Site Administrator Of:

Supporter Of:


Trying to move the goalposts

Well, here’s a topic we haven’t discussed in a while: electoral reform. Look for more of it though, as the referendum approaches in BC asking if voters wish to change theircurrent First-Past-The-Post voting system to Single Transferable Vote, or STV for short.

I noticed this morning that my Liberal colleague David Eaves was questioning among other things whether this upcoming referendum was too soon after the last one (I don`t think it`s an issue, because I believe in the US, propositions that get defeated on the ballot can get resurrected every 4 years , as far as I understand), and the other question he asked was whether a 60.1% YES result would “taint” the victory (A 60% YES minimum is required to pass the measure.. so I presume David wouldn’t be happy with a 60.01% result either).

As I said over there, I have not seen David write too many columns over there at his blog or in the Toronto Star questioning the legitimacy of a majority government in Canada that received only 40% of the First-Past-The Post ballot, so I find it a tad amusing that 60.1% is seen by David as being ‘tainted’, if that’s the result that ends up happening.

As far as I’m concerned, a 60% or better vote, regardless of the decimal place, is a solid mandate for changing the electoral system.


2 comments to Trying to move the goalposts

  • 50% + the proposal being constitutional is enough for me. That said, I would vote against STV as it would increase, rather than decrease, the prevalence of “strategic” voting (rather then voting according to one’s actual preference). This, combined with hyper-partisanship, could lead to a situation in which fringe parties end up winning because they are strategically picked as a second choice by partisans of all stripes.

  • 60%, 50% works for me.

unique visitors since the change to this site domain on Nov 12, 2008.