I like the open-backed watch analogy.Although, why bother when you can readily show that it doesn't keep time all that well?
Indeed, it's very easy to show that winner-take-all doesn't keep time all that well.
Oh, wait, you were talking about MMP again?
What day is it?
skeiseid & Wilf:
I see we're over 100 posts so this thread is not long for this world.
Thanks for the debate. I'm better informed though sadly, no wiser. After reading Dennis Pilon's book, I've come to the conclusion that voting reform is mostly historical happenstance. The classic problem is that the people who have the ability to make the change don't benefit from it. We can push but our success will be limited unless the right circumstances present themselves.
Keep the faith and don't be discouraged by the turncoats who work against you because you have the "wrong" form of PR. Maybe that last sentence was directed at me, not you. 
I like the open-backed watch analogy.Although, why bother when you can readily show that it doesn't keep time all that well?
Indeed, it's very easy to show that winner-take-all doesn't keep time all that well.
Oh, wait, you were talking about MMP again?
What day is it?
No it's not April 1st, Wilf.
Of course I was talking about any system that doesn't address the first principles of representative democracy... so I meant MMP as well as FPTP.
Good post, though. Better than your usual. And funny. No statistics about fractional transfers in Lithuania. Thanks.
Reefer: Strange, eh, that in a representative democracy where we, the people, are supposed to be the source of the intent and mandate for government, that we have to wait for random shit to happen before we can effectively make our will known. It ain't just electoral reform. If our democracy was functioning we'd have an economic-evironmental policy in place and working to ensure that Canada was sustainable for our kids and grandchildren. Instead, we won't have what we already know we need for another six years or so.
This is why electoral reform is worth fighting for. Why it's vital. Why it matters which system we pick.
Okay. STV is dead in BC and, probably, MMP in Canada generally. Now, instead of trying to find excuses ("the No side emphasized math, and we know people can add"), maybe look at the arguments from the Yes side and why people rejected them. First, there is the concept that a political division -- a province, say -- is the functioning unit. That immediately destroys the concept of regional representation. In any nation of great geographic size, that concept is important. The Yes side ignored that or tried to explain it away with nonsense slogans. No, STV did not mean "better representation", The idea that all the units should submit to the greater population centers is neo-Liberalism in its most stark form. (Though I was hooted down on this forum when I first suggested it.) Second, there was the lie that STV was "more democratic" than the current system. Canadians, generally according to national polls, do not believe that their system is non-democratic. Finally, there was the attachment of STV to anti-politics -- and by that, I mean a general tendency to despise both politicians and the political process. Sure, that won some votes in the first BC go-round but overall, it won't fly. The electorate is too smart to believe both that their system is non-democratic and that counting ballots differently would fix it. The argument doesn't make sense -- understand? If you "reformers" genuinely have something to offer then express it in genuine terms. I gave up on so-called "reforms" back when Newt Gingrich was promoting the Contract with America. Remember? Term limits and all that BS? The mechanics of voting are not the problem. If the Greens ever got their act together, they could be a meaningful party. In the meantime, I think the Conservatives will have third party seats before anyone else. I think the electorate weighed the issue and saw no need to change the system. So "reformers", either you make a real argument that will show people how their vote would be better cast or you will always lose.
CCBC:
You're right and you're wrong.
The reformers will continue to fail so long as they argue their case as they have done, I agree.
However, with respect to what's "more democratic" or "non-democratic" you're on less firm ground... the polls notwithstanding.
The manner in which we vote can support our democratic intents or not in varying degrees. Characterizing those that do as "more democratic" seems reasonable and those that do not as less or "non-democratic" seems reasonable too insofar as these descriptions might suggest degrees of support.
Using certain definitions of representation and democracy, STV does indeed provide better representation and is "more democratic". As old Ben Kenobi once said, "many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view." The great mistake made throughout this electoral reform effort has been to avoid coming to grips with our views on the underlying principles from which our method of voting must be derived.
The blind spot in all of this is the assumption that electoral reform is all about proportional representation. It isn't. The problems run deeper than that. PR is a necessary condition but not a sufficient one for fairness.
The height of irony is that, despite the fact that STV does address core representational problems -- from a certain point of view -- and achieves preportionality only incidentally, it was sold as a "PR" system by salesmen and women who didn't seem to know what they'd got and argued against on the same basis. It's the classic case of mistaken identity and missed opportunity.
