My personal prediction – if we pass this thing, then by the time we make it to the 3-election review we’ll like it so much that the review will be a non-event. It’s fear of change that is holding us back the most, but once we try it the fear will quickly fade.

A few things:

The Electoral Boundaries Commission put White Rock in a 4-seater.

There are no 8-seaters in BC-STV, and currently only one 7-seater is being proposed, and it is in the Victoria area.

Gordon Hogg would need to secure about 20,000 total votes from the 4 former first-past-the-post ridings put together, and not just the former riding. He can do this not just through voters that rank him #1, but also with the help of #2 and #3 rankings from voters that preferred somebody else and don’t win seats. (Most of the time that losing candidate will one of two other Liberals, and the transfer mechanism ensures that Liberal voters keep their full voting strength regardless of which one they happen to rank #1.)

If he’s popular enough with the voters Gordon Hogg will have no problem. In any event, I can pretty much guarantee that you will have minimum 1 Liberal MLA and one NDP MLA. The other 2 they will have to fight over, giving your district “swing riding” status. (OK nearly every district will have that status, but it does mean that neither of the big parties will be able to take the voters of any region for granted.)

The 53% poll you refer to was an online poll by Angus Reid. Their ‘traditional’ poll showed 65%, and I’ve seen another online poll come in at over 90% (not saying that I believe that one). I think this thing will be very close. One thing we do know is that more knowledge of STV and the CA invariably lead to higher levels of support. Voters really like the idea of more accountable MLAs and less negative campaigning.

Even if it doesn’t reach 60%, the support level will be very important. Another 55%+ result leaves us in the same mess as before, with a clear majority wanting to change the system, and being held up by an arbitrarily high threshold that has no popular legitimacy. (Which just happens to suit those who prosper with the current system.)

Sacha: The Citizens Assembly considered keeping rural 1-seaters but too many people at public hearings in Northern areas said they preferred to have more votes count. While I agree that 2-seaters are probably less than optimal, I don’t see any problem with the other even numbers. The presence of any strong 3rd party or independent will serve to ensure that the candidates have to be competitive, and the parties won’t be able to take their seat counts totally for granted.

Also if the boundaries in the “extreme rural” seats were such that they were one member constituencies vs. the urban constituencies that had multi-members, that would have been perfect.

Unfortunately for the EBC, all I can say is they screwed up the STV boundaries, I would agree.

It doesn’t matter because as I said earlier, it looks like the referendum is going to win less support than it did in 2005. A recent poll has only 53% voting in favor: not nearly enough for it to pass. I think that many people are more inclined to vote against something that was already defeated, even if it originally had popular support. It’s beating a dead horse.