This is why we need electoral reform: (Reasons #63 and #79 of about #1000)

Elections in this province are always grossly distorted. These were the two most obvious cases. No other political system has results that are this distorted.

I just saw my first advertisement on TV from Bill Tieleman, David Schreck and the opponents of electoral reform.

At first, when they published it online a few days ago, I assumed it was some sort of joke. I still kind of think it must be some sort of "interim bluff" with their real advertisements coming a few days from now as the quality on this is low even by Schreck and Tieleman's usual crud.

Take a look for yourself:

Now, obviously, the plurality hacks and I differ greatly on which values matter in democracy. They believe in a strong central government and I believe that government should be cooperative and represent as many people as possible.

In the electoral reform movement, we have an old joke that turkeys never vote for an early thanksgiving.

This basically means that no politicians would ever want to give voters additional tools to hold them accountable and that political parties would prefer to maintain a system where one or two parties dominate the system and where real competition fails to exist.

From a simplistic point of view this may be true. Political parties are very reluctant to pursue electoral reform because it will fundamentally change the rules of the game and will reduce the influence of the strong political machines that have taken decades to build. The two main parties are afraid that it will open the door to competition from the left and right of center and that they will wake up one morning without a support base and reduced in influence.

* This process was supported unanimously by the three largest political parties in BC. The BC Liberals, NDP, and Green Party.*

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30, 2003

CITIZENS ASSEMBLY ON ELECTORAL REFORM

Hon. G. Campbell: I move Motion 99 standing in the name of the Attorney General on the order paper.

[Be it resolved that this House supports the creation of a Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform as expressed in the terms of reference and duties of the chair tabled in the House on Monday, April 28, 2003.]

I am pleased to stand today in support of this motion. It is a long time. In fact, this has never happened before, where a legislative body has said to the people who elect them that they want the advice of the public on how we should elect our elected representatives in the province of British Columbia. Indeed, if you go back to 1858, this is the first time in 145 years we are actually giving the people of British Columbia a direct say in how they should elect the MLAs that are meant to serve them. After all, in a democracy, we should remember we are here at the service and the pleasure of the people of this province.

What would happen if the Academy Awards only nominated one genre of movies for the best picture or films from one studio.

Would it lose some of its audience? Would advertisers be less willing to sponsor it? Would fans of a variety of films be disappointed?

Those are all fair questions to ask, but luckily we don't have to ask them because the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences early on decided to use a Single Transferable Vote to narrow down the nominees for the oscars in order to ensure each genre and each studio gets a fair share of Oscar nomination. It has been doing this every year since 1936.