I have told everyone in Nechako Lakes that I could talk to, that as a candidate to represent the best interests of my community, I would be remiss if I suggested for one second that STV would be good for this area or even BC. I told them whether I am elected or not, that BC STV will not only effectively triple the cost of keeping MLA representation in the communities we have them in now, but for all of that expense, there isn’t one shred of a guarantee that there will be any more conrol of politicians than there is now.

When asked “Do you understand it?” and they all said “No.”, then I said would you sign a mortgage document without KNOWING what you were signing? They always replied “NO!” Then I said to them, “Then keep FPTP.”

It was not until I saw what my riding would look like that I changed my mind. It had nothing to do with the pro or anti side.

In fact, I thought the pro side had a really nice professional website. The anti website was amateur and boring in comparison.

It was my own research that convinced me to change my mind; not any arguments from the pro or anti sides.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but you have one glaring flaw in your argument.

The more people know about STV, the less likely they will support it.

http://www2.canada.com/nanaimodailynews/news/story.html?id=1577960

“The rise in awareness seems to have lowered the chances of BC-STV being implemented in the next provincial election”

As usual, the progressives and social justice people have mainly stayed home washing their hair or what ever they do. And I agree with the writer who suggested that the pro-STV people had a poorly conceived campaign. As usual, the “lets keep everything the same because it suits us” crowd are out in force, well organized and willing to pound their drums.

Progressives and Social Justice people will have to get out of their heads, into their running shoes and start to participate physically before changes ever happen.

Your mathematical analysis is out of date. Indeed, the electorate is being asked to vote a second time on the same question. Consequently, if we take the previous result as our starting point (consider the difference
in the sample size of the Angus Reid poll as compared to the last B.C. general election) and assume that there will be only a small percentage who change their minds, we begin with a 57/43 split in favour of STV. Moreover, as the individual’s understanding of STV increases so does the probability of selecting the STV option. Therefore, for that portion of the electorate that voted in the previous referendum, we can anticipate a small increase for STV at the expense of FPTP, in the neighbourhood of 1% to 2%.

Where the referendum will be decided is in any changes to the participation rate. A ten percent increase in the participation rate could be very favourable to the STV cause, but it depends on how it breaks down. In the best case scenario, we see a significant increase in the participation rate of the 18 to 35 year old age group, a significant increase in the number of Greens who show up at the polls, a sigificant number of disenchanted voters who, in the past, have cast ineffective votes, but decide to vote this time because of the referendum question, and a significant number of pissed off Liberals who decide to sit this one out. The unknown is the manner in which NDP supporters who sat out the last election and referendum will vote on the referendum question.

In order to carry the day, this additional 10% of the electorate needs to
opt for STV at about 65%. Certainly, this is a tall order, but within reasonable probabilities.

Prediction: STV 60.2% FPTP 39.8%

An MMP or other form of PR that would be less subject to abuse as compared to STV will certainly pass. Question is why are the PR advocates pushing something as convoluted and subject to abuse as STV?

I believe they are driven by an unwarranted idealism and a wrong headed model of society, and that scares the heck out of me.