Campaign BC 2009 Retrospective

You have nothing to be bitter about. You ran an excellent campaign and the people who actually showed up at the polls (less than 50% of the provincial population) voted what they believed in. The will of the people was served.

Remember, friend, 1,966 people believed you were the best choice to represent them. That means that you did something right...that is almost 2,000 votes that Thornthwaite or Norton didn't get. Now you need to believe that you can do better than that, prepare to do just that, and make it happen.

Chin up, my friend...the best is yet to come, and you've only just begun. The preparation for the next election begins right now.

You said you have gotten better at your public speaking, now work harder to become even better than that.This isn't the last that politics will see of you, not by a longshot.

I believe in you. Always have, always will. Keep the faith.

That was a low blow my friend - you and I both know two very important things about my opinion:
1) Once a system is chosen it is unlikely it will be changed again any time soon, so it's best to get it right the first time. STV proponents often sounded like religious zealouts - either this is the way or you will rot in hell and let's grasp what is offered with religious fervor, rather than thinking about what would be right for the country.

2) My opinion carries little or no weight. Why? Well first, I live in Ontario, second I don't have a way to project my opinion into BC, and lastly all of the people I talked to were firmly for STV so really I was yelling at a wall.

Oh, and thanks for acknowledging that my opinion was not uninformed.

By the way, how is this the third attempt? I only remember one other attempt during the last election. And I don't think it's over. Other provinces are still considering things, and these sort of changes take time. People need to feel comfortable with the change, and this is only the first round of consciousness changing.

Anyway, congrats on your first venture into politics. It is a crazy game and I've had my fill over the years, working through a few campaigns as manager or in other positions. It is an exhilarating thrill ride, and now you can finally relax.

My suggestion for you - city politics, especially City of Toronto :) Honestly, your personal politics fits better in municipal affairs (especially without parties) at the start. Plus, you'll likely get elected!

Dan, people are entitled to their opinions and lashing out at someone you supposedly consider a friend because their opinion is different than yours (and they chose to express it) is really uncool.

That said, it sounds like you actually did really well for a first-time runner of a "minor" party and I'm proud of you for running and standing up for what you believe in. Good job and keep trying!

Stephen knows that I mean him no disrespect. My issue is with people who, like Stephen (since he's been a presence here on my blog over the last few weeks) choose to take the position that something as important as electoral reform must be perfect before we attemt anything. That line of thinking is tantamount to advocating for zero progress because perfection is a concept and not a reality.

Standards evolve, legislation improves over time and electoral reform.... well that's going to be exactly as it has been since the birth of the country because of this argument that change, unless its a perfect leap to some abstract ideal is bad.

STV wasn't perfect, but there is no way that it could've been worse than the current system we're enduring. The Citizens Assembly who recommended it even suggested that we hold another referrendum to keep it after three terms, that's how you advance the cause of something: one step forward, consider, proceed. Instead, we've collectively decided that moving at all wasn't worth the effort.

Really? Did you notice he said your words were "a low blow" before he continued on to give you encouraging words? It actually made me cringe to read that part of your entry.

I understand that you disagree with his position .. or anyone else who holds his position, but it's important to realize that everyone who holds a strong opinion on something believes that they are right. By getting angry with someone for expressing this opinion and saying "thanks for screwing this up" you are basically saying "agree with me or shut the hell up because you're ruining my agenda", which is not going to help anyone reach an understanding on anything. The best you can do is continue to express your own opinion and address any argument that someone with a differing opinion brings up, not slam them for daring to express their views. How can any doubts be assuaged if no one addresses them in the first place?

Lara, I think I understand what you mean. I guess I lumped Stephen in with the rest of the fearmongering that was circulating the province leading up to the referrendum. You should have seen the tv spots and the full page adds: nothing but FUD with the aim of discrediting the "yes" vote.

It's important to note though that I think that you're missing the point on where my objection lies. I don't have issues with people expressing their opinions, far from it. My problem is with the claim that you if you can't be perfect, it's not even worth attempting to do better. Pundits and columnists around the province took this position (in one form or another) and in so doing, gave people the completely false impression that there were other options available to us: there wasn't, and there won't be now for a very long time.

Daniel; Your Great Grandfather my Aunt SQs Dad taught me and he was my mentor. "We agree to disagree" sometimes that is the best way to move on after hitting a log jam of differing opinions. You did remarkably well and I too am proud of you.You stood up and articulated your vision extemely well.This is just the beginning...take care.

Since I've become a topic of discussion I should chime in.

Dan I do realize what you mean and that I simply became an example, and that you were not trying to be disrespectful or hurtful, but that post did smart, more than you may realize and I did have some what a visceral reaction to it when I read it. Healthy political debate and discussion is enjoyable and exciting, but personal attacks, even perceived ones, is where the line is crossed. If you had used an argument like that in my classroom I would have stopped the class, addressed the comment, likely embarrassed you somewhat, and possibly sent you out for a cooling off. It poisons the environment of good debate.

It underlies a lot of what I think turned people off of STV this time around - the evangelical nature of its supporters. As I've said before, all forms of voting are democratic and have their place. Your preference is really a matter of what you feel are your priorities, or what you feel are important to you in an election system. One is not definitively better than another, they are each subjectively better or worse. And yes STV was the only option here, but that does not make it a good one. In my opinions the trade-offs between STV and FPTP are just not worth it, and selecting something like STV would wreck the opportunity to pick something better, perhaps MMP or perhaps something entirely else.

To argue that this is a false argument is resorting to the worst type of discussion - let's simply ignore an opinion because I don't agree with it. This and the complexity argument, and the riding argument, and the vote value argument, and the minority government argument, are all credible arguments, are not FUD and are deserving of discussion and thought. STV proponents hurt themselves when they were not willing to address these concerns, and instead answered with things like 'STV is better than FPTP, is just simply is' or one I got today 'you don't have to understand email to use it'. Really? Comparing a technical tool like email to democracy?

I'm sorry Stephen, I honestly didn't think that you'd take what I said personally. You and I trade barbs on this kind of thing all the time and I didn't see this as being any different. If you feel otherwise however, I apologise.

You still don't seem to get it though. The argument that there are better options "out there" is not a false one, but arguments like yours imply that there would be an opportunity in BC's forseeable future to select something else. This is just not true. Our one chance at different (seeing as how we can't even agree that STV is at least better than FPTP) is gone for a generation -- due in large part to public, and persuasive support in favour of an option that simply did not exist. That's not expressing of an opinion, it's misleading people to believe something that just isn't true.

I think there was just something nasty about today's comments, and I think in print is a little different than in person. But anyway, it's really not that big a deal.

Now, I do totally understand your argument, I just don't agree with it. Several provinces (I think three now) have voted on some form of PR and I don't see any reason it won't happen again. The people who pushed for STV will now push for another vote and eventually things will happen. The truth is that the people aren't ready for this yet. The proponents need to open up to other options, forget the 'citizen's assembly' idea which is terribly undemocratic, and learn to educate on this issue. Most people are simply not interested in this or don't see a problem. If you want this to happen, then there needs to be a LOT more high quality education done around it.

I did understand your objection to the opinion, I simply felt that accusing him and others who share his views of ruining it for everyone by "muddying the debate" (muddying it by expressing a different opinion? Wouldn't be much of a debate then, would it?), was unfair and frankly rather undemocratic. If you have what you feel are valid objections to the opinion, you share them, and you do your best to educate people otherwise.

That said, it's hard to go around the entire province "undoing" the damage done by an ad campaign you disagree with, so I can understand your anger there completely. Politics are frustrating as all hell. I am currently having to place Conservative ads again at work and it kills me every time.

Speaking of Conservatives, Dan won over the Conservatives in his riding who had only 865 votes.

1) you keep saying we absolutely definitely will not have another chance at electoral reform within our generation, but I'm confused about what makes you so sure. I was as disappointed as you were to see STV fail, but what makes you so certain we won't try again, perhaps with another system, in a few years? Is there a limit on how many times we are allowed to broach reform within a decade? This is just an opinion, isn't it? Because it feels like a rather defeatist opinion.

2) I add myself to the list of people who felt that you were being harsh towards Stephen. At this point I'm only mentioning it to draw attention to the fact that if this many people are misunderstanding what you're saying, it's less a matter of people "missing the point" and more a matter of you failing to express your opinion clearly. This is a really important lesson for you to learn before your next run at politics.

3) I can't believe Gary Hee got 865 votes. Clearly none of those voters were at the debates.

4) re: Lara's creeped-outness by the way you type the word "right": I think it's because when you capitalize the first letter it implies that there is One Right Way to be and that all other notions of what's right are lesser or just wrong. At least that's how I read it.

5) I'm a banana!