Here in British Columbia we're having an election. Do we want to retain the current questionable (feel free to pick another adjective beginning not with the same consonant, but the same sound) governing party, or do we want a different, hopefully less questionable party? Choices, choices, choices.

We're also being asked how we'd like to vote. Do we want to go on with the usual "vote for your guy and hope he/she wins" system, or do we want the more sensible, "O.K., vote for your top preference, but, on the off chance that he/she doesn't get enough votes for a clear win, who's your second choice?" system. This latter system, known around here (and probably elsewhere) as the "single transferable vote" system seems eminently sensible to me. If one thing is clear during an election it's that we all have someone we really hope will win, and someone we really hope will lose. In between (at least, in places with more than two parties to choose from) there's usually someone we're not crazy about, but, hey, they're not as bad as "that guy". So, it makes sense to rank candidates and see who gets the most votes on that basis. The "best" candidate (in your opinion) might not win, but, with any luck, the cretin you despise won't either. I'm pretty sure Smirkin' Steve wouldn't be running Canada today if this system had been in effect. That alone makes it worth voting for.