I awoke this morning to read yet another article about the perceived complexity of the BC-STV. In Terry O’Neill’s article in The Tri-City News he stated that he “can’t fathom the complicated vote-counting mechanism it employs.”
Throughout the campaign we’ve heard political pundits and former politicians like Bill Tieleman and David Schreck state outright that they were not capable of understanding it.
I’m a born and bred Aussie and most people in BC that I know are pretty smart. Why do so many people fear something my brother could explain to someone his age when he was 12? He’s a smart kid, but certainly no genius.
Back home, our elementary schools often use STV for their student council elections. The ballots are cast and counted by kids younger than 12. Is the NO-STV campaign insulting the intelligence of British Columbians?
Furthermore, why is something that is complex bad? Say the BC-STV was not complex and it used the old Irish system of randomly selecting the surplus ballots to transfer the value, would it not be accused of leaving things up to chance?
In not one single place where STV is used has it been retracted due to people not understanding it.
People around the world are looking to BC to see if they can do what no one else has done: institute an electoral system chosen and designed by ordinary people. I would rather something that is intricately designed to be fair than something that is made simple and unfair. Wouldn’t you?
Remember, the BC-STV needs 60% of the provincial vote to pass. This supermajority requirement can only be linked to the direct intention of failure on behalf of the legislature.
Change is difficult for politicians. Change comes from those on ground.
For more information, read my thesis – Closing the Gap in Deliberative Democracy:? The Importance of Communication in the?Post-Deliberative Process