Citizens' Choose Preferred Alternative Electoral Model

It doesn't sound too good to me. If the assembly passes it they will impliment whatever it is in 2009. Hell, why so soon, why not wait until 2050? What is the hurry?

We need to throw all these crooks out before they finish us off! What I read sounds like more Campbell crap.

I guess Campbell is confident Canada will be part of the U.S. in 2009.

Except of course the US won't exist (as we know it) by 2009..........

---
RickW

I think what people need to realize is that Gordon Campbell and the Liberals had nothing to do with this decision. It was purely up to the Assembley which consisted of the public. It was merely the Liberals who set the Assembley into motion.

Is this a good decision? It's hard to tell. This is a complex system of voting IMO and I don't know if the public will go for it. I prefer straight pro. rep. but I guess the assembley saw otherwise.

It will make vote-counting, observing impossible. Also, I'm not convinced that the so-called ASSembly was SO randomly selected.

I was none too impressed to see their meeting taking place in the Price Waterhouse building, like some privatized corporate lobby. Very fishy. This is a Campbell toady corporation.

I detest Gordon Campbell, but I think the Assembley was truly randomly selected. In fact I was on the list but I was not selected in the secondary lottery. If one had read the backgrounder on each person selected I would hardly call them Campbell toadies.

As well, since when is the Wosk Centre for dialogue in the Price Waterhouse building?

The problem with STV is while it is close to proportionate on the one hand it is even less democratic than First Pass the Post on the other. You must rank your candidates in order of preference. Since Im not a British Columbian (Im Ontarian), I'll give you an Ontarian example of why this is a flawd system, but it relates just as much to every other province as it does to mine.

Let's say that Im a Tory and it's 2007 and I want to vote to get rid of Dalton McGuinty, but I live in a very New Democratic area (let's saw Oshawa). I vote for my Progressive Conservative candidate, but I also have to rank "my other preferences" on the ballot. So since I despise the McGuinty government for their track record of lies, irresponsible cutbacks and incompetence, I rank the NDP's candidate second. Even though I agree just as less with the NDP's agenda as I do with the Liberal agenda, and I remember Bob Rae's political legacy.

Anyway, unlike other part's of the province (rural and suburban), this area has very little conservative support, and at the end of the ballot the Tory candidate finishes third and is therefor taken off. So then my vote goes towards the NDP, even though I did not want to vote for the NDP and I do NOT want an NDP government. Is that more democratic, I sure as hell don't think so! Now that's just from an Ontario PC perspective, the same would be true in many areas for Liberal and NDP voters, and let's say in you're province for Liberal, NDP, Social Credit or Unity voters.

It might be more proportional in the end result, but our votes don't necassarily go to the party we intended it to, I don't think that is right. Now for provincial elections I think every province has to make the decision of what system to use on their own, but nationally (and I think here in Ontario) the only way to go is to emulate New Zealand's Mixed Member proportional system (a part of the federal NDP's agenda that I agree with). In that system we can retain local representation which Canada thrives on and is an essential aspect of direct democracy and the results are close to proportional. In a "pure" PR system representation would be dead.

Also we can assure our Aboriginal community a certain number of seats, like New Zealand has with the Moari community.

---
Vive le Canada

I thought that my comments would be an interesting debating point, no comments????

---
Vive le Canada