Trashing STV

In a column entitled "Single Transferable Nonsense", Norm Spector lets us know how he really feels about BC's referendum on moving to a Single Transferable Vote.

His chief complaints are:

1) That the system is in place in only one other country, Malta. He claims that "Malta's politics have historically been infamously polarized".

2) That some fringe groups in BC are jumping on the STV bandwagon. (Big surprise.) Including (gasp!) anti-abortion groups. He calls Nick Loenen one of the "prime movers in pushing STV".

That's it. Those are his criticisms.

The fact that no one else is using it is not in and of itself a problem. There's a first time for everyhing. Moreover, he says "STV advocates contend that only one country uses the system because it transfers power from politicians and parties to the people. I smell other interests at play." Do you now?

Look, for the first time in history, anywhere, a group of completely non-partison people, randomly chosen from every riding, were pulled together to investigate new systems of government. By all accounts, they did their job willingly, thoroughly and with passion. Free from political and other influences (academic, unions etc.) they came up with this system. The vote was nearly unanimous. What other interests exactly are at play?

There is no possibility that a group of randomly chosen citizens in famously left-wing BC were somehow coopted by mysterious anti-abortion forces and told what system to recommend. Fringe groups may be jumping on the bandwagon now, but they are not "prime movers".

Furthermore, I know that these citizens studied as many forms of voting as they could, and diligently picked the system they thought was the best fit for BC. We have a choice. We, as voters, could reject the proposals of the Citizens Assembly (that's what a referendum is all about). Or we could take a chance on fixing our first-past-the-post system, which everyone seems to agree is flawed.

I for one trust my fellow citizens more than curmudgenly columnists.