Will BC voters make history adopting BC-STV

114 posts / 0 new
Last post
remind remind's picture

There is so much wrong with your words Michelle, that I will not even bother to address you further.

Assembly Talker

Well, the public has spoken,

 

It was apparent this time around that change was not on the agenda of BC voters.  

Clear defeat for BC-STV.

Electoral Reform and BC-STV had its moment in 2005 and came so close to making a major change.  This time around there is no point trying to blame anyone, make excuses, or counting the "what ifs".  

The public has spoken and it is over.

Voter turn out again dropped by 8% in an election that many thought would be close that included a referendum.  That is concerning for all of us on both sides of the debate!  

As a former CA member, I still believe firmly that BC-STV is the best alternative to our current system and I have no regrets in giving the people of BC the opportunity to learn and discuss the possibilities of electoral reform.  Any time that we discuss the workings of democracy we all win as we bring strength to what many take for granted.

I made a commitment to see this process through to its end, originally I thought that it would be one year, but it turned out to be over 5 years.  No regrets, the debates have been great!  It is time to move on......

What a relief!

 

AT 

 

 

 

 

remind remind's picture

Thank you for your dedication AT, democracy requires people such as yourself, and I applaud your efforts.

ReeferMadness

Michelle wrote:

James voted NO last time, and she refused to allow the NDP to take a position on it this time. 

So congratulations to James on her party's well-deserved electoral defeat!  Here's hoping she and her party are rewarded for many elections to come for their cowardice!

I've never heard a good explanation as to why James was talking up MMP when it wasn't on the ballot.  Or why so many NDP insiders spent their time working against STV instead of for the NDP.

It looks to me like there's a strong anti-reform movement inside the BC NDP.

Michelle

Of course.  Because they think they have a chance of winning a phony majority under FPTP since they've done it before.  It's why the NDP in Saskatchewan and Manitoba also don't give a damn about electoral reform.  It's why the Liberal government in Ontario sabotaged the Ontario referendum.  They benefit from phony majorities.

If it had been MMP on the ballot, there would have been some other excuse for the NDP not to support it, and then say they'd rather have STV.  I'd bet anything.

remind remind's picture

Oh yes, what a load of hooey, especially when 5 NDP ridings went for STV, including Jame's!

 

And who are the alleged "so many"?  Throwing up spurious allegations, against the NDP, when BC voters  rejected it by a super majority, is sour grapes at best.

 

Policywonk

Which is not to say that there aren't elements within the NDP that feel the way Michelle suggests. It is rather obvious in Saskatchewan and Manitoba where they actually do win phony majorities, and probably the same in Nova Scotia where the NDP may win one next month.

remind remind's picture

I am sure there are, just as there is with any given party currently running the show.

Moreover, I would bet if the Green Party  had been more established and won under FPTP, in a phoney majority, some would have been less likely to support PR too.

However, in reality it is not about the parties, it is about Canadian people demanding electoral reform en masse, eh?!

Caissa

Are there many examples in Canada at the Federal or Provincial level where majority governments were elected without a phony majority?

remind remind's picture

OH and I just wanted to add, not many people that I spoke with were into  financing a whole new electoral system, at a time when we will be facing social spending cuts, that would be further cut in order to impliment a new electoral system.

remind remind's picture

AB caissa and that is about it.

Pogo Pogo's picture

Unfortunately the NDP is a tired old party with old ideas.  I bet the election would have been a lot more exciting and the result a lot more different if the NDP had have taken a different tact on the carbon tax, Gateway, and STV.  I volunteered but in Richmond even the Liberals don't put much effort into the election FPTP has already ensured the outcome years in advance.

Pogo Pogo's picture

Caissa wrote:

Are there many examples in Canada at the Federal or Provincial level where majority governments were elected without a phony majority?

  Isn't that the point

Caissa

Precisely, few parties are going to actively campaign for a political system that is not in their perceived best interests.

I think when McKenna won 58-0 in NB, he also received more than 50% of the popular vote. I think there are a few national examples but I don't have the stats at my fingertips.

Michelle

Yeah, but he didn't win 100% of the vote.  But he got 100% of the seats?

RANGER

Jamie Deith wrote:

Well I think voting system reform is off the table in Canada now for a long time.

Congratulations to Ranger and the No side - obviously their campaign strategy worked better than ours did.

 

Thanks Jamie, although we didn't agree, you kept the various debates to a civil and tasteful level, and you're group as a whole would have faired better if they chose your style compared to some absolutely embarrassing behavior by some on the yes campaign, they helped us more than they know, it's nice to hear many on both sides state "reform is not over" just STV is. This subject is in cool down for a while in B.C. but is not going away, a different approach is necessary.

Fidel

BC Liberals: Forget about advanced democracy. YOU WANT CARBON TAXES!!

Brian White

What planet do you live on?  We will all be in our graves before any reform happens.  The NDP do not want reform and neither does the bc libs and the voters are too lazy to look past the BOOO boys  that campbell employs to kill off reform.

You have to hand it to CAMPBELL,  HE is clever.  "Lets employ shreck and tielman on the no stv campaign".   "That will keep them amused and they will not have time to dig up shit on me or organize the Ndp challenge!"  By shuffleing those pawns, (and you too ranger), he killed off stv AND the brains of the NDP tactical effort.   Crafty devil.   Anyway, I thought you were a fptp man.   Quit pretending, you can come out now.  You got 60%  Multiply that by 1.5 and it is 90%.   Well done.   But you won illegally the first time?    Remember when you won with 42%?

RANGER wrote:

 Thanks Jamie, although we didn't agree, you kept the various debates to a civil and tasteful level, and you're group as a whole would have faired better if they chose your style compared to some absolutely embarrassing behavior by some on the yes campaign, they helped us more than they know, it's nice to hear many on both sides state "reform is not over" just STV is. This subject is in cool down for a while in B.C. but is not going away, a different approach is necessary.

Brian White

Remind, when James riding supports stv, why did she not just go with the flow and represent her voters?  Her saying that mmp will be on the agenda if stv does well (but not too well)  was sure to get some people to vote no.   How many extra votes did her party win with axe the tax and where did they win them?  To win the election she needed green votes, she could have offered stv "if it got 50%+1" and got almost all the green votes (and stv would still have lost).  Thats politics, giving nothing but gaining a lot is the object.

You in the ndp are scratching your heads and saying "those bastards  keep voting for the greens" instead of asking them what would make them change their vote.  Well I was one of the green bastards yesterday and I would have switched partys for stv with 50%+1. I even told you. 

My question is why is James so dumb?  I know you cannot do math but surely your beloved leader should be able to. 

(You insisted that with 30% of the vote a party could get 5 out of 5 in a stv riding!).

That is a lie and a real big one and you never retracted it.  Campaign is over. Want to retract it now?

 

remind wrote:

Oh yes, what a load of hooey, especially when 5 NDP ridings went for STV, including Jame's!

 

And who are the alleged "so many"?  Throwing up spurious allegations, against the NDP, when BC voters  rejected it by a super majority, is sour grapes at best.

 

Stunned Wind

Michelle wrote:

Of course.  Because they think they have a chance of winning a phony majority under FPTP since they've done it before.  It's why the NDP in Saskatchewan and Manitoba also don't give a damn about electoral reform.  It's why the Liberal government in Ontario sabotaged the Ontario referendum.  They benefit from phony majorities.

If it had been MMP on the ballot, there would have been some other excuse for the NDP not to support it, and then say they'd rather have STV.  I'd bet anything.

I believe that Michelle is right on here!  John Heaney makes these arguments directly - STV shouldn't be supported because the NDP can never win a majority government because they can never get more than half the vote!  In other words, the erratic nature of FPTP is what he likes.  Even though the BCNDP have gotten between 39% and 45% of the popular vote since 1972 (except for 2001), he would rather that they sit on the sidelines impotently, session after session, because, once in a generation or so, the NDP, will, when the "right-wing" gets confused and divided allow the NDP to get in.  As if, somehow, that allows them to correct all the wrongs of the many right-wing governments!

The NDP have a great motto - Because everyone matters - but they aren't willing to walk the talk to make it happen.

Michelle

Yeah.  "Because everyone matters - but your vote ain't worth shit."

Doug Woodard

Caissa wrote:

Are there many examples in Canada at the Federal or Provincial level where majority governments were elected without a phony majority?

 

Federally, speaking mostly from memory, from 1921 when there were three or more parties there were four cases of a majority of both votes and seats. One was 1984 when the Tories got 50.03% of the votes and 74.8% of the seats.

From 1878 to 1917 there were no fake majorities and only two parties, except for 1896 when there was a fake majority with four parties. Before 1878 there wee too many of Sir John A.'s "loose fish" who got elected first and decided what their allegiance was when they compared offers, for recording votes in terms of the party allegiance of candidates to make sense.

 

remind remind's picture

Your vote was not needed in  your riding Brian, our candidate won handily, and I never insisted any such 30% thing, just keep on making shit up.

Happy to see the majority BC environmental voters realized what a waste of skin Sterk and the Green Party is, 8%,  is most certainly embarassing for those who claim such power up for the cause.

 

Doug Woodard

Caissa wrote:

...I think when McKenna won 58-0 in NB, he also received more than 50% of the popular vote...

The Liberals got 60.39% of the vote that year according to Wikipedia. The NDP got 10.55% of the vote, no seats.

There have been a couple of fairly extreme results in New Brunswick since. In 1995 the Liberals got 48 seats of 55, 87.3%, on 51.2% of the votes. In 1999 the PCs got 44 seats of 55, 80%, on 52.6% of the votes.

remind remind's picture

Now there is a fantasy Doug!

melovesproles

Quote:
Yeah.  "Because everyone matters - but your vote ain't worth shit."

Yep.

Doug Woodard

Stunned Wind wrote:

John Heaney makes these arguments directly - STV shouldn't be supported because the NDP can never win a majority government because they can never get more than half the vote!  In other words, the erratic nature of FPTP is what he likes.  Even though the BCNDP have gotten between 39% and 45% of the popular vote since 1972 (except for 2001), he would rather that they sit on the sidelines impotently, session after session, because, once in a generation or so, the NDP, will, when the "right-wing" gets confused and divided allow the NDP to get in.

There's more to it than that. I seem to recall that at one point in the run-up to the 2001 BC election, the Greens were up in the polls far beyond the 12% they finally got in the vote. If people could vote their hearts without fear as BC-STV would allow, God only knows where the NDP would end up. They might be doomed never to be in government unless in coalition with the Greens, and they might not be the senior partner.

Similarly as long as FPTP stands, the Liberals can expect that for several elections to come, most right-thinking voters will support them to keep the socialist hordes at bay. If voters who secretly incline to the Libertarians, Conservatives or Reform could vote their hearts without fear, there might be an explosion on the right, and who knows where the pieces would fall.

With FPTP, what engineers call "hysteresis," (roughly, what is depends on what was) is very strong. With proportional representation, and especially with PR-STV, the voters' inclinations are free to act with much less friction from the voting system.

 

 

Stunned Wind

Doug, I've always liked the hysteresis idea ever since I learned the concept. And, of course, I agree that so many of those who vote Liberal, might feel a great deal more freedom with their vote, if we'd been able to give STV a try!

The NDP are too complacent and relaxed in their role as the sole party in opposition. Someone pointed out to me that the NDP all had smiles on their faces in campaign headquarters on election night - clearly they are comfortable with losing.

Doug Woodard

Stunned Wind wrote:

Someone pointed out to me that the NDP all had smiles on their faces in campaign headquarters on election night - clearly they are comfortable with losing.

 

It was referendum night too. Could it be that the apparatchiks thought they had won the important part?

Wilf Day

Stunned Wind wrote:
Someone pointed out to me that the NDP all had smiles on their faces in campaign headquarters on election night - clearly they are comfortable with losing.

I just read an article that some members of the current government of Ireland are plotting how to turn power over to the opposition so they won't have to take the blame for the downturn and sorting out the current budgetary mess. Just as some people speculate that Ignatieff backed out of the coalition for fear the Liberals would wear the recession. Has anyone speculated that Carole James threw the election? I think all these notions are far-fetched. Still, why were those folks smiling?

Fidel

If that's true, it's not a good sign, Wilf.

Assembly Talker

Gas???  It was a quiet campaign, not a great deal of opportunity to let out that hot air?Undecided

 

AT

Brian White

I do not think she meant to throw it.   But she did anyway.  If she had supported implimenting stv (if it got over 50% in the referendum) and if she had supported the carbon tax, she would have got 75% of green votes.  I know stockholm and remind will shout rubbish to that.  But I voted green so I have more knowelege of the mindset than they do.   As far as I am concerned she would be in power right now if she had done those 2 little things.

I think the provincial ndp are absolutely terrified of stv so anything to kill it even if it meant they never get provincial power again.

I guess she was born and raised in the fptp box and she simply cannot think outside it. Lots of people are like that.  We had a leader of Ireland who voted against his own partys contraceptive legislation. Due to his priest.  Perhaps  James is guided by her ideology priest in the same way?

Wilf Day wrote:

Stunned Wind wrote:
Someone pointed out to me that the NDP all had smiles on their faces in campaign headquarters on election night - clearly they are comfortable with losing.

I just read an article that some members of the current government of Ireland are plotting how to turn power over to the opposition so they won't have to take the blame for the downturn and sorting out the current budgetary mess. Just as some people speculate that Ignatieff backed out of the coalition for fear the Liberals would wear the recession. Has anyone speculated that Carole James threw the election? I think all these notions are far-fetched. Still, why were those folks smiling?

remind remind's picture

Funny, I did not see "all" those "comfortable" smiles, what a load of hooey. In fact, I thought James looked composed, but devastated.

What was she, or other NDP supporters, supposed to be doing? Crying?

What a picky assed false observation SW.

OH BS Brian, I do not think you have any awareness of any other minset other than your own.

Erik Redburn

Remind: "And go fo it Erik. I for one am not going to stop pressuring the BCNDP to move forward on PR, just not STV."

 

Christ this new setup is annoying, half an hr just to find my place again.

 

Anyhow, thank you, I wanted to wait a couple days to see what the response was and funnily enough, the only one showing support was the supposed opponent of voter choice.  The NDP brass won't do dick on this though, of that I'm now sure, but still no reason independent members -such as, I don't know, myself- can't take the next logical step(s).  Lots of other post-Election fallout to catch up on too I see, well, thats what weekends are for.  Ciao for now.

remind remind's picture

Well, waiting for the weekend then! ;)

However, I have written a letter to the BCNDP, asking for a statement on where they are going with PR, now. And I am going to try and get to the convention later this year.

ReeferMadness

remind wrote:

Well, waiting for the weekend then! ;)

However, I have written a letter to the BCNDP, asking for a statement on where they are going with PR, now. And I am going to try and get to the convention later this year.

Oh, yay! You do that. 

Meanwhile, back in reality:

Carole James was interviewed on CBC radio this morning and she was asked whether she was going to start working for an alternative to STV.  Her response was "The public need to have that conversation" and she was going to push for "other types of reform" like party funding.  Funnily enough, "Honest Bill" Tieleman is making noises over on his blog about reforming the current system.

To anybody who seriously thought the BC NDP was going to be a leader in electoral reform:  You've been had.  The talk about MMP was just that, talk.  It was a diversion to distract people from STV.

 

Policywonk

ReeferMadness wrote:

remind wrote:

Well, waiting for the weekend then! ;)

However, I have written a letter to the BCNDP, asking for a statement on where they are going with PR, now. And I am going to try and get to the convention later this year.

Oh, yay! You do that. 

Meanwhile, back in reality:

Carole James was interviewed on CBC radio this morning and she was asked whether she was going to start working for an alternative to STV.  Her response was "The public need to have that conversation" and she was going to push for "other types of reform" like party funding.  Funnily enough, "Honest Bill" Tieleman is making noises over on his blog about reforming the current system.

To anybody who seriously thought the BC NDP was going to be a leader in electoral reform:  You've been had.  The talk about MMP was just that, talk.  It was a diversion to distract people from STV.

So you're saying campaign finance reform isn't important? There may well be a reckoning within the Party on PR and carbon taxes (perhaps not so much support or opposition but how we opposed carbon taxes in general and this carbon tax in particular; tax shifting remains a policy of the federal NDP if not the BC NDP). However I doubt any utterances made on MMP made any difference.  The election itself was far more diverting.

melovesproles

Quote:
However I doubt any utterances made on MMP made any difference.  The election itself was far more diverting.

It made a difference to the older NDP supporters I know that the BC NDP(alongside the opposition of high profile NDP personalities like Schreck and Tielman) were cool to STV, it confirmed for them their suspicions that any process or reform initiated by Gordon Cambell was inevitably a trap.  In my opinion they weren't wrong but the devil was in the details of the 60% threshold.  Gordo has effectively killed off electoral reform for at least a decade in the province in which it had and has the strongest base of support.

On the other hand, I'd say it also hurt the NDP, I know a lot of people my age who voted for them last time but were disappointed with their opposition to reform and cast a protest vote or didn't bother voting at all.  The BC NDP lost a lot of voters especially younger ones because of their positioning as a tone deaf, establishment, status quo party.  Opposition parties that lose over 80,000 votes should take a look at why they are alienating their supporters without even being in government.

remind remind's picture

Anecdotal observations of my own were that a good many young people voted, and they voted for the NDP. I guess we will have to wait for the breakdown in age demographics to see the actualities, eh?! How many did the Green Party lose BTW? Oh yes... I guess that would be about 36K worth of votes they lost from the last election.

But of course those numbers are also subject to change after May 27, when everything is done being counted.

 

Brian White

I think that was the plan all along. Now whatever new reform comes along, (not necessarly electoral reform) either side can put it to a 40% minority veto and kill it.    I was surprised how few people on babble (and elsewhere) know that making "thresholds" is that same as giving one side in an arguement extra votes.  People even say it is ok.   I have proven with math (very basic math) that the 60% supermajority is exactly the same as giving one side 1.5 votes per person.    Tielmann and shreck in all their fear and terror never seem to have noticed that.  James never seems to have noticed that.  

Is that incompitence or what? (O, and I know remind will claim bs). Any math teachers on babble to go over the math?  If 40 votes on one side  is equal to 60  votes on the other side .... any monkey with half a brain and primary school education can do the rest.

Why the hell was that never legally challenged?  Forget STV, where the hell is the legal challenge to ANY Supermajority ever again in canada?

Are we so stupid as a society that the entire opposition, and the entire courts system

and all the people fighting for our rights as people  let that huge one slip by? 

There is no equality if you have supermajoritys.

 

melovesproles wrote:

Quote:

 the devil was in the details of the 60% threshold.  Gordo has effectively killed off electoral reform for at least a decade in the province in which it had and has the strongest base of support.

ReeferMadness

Policywonk wrote:

So you're saying campaign finance reform isn't important?

Could you point out where I said that?

Quote:
There may well be a reckoning within the Party

A reckoning?  As in "I reckon we done fooled them MMP fans"?

Quote:
However I doubt any utterances made on MMP made any difference.

So, if a lie has less than its intended effect, does that make it less of a lie?

jozsef

Brian White wrote:

I do not think she meant to throw it.   But she did anyway.  If she had supported implimenting stv (if it got over 50% in the referendum) and if she had supported the carbon tax, she would have got 75% of green votes.  I know stockholm and remind will shout rubbish to that.  But I voted green so I have more knowelege of the mindset than they do.   As far as I am concerned she would be in power right now if she had done those 2 little things.

First off, STV didn't just lose, it got absolutely demolished. It's by far most likely that the NDP's internal polling showed that STV was going to sink whether the NDP supported it or not. There's not many benefits in supporting something so unpopular.

Then with regards to your point that the NDP would of gotten additional green votes for supporting STV and carbon tax. The only problem is, those measures are both unpopular with the non-green party voters. So any stolen green votes would of been cancelled out by the loss of voters who were against those measures.

The NDP was trying to position itself with the popular issues of the day. The fact is the NDP didn't even do a bad job, they lost by what %4 of the vote? That's not bad at all considering the only party the BC liberals have to worry about splitting their vote is the tiny BC conservative party.

I think we all know by now that the NDP didn't lose this election, misguided green voters continued their history of handing elections to the BC liberals. STV would of been nice, but obviously the voters were so set against it that the NDP couldn't of turned the tide with their support.  Although I will agree that if STV were to be adopted, the green party would have a great shot at getting seats in Victoria, and there would basically be no looking back from that point on for the green party.

So the NDP very well may not be shedding any tears for STV.

skeiseid

jozsef wrote:

First off, STV didn't just lose, it got absolutely demolished.

By way of a gentle reminder, for perspective and context, political parties do form governments with similar vote percentages.

Brian White

Jozsef, do you have access to these internal ndp polls?  Last time round, ndp voters also were stv yes voters. (There were exit polls published)

This time round, I have not seen figures.  So who voted no?  Suppose it was 80% no from liberal votes.  Where would that leave ndp voters?

Surely exit polls were done this time too?  I am gobsmacked. All the crying about the missing voters and nobody has profiled them!  Are they young, are they poor, are they women, or minoritys or old?   It is strange.

Federally the NDP campaigned for a yes vote. Oliva chow even asked james to support a yes.  So you should not really be quoting internal mystical polls just yet.  It is quite possible some of your missing voters were federal NDP voters who did not want to vote for the right wing pseudo ndp we have in BC.  You know, conflicted people who got lost trying to read the mixed messages. "Then with regards to your point that the NDP would of gotten additional green votes for supporting STV and carbon tax. The only problem is, those measures are both unpopular with the non-green party voters. So any stolen green votes would of been cancelled out by the loss of voters who were against those measures".   Says who? The first time round, ndp voters gave stv more than 60%. (exit polls). Women, minoritys, and young people were the most avid supporters of stv the first time. (exit polls).  Also, what if the misguided greens continue to vote green.  You may not shed tears for stv but you continue to lose all those lovely green second preferences when the greens either vote green anyway or just stay at home because their vote will not count.

jozsef wrote:

Brian White wrote:

I do not think she meant to throw it.   But she did anyway.  If she had supported implimenting stv (if it got over 50% in the referendum) and if she had supported the carbon tax, she would have got 75% of green votes.  I know stockholm and remind will shout rubbish to that.  But I voted green so I have more knowelege of the mindset than they do.   As far as I am concerned she would be in power right now if she had done those 2 little things.

First off, STV didn't just lose, it got absolutely demolished. It's by far most likely that the NDP's internal polling showed that STV was going to sink whether the NDP supported it or not. There's not many benefits in supporting something so unpopular.

Then with regards to your point that the NDP would of gotten additional green votes for supporting STV and carbon tax. The only problem is, those measures are both unpopular with the non-green party voters. So any stolen green votes would of been cancelled out by the loss of voters who were against those measures.

The NDP was trying to position itself with the popular issues of the day. The fact is the NDP didn't even do a bad job, they lost by what %4 of the vote? That's not bad at all considering the only party the BC liberals have to worry about splitting their vote is the tiny BC conservative party.

I think we all know by now that the NDP didn't lose this election, misguided green voters continued their history of handing elections to the BC liberals. STV would of been nice, but obviously the voters were so set against it that the NDP couldn't of turned the tide with their support.  Although I will agree that if STV were to be adopted, the green party would have a great shot at getting seats in Victoria, and there would basically be no looking back from that point on for the green party.

So the NDP very well may not be shedding any tears for STV.

Dana Larsen

STV didn't get "demolished" as it was only 3 points behind the NDP.

In the previous election, STV got a higher percentage than any party has received in a very long time, if ever. When was the last time a party got 57% of the vote?

The BC NDP would have been wise to support STV in both of the last two election cycles, it would have given us credibility and made good political sense for us.

Fidel

 Gordon Campbell's Liberals and their carbon tax won by a landslide receiving somewhere less than 24% of the registered vote. That's the way to beat pro-rep,  Liberals! Now instead of exporting fair voting to the rest of Canada, they'll use this as an indication as to what the rest of Canada wants.  It was very strategic in the end. And we can forget all about that 58% for STV. There were too many BC'ers turned out to vote last time anyway, so it's an anomaly.

RANGER

Dana Larsen wrote:
STV didn't get "demolished" as it was only 3 points behind the NDP. In the previous election, STV got a higher percentage than any party has received in a very long time, if ever. When was the last time a party got 57% of the vote? The BC NDP would have been wise to support STV in both of the last two election cycles, it would have given us credibility and made good political sense for us.

 

STV had one competitor, the NDP had more than one , this argument about STV getting more support than certain parties was used alot and the longer the campaign went, the more people saw the Pro STV folks where playing with numbers, they  hoped people would bite,the voters knew better. 

jozsef

Dana Larsen wrote:
STV didn't get "demolished" as it was only 3 points behind the NDP. In the previous election, STV got a higher percentage than any party has received in a very long time, if ever. When was the last time a party got 57% of the vote? The BC NDP would have been wise to support STV in both of the last two election cycles, it would have given us credibility and made good political sense for us.

Indeed, that is quite some creative math. Don't get me wrong, I am for STV. But the gap between 'No' and 'Yes' on STV was 20 percentage points. The gap between the NDP and the BC Libs (the winning party) was 4 percentage points.

STV didn't get beaten, it got absolutely obliterated.

Brian White

I guess some supposed ndp supporters in the threads have been hiding behind  bullshit statements. Stuff like  probably internal polls showed that ndp voters did not want stv.

I looked for an exit poll online.

And look what it says!

The provincial NDP VOTERS voted yes for STV.  And this was without leadership support!  No fucken wonder the ndp lost the election! 

It is because the leadership is out of tune with the voters.   Ordinary NDP voters are decent people who believe in fairness and fair voting.

  The carole james leadership do not understand the concept, are not in tune with their own voters  and they are just out for themselves. 

And that is why so many ndp voters stayed at home.

http://www.ipsosna.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=4391

"STV Electoral Referendum: Voters rejected STV by a margin of 61% to 39%. In our exit poll, STV was supported by 66% of Green voters, 51% of NDP voters and 22% of Liberal voters."

Pages

Topic locked