Local representation will certainly suffer under an STV system. Interior ridings will be huge. Furthermore, ridings will effectively have less representation since each MLA will have to serve a super constituency made up of two to seven of the old ridings. MLAs from the same party may be able to share this burden somewhat, but a key feature of STV is that all candidates run against one another -- cooperation among MLAs is less likely than competition. STV offers a certain amount of proportionality but it is nowhere near as effective in this regard as a Mixed Member Proportional system. In fact, most who wanted to reform BC's system seem (to me) to prefer MMP. So, if STV diminishes local representation, is only partly effective in achieving proportional representation, and isn't the first choice anyway, why is it the system that we're voting on? The answer is that the Citizens' Assembly was not allowed to recommend any system that might either add seats or affect current electoral distribution. Most alternative proposals involve either adding seats or a drastic redrawing of the electoral map or both. This means that the only system possible for the Assembly to offer was STV.

Some STV proponents claim that this is BC's only chance at reform -- an argument that is pretty silly. The fact is, another referendum could be held anytime, not just in an election year. The Citizens' Assembly has proposed that, if STV is adopted, at least three elections be held under that system before changing it. That means 2025 before trying anything else. In the meantime, other provinces and the federal government are also considering changes. It might be worth examining these before clutching at an unsatisfactory choice.