Talk:BC-STV

message: I'm not sure this qualifies as a distinct variant version of STV in its own right as virtually all the features cited exist in other versions in use, particularly amongst many private organisations that use the system. So should it be on the election systems template when other precise applications are not? Timrollpickering (talk) 00:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe not the voting system as such, but the unique way in which the proposal was evolved and brought forward - the Citizen's Assembly - and the revision of the riding system into "mega-ridings" were all part of the BC-STV package.  What was voted on in 2005 was also STV, but it was not the same system, and also didn't involve the mega-ridings; this was a particular proposal/format with a certain political controversy/rivalry attached to it (the person in the previous section is right in complaining that the anti- position is not properly presented, or wasn't anyway; maybe since then but given that post was on the virtual eve of the referendum indicates this article had big POV problems, if it doesn't still).Skookum1 (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distinct STV variant 

message: Hi I feel that this article is very poorly constructed, and it hasn't given me a single better idea on what exactly BC-STV is.  I have a number of criticisms that I feel would improve this article:
Beyond the first sentence, the intro paragraph says NOTHING about what BC-STV actually is: after the first sentence the next two just talk about whether people support it or not (i.e. the referendums).  Somebody who has absolutely no prior experience with BC-STV (like me) still doesn't know what the system is and how it's different from any of the basic voting systems that I know about (proportional, first-past-post, etc.).
The intro needs to talk about the main points of BC-STV.  For example if I were to re-word the intro paragraph, this is what I would say: 
BC-STV stands for BC-Single Transferrable Vote and it's a voting system proposed by (). It allows a voter to have a choice in a list of candidates and we think it's more fair than first-past-the-post. Right now it hasn't been tried in any other country, except maybe Australia. Australia's system has a list of candidates, but in our system you don't have to rank every candidate. That way you don't HAVE to vote for a candidate you don't know about or support.
That tells me a LOT more than what is currently there.  Maybe I might also include that it's currently in the process of being implemented or voted on in BC.  I would remove entirely the information about the referendum in the intro paragraph because it is too specific, and the intro paragraph should be geared to an audience who has never heard of the term before.
The background section doesn't say anything about why anybody wanted a new system and what was wrong with the old system.  This needs to be added and addressed - nobody will understand why anybody would propose a new system if there were no problems with the old system.  Right now it just launches into the measures that the elected official put into place to get this system going forward without explaining any context which is what a background section is supposed to do.
In fact, I would put the whole referendum statistics/logistics information into either the last section as an appendix or keep it all in its specialized article.  These details are *specifics* that aren't important to the larger picture, or vital to understanding the concept of what BC-STV is.
It would also be helpful if there's a list of good pros and cons of the new system, but I think the aforementioned concerns need to be addressed first.  I would do it but I know *nothing* about this new system (which is why I went to this article in the first place).  I'm placing my comments here because I'm just relating what I got from the article and I hope this is the right place to voice my opinions.
Cheers, XieChengnuo (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constructive Criticism for this Page 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on BC-STV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050924143403/http://citizensassembly.bc.ca/public to http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/public
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified