False Truths

False Truths sounds like a obvious OXYMORON. What I refer to as a 'False Truth' is what our Society is so good at doing. When a LIE is repeated over and over, over a long period of time, the LIE is often BELIEVED TO BE TRUE. THE LIE BECOMES A FALSE TRUTH!

Some of the experts in 'False Truths' are the professional politicians, they understand this process. One of the most basic FALSE TRUTHS that we have been lead to believe is that our GOVERNMENT SYSTEM IS THE BEST WE CAN DO. That our Government is too BIG AND COMPLICATED for the average CITIZEN to fully understand and we need the POLITICIANS as the EXPERTS to run our GOVERNMENT. THIS IS A LIE!

The POLITICIANS do not even represent the CITIZENS, they represent the POLITICAL PARTY that they are affiliated with. The CITIZENS are not represented in our GOVERNMENT SYSTEM, the POLITICAL PARTIES are represented. I would be surprised if more than 5% of the CITIZENSHIP belong to any POLITICAL PARTY.

The POLITICIANS try to justify this by saying that the CITIZENS elect the PARTY to represent them, not the individual. This is BACKWARDS! We need to elect the INDIVIDUAL, not a PARTY. It is the INDIVIDUAL that will represent the constituency, not the PARTY. The PARTY has its own agenda regardless of the wishes of the constituency that is represented. The PARTY will USE the constituency when it fits with their agenda and will DISCARD them when it conflicts with their agenda.

We need to elect the INDIVIDUAL! It is the INDIVIDUAL that has the single interest in representing the wishes of their CONSTITUENCY. It is with the INDIVIDUAL that we have TRUE REPRESENTATION! No POLITICAL PARTY should have any control or influence over an ELECTED INDIVIDUAL.

This idea of ELECTING A INDIVIDUAL, over a POLITICAL PARTY, is not that difficult to achieve. In fact this idea has been operating in CANADA for over 100 years. In the North West Territories their Legislature Assembly has been without any POLITICAL PARTY since 1905. They elect 19 MLAs that are all INDEPENDENT. The 19 MLAs ELECT the PREMIER and the HOUSE SPEAKER from the 19 MLAs and they appoint the CABINET MINISTERS. The elected PREMIER AND THE CABINET MINISTERS form the GOVERNMENT and the balance of the MLAs form the OFFICIAL OPPOSITION. The result is the GOVERNMENT has to operate in a CONSENSUS environment, as opposed to a CONFRONTATIONAL environment. In fact the OFFICIAL OPPOSITION often out numbers the GOVERNMENT (the Premier & Cabinet consists of 8 MLAs the Opposition consists of 10 MLAs).

We can change our GOVERNMENT SYSTEM to something that is better than what we have. HOWEVER, WE NEED TO RECLAIM OUR VOICE - OUR VOTE! In order to make the changes we need to make we first need to RESPECT EVERY VOICE/VOTE. Our current system does the opposite and only RESPECT SELECTED VOICES.

WE NEED THE STV ELECTORAL SYSTEM!

We Need to VOTE

Our VOTE IS OUR VOICE, when we DO NOT VOTE we are SILENCING OUR SELF! OUR SYSTEM only recognize the actual VOTES CAST that is referred to as the POPULAR VOTE, if we DO NOT VOTE we are not counted in the POPULAR VOTE.

There are many REASONS why individuals may not VOTE. Most boil down to NOT SUPPORTING OUR CORRUPT SYSTEM.

When we DO NOT VOTE we are SUPPORTING THE SYSTEM. We are supporting the system by keeping our VOICE SILENT. The POWERS THAT BE are more EMPOWERED when our VOICES ARE SILENT. When only 50% of the CITIZENS are expressing their VOICE, the POWERS THAT BE only have to convince around 40% of the 50% which is less than 25% of the Eligible Voters to support them.

The POWERS THAT BE sees the NON-VOTER as having NOTHING TO SAY. With less VOTERS they have less CITIZENS to convince in supporting their issues. As long as the NON-VOTERS are not calculated into the POPULAR VOTE figures they can continue as they always have.

The Popular Vote;

The POPULAR VOTE only calculates the actual VOTES CAST! The POPULAR VOTE reflects the VOICE OF THE CITIZENS. We need to find a way to include the CITIZENS that do not support our CURRENT SYSTEM into the figures of the POPULAR VOTE.

The SYSTEM counts the number of ballots that are given out at the POLLING STATIONS. When we go into the POLLING STATION we give are ID and we receive a BALLOT. The SYSTEM counts how many BALLOTS are given out. The number of VOTES that the CANDIDATES receive MUST EQUAL THE NUMBER OF BALLOTS GIVEN OUT. This never actual BALANCES, as there is one other category that a VOTE falls into and that is SPOILED BALLOTS. Normally the amount of SPOILED BALLOTS is usually between 1% to 3% of the POPULAR VOTE.

Spoiled Ballots;

The SPOILED BALLOT is another option that we have, to exercise our VOICE. This option includes our VOICE in the POPULAR VOTE and we are no longer SILENCED!

In a true DEMOCRACY the VOTE BALLOT needs to have the option 'NONE OF THE ABOVE', so that one can express their true VOICE. However, without this option I interpret the 'SPOILED BALLOT' as the same thing as 'NONE OF THE ABOVE'. The SPOILED BALLOT allows me to express my VOICE and to be included in the POPULAR VOTE.

In the last Provincial Election (2009) there was 50.99% of Eligible Voters that actually VOTED. If the 49.01% that did NOT VOTE had VOTED AND SPOILED THEIR BALLOT the Liberal Party percentage of the POPULAR VOTE would have been less than 25%, they received 45.82% with 50.99% VOTING. The POWERS THAT BE will have a much more difficult time justifying a system with such LOW PUBLIC SUPPORT. It is much easier to continue on as usual with 45% support than it is with 25% support!

Independent;

 There is another VOTING OPTION that I often consider when I am CASTING MY VOTE. In some RIDINGS there are what is called a 'INDEPENDENT' CANDIDATE. An INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE is a INDIVIDUAL that is running for OFFICE without any POLITICAL PARTY TIES.

My biggest problem with our SYSTEM is the many different POLITICAL PARTIES that divide us and creates a SYSTEM that is always OPPOSING each other, there is little in the way of SOLIDARITY.

An INDEPENDENT is worth looking at for my VOTE. I may not be in 100% agreement with his views, however, I may respect his commitment and his integrity. The INDEPENDENT is worth considering and MAY receive my VOTE over the SPOILED BALLOT.

The problem is that there are few INDEPENDENTS running for office. However, there are a few that are ELECTED from time to time.

---

We need to have EVERY VOICE HEARD, in order to begin a process of changing to a SYSTEM of SOLIDARITY in GOVERNING. Our current SYSTEM is one of CONFLICT BETWEEN THE MANY DIFFERENT POLITICAL PARTIES.

The STV ELECTORAL SYSTEM is the first thing we need to change to. STV restores the RESPECT OF EVERY VOICE. We need to create a DEMAND FOR THIS CHANGE TO STV. We can start this DEMAND FOR CHANGE, by organizing the 50% that do not vote to vote by SPOILING THEIR BALLOT and show how little the CURRENT SYSTEM IS SUPPORTED!

WE NEED TO VOTE!

Is STV Dead?

The POLITICIANS HOPE IT IS, the MEDIA will consider it a DEAD ISSUE after the 2009 referendum.

STV IS NOT DEAD IF THE CITIZENSHIP KEEPS IT ALIVE!

 If we allow STV to die we are continuing to allow the POWERS THAT BE to control our LIVES and the MINORITY WILL CONTINUE RULING THE MAJORITY. In the 2005 referendum the CITIZENS were 57% in favour of STV, a large MAJORITY. This strong support put a real scare into the POLITICIANS. With such a strong support the POLITICIANS could not ignore the wishes of the CITIZENS and promised a SECOND REFERENDUM.

 Keeping STV ALIVE is not difficult when we already have a LARGE MAJORITY of the CITIZEN in support of STV. If we allow the POWERS THAT BE to KILL STV, we are telling the POWERS THAT BE that the MAJORITY has NO POWER and does not need to be taken seriously.

The POWERS THAT BE built the coffin for STV when they put the SECOND REFERENDUM off until the 2009 election, 4 years later. They put the NAILS IN THE COFFIN when they implemented a STV-GAG LAW in February 2009. This STV-GAG LAW forbid any discussion on STV during the 2009 election campaign.

The CITIZENS need to tell the POWERS THAT BE, that it is not that easy to KILL THE NEEDS OF THE MAJORITY! THE MAJORITY NEEDS TO HAVE ITS VOICE RESPECTED!

In May 2013 we have the PROVINCIAL ELECTION that follows the 2009 election, THIS IS THE TIME TO LET THE POWERS THAT BE THAT THE STV IS STILL ALIVE.

This is the time when we need to make a BIG NOISE and a BIG SHOW that ELECTORAL REFORM AND STV IS NOT DEAD! We have 6 months before the coming elections, we need to organize demonstrations and petitions that support STV. We need to ask the CANDIDATES if they support a system where the MINORITY RULES THE MAJORITY? Does the CANDIDATE RESPECT THE MAJORITY? What are the CANDIDATES going to do about ELECTORAL REFORM? How are they going to handle the LOW VOTER TURNOUTS? We need to go on the OFFENSIVE!

We need to make ELECTORAL REFORM a major issue in the coming CAMPAIGN!

Majority-Minority Governments

It is generally believed that a Majority Government is desirable and the only way anything can get done. This is far from being TRUE, but it is one issue that is used in defending the FPTP system. It is often said that the STV system would make it more difficult for any POLITICAL PARTY to have a MAJORITY in the GOVERNING HOUSE (Parliament or Legislature). There are a number of points that need to be addressed with this defense of FPTP;

1.  We have a choice - do we do what is EASY or what is RIGHT? Receiving the MAJORITY OF THE VOTES is not suppose to be EASY. It is just a FALSE-TRUTH, it is a LIE that has been used for so long that it is BELIEVED TO BE TRUE.
2. To believe that one needs a MAJORITY GOVERNMENT in order to get anything done, is to say DEMOCRACY DOES NOT WORK and the only thing that works is a DICTATORSHIP, or BULLING one's way through. That we actually ELECT A DICTATOR EVERY 4 YEARS.
3. In BC it has been MAJORITY GOVERNMENTS that have given us the 'FAST-FERRIES' the sale of 'BC-RAIL' and attempted to implement 'HST'. The 'HST' was the exception to the RULE, and even a MAJORITY GOVERNMENT HAS LIMITATIONS.
4. I do not believe that there would be that much different in having a Majority or Minority Governments with the STV. However, the size of Majority Governments may not be so OVERPOWERING!

Minority Governments;

The reason why Minority Governments have a difficult time in GOVERNING, is the PARTICIPANTS (Political Parties) are more FOCUSED on when to FORCE A NEW ELECTION then in running the COUNTRY. ALL THE POLITICAL PARTIES are looking for the best opportunity to FORCE A NEW ELECTION when THEY may have the BEST CHANCE AT GETTING A MAJORITY. If a MAJORITY was more difficult to achieve there would be less FOCUS on a new election and a more HONEST ATTEMPT AT RUNNING OUR COUNTRY.

a MINORITY GOVERNMENT is a more accurate REPRESENTATION OF THE CITIZENSHIP. It always amazes me that we have a SOCIETY THAT IS MADE UP OF MANY DIFFERENT PHILOSOPHIES and we ALL GET ALONG. However, our GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES are the ones that are ALWAYS FIGHTING AMONG THEMSELVES, to the point of affecting how our COUNTRY IS GOVERNED.

We need more MINORITY GOVERNMENTS in order to LEARN HOW TO GOVERN IN A COOPERATIVE MANNER, as opposed to GOVERNING IN A ARROGANT MANNER.

Our Voice - Our Vote

Our VOICE is our VOTE!

When we DO NOT VOTE, we are  SILENCING OURSELVES. The POWERS THAT BE, take this opportunity to say that WE DO NOT CARE. The POWERS THAT BE generalize by saying that the CITIZENS THAT DO NOT VOTE will go along with whatever the WINNER of the Election decides. THIS IS HOW CORRUPT OUR SYSTEM IS! The POWERS THAT BE do not see or hear that the CITIZENS THAT DO NOT VOTE, have NOTHING TO VOTE FOR or that THEIR VOTE WILL NOT BE HEARD.

I too have been caught up in this process of NOT VOTING. It is difficult to go out and VOTE, when you having NOTHING TO VOTE FOR, and you see that YOUR VOTE IS NOT HEARD. WHY BOTHER? However, when we DO NOT VOTE we are actually perpetuating the current CORRUPT SYSTEM. In our current system there is a statistic called the POPULAR VOTE and it only includes the actual VOTES CAST. When we have a large number of CITIZENS NOT VOTING it CORRUPTS the statistics. As an example in the 2011 Federal Election the Conservatives won just over 39% of the Popular Vote, but only 62% of VOTERS ACTUALLY VOTED. So this 39% of 62% is misleading, the percentage of support would be much lower than 39% of the ELIGIBLE VOTERS, probably less than 30%.

Our SYSTEM only counts the VOTES CAST. When one goes into a VOTING STATION to cast their VOTE, your name is scratched off the VOTER LIST, in order to record the number of VOTES CAST. The number of VOTES RECEIVED BY THE DIFFERENT CANDIDATES must equal the TOTAL NUMBER OF VOTES CAST. This actually NEVER BALANCES, as there is another category to COUNT - "SPOILED BALLOT". The POPULAR VOTE equals the VOTES received by ALL CANDIDATES plus the SPOILED BALLOTS.

Spoiled Ballots:

When one SPOILS one's BALLOT, it is saying "None of the Above" and it is expressing one's VOICE. If the CITIZENS that DO NOT VOTE actually VOTED AND SPOILED THEIR BALLOT, would be saying a lot!  It would be very feasible for the "Spoiled Ballot" statistic to reach 20% of the Popular Vote and would be HEADLINES.Traditionally the SPOILED BALLOTS is around 1% of the Popular Vote.

This process of deliberately SPOILING ONE'S BALLOT would be difficult, NOT TO BE HEARD, when in such high numbers! It would greatly lower the POPULAR VOTE that the CANDIDATES WILL RECEIVE and to give a more accurate measure of the support for the CANDIDATES.

We need to MAKE OUR VOICE HEARD and this means we need to exercise our RIGHT TO VOTE! This RIGHT TO VOTE, means the RIGHT TO SPOIL ONE'S BALLOT when necessary.

Why Electoral Reform is so critical

If we like to admit it or not we are ENSLAVED to our POLITICAL SYSTEM. Our current POLITICAL SYSTEM is one where the MINORITY RULES THE MAJORITY. The most obvious and recent demonstration of the MINORITY RULING OUR SOCIETY is the 2005 BC-STV referendum that was supported by 57.69% of the VOTERS, but it FAILED. This failure with a MAJORITY SUPPORT greatly discouraged the CITIZENSHIP and in the following election in 2009 the VOTER TURNOUT dropped to 50.99%, this is barely over 50% of Eligible Voters bothering to VOTE. What happens when LESS THAN 50% OF THE CITIZENS ARE VOTING? It is a dangerous situation for any government to be in, CHANGE IS INEVITABLE, the question is the form of the CHANGE. We can make the CHANGES THAT ARE NEEDED or wait for more forcible CHANGE TO OCCUR.

We need a system where EVERY VOTE COUNTS and where a MAJORITY IN AGREEMENT is REQUIRED, not just the largest MINORITY. In our POLITICAL SYSTEM it is our VOTE that is our VOICE. When our VOTE IS NOT COUNTED our VOICE IS SILENCED! WITHOUT OUR VOICE WE ARE UNABLE TO MAKE ANY CHANGES!

If we are wanting to CLEANUP our CORRUPTED SYSTEM we need to RECLAIM OUR VOICE!

---

The current system of FPTP is one of the major foundations that promotes the CORRUPTION IN OUR SYSTEM. When we replace this system with a system that promotes the VOICE OF THE MAJORITY we limit the manipulation of our system.

The majority of POLITICAL PARTIES are only interested in OBTAINING AND MAINTAINING THEIR HOLD ON POWER. I believe that many of the POLITICAL PARTIES do not really know what they want to do with the POWER, THEY JUST WANT IT! It is much easier to OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN their hold on the POWER when they only have to target the 40% mark of the Popular Vote. This TARGET of 40%  is even LOWER when one uses the figure of ELIGIBLE VOTERS. Lets look at the results of the 2009 Provincial Election as an example of what I mean;

In 2009 the Liberal Party received 45.82% of the Popular Vote, with only 50.99% of Voters actually Voting. If the Liberals received 50% of the 50% of VOTERS WHO VOTED would only be 25% of ALL ELIGIBLE VOTERS. The Liberals only received 45.82% which is closer to 20% of ALL ELIGIBLE VOTERS. That is 1 in 5 BC VOTERS actually supported the Liberal Party.

Electoral Reform needs to put a minimum % of the VOTES CAST (Popular Vote) in order to be ELECTED. This is not perfect as it only counts the actual VOTES CAST and does not include the VOTERS THAT DO NOT VOTE. However, an Electoral System that RESPECTS EVERY VOTE CAST will go along way to INCREASING THE VOTER TURNOUT (VOTES CAST).

Electoral Reform goes a long way to begin the process of making our SYSTEM MORE ACCOUNTABLE TO THE CITIZENS, and LIMITING THE POWER OF THE POLITICAL PARTY. When we EMPOWER THE BALLOT BOX, we start to erode the POWER OF THE POLITICIAN. This is the beginning of repairing our CORRUPT SYSTEM and without our VOICE FULLY EMPOWERED we cannot continue REPAIRING OUR SYSTEM.

Why FPTP is so strongly defended

It is the POWERS THAT BE that are so strongly determined to keep this current Electoral System. It is the CORRUPTION OF POWER that keeps this system in place. There are 2 reasons that makes this so desirable for the POWERS THAT BE;

1. Achieving close to the 40% of the VOTES is much easier than over 50% of the VOTES. This is attractive to ANY CANDIDATE running for office. One only has to get close to 40% of the VOTES in order to WIN, they do not need to reach 40%, anywhere close is good enough. This is a lot easier than having to receive OVER 50% of the VOTES. THIS SYSTEM IS HEAVILY IN THE CANDIDATES FAVOUR AND THUS THEY NEED TO STRONGLY DEFENDED IT!
2. The system has a SINGLE BALLOT! This means that the ELECTION is ideally suited to NEGATIVE CAMPAIGNING. The Candidate focus their Campaign on distancing themselves from their opponents any way they can. They do not need to elaborate on their own reasons for running, just how BAD THEIR OPPONENTS ARE!  With a SINGLE BALLOT there is no concern of ALIENATING THE VOTERS THAT SUPPORT THEIR OPPONENTS. With more than a SINGLE BALLOT, the Candidate cannot afford to ALIENATE their OPPONENT'S SUPPORTERS as they want to be these VOTERS SECOND CHOICE. It makes the Candidates focus more on the reasons why they should be ELECTED.

These are the 2 main reasons why the current FPTP system is so strongly embedded in our Electoral System. It is because of these 2 reasons that we will hear all kinds of excuses, rationals, and reasons why other systems are not realistic. There are other system like the STV and they are used in other DEMOCRACIES IN THE WORLD. The STV is not a complicated system or a Proportional Representative (PR) system, STV just sets the POST that the WINNER needs to reach plus respecting EVERY VOTE.

 STV RESTORES THE POWER OF THE BALLOT BOX!

Silencing the Majority

It is the Silencing of the Majority that is the RESULT of the First-Past-The-Post Electoral System. This type of Electoral System is only acceptable when there is Ballot with just a "Yes" or "No" choice. Even  the name of this Electoral System suggests that there is a TARGET that the 'choice' on the Ballot needs to reach to WIN. First-Past-The-Post - the First one to reach the Post is the WINNER.

In reality we declare the WINNER as the LEADER in the RACE TO THE POST. NO ONE REACHES THE POST, we declare the WINNER before the RACE IS OVER! It there is 5 Candidates running to be elected to office, it is simply the Candidate with the most votes, upon the first and only ballot, that WINS. It is very unlikely that with 5 Candidates running that anyone would receive 50% +1 of the votes on the 1st ballot. In fact it is just as likely under this system that the WINNING CANDIDATE may only receive 21% of the votes, the other 4 Candidates split the other 79% of the votes. In this situation the VOICES of the 21% are the ONLY VOICES HEARD, the VOICES OF THE 79% ARE SILENCED!

It is with this type of SELECTIVE HEARING that leads to LOWER AND LOWER VOTER TURNOUT and a complete APATHY in our GOVERNMENT AND ELECTIONS. When the VOICES OF THE MAJORITY ARE SILENCED, the MAJORITY stops VOICING their positions. This is demonstrated over the last 30 years of a steady decline in VOTER TURNOUT, to the point where in the 2009 election there was barely 50% of Eligible Voters that actually VOTED (50.99%).

Fighting Corruption

To clean up the CORRUPTION we need our FULL VOICE. Without our VOICE we are unable to make any affect on our CORRUPT SYSTEM (we are ENSLAVED TO THE SYSTEM). To regain our VOICE we need ELECTORAL REFORM in order to get rid of the FPTP system. We need a ELECTORAL SYSTEM where the WINNING CANDIDATE needs to receive 50% +1 before the WINNER IS DECLARED. We need an ELECTORAL SYSTEM WHERE EVERY VOICE COUNTS!

Our form of DEMOCRACY is formed by REPRESENTATION, we elect our REPRESENTATIVE TO THE GOVERNMENT HOUSE. It is a form of MAJORITARIAN DEMOCRACY where it is the MAJORITY that make the decisions of our GOVERNMENT. There maybe better systems but we cannot even have this system operate properly. In reality our current system has the MINORITY making the decisions of our GOVERNMENT (FPTP).

Once we have REGAINED OUR VOICE we can start to consider how to DE-CENTRALIZE THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT. This is the 2nd STEP in our FIGHT ON CORRUPTION. We need to start the movement with the 1st STEP of REGAINING OUR VOICE!

Corrupt System

Our SYSTEM OF GOVERNING has been CORRUPTED over years of APATHY. This CORRUPTION is the result of a number of issues that evolves around the CENTRALIZATION OF POWER. The old saying "Money corrupts and power corrupts absolutely." is very TRUE. The more that our GOVERNMENT is centralized, the more it is REMOVED from the CITIZENSHIP. This separation DIS-EMPOWERS THE CITIZENS and creates a more POWERFUL GOVERNMENT. This increase in the POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT IS WHAT CORRUPTS OUR GOVERNMENT.

The Ballot Box:

We live in a FREE SOCIETY. In a FREE SOCIETY EVERYONE HAS A VOICE IN HOW WE ARE TO BE GOVERNED. The BALLOT BOX is the only VOICE we ALL have. Without the BALLOT BOX we have NO VOICE, without our VOICE we are no longer FREE.

Over the last number of decades our VOICE has been greatly REDUCED. Our current Electoral System (FPTP) has greatly eroded the POWER OF OUR VOICE. FPTP is a Electoral System where we have SELECTIVE HEARING, the POWERS THAT BE only hears the VOICES that it wants to HEAR.

Selective Hearing;

The most recent example of this SELECTIVE HEARING is the latest Federal Election where the Conservative Party received over 53% of the seats in Parliament with only 39% of the Popular Vote. The system is DEAF to the 60%+ that did not support the Conservative Party.

This process of SELECTIVE HEARING has two main objectives;

1. The Political Parties only has to target the 40% mark of VOTERS in order to GAIN POWER. This is a lot easier to achieve than the 50% +1 that would be a MAJORITY OF VOTERS. The difference of just 10% does not sound like much, but it is a lot harder to achieve. If you are a hockey fan, it is like winning the 4th game in the Stanley Cup playoffs. That 4th game is the hardest to WIN! THAT LAST 10% IS ALSO THE HARDEST 10% TO ACHIEVE.
2. It greatly frustrates the VOTER. When one is NOT BEING HEARD, one tends not to bother to SAY ANYTHING. MY VOTE WILL NOT COUNT ANYWAY! VOTERS are not stupid and if they see that their VOICE is not being listen to they will stop contributing their VOICE. The POLITICAL PARTIES may SAY they are concerned with the LOW VOTER TURNOUT, but they really do not mind as the 40% mark is easier to reach with LESS VOTERS.

Low Voter Turnout;

 Since 1983 in BC the Voter Turnout has steadily DECLINED. In the 1983 the turnout of Eligible Voters was 70.50% and in 2009 it dropped to 50.99% of Eligible Voters. Over the last 3 decades this decline has been consistent, except for the 2005 election with a small rise - from 55.44% in 2001 to 58.19% in 2005.

The 2005 election is interesting as it was the only election in the last 30 years with a slight rise in Voter Turnout. It was also the election with the BC-STV referendum, that received over 57% in favour. The referendum FAILED and was put off for another 4 years. Is there any wonder why the following election in 2009 the Voter Turnout dropped to 50.99%? AGAIN THE VOICE OF THE MAJORITY WAS NOT HEARD!

What happens when the Voter Turnout drops below the 50% mark of Eligible Voters? This LOW VOTER TURNOUT also greatly distorts the Election Results. One may receive 50% of the Votes Cast, but if only 50% of Eligible Voters Turnout to VOTE, you only have 25% support of the VOTERS. This LOW SUPPORT OF ACTUAL VOTERS IS DANGEROUS FOR ANY GOVERNMENT, IT IS WHAT LEADS TO REVOLT!

Negative Campaigning

Our current Electoral System of FPTP promotes the often used and successful aspects of NEGATIVE CAMPAIGNING. When there is only the one shot at getting someone's VOTE, it is best to try and isolate your opponents, in anyway one can.

With STV Electoral System there is less of this, so that if the VOTER votes for an opponent as their 1st choice, they want to stay as a possible 2nd choice. There is a more level and dare I say honest approach to Election Campaigning.

 With STV it is very unlikely that any CANDIDATE will WIN THE ELECTION on the 1st choice counts. The WINNER will also need to receive a substantial number of the 2nd choice votes as well. A CANDIDATE does not want to negatively affect his chance on being a VOTER'S 2nd choice. It limits the CANDIDATE on how NEGATIVE they want to portray their opponents.

If the CANDIDATE comes out TOO NEGATIVE with one of their opponents, there is a good chance the CANDIDATE will also not be on as a 2nd choice with their opponent's VOTERS.

It keeps some mutual RESPECT among the CANDIDATES!

Every VOTE Counts

We need an Electoral System where EVERY VOTE COUNTS! In our current system only the VOTES RECEIVED BY THE WINNING CANDIDATE COUNTS. The PROPAGANDA that supports the current system is that EVERY VOTE DOES COUNT.

How the SYSTEM defines what a VOTE is, makes the system DEMOCRATIC, or SOMETHING ELSE.

It should be an easy thing to understand what a VOTE is. However, our CURRENT SYSTEM (FPTP) makes something simple into a much more complicated issue.

What is a VOTE;

When I am VOTING on a issue and there are a number of options to VOTE ON. When I cast my VOTE, I am saying what I am SUPPORTING among the options available. I AM ALSO SAYING THAT I DO NOT SUPPORT THE OTHER OPTIONS.

MY VOTE COMMUNICATES WHAT I SUPPORT, AS WELL AS, WHAT I DO NOT SUPPORT!

FPTP;

The current system (FPTP) has a very LIMITING definition of what a VOTE IS. This system only considers what the VOTER - SUPPORTS. There is more to what a VOTE is than just this narrow definition. FPTP has no consideration for what my VOTE does not support!

It is in this narrow definition that permits THE MINORITY RULING THE MAJORITY. Lets look at a riding to demonstrate what I mean;

2009 Election

Vernon-Monashee riding

Eric Foster  Lib  9,015 votes

Mark Olsen  NDP 7,698 votes

Huguette Allen  Green  4,029 votes

Other Parties   3,443 votes

In this election and district the Liberal Candidate was elected with just over 9,000 VOTERS VOTING IN SUPPORT. There was in excess of 14,000 VOTERS THAT DID NOT SUPPORT THE LIBERAL CANDIDATE.

Declaring the winner with only 9,015 votes, means that the 14,000 PLUS votes that DID NOT SUPPORT THE WINNER, DOES NOT COUNT! 

---

In order for EVERY VOTE TO COUNT we must take into account the 14,000 plus VOTERS that DID NOT SUPPORT the Liberals. To do anything else DIS-EMPOWERS THE VOTE, and greatly diminishes our DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM!

30 Day Circus

The Election Campaign is what I refer to as the '30 Day Circus' as all the HYPE and PROPAGANDA starts 1 months before the VOTING POLLS OPEN. This time before ELECTION DAY, drives me crazy and I just want to 'TURN OFF' listening to all the PROPAGANDA. There are a number of reasons why I 'TUNE OUT' this time frame;

• It is the opposite of what it should be!

All of the POLITICAL PARTIES and all the CANDIDATES (independents) are wanting me to support THEM. To me this is backwards, I am looking to VOTE for someone that SUPPORTS ME! I am VOTING for someone that will represent me in the GOVERNING BODY.

• The fighting between the different PARTIES.

This bickering between the PARTIES turns me off and in no way represents my interests. To me it demonstrates too much SELF-INTEREST at the cost of the WELFARE of our SOCIETY.

• The Propaganda!

The PARTIES and the CANDIDATES will say and do anything to get MY SUPPORT (VOTE). During the Election Campaign the CANDIDATES will say anything in order to get into POWER. Even if they have genuine intentions that are beneficial to operating GOVERNMENT, they are not often presented during this time before VOTING DAY.

---

Knowing how this '30 Day Circus' works one can start to make this time of Election Campaigning work in our favour. We can start by asking the CANDIDATES some of the tough questions;

• Do they support the idea 'The Minority Rules The Majority'?

This is how our current system works. When was the last time that the RULING PARTY actually received a Majority of the VOTES? Only once in 1996 when the Liberals received over 57%, is the only time in our recent history.

• Are they aware of the steady decline in VOTER TURNOUT and is this a concern for them and what do they propose to do about this decline?

Most CANDIDATES will be somewhat concerned with the LOW VOTER TURNOUT, but with little in the way of rectifying the situation. Most will blame the VOTER for not caring about our SOCIETY. Very few if any will see the fault as being our CORRUPT SYSTEM.

• Will the CANDIDATE'S primary responsibility be to represent the CITIZENS of their RIDING, or to represent their POLITICAL PARTY?

An elected member of GOVERNMENT is primarily there to REPRESENT THE CITIZENS that put them there, their POLITICAL PARTY'S interests are secondary. POLITICAL PARTIES have their own interests and these MAY NOT BE IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CITIZENS.

---

These are some of the questions to put to a CANDIDATE that is running for our VOTE. POLITICIANS are better at avoiding questions then LAWYERS. AVOIDING the question is as good as answering the question to me. YOU AVOID ANSWERING MY QUESTIONS, YOU DO NOT GET MY VOTE! I would consider VOTING for a CANDIDATE that gave me a straight ANSWER, even if it is an ANSWER I do not agree with, over someone that AVOIDS answering the question.

This '30 Day Circus' is when the Election Campaign is concentrated and the CANDIDATES are available to the VOTERS. The actual Election Campaign is already happening, through the MEDIA. We need to start organizing for this Election Campaign NOW, if we want to make the changes we NEED.

Super-Majority

What is meant by a SUPER-MAJORITY is when we NEED a large number of the CITIZENSHIP IN SUPPORT of the ISSUE. We have many FUNDAMENTAL principals that DEFINE the SOCIETY THAT WE ALL LIVE WITH - Our Constitution, Human Rights, Principal of Law and other issues that define us as CANADIAN. When we do make changes to these FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPALS we need to have EVERYONE ON SIDE, AT LEAST A LARGE MAJORITY. Without this SUPER-MAJORITY on these very FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES we can be in danger of DIVIDING THE CITIZENSHIP into very hostel camps, in extreme cases it can be the cause of CIVIL WAR.

It is for this reasoning that I do support the necessity of having a SUPER-MAJORITY in favour of any ELECTORAL REFORM. We are dealing with our RIGHT TO VOTE, it is our FREEDOM that we are dealing with. We need a minimum of 60% in favour of such changes, and I would aim for 66% or every 2 out of 3 CANADIANS IN FAVOUR.

However, if such a proposed change receive a MAJORITY of VOTERS, but fails to reach the SUPER-MAJORITY mark, does not mean the issue DIES. This again demonstrates our NARROW FOCUS ON WINNING AND NOTHING ELSE. When a issue receives a MAJORITY IN FAVOUR, but fails to reach a SUPER-MAJORITY means the ISSUE needs more work to achieve the SUPER-MAJORITY. Any other action is TOTALLY DISRESPECTFUL TO THE MAJORITY and can be just as dangerous as passing such a change with a SIMPLE MAJORITY.

In 2005 and the BC-STV referendum the VOTERS were in favour of BC-STV with 57.69% of the Popular Vote and needed to reach 60% that was the SUPER-MAJORITY target. A second BC-STV referendum was necessary and should have been held within 12 months of the first referendum, NOT 4 YEARS LATER.

The act of putting the second referendum off until 2009 was just as good as throwing the whole thing out. With such a large majority in favour, the government could not just ignore it, so they did the next best thing, put it off as long as possible. IT IS COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE!

NOTHING to Vote FOR!

Many Voters that choose NOT TO VOTE, often say that there is NOTHING that they feel comfortable in SUPPORTING. I have used this reasoning MYSELF. I am not very supportive of POLITICAL PARTIES in their many different forms. I have often looked for a choice on the BALLOT - "NONE OF THE ABOVE" - that I would have VOTED FOR.

When faced with this dilemma the VOTER usually DOES NOT VOTE. There is another OPTION.

In the statistics of ELECTIONS there is another column of figures - "Spoiled Ballots". Historically the Spoiled Ballots in each ELECTION is around 1% of the VOTES CAST. The record of Spoiled Ballots have to be kept accurately in order to BALANCE THE RECORDS. There is a record of TOTAL BALLOTS CAST and this must equal the NUMBER OF BALLOTS EACH CANDIDATE RECEIVED PLUS ANY SPOILED BALLOTS.

Usually the POWERS THAT BE, often justify the Spoiled Ballots as just STUPID VOTERS THAT DO NOT KNOW HOW TO CAST A BALLOT. The number of Spoiled Ballots are always small and of no real significance to the ELECTION.

The question to ask - What happens IF the percentage of "Spoiled Ballots" took a big spike up to 20% of the BALLOTS CAST? Such a spike would do a number of things;

• It increases the VOTER TURNOUT - as the VOTERS that Spoiled their Ballot would have probably NOT VOTED. This increase in VOTER TURNOUT, without increasing the VOTES RECEIVED BY CANDIDATES would reduce the WINNING CANDIDATES PERCENTAGE OF VOTES RECEIVED. It could put the WINNING CANDIDATE into the 20% range of the POPULAR VOTE. 
• It gives the VOTER another OPTION - besides NOT VOTING, or VOTING FOR SOMEONE THEY DO NOT SUPPORT.
• It tells the POWERS THAT BE - I do care, give me something to VOTE FOR. It definitely sends a message.
• Spoiled Ballots become a actual VOTE - the number of SPOILED BALLOTS becomes SIGNIFICANT IN THE ELECTION.

In the 2009 Election there was barely over 50% of eligible voters that actually voted (50.99%). WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IF THE OTHER 49.11% SPOILED THEIR BALLOT?

WE ALWAYS HAVE OPTIONS!

Why have Elections?

This seems to be a silly question to ask - 'we have elections to elect are representatives in Government' - obviously. There is a lot more to elections than just this simple outcome.

As a SOCIETY we are so narrowly focused on WINNING, that we see nothing else. ELECTIONS is the time when the CITIZENSHIP participates in how we are GOVERNED. We have Elections every 4 to 5 years and it is the opportunity for the CITIZENSHIP to formulate our GOVERNMENT.

In a Election we find how the CITIZENSHIP sees its GOVERNING SYSTEM. If we look back at the last few BC Elections we find that the 1996 Election was the first time that the PERCENTAGE OF ELIGIBLE VOTERS that VOTED was BELOW THE 60% MARK, at 59.11%. In the 2001 Election, the Liberal party WIPED-OUT the NDP with ONLY 55.44% of ELIGIBLE VOTERS. It is surprising that their was such a lopped sided WIN for the Liberal party with such a marked reduction in the VOTER TURNOUT. In the 2005 Election (the election with the first STV referendum) it jumped a little to 58.19% of ELIGIBLE VOTERS. The STV referendum seems to have sparked some added interest from the VOTERS. In the 2009 Election it dropped to 50.99%, close to only HALF THE ELIGIBLE VOTERS ACTUALLY VOTED.

What does these statistics tell us? What this pattern of DECLINING VOTER TURNOUT tells us is that the CITIZENSHIP IN BC is becoming more and more DISCOURAGED with our GOVERNING SYSTEM, to the point of NOT VOTING. The way the ELECTIONS have unfolded and how the RESULTS have been reached in these ELECTIONS also tell us a lot about how the CITIZENSHIP sees our GOVERNING SYSTEM.

• In 1996 the NDP won 39 of the 75 seats in the Legislature and actually won the majority of seats with a minority of the Popular Vote - NDP 39.45% PV. The Liberals won 33 of the 75 seats with 41.82% PV. This goes a long way to discouraging the CITIZENS in VOTING at ALL and begins to explain why the next Election in 2001 had such a large drop in VOTER TURNOUT (55.44%). The fact that the Liberal Party received more VOTES than the NDP, however, the NDP still maintained a MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE, shows how our SYSTEM DOES NOT WORK.
• In 2001 the NDP won 2 of the 79 seats in the Legislature with 21.56% PV. The Liberals won 77 of the 79 seats with 57.62% PV. What made this Landslide victory for the Liberals so SURPRISING was the fact that only 55.44% of the Eligible Voters actually VOTED. Such a one-sided win would not be so surprising, if there was a large increase in VOTER TURNOUT for the Election.
• In 2005 the Liberals won 46 of the 79 seats with 45.80% PV and the NDP won 33 seats with 41.52% PV. The STV referendum won 57.69% PV and 77 of the 79 Districts. There was a slight increase in VOTER TURNOUT of 58.19% of ELIGIBLE VOTERS. The STV referendum needed to reach the 60% mark that is a super-majority to PASS. The Liberal party recognized the large majority of the STV referendum and promised a SECOND referendum, 4 years later in 2009. Putting the second referendum off for another 4 years was a total slap-in-the-face to the MAJORITY OF VOTERS. This total disregard for the WISHES OF THE MAJORITY again showed the MAJORITY OF THE CITIZENS THAT OUR SYSTEM DOES NOT WORK.
• In 2009 the Liberal Party put into affect a 'STV-gag law' that forbid any discussion concerning the STV referendum (February 2009) until after the election. The result was BARELY HALF OF THE ELIGIBLE VOTERS ACTUALLY VOTED - 50.99%.   The Majority of the CITIZENSHIP IN BC are totally fed-up with our CURRENT GOVERNING SYSTEM.
• In 2013 ?

The issue of WHO WINS is NOT as important as HOW ONE WINS. It is the PROCESS that is just as important as the RESULT; the current PROCESS supports the MINORITY RULING THE MAJORITY. EVERY CITIZEN SEES THIS, as is demonstrated with the steady decline in VOTER TURNOUT. The only ones who DO NOT, is the POWERS THAT BE - Politicians, Media, Political Parties, Unions, Big Business, etc.

Why Voters DO NOT VOTE

There are many reasons why many CITIZENS have become apathetic to ELECTIONS and exercising their RIGHT TO VOTE. I am sure that every VOTER has their own reasons why they choose NOT TO VOTE. I am not going to debate or discuss these personal issues. I do see that our SYSTEM has been corrupted in a manner that increases the frustration level to the average VOTER. The VOTER becomes so frustrated with the SYSTEM, that they become apathetic to the process. We can improve the SYSTEM!

We do have a DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM. In a DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM it is based on the principal that the MAJORITY OF THE CITIZENSHIP GOVERNS OUR SOCIETY. Our SYSTEM has been corrupted to the point where the MINORITY OF THE CITIZENSHIP GOVERNS OUR SOCIETY. THIS IS NOT DEMOCRACY! 

This CORRUPTION of our SYSTEM is not an easy thing to FIX. However, the FIRST STEP in fixing our SYSTEM is to bring back the POWER OF THE VOTE. The current VOTING SYSTEM is the 'FIRST-PAST-THE-POST' or FPTP for short. It is the Electoral System that creates the MINORITY TO GOVERN. With FPTP the MINORITY WILL ALWAYS WIN!

Any SYSTEM where a VOTE can be WASTED OR LOST is not a DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM. The term "Wasted Vote" is a oxymoron, and it is only in a CORRUPT SYSTEM that such a term would be understood or have any meaning.

We need a Electoral System where EVERY VOTE COUNTS! This is where we START to reclaim our DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM. It is to this end of REFORMING OUR ELECTORAL SYSTEM that this BLOG is dedicated to. Currently the STV system is the one, I am supporting, unless someone has something better.

I stated that this ELECTORAL REFORM is the FIRST STEP. The SECOND STEP is to make the MP or MLA more accountable to the CITIZENS THAT ELECT THEM. This is a separate issue and we can only take ONE STEP AT A TIME.

Why Vote?

VOTING is our ONLY way that we can have a say in how we want our COUNTRY to function. It is our RIGHT TO VOTE that protects our FREEDOM. When we lose our RIGHT TO VOTE we are no longer FREE, we are then GOVERNED BY A DICTATORIAL SYSTEM.

In our HISTORY the RIGHT TO VOTE has grown among the COUNTRY'S CITIZENS. At one point in our HISTORY the only CITIZENS that could VOTE, were LANDOWNERS. If you did not OWN LAND you did not have a VOTE. It has been less than 100 years since WOMEN received the RIGHT TO VOTE.

When we DO NOT VOTE we are actually saying that ONE DOES NOT WANT TO BE FREE. MANY would disagree with me with this statement, just because one does not Vote does not mean that one wants to be enslaved to the system. However, this ENSLAVEMENT is what actually occurs when one does not Vote.  When we DO NOT VOTE we are basically saying that 'we do not care' that we will follow whatever. The CITIZENS that DO VOTE will make the decisions, the CITIZENS that DO NOT Vote are compelled to follow the decision made, without a say. When we do Vote and even if our Vote does not WIN the election we have let our 'SAY' BE KNOWN - THAT WE DO CARE.

There is another reason why it is important that VOTERS actually VOTE. The results of ELECTIONS is not just a matter of who WINS, the overall ELECTION results tells the GOVERNMENT the overall desire of the CITIZENS in general. The Federal Election in 2011 the Conservative Party received 39% of the Popular Vote that means over 60% Popular Vote does not support the Conservative Party. Although the Conservative Party won a large Majority in the House of Commons, they do not have a Majority of CITIZENS, this can be a DANGEROUS state for the Conservatives to be in. When a Government has a Majority in the GOVERNING HOUSE, but a MINORITY of the VOTERS SUPPORT, creates a unpredictable CITIZENSHIP. It is with the CITIZENSHIP being unpredictable that creates an environment for movements like "Occupy" to be born.

Our society has become too focused on the issue of WINNING! As if WINNING is the only reason for BEING! This is carried into our ELECTIONS too. We often feel that if the person we VOTE for DOES NOT WIN, that our VOTE IS WASTED. Our SYSTEM reflects this BELIEF as well, as is demonstrated in the 2011 Federal Election. When we VOTE, even if our VOTE is not with the MAJORITY we have demonstrated that their is another VIEW POINT to the issue, that it is not UNANIMOUS, that I dispute this issue. When we DO NOT VOTE, we are saying that the issue is NOT DISPUTED, that it is unanimous.

Our Country is currently going through a time when the BALLOT BOX AND THE POWER OF THE VOTE has been greatly reduced, the POWERS THAT BE has stolen this POWER OF THE CITIZENS. 

 

We need to reclaim this POWER OF THE BALLOT BOX - OUR POWER!

Empowering the Voter

Whatever Electoral Reform process we go to, it needs to EMPOWER THE VOTER, and to reduce the POWER of the POLITICAL PARTIES AND POLITICIANS.

It is with our present system that we are experiencing a steady decline in VOTER TURNOUT - over the past 30 years we have gone from a high in 1983 of 77.66% to a low 55.14% in 2009. The question of our FPTP system of not being acceptable is not an opinion that is based in theory or by just a few individuals. Every VOTER is aware of this and more and more VOTERS are just not bothering to VOTE, they see the uselessness in the process.

There are a number of problems with the current FPTP system;

1. If the VOTER does not VOTE for the candidate that WINS, there VOTE is completely wasted, as if they did not VOTE. A candidate can WIN a seat with less than 40%* of the VOTERS voting for the candidate, as if the 60% that did not VOTE for the candidate does not even exist. The WINNER with a MINORITY of VOTES is treated as if the candidate received 100% of the VOTES. THE MINORITY IS REPRESENTING THE MAJORITY!
2. Due to how this system works the VOTER does not feel free to VOTE for who they wish to SUPPORT, they need to VOTE for the WINNER. So the VOTE goes to who the VOTER thinks will WIN, as opposed to who the VOTER wants to SUPPORT. 
3. If one cannot see themselves VOTING for who they think will WIN, they VOTE for who they think can STOP the probable WINNER. IT BECOMES A NEGATIVE VOTE.
4. It becomes a POLITICAL GAME with the POLITICAL PARTIES playing on the VOTERS. The VOTERS feel like PAWNS in a GAME.

* 2009 - Vernon/Monashee riding the Liberals won 37.27% PV -  Boundary/Similkameen riding the Liberals won 37.45% PV. With only 55.14% of registered voters voting.

The current system of FPTP may have been okay at some point in our history but it has out-lived its usefulness and is now deteriorating our voting system to a point that it is sabotaging our DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPALS.


We need to re-establish the VALUE and the POWER of the VOTE & BALLOT BOX. Reforming our VOTING SYSTEM is vital to keeping our DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPALS and our system of government. Without this change the relationship between the CITIZENS and their GOVERNMENT will continue to grow APART, this can be nothing short of disastrous.

When we are REFORMING our VOTING SYSTEM we need to put the POWER OF THE VOTE back in the hands of the VOTER. This can only be achieved by returning the requirement of the candidate running for office must receive a minimum of 50% +1 of the VOTES CAST. Anything short of this requirement is not acceptable, as anything short of 50% +1 diminish the power of the VOTING SYSTEM. When we diminish the power of the VOTE we empower the POLITICIAN and DIS-EMPOWER the VOTER.

This requirement of 50% +1 is what gives the POWER TO THE VOTER. It is our VOTING SYSTEM that is the only POWER our CITIZENS have in telling our GOVERNMENT how we wish to be GOVERNED. It is the POLITICIANS that need to convince the MAJORITY of VOTERS to support them. When we lower or remove this requirement of 50% +1 we are telling the POLITICIANS that they do not need to convince the MAJORITY of us, a MINORITY is fine.

I think it is ironic that if the issue to be VOTED ON, threatens the POLITICIAN'S POWER we need something called a 'SUPER-MAJORITY' to pass it. We seem to like to PICK & CHOOSE when a MINORITY is okay and when a MAJORITY is required. The CITIZENS do not pick this the POLITICIANS do. The 2005 referendum on the STV is a case in point, where the STV received 57% of the Popular Vote and did not pass. I support the requirement of the 'SUPER-MAJORITY' but I also support that every VOTE decision needs to have a 'MAJORITY' that is why we VOTE. You cannot PICK & CHOOSE these type of things.

It is this issue of requiring Candidates for office to receive 50% +1 of votes that is a challenge. The probability of a Candidate receiving 50% +1 on a first ballot is slim. It is not feasible to have a number of different ballots when electing governments, just too time consuming and having voters returning to cast another vote is not reasonable. We need a system where the VOTER can list a number of choices on a single ballot in order of preference. If a Candidate is dropped from the list, the VOTERS that voted for that Candidate can VOTE for their SECOND CHOICE.

This TRANSFER of VOTES does TWO THINGS;

1. It allows a process where one Candidate can reach the mark of 50% +1 on a single ballot.
2. It also means that the VOTER does not waste their VOTE. They can actually VOTE for who they SUPPORT knowing that if that Candidate has not a chance to WIN, their VOTE will transfer to one that may. It FREES the VOTER to VOTE for what they truly want, without FEAR of wasting their VOTE.

This is not rocket science and we are in the 21st Century, not the beginning of the 20th Century, we can do this. The 'Single Transferable Vote' voting system does both of these things. STV returns the requirement of 50% +1 before a Candidate is declared a WINNER, plus it permits the transfer of votes from a Candidate that is dropped to one that is still running.

STV EMPOWERS THE VOTER!

Polarized Politics & STV

As I have said earlier the history of BC politics is polarized into two camps - NDP & Non-NDP. How would STV affect this polarization?

This polarization has existed for along time. The Liberal Party has been in power for the last few elections. This has occurred because the provincial Conservatives and the Liberals have formed a alliance to keep the NDP from power. In the last year or so the Liberal Party has come under a lot of HEAT, with the HST issue being a major spark to their political problems. This alliance has been falling apart, and the provincial Conservatives are planning to run their own candidates in the 2013 election. With the FPTP system this could easily mean a NDP government in 2013. What would happen if we had the STV system in place?

With the current system (FPTP) it is the POLITICIANS that decide what ALLIANCES are created and when. A Conservative Candidate will decide to run as a Conservative or a Liberal. This can be very confusing to the VOTER, one does not really know if one is voting for a Liberal or a Conservative.

With the STV system it is the VOTER that will decide what ALLIANCE they wish to make. As a Party is dropped from the ballot, with the lease votes, the VOTERS for that Party will decide who they will Alley with. Each PARTY can stay true to their own PRINCIPALS, and not have to have internal struggles to satisfy some sort of ALLIANCE. This makes it much easier for the VOTER to know what PARTY they are voting for.

The 4 main PARTIES in BC are - NDP, Liberal, Conservative, Green, with other minor PARTIES and independents.  If the PARTY needs to reach the 50% +1 to WIN, it will probably still come down to one of two choices. IT IS THE VOTER THAT WILL DECIDE.

In a POLARIZED POLITICAL environment the STV system puts the POWER of forming ALLIANCES within the VOTER as opposed to the POLITICIAN.  THE VOTER WINS!

Political Parties & STV

Political Parties operating in a STV Electoral System can be seen as the confusing part to STV. To me this is not confusing at all and is one reason why I like the STV system.

Historically BC politics has been extremely polarized into two camps - NDP supporters vs Non-NDP supporters. This often goes to an extreme level where we will elect ANYONE as long as they are on our side of this political struggle. There is very little scrutiny of the individual themselves, just rather they support NDP or NOT.

The STV system forces us to be much more critical on the INDIVIDUAL as opposed to the PARTY. I can demonstrate this better if we look at some of the older ballots. Lets look at one riding in the 2009 election as an example.

Penticton  May 2009;

Bill Barisoff, Lib. 43.96%

Julius Robert Bloomfield, GP  15.66%

Chris Delaney, CP  8.90%

Wendy Dion, REFD  0.33%

Cameron Phillips, NDP 31.15%

This is the ballot that is public record that anyone can access at Elections BC. If we had the STV system in place in 2009 this would not have been the end result. The candidates dropped would have been both Chris and Wendy. The voters that voted for these two would have their "2" vote counted.

The voter may not have their original Political Party to vote for, and will have to make a choice of the remaining candidates. This is were the INDIVIDUAL candidate can tip the balance. Can Bill pursued the voters from Chris and Wendy to reach the 50% +1 mark? The voters for Chris and Wendy may not support the Liberal Party but Bill may have enough respect to grab enough votes to hit the mark.

If Bill does not reach the 50% +1 with the counting of Chris and Wendy voters, Julius would then be dropped and the voters of Julius "2" would be counted and spread between the remaining 2 candidates. Any votes Julius received from Chris and Wendy voters, their "3" would be counted. It is possible that the NDP could have won this seat, if the NDP had received these other votes.

Political Parties may not like this process as being dropped is not desirable. What does a Green Party supporter do when their party is dropped? One has to go deeper than just the PARTY and look at the INDIVIDUAL that is going to represent their interests. Today's system too many candidates simply ride the popularity of the PARTY they are running for. STV forces us to look deeper at our candidates.

Political Parties do not like this system as it reduces their POWER in the election and it becomes a little more balanced with the INDIVIDUAL having more to offer the PARTY. There is a little more balancing of POWER between the INDIVIDUAL and the PARTY!

The VOTERS win out! The voters for Chris and Wendy and possibly Julius still have a vote as to which of the 2 remaining candidates will actual WIN. Although the PARTY that these VOTERS originally supported may not win the seat, they still have a say as to which candidate will win! This is true DEMOCRACY!

Mixed-member proportion representation (MMP)

I do not have as much info on MMP that I would like. I am sure that MMP can be a viable options, however, I would need lots more info and discussion on this system. MMP was the other system that the Citizens' Assembly of Electoral Reform (BC) was considering but choose STV over MMP.

It is used widely in some form or another, the list I posted earlier is not as complete as I would like. It seems that the United Kingdom and Italy and even Venezuela use some form of MMP. In Canada there has been attempts to move to this system in 2004, 2005 and 2007, none of these were passed.

Some opponents to the STV criticize STV as being to complicated and confusing. This maybe true for MMP.

In Italy and in other places that have MMP there has been problems with what is called "Decoy Lists" that can be used to manipulate elections.

There really needs to be a lot more information on this option of ELECTORAL REFORM before it can really be considered.

The one part of MMP that does get my interest is that, MMP makes allowance for Geographic Constituency. With Canada being so large in land-size and relatively small in population it does isolate some of the citizens who live in the North. I know in British Columbia the large majority of citizens live in the LOWER-MAINLAND and this is where most of the seats are located. I know that the citizens who live in the INTERIOR and the NORTH often feel left-out on issues.

I know that generally in a DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM the focus is on REPRESENTATION by POPULATION. In Canada's case where the majority of the POPULATION is concentrated in a small southern part, and the rest of the country is less dense, it maybe a consideration to make some allowance for representing the less populated areas.

Single Transferable Vote - STV

This is the Electoral Reform that the Citizens' Assembly of Electoral Reform (BC) recommended to the Citizens of British Columbia in 2005 - BC-STV.

In most DEMOCRATIC ORGANIZATIONS there are elections for the different officers and leaders of the ORGANIZATION - Co-ops, Unions, Political Parties to name a few ORGANIZATIONS. The usual quota of votes one needs to be elected is 50% +1. In large ORGANIZATIONS reaching this 50% +1 mark is not often achieved in the 1st Ballot. This failure to achieve 50% +1 requires a 2nd Ballot where everyone votes again - the person with the least votes on the 1st Ballot is dropped from the 2nd Ballot. On the 2nd Ballot the voters that had voted for the candidate on the 1st Ballot with the least votes, votes again with their candidate taken from the ballot and now votes on the remain candidates. If no candidate achieves 50% +1 on the 2nd Ballot the process is repeated until one candidate reaches 50% +1 and is declared the WINNER.

I have participated in Union Elections where we have had to go to 3 Ballots or more to declare a WINNER. It is the normal process in the DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM. You cannot have a LEADER with less than a MAJORITY of supporters. IT IS NOT A COMPLICATED PROCESS.

PROBLEM;

The PROBLEM is how do we bring this time consuming process to the larger picture of ELECTING A GOVERNMENT. It is not very practical to have a number of BALLOTS to elect a government. IT IS SIMPLY NOT DO ABLE. I believe that it is this problem that made the FPTP so popular, drop the necessity of the 50% +1, and pick the one with the MOST VOTES end of story.

STV;

Single-Transferable-Vote resolves this PROBLEM. The first thing STV does is to re-establish the quota of 50% +1 in order to WIN a seat in government. Now how do we get to this 50% +1 in a single ballot?

With the FPTP the voter simply made an "X" beside their candidate and put it in the box. STV is different here in that, instead of marking a "X" beside your candidate you mark a "1", but you are not done yet. You look at the rest of the candidates and decide who you would support if your #1 candidate was not running and you mark that candidate with a "2" and repeat this for another candidate that you mark with a "3". You can mark all the candidates with a number indicating the priority of the candidates.

When all the "1" votes are counted and no candidate has received the 50% +1 the candidate with the least votes is dropped. The ballots that had "1" on the dropped candidate are recounted and their "2" is added to the balance of candidates. This process continues until one of the candidates had achieved 50% +1 of the votes cast.

This process does what the 3 or more Ballots does in other ORGANIZATIONS with only one ballot. It also means that each elected official will have the support of the MAJORITY OF VOTERS. If I was running for office I certainly would feel better knowing I had the Majority of my district supporting me.

Issue;

I can imagine some may ask about someone who only wants to mark "1" and support just one candidate. The obvious question is if just marking "1" would be considered a "Spoiled Ballot". I think this is a minor issue and one that can be worked out. Myself I would not consider it a "Spoiled Ballot" as such, I would count the "!" but if that candidate is knocked off and I go to his "2" and their is no "2" the ballot would just be thrown out. I would think it was a silly thing not to mark "2" but people do silly things. To mark his whole ballot as "Spoiled" is also silly, with the "1" mark we know his initial support and should honor that.

Electoral Reform

The Electoral Reform is not as revolutionary or daring as we often think of with such fundamental changes. In fact Canada is behind this movement of Electoral Reform when compared to other Democratic Countries in the world today.

FPTP is the ancient system that most progressive Democracies have moved away from decades ago. There are basically two other popular Voting Systems used in the Democratic World - STV and MMP. I will go into each of these two options in later posts. Here we will look at where in the WORLD these systems are used.

Single-Transferable-Vote (STV);

Republic of Ireland     -      Parliamentary elections (since 1921) - European elections - Local government

Malta      - Parliamentary elections - European elections  -  Local government

Northern Ireland    Regional assembly elections  - European elections - Local government

Scotland   -  Local government (since 2007)

India  -  Upper House of Parliament elections

Pakistan -  Senate elections

Australia  -  Senate elections - in various states use STV in a mixture of elections

New Zealand - some local government elections  - local health board elections

United States  -  city election in Cambridge, Massachusetts - certain city elections in Minneapolis, Minnesota starting in 2009

Iceland  -  first used in Constitutional Assembly elections in 2010

 One can easily see that STV is not revolutionary in its proposal. STV is just a method to EMPOWER the DEMOCRATIC PROCESS and in establishing the rightful respect to the VOTER. It is hard to believe that Pakistan is more DEMOCRATIC in its use of the VOTE than CANADA. 

Mixed-Member Proportional representation (MMP);

This form of Electoral System is used in Germany and New Zealand with Lesotho in 2002.

Not as extensive a list as the STV but it is still used and has even been recommended in other parts of CANADA, not passing as of yet.

Electoral Reform is what we need to make our System of Government more DEMOCRATIC. When the reform is done properly the Electoral System will EMPOWER THE VOTER. The current system of FPTP EMPOWERS THE POLITICIAN.

Status-Quo

The Election System that we currently have and have had for as long as I am aware of is known as 'First-Past-The-Post' or FPTP. It is an ancient system that could easily be argued that it is UNDEMOCRATIC.

It is a very simple system - the Candidate that receives the most votes WINS. It does not take into account the votes against a Candidate. It does not set a necessary target of votes a Candidate needs to win. A Candidate can win a seat with well below a majority of votes, in fact it is very rare where a Candidate will receive 50% of the votes in this system (unless there is just 2 Candidates running).

FPTP is an Electoral System that perpetuates a system where THE MINORITY GOVERNS THE MAJORITY - opposite of the DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES.

The system we have perpetuates this state of THE MINORITY RULING THE MAJORITY, I can demostrate this with the last two MAJORITY Federal Governments.

• 2000         Liberal        40.8%PV           57.1%HS          172 seats
• 2011         Conservative     39.6%PV       53.9%HS        166 seats

 The actual percentage of the House Seats does not really show how much of a MAJORITY this really is. To fully understand how overpowering these MAJORITY'S are we need to look at the figures of the OFFICIAL OPPOSITION.

• 2000      Reform        25.5%PV           21.9%HS         66 seats
• 2011      NDP            30.6%PV           33.4%HS       103 seats

  These Majority Governments of 2000 and 2011 have such overpowering MAJORITY in the HOUSE that the ruling PARTY can do basically anything they want and not care what the OPPOSITION might be concerned about.

The Prime Minister is able to act like a KING OR QUEEN and BULLY the HOUSE as such. The Prime Minister is often BULLYING his own party members. The PARTIES even have a position in the PARTY called the PARTY WHIP, whose job it is to keep the other PARTY MEMBERS IN THE HOUSE IN LINE WITH THE PRIME MINISTER - GOOD TITLE. There is no respect for the opposition parties or for Canadians at all, it is completely self-serving to the party in power.

This is a form of FEUDALISM and definitely not a form of DEMOCRACY. In this FEUDAL SYSTEM we elect our LORD OR KING every 4 or 5 years, the CANADIAN VOTERS are the PEASANTS and receives about as much respect as a KING gives one's PEASANTS.

This is all possible because of the FPTP ELECTORAL SYSTEM. If the Candidates needed to receive 50% of the Popular Vote in order to be elected there would not be this disparity between the % of Popular Vote and the % of House Seats.

Voter Turnout

In my last post I talked about the recent decline in VOTER TURNOUT. In the last 2 general Provincial Elections the VOTER TURNOUT has dropped more than 15 percentage points. Prior to the last 2 elections we had a VOTER TURNOUT that fluctuated from the mid-60s to the mid-70s with the highest being 77.66% in the 1983 election.

• 2001   70.95%
• 2005   62.36%
• 2009   55.14%

The big surprise was the drop in 2005 as there was a controversial issue of ELECTORAL REFORM on the ballot and this created a large jump in the VOTER REGISTRY and all signs pointed to a jump up in VOTER TURNOUT. To everyone's surprise there was the biggest single drop in VOTER TURNOUT in our Provinces history (-8%). This decline continued in the 2009 election with a further -7% in VOTER TURNOUT.

2013 Election promises to be a dramatic one as the public is feed-up with the Liberal Party. Normally with the amount of HEAT on the Liberals would indicate a increase in VOTER TURNOUT. The question to ask - what happens if there is another big DROP in VOTER TURNOUT? We could see the VOTER TURNOUT drop to below the 50% mark of voters, what happens then?

This is going to be one of the most interesting elections to watch, not because of the Liberals and NDP but what the VOTERS DO!

IT IS THE TIME OF THE VOTER!

The Real Surprise

The real surprise in the 2005 referendum was not simply the 57.69% that voted in favour of BC-STV or the 97.47% of the Electoral Districts that was also in favour of BC-STV. THE SURPRISE WAS WERE THIS STRONG SUPPORT FOR BC-STV CAME FROM!

With all the excitement of the Citizens' Assembly and the recommendation of the BC-STV Electoral Reform it was expected that there would be a large increase in the VOTER TURNOUT on Election Day. This was supported by the fact that their was a large spike in the VOTER REGISTRATION, so much so that it gave us the largest number of eligible voters that actually registered of 93.31%.

Since the 1983 election when we topped the VOTER TURNOUT at 77.66% we have steadily declined in VOTER TURNOUT to the low point of 70.95% in 2001. Everyone thought that it would be a struggle between the regular voters that always turn out to vote and the new voters that came out to vote in support of BC-STV. That this would be a election with a rather high VOTER TURNOUT.

Leading up to the 2005 referendum the VOTER TURNOUT had dropped a few percentage points in each election from 1983 to 2001;

• 1983      77.66%
• 1986      77.19%
• 1991      75.07%
• 1996      71.50%
• 2001      70.95%

These percentages are the percentage of voters from the Registered Voters List, the percentages are lower still when compared to the Eligible Voters List. As one can see there is a slow and steady decline in VOTER TURNOUT over 5 elections, small but steady, the biggest decline was in the 1996 when the decline was just over 3%. In 2005 there was a large increase in the REGISTERED VOTER and this was expected to carry out to produce a large increase in the VOTER TURNOUT. 

SHOCK that shook the POLITICAL WORLD;

The actual VOTER TURNOUT for the 2005 election was THE BIGGEST DROP IN THE HISTORY OF OUR PROVINCE - 62.36%. Prior to 2005 our lowest VOTER TURNOUT was 65.29% in 1945. How can this be - over 8 percentage points lower than in 2001?

This is what FRIGHTENED the POWERS THAT BE.

This low VOTER TURNOUT means that it was the OLD REGULAR VOTERS that supported BC-STV, the steady voters that vote at every election are the voters that want ELECTORAL REFORM. The so-called NEW VOTERS that had created a large spike in VOTER REGISTRATION did not even both to vote.

THE POWERS THAT BE were positive that the regular voters would vote against the BC-STV as they always vote anyway and seemed perfectly happy with the STATUS-QUO (FPTP). They believed the voters that would support BC-STV would be the voters that are not happy with the STATUS-QUO and do not always vote anyway.

With the realization that it is the vary foundation of our VOTERS that are truly wanting CHANGE is a very scary thing if one's POWER is in the STATUS-QUO. It was with this realization the Mr. Campbell changed the second referendum to the 2009 election. With the REGULAR VOTERS wanting change makes for some very UNSURE STATE for the POLITICIANS OF ALL STRIPS. It is this unsure state that also cause the BC-STV-gag law to materialize in February of 2009, three months before the 2009 election.

THE POWERS THAT BE took a united big breathe of relief when the 2009 results showed only 39% of the Popular Vote supported the BC-STV. They managed to sabotaged the ELECTORAL REFORM. However, 2009 did offer another surprise, another large drop in VOTER TURNOUT to a new record low of 55.14%, over 7 percentage points lower and the first time we have dropped below 60%.

What I mean by the 'POWERS THAT BE' is not just the Political Parties, Politicians, Political Scientist but also other movers & shakers - Unions, Businesses, and the Media as well. ALL of them have an interest in the Status-quo. The MEDIA did not make a story out of this issue of the PASSION FOR CHANGE COMING FROM THE FUNDAMENTAL VOTER.

Other kinds of FEAR

The BC-STV referendum also had another type of FEAR demonstrated. With the results of the 2005 BC-STV referendum we saw how FEARFUL the POWERS THAT BE were when the referendum failed to pass by the slimiest of margins.

I would not be surprised that Mr. Campbell and the other politicians were close to having heart-attacks as they watched the results of the referendum materialize. The referendum receiving 57.69% of the Popular Vote and a truly awesome 97.47% of the Electoral Districts in favour of the BC-STV. The referendum missing by just 2.31% to becoming LAW and our new Electoral System. THIS WAS JUST TOO CLOSE FOR THE POWERS THAT BE!

I know some will say that this FEAR by the Politicians is my opinion and a guess on my part, that there is no real way that I can know that the Politicians were really FEARFUL of BC-STV. It is my OPINION but I believe it is a educated opinion and one that I can substantiate. Since the 2005 BC-STV referendum we have also gone through the 2009 general election and within about 9 months of the 2013 general election, so we have some time to have observe the POLITICIANS since the 2005 referendum.

• Upon winning the 2005 general election Mr. Campbell commented on the success of the BC-STV referendum and how unfortunate it was in coming so close to the 60% mark of the Popular Vote. That it was clear at how the VOTERS were committed to BC-STV that it clearly needed a second referendum. Mr. Campbell set the second BC-STV referendum for the fall of 2008 along with the MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS. He promised that there would also be a fuller understanding of the complete BC-STV system before the second referendum. He also felt that the issue of ELECTORAL REFORM was of such high interest among the VOTERS that he was dedicating this term in office to this end.

 When we get through the usual flattery of the majority of British Columbians we have some tell-tale issues to look at.

1. With such a majority in favour of BC-STV Mr. Campbell had no real political choice but to promise a second referendum. The thing is he put it off for 3.5 YEARS until the second referendum. ALL POLITICIANS when forced to do something they would rather not will put it off as long as possible. This is in the hope that people will forget, or the passion for the issue will subside, or things will change. They will give all kinds of generalizations as to why such TIME is required! THERE IS NO REASON WHY THE SECOND REFERENDUM WAS NOT CONDUCTED WITHIN 12 TO 18 MONTHS - NOT YEARS!
2. The second little nugget is the promise of a fuller understanding of the BC-STV before the second referendum. This to me suggests that all the information about BC-STV was not provided in the 2005 referendum, WHY? It asks the question if the 2005 referendum was sabotaged by withholding information hoping that it would be to confusing for the general voter to pass?
3. The only thing that Mr. Campbell did concerning ELECTORAL REFORM during his 2005 term was to increase the number of ELECTORAL DISTRICTS from the 79 in 2005 to 85 in 2009. This type of minor adjustments is NOT ELECTORAL REFORM. However, one has to ask - was this an attempt to dilute the high percentage of DISTRICTS that passed the BC-STV in 2005?

There is more;

• In the fall of 2006 Mr. Campbell decided to move the second BC-STV referendum from the fall of 2008 to the general election in 2009. He waited a full year after the original referendum to postpone the second for another 6 months or so. WHY?

There are a couple of reasons for including the second referendum in the general elections;

1. It is much easier to LOOSE a issue among many other PROVINCIAL ISSUES. It can be buried and put on the back burner somewhere.
2. The expanded DISTRICTS (85 instead of 79) would not take affect until the 2009 election. If the second referendum was held in 2008 there would have only been the original 79 DISTRICTS. Putting the referendum off until the 2009 election meant the BC-STV would have to pass the majority of 85 DISTRICTS not 79.

There is more;

• In February 2009 'Elections BC' put into effect the 'BC-STV-gag Law'. No politician or political party was permitted to either promote or reject BC-STV publicly in ads or speeches or in any other manner until after the referendum.

This GAG-LAW on BC-STV three months before the referendum demonstrates just how FEARFUL the POWERS THAT BE were of the BC-STV actually passing the second referendum, even after 4 years. This GAG-LAW certainly went in the opposite direction of Mr. Campbell's promise of a fuller understanding of BC-STV before the second referendum, how can there be better understand if one is forbidden to speak about it?

There is more;

There was no OPPOSITION PARTY that tried to oppose Mr. Campbell's attempt to sabotage the second referendum. ALL the POLITICIANS AND POLITICAL PARTIES were on side with Mr. Campbell against the BC-STV. There was never any attempt by the OPPOSITION to promote any ELECTORAL REFORM - all the politicians had enough of ELECTORAL REFORM.

To be fair;

The Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform tried to have informational meetings in the 79 Districts to more fully explain the details concerning the BC-STV system. The problem was that they were badly organized and poorly advertised. I missed a few myself as the time was not convenient or I heard about it a day late, it was difficult to get to. I put some of this onto the media itself. The advertisements or notices of these meetings were definitely at a minimum and one had to actually hunt for them.

THESE ARE THE REASONS WHY I SAY THE POWERS THAT BE WAS VERY FEARFUL OF BC-STV.

Fear of Change

Changing our Electoral System is a change to a very fundamental part to our democratic system. It is a change that should not be taken lightly. Such changes can make some profound changes to our social structure.

BC-STV represents such a major change to our system. How we elect our Political Leaders is a major component of our social structure. The Democratic Right to VOTE is our only true power within our system, there is nothing more critical to our FREEDOM.

It is understandable to have some hesitation when making such fundamental changes to our social system. The old issue of - "Better the Devil I know, then then the one I don't.". The question of BC-STV being actually better than our current system (FPTP) is one that some found difficult to answer.

It is this issue of 'Fear of Change' that created the situation when we had a record high of registered voters and a record low of voters that actually voted. Everyone excited about having a better voting system, then a large number of individuals losing their courage at the last moment. They had enough courage not to vote against the change. It is both encouraging and disappointing!

In the 2005 referendum just over 58% of eligible voters voted and of these just over 57% actually voted in favour of BC-STV. This demonstrate the courage and commitment in making this fundamental change to our ELECTORAL SYSTEM. Roughly 42% that DID NOT VOTE, may have lost their courage for the change, but they had the courage not to vote "NO".

It is the 'Fear of Change' that caused the contradiction of a HIGH RATE OF REGISTERED VOTERS and a RECORD LOW IN VOTER TURNOUT. The ones that DID NOT VOTE, wanted BC-STV they just could not bring themselves to cast their vote, if they were not in favour of BC-STV they would have voted 'NO'. It took no courage to vote 'NO'.

2005 Voter Interest

What caused the voting Citizens of British Columbia to be so interested in the 2005 election that made over 93% of the eligible voters to actually register to vote?

The biggest issue of the day was the news of the Citizens' Assembly of Electoral Reform (BC) and the work they had been doing for the past year and the Assembly's recommendation of the BC-STV as our new ELECTORAL SYSTEM.

The Citizens' Assembly itself was a big hit with the general Citizenship. A real and functioning form of DEMOCRACY in action. Not POLITICIANS OR POLITICAL SCIENTIST, but actual CITIZENS making democracy work. This Assembly was truly inspiring for the average CITIZEN. 

There was the normal opposition to ELECTORAL REFORM but most of this was reduced to saying that it was a big sham, what do normal people know about democracy, to let the experts do it. When the BC-STV was recommended their biggest complaint was to say that the BC-STV was too complicated for the average voter. It boiled down to insulting the general CITIZENSHIP. I think the opposition did more to promote the Assembly and BC-STV than anything else.

This issue was the driving force for the CITIZENS of British Columbia to become inspired and become active in our 2005 general elections and the referendum of the BC-STV.

I know I became very excited about the possibilities that this election presented. I did not think that the referendum would actually pass. I thought we might be able to reach the 60% mark of the Popular Vote that was needed, but I did not think we would manage to get the majority of Electoral Districts to pass it. I believed the province is too politically polarized. That because this whole ELECTORAL REFORM was Mr. Campbell's inspiration the NDP would be completely opposed and the Districts the NDP hold would vote against.

The actual outcome of the referendum was surprising for a number of reason that I will discuss here in another post.

2005 Election

The 2005 Election consisted of some very interesting statistics, that become more interesting when looked at through a historic view. - My statistics come from Elections BC.

Each of the Elections dating from 1983 to 2009 has shown a steady decline in the voter turnout. In 1983 the voter turnout was at 77.66% and has steadily declined in each following election to the last election in 2009 that reached a record low of 55.14%, over 20% points lower than in 1983.These are percentages of the registered voters, not eligible voters.  If we look at the stats of the eligible voters the turnout is much lower, in 1983 the turnout percentage of eligible voters was 70.50% and in 2009 eligible voter turnout was 50.99%.

If one is unsure why we have two voter lists, the eligible voters includes everyone in the province that is eligible to vote at elections, the registered voters is the list of voters who have registered to vote from the eligible voter list. I admit it is somewhat redundant having two lists. If we have a list of eligible voters, why is this list not considered the registered list. I suspect the eligible list is more of a estimate of eligible voters and to have another list of registered voters is a way of confirming the list of voters. A eligible voter can register to vote at the voting booth on election day.

In 1983 there was a large percentage of eligible voters that actually bothered to register on the registered voter list - 90.78% actually registered. The following elections this percentage of registered voters declined in each of the following elections, until 2005 when there was a surprising jump to 93.31% of eligible voters actually registered. I do not have this stat for the 2009 election. In 2001 this percentage had dropped to 77.14% then in 2005 we have this big jump in registered voters.

With such a large spike in registered voters in 2005 one would think there would be a big spike in voter turnout. This is not the case and exactly the opposite occurred. In the 2001 election the percentage of registered voters that actually voted was 70.95%, in the 2005 election this declined to 62.36%  a full 8% points lower than the previous election.

The 2005 election had enough of our voting Citizens interested in registering to vote, but this did not follow through to the VOTING BOOTH. One has to ask, if there was enough interest for Citizens to register to vote and then why not vote? With such a large spike in registered voters over the 2001 election, I would expect a large spike in voter turnout or at least to stay fairly level with the 2001 turnout, not a 8% point decline from the 2001 election.

This did create another interesting stat in the 2005 election. With such a high percentage of registered voters and with such a low turnout created over 1,000,000 voters on the registered voter list that DID NOT CAST A BALLOT. This number of voters who choose not to vote is double the normal, usually there is between 300,000 to 400,000 voters that do not vote with the odd spike higher. If only 4% of these voters had voted in favour of BC-STV we would now have a NEW ELECTORAL SYSTEM.

These stats bring two questions to mind - what caused the original interest of the CITIZENS to register to vote? and why so many CITIZENS decide NOT TO VOTE? I will explore these two in my next two posts.

Citizen's Assembly on Electoral Reform - BC

It started after the 2001 Provincial Election that Gordon Campbell appointed Gordon Gidson to form a Citizen Assembly to look at Electoral Reform for British Columbia.

You can check out the history, selection process and proceedings at Wikipedia.

The Citizen's Assembly is one of the most DEMOCRATIC BODIES that exists. Where average citizens take a major role in developing recommendations to the citizens at large. 160 average citizens took a year to study and discuss available options to our ELECTORAL SYSTEM. This group had 2 members from each of the 79 Electoral Districts, consisting of an equal number of male and female and a variety of ages with 2 aboriginal representatives. It was a good representation of the CITIZENSHIP of BC. The Assembly spent a year studying different Electoral System that is in use and recommended the STV - Single Transferable Vote.

With a large Majority of the CITIZENS voting in support of the Assembly's recommendation in 2005, but short of a super-majority the POWERS THAT BE, unceremoniously dumped it off to 2009. This to me is criminal and should not be allowed to happen.

How can we complain of the average person not voting or participating in our government or our system in general when we act in this way. It is not just the individual's who participated in the Citizen's Assembly and did the work. How do you think it is seen by the general public. Is it surprising that the 2009 voter turnout was the lowest ever in our history - 55.14%.

The Liberal Party, NDP or any other political party wanted nothing to do with ELECTORAL REFORM in any MEANINGFUL shape. If there was any true interest in ELECTORAL REFORM there would have been more of a push from someone. Even if the BC-STV was not exactly what was wanted some other form would have been promoted over the last 8 years. Instead ELECTORAL REFORM is nowhere to be heard and is almost a BAD WORD.

I have more trust in the Citizen's Assembly in this regard than anything a POLITICAL PARTY may want to promote. A POLITICAL PARTY has too much self-interest in maintaining its own POWER STRUCTURE than in DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS.

BC-STV

I do not want this blog to become too focused on BC-STV as I am open to other options as well. However, the BC-STV was what the voters were offered and a fair size MAJORITY voted for it.

There are many lessons we can learn from both the 2005 and the 2009 referendums on BC-STV.

I support the necessity of such a fundamental change in our democratic system requires a SUPER-MAJORITY in order to be implemented. Making fundamental changes in our system means that they are changes that WE ALL HAVE TO LIVE WITH. We need to have a LARGE MAJORITY on the same page, or it will not work.

With the need for a SUPER-MAJORITY, does not mean that we toss aside the MAJORITY if we come up short of the 60% mark. It means that we refine the BC-STV until we reach or surpass the 60% mark. What happened after the 2005 referendum was totally unacceptable and totally disgraceful, and that goes for ALL THE POLITICAL PARTIES.

I will get to expound more on how the aftermath of the 2005 referendum was discouraging later in this blog, but there is one thing I will point out here. In February of 2009 just over three months before the 2009 election and the second BC-STV referendum - Elections BC put into effect a BC-STV-gag law that forbid any politician or political party from either supporting or opposing the BC-STV until after the referendum.

With such a major fundamental change to our system and we stop open discussion and debate is outrageous in the extreme. We need to ENCOURAGE such discussion, not GAGGING it! This is one of a number of reasons why the vote for the BC-STV was only 39% in the 2009 referendum, with it killed the democratic principals of the 2005 majority.

I find it ironic that it is this same low minority of 39% that the Federal Conservative received in the 2011 Federal Election but received over 53% of the seats in the House and formed a MAJORITY GOVERNMENT WITH JUST 39% OF THE POPULAR VOTE.

We are in a desperate need for Electoral Reform, if we see this need or not. The statistics tells us, even if we want to deny it.

In the last Provincial Election in 2009 the percentage of votes cast was only 55.14% of registered voters and only 50.99% of eligible voters. This is the lowest turnout in our history. Over the last 3 decades the voter turnout at Provincial Elections have steadily declined from a high in 1983 of 77.66%. At what point in the voter turnout do we have to reach before we wake-up and see that our system is dying a slow and agonizing death?

The current System is the First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) that is ancient and completely UNDEMOCRATIC, it is begging to be changed.

It is interesting to look at history of our Provincial Elections. In 1983 the percentage of eligible voters that actually registered to vote was 90.78% and was the highest percentage until the 2005 election when it jumped from a low 77.14% in 2001 to 93.31 % in 2005. The 4 elections between 1983 and 2005 the percentage of eligible voters that bothered to registered dropped further each election until 2005. What happened in 2005 to regain the interest of the voters?

 It was the issue of ELECTORAL REFORM and the presentation of BC-STV that sparked the interests of the VOTERS.

The 2005 referendum on the BC-STV received 57.69% of the popular vote and 97.47% of the 79 Electoral Districts that actually passed the BC-STV system. It only need to reach the SUPER MAJORITY figure of 60% to actually pass and become our new ELECTORAL SYSTEM. It missed by 2.31%.

BY FAR THE ISSUE OF ELECTORAL REFORM IS THE ISSUE OF INTEREST AMONG THE MAJORITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIANS.