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.