In Favour Greg Henschel, opposed Anita Hagen.
Henschel was a member of the Citizens Assembly on Election Reform. He was chosen at random to participate. He reminds us that the assembly was brought together by the government to give recommendations on electoral reform after recent elections ( for example in 2001 when the Liberals won all but 2 seats with 53% of the popular vote). After much discussion and research, the group settled on STV as a way to provide multiple MLAs to represent the population more accurately. With no time to present the details of the STV plan, he asks us to see his video. I have embedded it here.
Anita Hagen, former BC cabinet minister, speaking against BC-STV and the current first-past-the-post, says that the system is not proven and not applicable for large geographic areas. One new riding will be bigger than Ireland. The size of the constituencies leads to representatives that may not understand all areas of the problems. Ms. Hagen explains that it is complicated and could dissuade voters. Hagen speaks directly and brings a sense of urgency to the issue. She suggests that a “no stv” vote now could lead to a better solution tomorrow. She insists that he does not represent the first-past-the-post system but rather that she opposes BC-STV. One concern for Hagen would be a dilution of public accountability. More information can be found at www.nostv.org.
Want another New Westminster Debate Laugh?
Public Question: Greg can you explain STV in 10 seconds? Greg: Yes.