May 12th Provincial Election

I am shocked we have no thread on this at all. Is there really that little interest in the provincial election?

I did a quick analysis of how well the candidates locally are doing with using facebook for their campaigns.

I don't think this is going to be as interesting for locals as the federal and municipal elections (or heck, even the US election). Most of the Victoria-area MLAs are in safe seats and there won't be any change of government so it's a bit of a yawner. The STV referendum adds a bit of spice but even that's a rerun with a predictable outcome (I'm still voting "yes" on it).

The NDP are in danger of becoming the Socreds of the 21st century if they don't re-energize the party.

Its early days yet. Sort of like baseball season, doesn't get interesting until after 100 games or so.
Right now I think they are still jockeying for position and floating more than a few trial balloons.
We need to wait until about the last 3 weeks to see tactics, strategies and positions firm up.

BTW, has anyone noticed that the BC Libs campaign colours on the lawn signs have moved away from red-dominant to blue-dominant with only a small band of muted-red?
More like fed Conservative Party colours than Libs. Subtle message here?
I was out at Langford Superstore today and noticed that they pretty much duplicate the blue/red Wal-Mart colours.

On behalf of Our Place, I am organizing an all-candidates meeting for the Victoria Beacon-Hill riding on the theme of homelessness. Details will be provided as they get firmed up.

BTW, has anyone noticed that the BC Libs campaign colours on the lawn signs have moved away from red-dominant to blue-dominant with only a small band of muted-red?
More like fed Conservative Party colours than Libs. Subtle message here?
I was out at Langford Superstore today and noticed that they pretty much duplicate the blue/red Wal-Mart colours.

They have been that way for numerous elections, I believe 1991 was the first year they used blue as the central colour.

On behalf of Our Place, I am organizing an all-candidates meeting for the Victoria Beacon-Hill riding on the theme of homelessness. Details will be provided as they get firmed up.

Any danger of your MLA attending?

I heard David Shreck (the NDP pundit) saying that the Conservative party was a real threat to the Liberals yada yada yada.
I guess they will try anything in order to try to split the vote, personally, I think it just made him loose any credibility he might have had.

They have been that way for numerous elections, I believe 1991 was the first year they used blue as the central colour.

I guess this was the first year I really noticed it.

Right on Barra, let me know if you need any help with that.

For the BC elections - I'm more interested in the referendum than the election itself. I'm voting yes. Actually... more like... YES

My first BC election vote in Victoria was in someone's basement behind a shower curtain.
I suppose this election will be called shortly after the polls close.

I heard David Shreck (the NDP pundit) saying that the Conservative party was a real threat to the Liberals yada yada yada.
I guess they will try anything in order to try to split the vote, personally, I think it just made him loose any credibility he might have had.

Shreck is head of an anti-STV campaign. I never agree with him normally, but I agree with him on this, STV is stupid.

http://www.nostv.org/

Personally I think its stupid that we have just two main parties. The current system is moronic in that the number of seats won, doesn't reflect the number of voters.

We vote to get rid of people and not to vote people in.

Now whether or not STV is the correct choice is hard to say. Perhaps looking at the models used in Germany and New Zealand.

Something has to be done, especially when voter turnout keeps on dropping, just look at voter turnout in the Federal election.

Now whether or not STV is the correct choice is hard to say. Perhaps looking at the models used in Germany and New Zealand.
.

We spent a lot of money and a group of ordinary folks put in a lot of time looking at all the other models and determined STV was the best for us.

Not having done the research or spent the time these folks did, I am prepared to accept their recommendation. It probably wouldn't be a bad thing to have a trial for a couple of elections using STV then voting again on it. A negative vote at that time would see us revert back to first past the post.

Why are the NDP so dead set against it - do they see themselves being moved to "rump" status?

Now whether or not STV is the correct choice is hard to say. Perhaps looking at the models used in Germany and New Zealand.

Something has to be done, especially when voter turnout keeps on dropping, just look at voter turnout in the Federal election.

The system used in Germany and New Zealand is a very complex electoral system and delivers election results that reward small highly ideological political parties. It is a very bad system to use for governance as it makes it hard to form a strong government and the system creates two classes of representatives. The system also encourages an increase in strategic voting.

Voter turn out falling is a factor of negative campaigning. The goal with any negative campaign is to convince your opponents supporters to stay home and not vote.

Shreck is head of an anti-STV campaign. I never agree with him normally, but I agree with him on this, STV is stupid.

http://www.nostv.org/

Why do you think it is stupid? Are you concerned that there will no longer be single party majority governments? Are you worried about the loss of safe seats?

Just curious why you think it is stupid.

I think it is the most elegant and sophisticated electoral system out there. No other electoral system translates public will into a positive mandate for representation than it does.

The system used in Germany and New Zealand is a very complex electoral system and delivers election results that reward small highly ideological political parties. It is a very bad system to use for governance as it makes it hard to form a strong government and the system creates two classes of representatives. The system also encourages an increase in strategic voting.
Voter turn out falling is a factor of negative campaigning. The goal with any negative campaign is to convince your opponents supporters to stay home and not vote.

Israel is a prime example of tails wagging the dog and making it very hard to achieve anything.

Israel is a prime example of tails wagging the dog and making it very hard to achieve anything.

Israel uses a straight party vote system, you elect no local candidates at all.

The nature of STV works against strongly dogmatic and ideological political parties. The underlying political paradigm of STV rewards politicians that work cooperatively and positively. It is this underlying paradigm shift that interests me the most when it comes to STV. Though I really like the idea of having a voting system where there will be no strategic voting going on.

^ Why do you say there will be no strategic voting? That sounds like wishful thinking to me. At best everyone votes the party slate and we get exactly what we have today, at worst the vote gets split even more heavily and strong candidates for secondary parties get burried with the rest of their party unless the secondary parties tell voters who to rank the highest, which is a worse form of strategic voting. I expect that is why the NDP is so vehemently against it - they would have trouble getting seats, at least in the federal elections.

Israel uses a straight party vote system, you elect no local candidates at all.

The nature of STV works against strongly dogmatic and ideological political parties. The underlying political paradigm of STV rewards politicians that work cooperatively and positively. It is this underlying paradigm shift that interests me the most when it comes to STV. Though I really like the idea of having a voting system where there will be no strategic voting going on.

Belgium would be a better example. It's not the same model of STV but comes close. One of the reasons we left Belgium after 12 years was the rise of extreme parties who gained seats nationally and locally, (Vlaams Blok took Antwerp council) through what was deemed a 'fair' proportional representation system.

While Vlaams Blok has been deemed by the Belgium and European courts to be 'illegal' as its policies went against the EU Charter of Human Rights, they simply changed their name to Vlaams Belang, and ended up winning enough of Flanders regional (read provincial) seats in 2008 to put the entire country in crisis. The same is true of especially right wing parties in France, The Netherlands, Italy, Slovenia...

Intellectually I agree with the concept of proportional representation; it allows for minority views to gain a seat at the policy table. It also provides a route for extremism: religious, political, reactionary, to hijack the system out of a need for coalition government.

Israel uses a straight party vote system, you elect no local candidates at all.

The nature of STV works against strongly dogmatic and ideological political parties. The underlying political paradigm of STV rewards politicians that work cooperatively and positively. It is this underlying paradigm shift that interests me the most when it comes to STV. Though I really like the idea of having a voting system where there will be no strategic voting going on.

Yes. I was referring to small single-issue parties who have influence out of proportion to the actual number of votes they get.