I belong to the now disgruntled minority who supported the single transferable vote (STV).
I think it's too bad this paper allowed itself to use the power of the editorial page against the STV in the last issue before the election so that we STV supporters had no opportunity for rebuttal. Editor Ian Jacques, in a post-election editorial, wonders why voter turnout was so pathetic.
Perhaps it's because Green Party supporters have given up. The Green Party consistently polls at more than eight per cent of the popular vote, which might seem to imply that it should get six of the more than 80 seats in the provincial legislature. Actual support is probably much higher, but Green Party supporters end up voting tactically since they know there is no way that voting Green would result in a seat for the Greens.
Many countries have forms of proportional representation exactly in order to ensure this, on the face of it, fairer representation of the voters' wishes. Your editorial highlighted the need for local representation as a reason for opposing STV. STV was an attempt at a compromise that included both local representation and proportional representation.
Some STV supporters will fight on while others will join the crowd who stay at home on voting day through frustration that the first-past-the-post system gives them no voice, while your editor will continue to be puzzled over why they stay at home. Knowing that the Green Party will never get to the 40 per cent in a riding required to win a seat with our current system, there's just not much point in showing up.
John Klippenstein
Roberts Creek
