on platform, not looks.

[Great68]

I'm on the fence.

The liberals are clearly the better economic choice, definately better for me in the construction sector.

But I can't stand Gordon Campbell. The liberals would be a whole lot easier to vote for if he wasn't their leader. It's STILL beyond me how the public basically forgave him for his drunk driving conviction. It was so awesome how he cried for the camera and said he grew up with an alcoholic father, and the public ate it up and said "It's okay gordo, people make mistakes".

Yeah well, you run a fucking province, YOU can't make mistakes, not like that.

And I can't stand his little leg humper Kevin Falcon either.


The NDP are the better social choice but yes they will blow money like before, on poorly thought out projects and social programs. And I can't stand Carole James either.

[taylor192]

But I can't stand Gordon Campbell.

And I can't stand Carole James either.
There's no hope. :(

Vote for a platform, not a person.

If you're going to vote for a person, try Jodie Emery, she's at least decent to look at.

[roastpuff]

There's no hope. :(

Vote for a platform, not a person.

If you're going to vote for a person, try Jodie Emery, she's at least decent to look at.

http://www.greenparty.bc.ca/lisa-girbav

http://www.greenparty.bc.ca/files/2009candidates/Lisa%20Girbav.JPG

Lisa Girbav is probably the hottest candidate running around. Just turned legal, too. :haha:

EDIT: From her FB profile!

http://profile.ak.facebook.com/v225/1239/55/s532560554_3720.jpg Someone hack into it for more! :D

[CRS]

There's no hope. :(

Vote for a platform, not a person.

If you're going to vote for a person, try Jodie Emery, she's at least decent to look at.

http://www.cannabisculture.com/library/images/uploads/5214-MarcJodieJuly2006.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhsxEUkovE0&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjodieformla%2Eca%2FMain%2FPhotos Video&feature=player_embedded

[originalhypa]

It's STILL beyond me how the public basically forgave him for his drunk driving conviction. It was so awesome how he cried for the camera and said he grew up with an alcoholic father, and the public ate it up and said "It's okay gordo, people make mistakes".

He was arrested in Maui many years ago while partying with radio personalities.

Big fucking deal. He didn't import drugs, he didn't kill someone while drunk (ala, Ted Kennedy), and he didn't use his power to get himself out of the situation. He took it like a man, and apologized in the end. The biggest part is that he hasn't done it again.

I'm all for holding these people to a higher standard, but one must also be able to let go of their past. The good things outweigh the bad, imho.



And I can't stand his little leg humper Kevin Falcon either.


You can't stand the minister of transport in charge of building two new bridges, numerous roads, and is the man in charge of bringing our transportation into the future?

I don't get it.
But hey, that's democracy. I'd rather have this system where we can choose our leaders, than other system where the leaders are put in power due to family history, or supreme power.

[Great68]

He was arrested in Maui many years ago while partying with radio personalities.



Um, what relevance does WHO he was partying with have to his choice to drink and drive?

Is it because they're famous so that makes it more acceptable?



Big fucking deal. He didn't import drugs, he didn't kill someone while drunk (ala, Ted Kennedy), and he didn't use his power to get himself out of the situation. He took it like a man, and apologized in the end. The biggest part is that he hasn't done it again.



Right, he didn't kill someone.

That makes it ALL better. :rolleyes:

All it would have taken was someone in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and he COULD have killed someone.... Because all drunk drivers really mean to kill someone when they do.

He didn't take it like a man, he CRIED like a baby and he tried to use his father's alcoholism as a fucking excuse. Sorry but I don't buy it.


I'm all for holding these people to a higher standard, but one must also be able to let go of their past. The good things outweigh the bad, imho.


Right, he got let go with a slap on the wrist and got to continue on as premier. He didn't even have to appear in court, nor did he even loose his fucking driver's license!! What kind of message does that send to people?

It's damn hard for me to hear him "Get tough" on crime when he got the exact opposite.


Fuck it. I'm voting Green. They're pro legalization and so am I.

[Great68]

http://www.greenparty.bc.ca/lisa-girbav

http://www.greenparty.bc.ca/files/2009candidates/Lisa%20Girbav.JPG

Lisa Girbav is probably the hottest candidate running around. Just turned legal, too. :haha:

EDIT: From her FB profile!

http://profile.ak.facebook.com/v225/1239/55/s532560554_3720.jpg Someone hack into it for more! :D

Are they fucking serious? What the fuck could a 19 year old know about politics?

[urrh]

^ OH EM GEE
that's a joke right?

[roastpuff]

^ OH EM GEE
that's a joke right?

Well, what about this NDP guy? He's 22 years old... any better?

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/photos/2009/04/20/bc-090422-ray-lam-facebook.jpg

[taylor192]

Are they fucking serious? What the fuck could a 19 year old know about politics?
They need a candidate in every riding. Plus the party is primarily young.

Anyone voting NDP should worry about the same, since the NDP has a mandate to run a proportional representation of candidates. A Vancouver district has a NDP candidate who is a female Filipino bus driver, I question the same, what does she know about politics? She was able to get the candidate position cause Filipinos and women needed proportional representation, so the NDP needed to run a candidate like her.

[underscore]

besides, i've seem him play golf.. he's pretty good

:haha:

STV will just confuse the shit out of people.

exactly why im voting against it. noone will understand that shit.

[+Kardboard+]

http://www.greenparty.bc.ca/lisa-girbav

http://www.greenparty.bc.ca/files/2009candidates/Lisa%20Girbav.JPG

Lisa Girbav is probably the hottest candidate running around. Just turned legal, too. :haha:

EDIT: From her FB profile!

http://profile.ak.facebook.com/v225/1239/55/s532560554_3720.jpg Someone hack into it for more! :D
LMAO

Screw you Greens, using sex appeal! Well, she's OK. -_-

And you didn't tell me sooner, buddy? I voted in the advanced polls already! :lol

[Gh0stRider]

Well, what about this NDP guy? He's 22 years old... any better?

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/photos/2009/04/20/bc-090422-ray-lam-facebook.jpg

http://images.ctv.ca/archives/CTVNews/img2/20090421/600_bc_ray_lam_ndp_090420.jpg

[WakeMeUp]

Woot!! We're safe from an NDP majority for 4 more years!

[johny]

looks like the liberals won, as I expected.

I voted a 4th party though. couldn't vote for any of the big 3.

[alex.w *//]

who won east hastings?

[murd0c]

the NDP guy

[!SG]

My area had, from what i remember:

- NDP
- Liberals
- Green Party
- Sex Party
- Workless Party


Yes, i did a double take on the sex party...

[lilaznviper]

damn my area dixon won agian
but good to see Gordon cambell back agian

[q0192837465]

lol, i guess i vote did make a difference

[Amuse]

STV will just confuse the shit out of people.
Most people don't even know what STV means. They probably randomly picked an answer when asked about STV.

[roastpuff]

Most people don't even know what STV means. They probably randomly picked an answer when asked about STV.

"Sir, do you know what STV is?"

"Is it a sexually transmitted virus?" :haha:

[+Kardboard+]

"Sir, do you know what STV is?"

"Is it a sexually transmitted virus?" :haha:

'Fuck your vote,' new tagline.

:lol

[Durrann1984]

http://www.greenparty.bc.ca/lisa-girbav

http://www.greenparty.bc.ca/files/2009candidates/Lisa%20Girbav.JPG

Lisa Girbav is probably the hottest candidate running around. Just turned legal, too. :haha:

EDIT: From her FB profile!

http://profile.ak.facebook.com/v225/1239/55/s532560554_3720.jpg Someone hack into it for more! :D

she looks like laura prepon from 70's show