Thanks. I has missed it.

It's dishonest in three fascinating ways. 

First, it suggests a third option. There are two options on the ballot. Schreck and Tieleman don't want any form of proportional representation (PR). They like winner-take-all. But rather than say so, they muddy the waters with MMP. A vital clue: they are afraid that First-Past-The-Post is too unpopular to win, so they advance a red herring. The fact is, the organization backing MMP -- Fair Vote Canada -- backs BC-STV for BC.

Second, it totally leaves out any mention of the BC Citizens' Assembly. This is another vital clue. They are afraid of the Citizens' Assembly. They don't like the idea of citizens choosing and designing their own voting system. They don't want people to know that the CA designed two excellent PR systems, and decided by a margin of 80/20 that their STV system suited BC better than their MMP system.

Third, it mentions PR while referring to MMP, but not while referring to STV. Another vital clue. They don't want voters to know that STV (called PR-STV in Ireland) is a proportional voting system.

Finally, one should note that they claim Italy uses MMP. No genuine MMP fan would say so, because it's false -- Italy uses a poor attempt at regional list PR -- and because Italy is hardly a saleable example of PR.