However often falsehoods are repeated that doesnt make them true, tho it may succeed in indoctrinating the uninformed thru superficial mass media.

So, let’s put the record right.
The STV count is *complicated* in that it is completed, unlike FPTP. But complicated tho the STV returning officer’s job is, it is not nearly so complicated as the Boundary Commissioner’s job of continuosly redrawing single member constituency boundaries that gerrymander themselves, even without the help of politicians.
I know which job I would rather have to do.

FPTP continuously rubs out local boundaries and stable community identity. And all to artificially restrict elections into monopolistic locations for place-men.

BC-STV constituencies were about as big as federal single member conbstituencies. Not too big then. The No-campaign’s minimalist mentality is the same as those who claimed that democracy was not possible outside a city-state the size of ancient Athens.

As to the claim STV is obscure, in the sense of not widely used, even in political elections, STV has some use in many English-speaking countries all over the world.
What is more, it has a widespread use in non-political elections.
In Britain, many professional bodies use STV. It is the system of choice for mathematicians, statisticians and computer scientists, for the medical profession, teachers and students, and many others.

These bodies are not *true believers*, as Bill would characterise people like myself but eminently qualified to judge for themselves his claim that STV is *such a flawed electoral system.*

The No to STV campaign is a self-fulfilling prophecy that democracy is too hard.

You have clearly outlined the big challenges STV supporters had to convince voters such a flawed electoral system was worth trying.

Notwithstanding the true believers postings here, the reality is that the more voters heard about STV the less they liked it.

If there’s any conspiracy theory to be explored, it’s why the Citizens Assembly recommended probably the most complicated and obscure system on the planet.

But you did miss one important point – the BC government did insist on one iron-clad rule – the CA was not allowed to recommend an increase in the size of the BC Legislature.

As a result, MMP was a non-starter, as the pool required in addition to the single member ridings for MLAs would have meant huge ridings. MMP was DOA thanks to that restriction.

Given the Ontario rejection of MMP, it may not have made a difference but many of our NO STV members support MMP.

As to whether electoral reform is dead, I think the jury is still out.

Voting method is still a primitive science because there is too much of a vested interest in the stupidity of FPTP when there are more than two
candidates.

BC-STV is “complicated” means “completed” where FPTP is incomplete.
Saying BC-STV’s constituencies are too big is saying that Federal single member constituencies are too big. It’s the same mentality that believed democracy impossible outside the ancient Greek city state.
And so on.

If I may say so, an essential objective of proper electoral reform is to understand the basic principles of voting method that cannot be denied, however hard opponents try to ignore them.

The simplest voting system gives one choice (a single order of choice) for one of two candidates decided by a single majority of over half the voters.
This is FPTP but it fails when there are more than two candidates, because this requires a vote that gives more than one choice of one candidate over another. Instead, many candidates require the voter to give a multiple order of choice (not just a single order of choice given by the X-vote).

This is the Alternative Vote, or Instant run-off voting, but electoral reform cannot stop with reform of the vote. The same logic applies to the count, where one majority of over half the votes generalises to two majorities of over one third the votes each in a two member constituency. That is a PR of two-thirds the voters. Three member constituencies likewise give a PR of three quarters the voters, and so on.

The point is that logical voting method generalises FPTP from a one-preference X-vote for a one-majority count to a many-preference, number order vote to a many-majority count. This generalised system of greater choice in the vote and greater equality in the count is STV, sometime called “the super vote” in Joe Rogalay’s book Parliament for the People.

It’s quite right that the Yes to BC-STV should go over their failed logistics and tactics, the battle for people’s minds, which the No-campaign won, at least among the less informed.
I hope to remind you about the basic right and wrong way of conducting elections, based on irrefutable logic of choice, which is what must be carried, or allowed to recommend itself, to the popular mind.

On that basis, the public then can decide for themselves whether they want to keep the simplistic FPTP, which doesnt properly do the job for multiple choices. If the public want another system for multiple choices, they should at least be made aware that there is one basicly right way and innumerable wrong ways.
Of course, the final choice is up to the people, no matter how perverse it may seem to students of voting method, like myself.

I will agree with Dan Grice that the STV campaign suffered “death by committee.” People who support voting reform tend to be consensual when working with others. This works in situations where you need your own supporters onside. When you need to get support from outside the movement, you need a strong charismatic leader. This didn’t happen.

I don’t think it will take a generation to get voting reform on the agenda again. I do think different approaches will be needed. Wayne Smith mentioned getting the people of Vancouver and Victoria to use some kind of reformed voting system. I will agree with him. We need to get private organizations that have elections to use better voting systems that suit their needs. Mountain Equipment Co-op could be a good start. Many young people supported STV. We need to concentrate on building new support in this age range. I don’t know if we should start a political party that can syphon a few votes away from an existing pro-FPTP party just so we can tick them off. Heck, I’d go after NDP supporters because NDP sympathizers Tieleman and Schreck led the NO STV campaign. A new party would not need to try to win seats, just make another party lose seats. Finally, as I look at Tamil-Canadians protesting on the streets of Toronto and Ottawa, I realize that sometimes the voting reform movement will only get attention if they become more outwardly defiant and activist. Back in 1989, I don’t think the former East Germans had a referendum which required 60% approval to start bringing down the Iron Curtain including the Berlin Wall. They protested in the streets.

BC-STV is good for independents and small parties. There is no extra expense for campaigning. There are the same number of MLAs and tne same number of constituents per MLA.

The difference is that every vote counts.

Under BC-STV, you need 20,000 votes to get elected. It doesn’t matter where they are. In a large riding, you can probably get elected with 10-15% of the votes. But a candidate doesn’t have to campaign over the whole riding. If you can get all your votes in one city, you can get elected. BC-STV gives excellent local representation.

It is very clear where your vote goes. It goes where you decide. Your vote counts for your first preference until that candidate is either elected or eliminated. Then the unused portion counts for your next preference. That keeps happening until your vote has counted fully.

With several MLAs in each riding, almost everyone will be represented by somebody they helped to elect.

The problem is that people did not have enough information to understand how the system would work in practice. An extra 5 million dollars for the education campaign would have been very helpful.

But I think people are going to have to see it in action before it catches on. Getting the first victory is the hard part.

Vancouver or Victoria city elections would be a good place to start.