BC-STV Debate Follows All Candidates Event.

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 wonRead More

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.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Will Tomkinson

Will Tomkinson is a really valued member of the Tenth to the Fraser community. Interested in joining our pool of writers? Please see these submission guidelines.

2 comments

  1. BC-STV explained in ten seconds:

    Instead of putting an X beside one candidate, you get to rank your preferences 1, 2, 3 — as many as you want.

    Your vote counts for your first choice until that candidate is either elected or eliminated, at which point the unused portion of your vote is transferred to your next preference.

    Instead of a single MLA who is probably somebody you voted against, you will have several MLAs, probably including your first choice.

    Instead of distorted election results (phony majorities, exaggerated majorities, wrong-way winners), you get fair election results (parties win seats in proportion to the votes they receive) and government accountable to Parliament.

    Voters have the power to hold politicians and political parties accountable because almost every vote makes a difference (actually helps to elect somebody).

    It’s that simple.

  2. Thanks again for co-hosting this event and for providing the live-updates for people. I didn't stay for the STV portion as Lost was on at 9pm. That and I've already researched this question and made up my mind on the issue.

    In my opinion although BC-STV might not be perfect it is certainly preferable to our present FPTP system.

    Yes to STV!

Comments are closed.

Tenth to the Fraser