Editor,
To Joan McIntyre:
Just a few questions I would like to ask. Would you support legislation to make it a criminal offence for any politician to state or comment that I or we will not do this or that and then upon being elected turn around and do it?
Example: when Mr. Campbell was on the campaign trail he stated over and over he would not touch health care and education; three days after being sworn in, what happened? That type of politics should be legislated to be a criminal offence and punishable with jail time.
Second item, why is it that a politician will always take credit for someone else's actions and then heap the praise upon themselves to look good and tell another lie - "Hey, look what I did"?
Have legislation to enable public referenda on many items, eg. building bridges, hospitals, changing laws etc. - in other words give more say back to the people because we pay you to work for us we do not pay you to rip us off.
If you can do this then you will get my vote, and if you decide to answer, speak in plain English, none of the political double talk that all politicians are so well versed in.
Larry Law
Brackendale
Election signs don't belong in parks
Editor,
Here in beautiful British Columbia we take pride in the beauty in what we have around us, the mountains, lakes, waterfalls and forests just to name a few.
With the provincial election now in full swing, we all know B.C.'s future is at stake, but what's happening around us? We all know that each party (the Liberals, the NDP and the Green Party) want us to know who the candidates are, but at what cost?
While driving into our fair town we see signs about the election around everywhere, but to see them in and around provincial parks is appalling! Shame to the NDP and Liberals with a sign at the entrance to Shannon Falls Park and to the Green Party with a sign in the Chief parking lot!
Come on people, what's wrong with this picture? People from around the world come to our paradise to see beautiful B.C., not some party's sign.
Why not think twice before erecting signs in or around provincial parks. What's next, a 500-foot banner hanging from atop the Chief?
D. Martinuk
Squamish
Making every vote count:
Is STV fair?
Editor,Mr. Campbell would like you to believe that the present electoral system is not fair and out of date. He has appointed Dr. Blaney (former president of SFU) to hire a small group of political consultants who specialize in the designing of STV (Single Transferable Voting) systems.
There is no diversity in the political beliefs of these consultants and no other form of democratic electoral system was considered. This is like having the fox design the chicken coop.
The Final Report of the Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform, which most of us received in the mail, is full of hype and confusion.
I have yet to meet someone who has actually read through it and possesses a clear understanding of STV electoral systems.
When I downloaded the 280-page 'Technical Report" from www.citizenassembly.com, I was disturbed by the blatant truths of STV. This report is vague on which votes are used in the initial count and which votes are held back as transferable.
This allows the government of the day the ability to continually juggle the votes until favourable results are obtained.
I was further shocked when the report indicated that the official election results would require a longer period of time to tabulate than our existing system does. Scary!
The one thing that is apparent as you read through the report is that the system is designed to give a clear advantage to the political parties with the most candidates/financial resources. Once STV is implemented, the government responsible rarely changes.
If we are deliberately deceived into implementing an electoral system that ensures the continued presence of the existing government, the very existence of democracy is replaced with one hell of a scary concept - fascism.
The report also made reference to a second volume. This document contains objections from members of the assembly and others who attended the meetings.
The document is not available on the Citizen Assembly's website. You are directed to the Ministry of Management Services website. Good luck finding it!
I gather the government doesn't want us to see this document until the election is over. These disturbing truths, among others, were buried amongst pages of gibberish. The government is hoping you base your decision on the recent flyer rather than the facts.
I believe our existing electoral system needs to be tweaked to better represent the demographic changes that have taken place in B.C. over the past 40 years. Perhaps having our federal government appoint an independent committee to oversee these changes would ensure some integrity throughout the process.
Vote no to this massive deception. We must preserve our ability to remove from power any government that misrepresents the taxpayers of this great province.
Doug Elliott
Squamish
STV means better local representation
Editor,
Those opposed to STV first say they fail to understand it. But then proceed to tell us exactly what STV will mean. How silly!
In particular we're told enlarging rural ridings weakens local representation and dense population centres will dominate, leaving rural areas without representation.
If the Citizens Assembly's proposal is to only enlarge ridings, the claims would be true. What is overlooked is that in addition to larger ridings the way votes are cast and counted also changes. That makes all the difference.
In contrast to the current system, under STV nearly all votes count. No pocket of votes anywhere in the province will be without representation. The relatively few voters in Atlin, or Lumby, or Logan Lake will be needed by some candidate to win. Nearly every voter in the province will be able to point to some MLA in Victoria they helped elect.
If you are the MLA that was brought over the top with votes from Atlin is it likely you'll neglect the voters from Atlin?
Secondly, under STV all votes have the same value. The current voting system gives the largest party a "winner's bonus". As a result parties concentrate and focus on the large population centres such as the Lower Mainland because that is where the winner's bonus is biggest.
The same holds federally. As we know only too well, federal elections are won or lost in central Canada. In the past four federal elections the Liberals took nearly all Ontario seats on less than 50 per cent of the vote. Remove the winner's bonus and the Liberals would have 50 fewer seats in Ontario.
Suddenly western votes would matter, elections could not be decided in central Canada, and we in the West would start to count.
Provincially, the current system gives a winner's bonus to whichever party leads in the Lower Mainland, thus diminishing the value of Interior and Northern votes. How fair is that?
For example, in the May 17 election the Liberals could lose every seat north of Kamloops (there are 10) and not even notice it.
Why? Because in the last election the Liberals got a winner's bonus of 14 seats in the Lower Mainland alone. STV will stop that, thus making Interior and Northern votes of equal value to those in the Lower Mainland. Under STV the Liberals could not afford to lose all seats north of Kamloops.
Similarly, within each of the larger STV ridings densely populated areas will not be able to capture more seats than their population warrants. Under STV surplus votes are taken from candidates to be used by other candidates. No area, region, or party will have an undue advantage. STV is excruciatingly fair.
Will STV end Lower Mainland domination? No, its large population base cannot be altered. STV will not end, but significantly diminish its dominance. STV is good news for all British Columbians, but particularly for those from the Interior and North.
Next time someone tells you they don't know how STV works, yet tells you what is about to happen, pay no attention. Trust the Citizens Assembly. After a year of study they produced a system for all British Columbians. On May 17 vote Yes!
Nick Loenen
Director, Fair Voting BC
