Everyone vote on May 17^th. 

People die for this privilege. 

You can just show up at a voting station on that day, register there and then vote.

Here’s an email that I received with my response below it:

Dear Believers,

I know that most of us don't like or care much about politics. We prefer to bury our head in the sand. The problem is that because the majority of Christians has operated in this manner, we have allowed the social environment to collapse outside the four walls of the Church (which is a selfish sin, esp since we're called to be the salt and light). Because we are not using our voice, other voices are speaking, and they have and will take even more of our religious freedom and the general quality of life in Canada away.    

On May 17, 2005 British Columbians will be asked to vote twice. Once in the provincial general election. Secondly, on a referendum on electoral reform. It is the second issue that causes me great concern and prompted me to write. BC voters will be asked to decide whether or not to keep our current electoral system or to change to a new system called the Single Transferable Vote or STV.  

Under the current voting system (called First Past The Post), your vote goes to one candidate and is counted clearly. Regardless of your choice, your vote is not wasted. Under the new proposed system, STV allows you to vote for more than one person, in order of preference. Its supporters claim that by ranking your choice of candidates, the odds are one of your choices will win a seat. But that's a little like saying if you bet on every horse in a horserace, one of your picks will be a winner.  

Here is a list of the reasons why you should vote NO to STV:   

- With STV, you end up with partial votes determining the outcome because of the complicated formula. It also allows a few to manipulate the outcome of the majority in favour of biased minorities / special interests (Marijuana Party, Sex Party, etc).  

- Local political accountability and responsibility to voters will be seriously reduced because it embraces a pluralistic outcome – large multi-member constituencies (up to 7 in some ridings) that will be very hard for any MLA to properly represent.  

- STV will be complicated and confusing to voters. Parties may take advantage of this confusion to manipulate the voting results.  

- STV is prone to errors and delay in counting votes.  

- STV is used in just two countries nationally: Ireland and Malta, representing about one tenth of 1% of the world population. There is documentation that their experiences have NOT been effective and positive.  

I am only highlighting a few key concerns of STV. Please visit www.knowstv.ca for more information. Please also visit www.elections.bc.ca for general information regarding the May 17th Referendum. If you don't agree with this email, you should still vote whichever way that you feel convicted. We must not be negligent in our social duties. 

I suppose this is the time to come out and say that I am pro BC-STV. 

To be honest, I toyed with the idea of hitting reply-all on an email and sending this response out.  However, I strongly believe that button should be used with a thriftiness to further alienate yourself from people you don’t even know and whom you just SPAM-ed.  It's bad netiquette. 

If the person from whom that email originated from reads this, you have my permission to pass this along.  Additionally, they have my support for spreading the word and getting people to vote.  It’s a responsibility that we foolishly neglect. 

Okay.  Here goes.

On May 17^th, I am going to vote YES for BC-STV. 

As I understand it, my vote chooses between the First-Past-The-Post (FPP) method (where the candidate with the most votes in the riding wins the seat) or the Single Transferable Vote (STV) method.  Comparing the two, I believe that the Single Transferable Vote is the better of the two.  It is not necessarily the best electoral method out there but it is the better of the two.     

The STV system is complicated, granted.  I find it hard to agree with the Citizen’s Assembly slogan of “as easy as 1-2-3”.  Although pretty much everything is going to be more complicated than making a simple tally of votes beside a candidate’s name (which is how FPP operates), awarding seats to those that achieve the number of valid votes cast divided by the number of seats plus one, plus one vote, is confusing to say the least. 

However, to say that your vote is wasted is false as with saying that your vote is spread thin.  Rather than only voting for one seat, voters elect up to seven different seats.

Yes, riding sizes increase (and yes, these riding are yet to be determined however they will be determined by a non-partisan, public-input dependent organization that organized the ridings that are present for the upcoming election) and representation must be shared amongst more people.  However consider this: Members of the same party must not only compete for votes against other parties, they must also compete against those that belong to their party as well.  Therefore, candidates then campaign for the specific needs of their voters rather than for the greater party platforms.  With FPP, there is only one choice for the voter if they support the party’s platforms.  With STV, there are more choices as well as the appeal of the particular representation one candidate could present over another.  To me, this is better representation, not weaker representation. 

With regards to independents and smaller parties, larger ridings are an undeniable challenge financially and logistically.  However unlike the bigger parties, they aren’t aiming for government.  They are not aiming for the majority of the seats but for one seat.     

(I would also like to express my confusion regarding the NO argument of this email that STV favours biased minorities/special interests.  After reading multiple arguments from both sides, all literature that I can find from the (k)NO(w)STV side argues that STV doesn’t favour independents, etc.  Additionally, special interest groups, aside from the Marijuana Party, also include religious groups whose election, I assume, would be of particular appeal to the audience of the email.  Furthermore, in serving the needs of the majority, we seem to consistently alienate the same minority of which, again, Christians seem to be part of and, more importantly, Christians are called to protect.)

Alright.  I am going to stop there.  Using the email was not a comment on its writer as much as it was a good outline to follow to highlight important issues regarding the STV referendum.  Although I have sought as much information as I can to decide my vote, my arguments, I am more than sure, are riddled with error. 

Not voting is foolish.  Voting and being misinformed is – and I am going out on a limb here – even more foolish.  Don’t vote YES because you don’t want to waste the taxpayer’s money that went into the creation of the Citizen’s Assembly or because if 160 somewhat non-partisan residents of BC decided upon something it must be good.  www.knowstv.ca/links.html has many good links to check out.  Make sure, as well, that you check out the homepage of that site.  Know both sides.