Talk:BC-STV/Archive 1

Archive 1

Notes on STV gag law

{{help me}} Dear Wiki Gods, [Thanks Mufka and Chzz, Canada is in your debt.]

Thank you for considering the STV referendum gag law fact, for the STV~BC Wikipedia page. Unfortunately, British Columbia has a newspaper monopoly, this is prime example of how democracy suffers. Not sure how this happened, makes it that much more important then to post on Wikipedia. Thank you Wikipedia for being there. Two issues: it is a real fact; and is not original research.

Case for posting fact on Wikipedia: (1)The STV referendum gag law starting date of Feb,1/09 has made the newspaper. At first, the Gag law had it that even candidates could not combine STV and election advertising. Article concerns an aspect of the STV gag law and how candidates not able to combine STV/election advertising, mentions Feb 1 starting date. Note, candidates allowed to combine the two issues now, but the rest of us still can not. canada.com; in newspapers select Times Colonist; search STV; article --Greens call for change to STV referendum rules, Dec8/08, mentions time limit [Search for the STV referendum gag law in these newspapers, not there. Sad statement about BC.

(2)STV regulations published in the Gazette. The BC Regulations Act S. 5 mandates that enactments must be published in the Gazette. It is argued that once a regulation is gazetted, no longer original research. Just has to be. it's the law period! Looks like Government of British Columbia Publications internet access is paid/restricted access. [1]

(3)STV Gag law available on the BC elections web page. Gag law part of the Electoral Reform Referendum 2009 Act Regulations. Time limit in regulation definitions; and ban is Section 29a&b. www.Elections.BC.ca; look in resource center, then goto legislation section.http://www.elections.bc.ca/index.php/resource-centre/legislation/

(4)Verbal confirmation. Phone BC elections directly 1 800 661 8683. BC election officials will confirm the referendum gag law is real, and what it means. This is a different Act then the BC election gag law that was struck down by the BC Supreme Court. Please phone, it's free. Pacific time.

Wiki STV~BC fact sought. Titled: “STV referendum gag law. The laws governing STV advertising have changed from the last 2005 referendum, now no longer included as election advertisng; STV now banned from election advertising. The BC Electoral Reform Referendum 2009 Act Regulation Section.29.4 (STV gag law) Referendum advertising must not, directly or indirectly, (a) promote or oppose a registered political party or the election of a candidate, or (b) form part of election advertising. Section.1 definition -- "referendum campaign period" means, in --96.49.105.45 (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)relation to the referendum, the period beginning on February 1, 2009 and ending at the close of general voting for the referendum.”

This is a defining moment for British Columbia and Canada. Giant step forward in Canadian democracy. Merits of STV: makes the system more honest; people vote for who they want, not for who they don't want; no longer will politics be dominated by the two main BC parties -- independent voices have a chance now to be elected. Wikipedia is a hero of free speech; and this is such a time, to be there for freedom. This is very proud moment in Wikipedia history.

Knock on wood, Haida chieftain

remove the "fair vote " bc in the see also?

I do beleive that this is put in directly for the sake of bias, especially since the name itself is devisice as in to say that anything other is unfair... one of two solutions comes to mind A. add a line to a profile for opposition B. remove the link I mean comeone this discussion page is blatently biased and unsigned--Kr4ft (talk) 13:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Number of candidates

Political parties may run up to as many candidates as there are available seats in each electoral district.

Is there anything in the proposed legislation preventing parties running more candidates than there are seats available? Maltese parties frequently do this and it may be one of the reasons hardly any votes leak there. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

I noticed 2 lines of vandalism in the gaglaw and background sections, I removed them both, but with the upcoming election I could see people looking to repeat this action. --ExoditeTyr (talk) 06:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

22:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)22:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)~ Gaglaw fact deleted from wiki again. Putting it back on. Whoever is against citing the gag law fact, state your reasons here first. Cheers Haida chieftain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haida chieftain (talk • contribs) 22:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

date of adopting current electoral system

I am pretty sure that the first past the post system was used before 1988--perhapes it should read 1888, when widespread democracy (for what it was at the time) was adopted in BC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.78.7 (talk) 22:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Informative? Unbiased?

Wikipedia is a huge source for most information I find on the internet. This particular article though seems extremely complicated and biased to me. I am not much closer to understanding this referandum. I also don't see any reference to what the No STV campaign has cited as the cons to this election reform issue. Again, I have no idea what I'm talking about in regards to this topic. I'm just explaining what I got from it. Hope this is the right place to voice this concern. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daddybubbles (talk • contribs) 04:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)