# Why BC should vote YES for STV - by a former Campbell cabinet minister



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.






This is a great and honest statement by someone who I often haven't agreed with in the past. I particularly liked her honesty in stating that she was previously against STV and proportional representation because it served her narrow, political interests and those of the party hacks when she was BC Liberal MLA and cabinet minister.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
Any system that gets Gary Lunn out is a win-win for all...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

EvanPitts said:


> ^^^
> Any system that gets Gary Lunn out is a win-win for all...


Yeah I doubt if Lunn would get many 1st place rankings under an STV system.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

So my understanding of this system is that you group a bunch of electoral districts so you get four or five members from these larger ridings. Then the parties go hog wild and nominate as many candidates as they think you might elect to the positions within that district?

Is that it?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

BC STV Electoral Reform


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

STV is the system of losers.

Parties that have support will wins seats under FPP, those that do not won't. Reform went from no seats to official opposition in 4 years. If Green, etc, can't do that, it's not he fault of the system, it's because they are not wanted.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It strikes me that this is another of those sad sack systems designed to make every vote feel loved and wanted. If my candidate is not elected it's because my candidate *LOST*. I can live with that.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

I'm glad you two don't get to vote here.

Interesting to hear people actually willing to defend first past the post, even with all of it's well-documented problems.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

bsenka said:


> STV is the system of losers.
> 
> Parties that have support will wins seats under FPP, those that do not won't. Reform went from no seats to official opposition in 4 years. If Green, etc, can't do that, it's not he fault of the system, it's because they are not wanted.


Parties that have minority support behind them will win seats under winner-take-all FPP. 

Parties that have less than 40% of Canadian's votes can gain 60% of the seats in Parliament and 100% of the power under winner-take-all FPP.

Parties that can concentrate their support to a smaller region can easily get started and hold seats like Reform in AB, the Bloc in PQ, the Libs in Toronto. Parties that have even greater support across the whole country will struggle.

The Green party is wanted by a half million Canadians across Canada, if all those voters were in the same region or province that support level could give them at least 10 or 20 seats under FPP.

Since most countries in the world use proportional systems while fewer cling to archaic FPP, I guess you might say that most of the world are losers, eh? 

I guess if you can't win in a rigged game that means you're a loser, eh? 

Of course under FPP, the polarization can continue and instead of working together to find solutions we can just indulge in name-calling and vitriol — precisely the point Christy Clark was making in her commentary.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GA, a new poll just came out. A key finding of it:

“This rise in awareness seems to have lowered the chances of BC-STV being implemented in the next provincial election,” the pollster says.

New polls show STV to be rejected

Only 45% support it. 

I happen to be in the majority. I don't like the idea of wing-nuts holding the balance of power. I would love to see a demographic study of those who support STV. I imagine it would show interesting results and would explain why those people like the idea of holding the balance of power. Just a hunch though.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Of course under FPP, the polarization can continue and instead of working together to find solutions we can just indulge in name-calling and vitriol — precisely the point Christy Clark was making in her commentary.


This is _exactly_ what I want to see. A fractious system fighting among themselves and incapable of instituting any of their massive white elephants. Heaven help us if the status quo makes nice with the wingnut kook fringe and they really start diving into our pockets.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Seems to function fine in Australia - lap puppies seem to fear getting tossed out in the cold....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Under that system, you could even vote for an Alien Grey, MacD!


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Since most countries in the world use proportional systems while fewer cling to archaic FPP, I guess you might say that most of the world are losers, eh?
> 
> I guess if you can't win in a rigged game that means you're a loser, eh?
> 
> Of course under FPP, the polarization can continue and instead of working together to find solutions we can just indulge in name-calling and vitriol — precisely the point Christy Clark was making in her commentary.


Most countries in the world aren't doing so well right now. Canada is weathering this recession better than most and has done quite well in the last decade. Maybe they should be looking at us. I think Parliamentary democracy has held up very well in today's world. 

I think our system does allow for working together. In order for a party to present an agenda, they have to get the support of a wide diversity of people within that party. A lot of compromise is made during this process in order to develop an agenda that appeals to the majority of voters. In contrast, the STV system doesn't allow for such compromise. It enables fractionation because the balance of power is no different than having full power. 

They say compromise is achieved when all parties are a little dissatisfied. I think that describes our current political situation quite well. Nobody is fully happy. We all have our grievances, and that's as good as it gets. As somebody famous once said, it's the best of a bunch of bad systems.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Well said, Vandave. Just because Australia still exists, doesn't mean their system is any better.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

it always makes me smile to see conservatives trumpet how well we are weathering the recession, based on the liberals balancing the books, and not listening to the idiot Refo... er conservatives screeching to deregulate the banks.

Wingnuts indeed.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> This is _exactly_ what I want to see. A fractious system fighting among themselves and incapable of instituting any of their massive white elephants.


That's quite telling, MF.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Most countries in the world aren't doing so well right now. Canada is weathering this recession better than most and has done quite well in the last decade. Maybe they should be looking at us. I think Parliamentary democracy has held up very well in today's world.


That's quite an astounding leap inlogic to equate Canada weathering the recession better than some because of FPP. Does the fact that Zimbabwe uses FPP explain why they are having massive political problems — no, I wouldn't make that leap, but I guess it's as valid as the one you are making.

Changing our electoral system is not an abandonment of Parliamentary democracy, BTW. No constitutional changes are needed or required to amend our electoral scheme.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> GA, a new poll just came out. A key finding of it:
> 
> “This rise in awareness seems to have lowered the chances of BC-STV being implemented in the next provincial election,” the pollster says.
> 
> ...


The pollster is making a leap with that assumption. Other polls have found the opposite during the last referendum, when the final vote beat the polling expectations. This time the status quo apologists are pulling out all stops to spread any bit of misinformation they can about STV, which is what many of the NO voters are using when they call themselves informed. 

I'm certainly not very hopeful that STV can beat 60%, that's a huge bar to hurdle and tough when the NO side's votes count for 1.45% more than a YES vote. I am more hopeful that it can beat 50% again though. But we shall see, as Dr.G says.

Wing nuts already hold the balance of power, my friend. Under FPP a small shift in a few ridings can translate into a landslide because of FPP's inherent distortions. Anyway the entrenched interests and backroom boys, both in big business AND big unions like your attitude. 

Not sure what you're getting at with your demographic study idea. As a Mac user most PC users see me as a "wingnut". Being in the majority doesn't make them necessarily right about anything. Nor does being in the minority, as a Canadian conservative make you a "wingnut".

Who knows, maybe the NDP will win with 39% of the vote again in a reprise of '96, since much of the conservative vote is more concentrated heavily in certain ridings. Wouldn't that be peachy.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

While I completely acknowledge the FPP problems, the proportional systems proposed in Canada are not really better.

What I like about proportional systems:
- The proportion of votes allocated to the parties more similarly matches the outcome. Smaller parties recieve some seats, where they would otherwise recieve none.

What I like about FPP:
- In Canada, the land being so large, seats are divided by a combination of population and geographic location. So not just large populated areas are represented in parliment.

Overall, eventhough it may not work perfectly, I think the FPP system does a better job of representing the voters of geographical areas, and does a better job of representing the voters.

We had a similar vote in Ontario a couple of years ago, and the downfall to this and many other proportional systems is accountability of the representatives. In theory, voters could not re-elect individuals and therfore they have to be responsible for their actions. Proportional systems depending on their setup often get around this.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> The pollster is making a leap with that assumption. Other polls have found the opposite during the last referendum, when the final vote beat the polling expectations.


It won't be the same this time. Last time around nobody knew about it. That makes polling very unreliable. The public is much better informed this time around so the polling will be much more accurate. 

The reason STV did well last time was because the Liberals held all but two seats. Obviously, that didn't sit well with many people. However, the NDP gained a significant chunk of their seats back last election so there will be significantly less backlash. 



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I'm certainly not very hopeful that STV can beat 60%, that's a huge bar to hurdle and tough when the NO side's votes count for 1.45% more than a YES vote. I am more hopeful that it can beat 50% again though. But we shall see, as Dr.G says.


I think less than 50% will vote for it.



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Not sure what you're getting at with your demographic study idea.


My expectation would be that 100% of people with extreme views would support STV. A poll would likely reflect such extremism.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ertman said:


> What I like about FPP:
> - In Canada, the land being so large, seats are divided by a combination of population and geographic location. So not just large populated areas are represented in parliment.


I would argue that is a negative. 

The ridings under STV are much larger than FPP. That means small towns are lumped across very wide geographic regions. Imagine having to drive 1000 km in the winter to visit your MP or MLA. For example, somebody in Smithers might have to drive to Fort St. John under the proposed system for BC. Have fun spending three days of your time driving (plus hotels and food) to just spend 10 minutes with your representative.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I honestly don't want to see everybody's views represented. I want potential MPs to drum up a good deal of support, then pass some sort of threshhold of reasonability in the marketplace of ideas before having the chance to inflict themselves on the public.

I suspect that people who would most support this intiative are those who most want to get their hands on voters' wallets.


----------



## mneub (Sep 15, 2002)

Macfury said:


> I honestly don't want to see everybody's views represented.


You're such a libertarian. lmao.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mneub said:


> You're such a libertarian.


Libertarianism has nothing to do with whether we have FPP or STV, which are just two different ways of picking people's pockets. I don't want to be subjected to the inane ideas of fringe groups in addition to the bad ideas to which we're already subjected.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> It won't be the same this time. Last time around nobody knew about it. That makes polling very unreliable. The public is much better informed this time around so the polling will be much more accurate.
> 
> The reason STV did well last time was because the Liberals held all but two seats. Obviously, that didn't sit well with many people. However, the NDP gained a significant chunk of their seats back last election so there will be significantly less backlash.
> 
> I think less than 50% will vote for it.


I have no idea why the polling might be different or if the recent polling is even accurate. Interestingly, the polling found the opposite last time, that the more people said they were familiar with STV, the more likely they were to support it. But last time the NO side was not very organized and they are now busy with their advertising and planted misinformation in the media. But we are definitely seeing more people like Christy Clark this time, who voted against it during the previous referendum. But again, we will see.

It's interesting though, that the NO side is spending all it's energy slamming STV with dubious facts and fear-mongering rather than speaking up for the other choice on the ballot — choosing First Past The Post. They're not spending any time or energy touting the "wonderful benefits" of this "great" system, only attempting to sow uncertainty about the other ballot option.

One thing that should make you happy, as well as big business groups, big unions like CUPE and the IWA, Moe Sihota, Bill Tielman, David Schrek and the other NDP bagmen, as well as some of the BC Liberal bagmen and backroom hacks is that if it doesn't get at least 50% this time, the issue of proportional representation is dead in BC and almost certainly dead nationally as well. If STV fails this time, Fair Vote Canada, Fair Vote BC, Fair Vote Moose Jaw and all the others will be disappearing for at least a generation, until FPP fracks things up enough again that a younger generation takes up the cause. If someone reading this has a relative in BC and you think pro-rep is important, you might want to send them the link to the YouTube vid at the start of this thread.



Vandave said:


> My expectation would be that 100% of people with extreme views would support STV. A poll would likely reflect such extremism.


You mean like Stephen Harper? .... Juuuuuuuuuust kidding, Dave. 

But seriously, this argument is a red herring. Fortunately in Canada those who hold truly extremist views only account for a tiny percentage of the population. This falls below PR thresholds of representation, but even if didn't those numbers are small enough that their political power is limited. The majority of STV supporters are in the middle, either centre-left or centre-right like Christy Clark at CKNW. Trying to paint STV supporters as "wing nuts" and extremists isn't worthy of you Dave. I could easily say that Conservative were wingnuts and extremists because they have some nuts who cling along, like the knuckle draggers who populate Free Dominion.ca.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> I would argue that is a negative.
> 
> The ridings under STV are much larger than FPP. That means small towns are lumped across very wide geographic regions. Imagine having to drive 1000 km in the winter to visit your MP or MLA. For example, somebody in Smithers might have to drive to Fort St. John under the proposed system for BC. Have fun spending three days of your time driving (plus hotels and food) to just spend 10 minutes with your representative.


This is another red herring Dave. The first thing to mention here is that, despite the impression the NO side tries to convey, if STV were implemented the proportion of MLAs to citizens remains exactly the same. Your hypothetical scenario may not be true if one of the larger multi-member MLAs has his or her office in Smithers. The new ridings will be geographically about the same size as the federal ridings. Why are the federal ridings not a problem? Because even in Smithers, they have phones, email, Blackberries and postal service. And even under the current riding size, which is still massive, if you wanted to drive to your MLA's office from one side of the riding to the other in mid-winter, you'll still be facing a daunting prospect.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

ertman said:


> While I completely acknowledge the FPP problems, the proportional systems proposed in Canada are not really better.
> 
> What I like about proportional systems:
> - The proportion of votes allocated to the parties more similarly matches the outcome. Smaller parties recieve some seats, where they would otherwise recieve none.
> ...


I don't know the details of the MMP system proposed for Ontario, but I understand that the party list system was being proposed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it was supposed to be an open list system. Better than a closed list system, but still giving the party a certain degree of control. One of the things I like about the STV system is that all candidates are directly voted for and represent an area. To achieve proportionality multi-member ridings are used, so that almost every riding will have elected reps that equal a proportion of the vote their party received.

Even better, candidates are ranked by the voter in order of preference. Not only does this significantly improve the chances of independents but it also takes a huge chunk of control away from political parties. 

For instance, currently under FPP, Party A puts one of their backbench lumps with limited skill, other than being good at schmoozing with well-heeled donors behind closed doors, into a safe riding seat. They know that unless this guy does something outrageous, the riding favours their party either through minority vote split, like mine where Gary Lunn wins with barely a 3rd of the vote each time, or that they have a reasonable majority, which is rare under FPP. The voters either stay home because they know this fool hack can't lose or they hold their nose and vote for him because they like his party or its leader.

Under STV, in a hypothetical 6 seat riding, Party A puts up 4 or 6 candidates, depending on how many of the spots they think they would win. If they put up the hack, those who previously held their noses will no longer have to. If they like Party A, they can rank the hack, the lowest of the 4 or 6, or even give a ranking for an independent they like. On the other hand, those who don't like Party A, don't have to stay home, because even if they are in the minority, if their candidate can get at least 1 out of 6 votes, they might become one of the multi-member representatives.

More voter choice, less party hacks, overall proportionality. STV is the BMW of voting systems.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Libertarianism has nothing to do with whether we have FPP or STV, which are just two different ways of picking people's pockets. I don't want to be subjected to the inane ideas of fringe groups in addition to the bad ideas to which we're already subjected.


Inane ideas of fringe groups? What, like libertarianism?


----------



## mneub (Sep 15, 2002)

Macfury said:


> Libertarianism has nothing to do with whether we have FPP or STV, which are just two different ways of picking people's pockets. I don't want to be subjected to the inane ideas of fringe groups in addition to the bad ideas to which we're already subjected.


You're sooo convoluted. i don't even think you know what you're talking about.


----------



## imobile (Oct 6, 2007)

*Right on mate!*



MacDoc said:


> Seems to function fine in Australia - lap puppies seem to fear getting tossed out in the cold....


It DOES function very well in Australia.
Then again Aussie is COMMUNIST eh? 
Must be ! After all voting is compulsory.
If you don't vote you get a fine!
Even force the oldies to turn up at the local school to vote ... taxi provided gratis if yah is a pensioner!
Terrible.

Yet... funny, there is usually a very close race and parliaments Federal and State usually do have effective oppositions.
Then again, the Senate in Australia IS elected!
Not the mickey mouse reward system here ... with our Mexican resident senators at the public trough!

Of course, Australia did not become fully independent from Mother until 1901 ... 35 years after Canada!
And Oz adopted the Westminster system re Lower House, the US System re Senate!
Best of both worlds?


Oops.. Apologies! 
I usually save my strong feelings for complaining about the erratic performance of Apple's airport!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Inane ideas of fringe groups? What, like libertarianism?


Libertarians certainly are a fringe group, and I suspect they will be for some time to come, considering the general state of lily-liveredness of the general populace. 



mneub said:


> You're sooo convoluted. i don't even think you know what you're talking about.


Why do you think that?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

imobile said:


> After all voting is compulsory.


I always found this odious.


----------



## imobile (Oct 6, 2007)

*Tis a DUTY !*



Macfury said:


> I always found this odious.




Athenian democracy held that it was every citizen's duty to participate in decision making

Voting is a "civic duty", like paying taxes, and is important for the harmonious functioning of a society. Political leaders of compulsory systems may also potentially claim greater political legitimacy than those of non-compulsory systems with lower voter turnout.
Compulsory voting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Arguments against

A common argument against compulsory voting holds that voting is not a civic duty, but rather a civil right. While citizens may exercise their legal rights (free speech, voting, etc.) they are not compelled to. Compulsory voting can be seen as infringing a basic freedom of the citizen. Some consider the fining of recalcitrant voters to be more oppressive still.

I have found it SICK that the 'essence' of important institutions like school/municipal elections are determined by often less than 20% of eligible voters!


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I have no idea why the polling might be different or if the recent polling is even accurate. Interestingly, the polling found the opposite last time, that the more people said they were familiar with STV, the more likely they were to support it.


That's exactly what I would expect. That doesn't refute my point, it supports it. The people who knew about STV four years ago were people like yourself, not the average person. Only a very small percent of people back then (say 10%) knew about STV. It is quite unlikely that 10% (or whatever) was representative of the average voter. In short, that small demographic doesn't translate to the larger electorate. 



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> if it doesn't get at least 50% this time, the issue of proportional representation is dead in BC and almost certainly dead nationally as well.


And why is that a bad thing? If the public doesn't support something, why should it be continually pushed in their face? 



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Fortunately in Canada those who hold truly extremist views only account for a tiny percentage of the population.


I don't agree. I would say about 10% of the population hold extremist views with about equal parts on both ends. I don't like the idea of the extreme religious right or extreme communist / socialist left holding the balance of power. No thanks. I have enough trouble thinking the 15% support the NDP gets nationally is not in the extreme camp. Likewise, you have trouble believing that 38% of the Conservative vote isn't extreme.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> This is another red herring Dave. The first thing to mention here is that, despite the impression the NO side tries to convey, if STV were implemented the proportion of MLAs to citizens remains exactly the same. Your hypothetical scenario may not be true if one of the larger multi-member MLAs has his or her office in Smithers. The new ridings will be geographically about the same size as the federal ridings. Why are the federal ridings not a problem? Because even in Smithers, they have phones, email, Blackberries and postal service. And even under the current riding size, which is still massive, if you wanted to drive to your MLA's office from one side of the riding to the other in mid-winter, you'll still be facing a daunting prospect.


It's not a red herring. That's the reality of the situation.

Let's say you support the marijuana party. It's pretty likely they only have one representative in your STV riding in the off-chance they actually get in. Let's say you want to smoke a doob with your MLA.... Well, if you live outside of a city, the odds are that you have one hell of a drive to reach your MLA. How is this a red herring? If anything, this seems like it would be more common.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> I don't agree. I would say about 10% of the population hold extremist views with about equal parts on both ends. I don't like the idea of the extreme religious right or extreme communist / socialist left holding the balance of power. No thanks. I have enough trouble thinking the 15% support the NDP gets nationally is not in the extreme camp. Likewise, you have trouble believing that 38% of the Conservative vote isn't extreme.


I guess if extremist equals "doesn't think like me" then yes, there are a lot of extremists around. Then again, thinking that way could very well be the mark of an extremist. 

The "smaller party holding the precious balance of power" line seems to be a major one with a lot of people. I find that to be a profoundly undemocratic point of view, even if it wasn't just fear-mongering.

Even those who have a minority viewpoint are entitled to democratic representation and a voice, *in proportion to their numbers*. The idea that holding the balance of power in a coalition equals controlling the agenda, just doesn't bear out in real life situations. If a party that can get 35-40% of the popular vote teams up with a party that gets 15% of the popular vote in a coalition, this does not mean that the 15% party now controls the agenda. The coalition still has to keep to the middle or else they will lose their overall political capital. If the larger party allows the smaller party to set the agenda, then it will be game over for both of them. So the 15% and the 35% party will have to stay away from extremism or lose their hold on power. Most countries in the world use pro-rep systems and you simply do not see this happening any more often than when the extremist rump of a major mainstream party under FPP is allowed to control the agenda, such as the evangelical religious right influencing the Republicans in the US. If a party or coalition allows that to go on for too long, they lose their power base. This is simply more baseless fear mongering against proportional representation. 

It's as if the FPP proponents are saying, we can't allow anyone to have any political voice or a seat at the table unless they are somewhere within the broad middle 50%, because we are afraid of what they could do if we even allow them to speak. Well, if they have any brains at all, those on the outside will propose things that the middle can live with, so they can stay at the table. This is how it works in a democracy. No matter what you do, the majority rules and has the final say. Unless of course that gets distorted by FPP and 40% gets a majority government and then have to answer to nobody.



Vandave said:


> It's not a red herring. That's the reality of the situation.
> 
> Let's say you support the marijuana party. It's pretty likely they only have one representative in your STV riding in the off-chance they actually get in. Let's say you want to smoke a doob with your MLA.... Well, if you live outside of a city, the odds are that you have one hell of a drive to reach your MLA. How is this a red herring? If anything, this seems like it would be more common.


Well if it's the reality, the larger STV multi-member ridings are not going to appreciably change the situation. Currently you have a big drive to reach your MLA in person and under STV your drive will be a large as to meet your MP in person. It's a thin example because, if you believe that a change in the electoral system would be a good thing overall, this reason, a slight drawback that might only effect a tiny minority who can't use the phone or email might have to drive as far to see their MLA as they currently do to see their MP. Yes, the ridings outside of the major centres are larger, but this is in reality a non-issue, certainly not one that outweighs anything else. Of course this hasn't stopped the NO campaign from using this a major reason we need to retain FPP.


----------



## Wayne Smith (May 9, 2009)

bsenka said:


> STV is the system of losers.
> 
> Parties that have support will wins seats under FPP, those that do not won't. Reform went from no seats to official opposition in 4 years. If Green, etc, can't do that, it's not he fault of the system, it's because they are not wanted.


The problem, of course, is that that's not the way it works at all. The Greens get lots of votes, 9-13%, but they can't elect anybody because their votes are spread out evenly across the province. Whether your vote counts or not depends on how you vote and where you vote.

In the last federal election, the Conservatives got 873,000 votes in Alberta, and that won them 26 seats. The Green Party got almost a million votes across the country, and didn't even come close to electing anybody.

Under the current system, there is only a very tenuous connection between how we vote and who gets elected. The NDP got 39% in one BC election and formed a majority government, even though they had fewer votes than the other guys! In another election, they still got 39% of the votes, but were almost wiped out.

But BC-STV is not about what is good for the Green Party, or the NDP, or any party. It is all about what is good for voters. BC-STV was designed by voters to give voters the power to hold politicians and political parties accountable, by giving every voter a vote that actually makes a difference.

The current system makes losers out of all of us. With BC-STV, we all win.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Although I won't (can't) vote on this question, I'm pleased to have it put to the voters for a decision. I don't think FPP is inherently evil, but I haven't been quite persuaded by the arguments for STV yet, or at least this version thereof.

My *understanding* of this particular proposal is that if it passes, it will be "up for review" in three years, ie a ballot to go back to FPP will be on offer.

If that's the case, then what's all the fuss about? STV won't destroy Canada, at worst it's a fairly benign experiment that might actually (gasp!) get a little diversity into the system. My wife (who will be voting on this) discuss it a lot but haven't reached a firm decision, but the "up for review" part of it does make STV easier to vote for.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

Vandave said:


> I would argue that is a negative.
> 
> The ridings under STV are much larger than FPP. That means small towns are lumped across very wide geographic regions. Imagine having to drive 1000 km in the winter to visit your MP or MLA. For example, somebody in Smithers might have to drive to Fort St. John under the proposed system for BC. Have fun spending three days of your time driving (plus hotels and food) to just spend 10 minutes with your representative.


So, you are saying that lumping geographic areas into larger ones is bad, and FPP is negative because it allows people of small towns to have atleast a small say in the political process?

I understand that in Canada the FPP system allows for not every ones vote to be equal on the whole, but otherwise why bother voting in small town, if more than just a majority live in urban centres, even if people's votes being equal, the interest of people in the smaller towns would not be represented without this geo graphic inequity.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Libertarianism has nothing to do with whether we have FPP or STV, which are just two different ways of picking people's pockets. I don't want to be subjected to the inane ideas of fringe groups in addition to the bad ideas to which we're already subjected.


I suppose one could consider libertarians 'fringe' given how few really there are of them in this country, so I wouldn't want to be subjected to the inane ideas of the fringe either.

I'm good with that.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Inane ideas of fringe groups? What, like libertarianism?


heh, I missed that you already snagged that one.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

After further review of this STV system, it would seem that it is not really anymore fair than first past the post. Also similar to ireland?


Peoples first choices can still be ignored, and depending on how the voters vote, many people's last choice can be used to elect people. This doesn't really seem fair as the most popular candidate within the district may not be elected, and peoples second choice can be elected. 













> When surplus votes are counted, a portion of each vote is transferred. If each voter only requires $0.90 of dollar to elect their first choice, $0.10 of a voters vote goes to their second choice. This ensures each candidate or party gets its fair share.
> 
> After the votes are cast, Elections BC will publish the results. Your vote will only go to candidates you rank, and will go to your first choice unless they are eliminated.



In most cases, the most popular person will still be elected, but there is still significant chance that voting will be skewed and not representing the voters first choice.




On the side of mandatory voting, this is inherently undemocratic. Besides, people being forced to vote will skew the votes and that people will be voting so they don't get a fine, instead of for someone they believe will do the job right. Either leave the voting the same, or maybe institute a tax credit, as an incentive will be far less damaging to the democratic process than punishment for not voting. I say keep it the same.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I think we should find a way to change all of the rules in Olympic races as well. Apparently they give the Gold medal to the first person past the post. Instead I want to see countries nominating a whole field of racers, then have the judges use STV to determine the outcome so that at least they know that their vote wasn't wasted on someone who didn't make it to the podium. Sometimes this may not result in the fastest people being declared the winner, and we will need to hand out a lot more awards, but at least the judges will feel better about their input.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> STV is the BMW of voting systems.


Do you mean it looks good on paper, but is expensive to maintain, not really practical, and occasionally unreliable?


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

imobile said:


> I have found it SICK that the 'essence' of important institutions like school/municipal elections are determined by often less than 20% of eligible voters!


Agreed. Voter turnout at the municipal level is a travesty - especially since municipal government has has so much influence on day to day life.

I remember a few years back there was a letter to the paper that suggested the school board didn't ~really~ represent the views of the majority. There was probably some truth to that - I wouldn't be surprised if an interest group did a good job of pulling the vote. But as far as I'm concerned the folks that couldn't be bothered to vote should just shut up and take what they're given until the next election, and then get out and vote next time around.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

PenguinBoy said:


> Agreed. Voter turnout at the municipal level is a travesty - especially since municipal government has has so much influence on day to day life.


But I would rather see issues carried by a small percentage of people voluntarily committed to voting than by people who don't really car, but who are forced to vote on that same issue.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Macfury said:


> But I would rather see issues carried by a small percentage of people voluntarily committed to voting than by people who don't really car, but who are forced to vote on that same issue.


Fair enough. Then if people are p!ssed off with the results hopefully they'll take some time to inform themselves and get out in the next election.

With mandatory voting I wonder how many people just vote at random, or put the absolute minimum of thought into their selection?


----------



## mneub (Sep 15, 2002)

Macfury said:


> Libertarians certainly are a fringe group, and I suspect they will be for some time to come, considering the general state of lily-liveredness of the general populace.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think that?


If you were a libertarian, you would understand.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

PenguinBoy said:


> Fair enough. Then if people are p!ssed off with the results hopefully they'll take some time to inform themselves and get out in the next election.
> 
> With mandatory voting I wonder how many people just vote at random, or put the absolute minimum of thought into their selection?


I don't have a problem with mandatory voting. I'm guessing many of the people already 'committed to voting' make random choices, or choose based on what a favorite news anchor tells them to.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Well if it's the reality, the larger STV multi-member ridings are not going to appreciably change the situation. Currently you have a big drive to reach your MLA in person and under STV your drive will be a large as to meet your MP in person. It's a thin example because, if you believe that a change in the electoral system would be a good thing overall, this reason, a slight drawback that might only effect a tiny minority who can't use the phone or email might have to drive as far to see their MLA as they currently do to see their MP. Yes, the ridings outside of the major centres are larger, but this is in reality a non-issue, certainly not one that outweighs anything else. Of course this hasn't stopped the NO campaign from using this a major reason we need to retain FPP.


The current ridings for Provincial elections are about 50k people. Federally, it is about 100k people. Under STV, the riding size would be increased to about 200k. That's a massive increase in geographic area for the northern part of the Province. It doesn't matter that the riding has 4 times as many MLAs, it is still much larger. I don't think you should discount face to face meetings so readily. It's an important part of representing people. 

I'll bet you people in the north vote this pig down big time.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Here is the proposed riding map.

BC-EBC.ca

The northern riding covers over HALF of the entire geography of the Province. That riding is bigger than most countries that have STV! :lmao:


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> The "smaller party holding the precious balance of power" line seems to be a major one with a lot of people. I find that to be a profoundly undemocratic point of view, even if it wasn't just fear-mongering.
> 
> Even those who have a minority viewpoint are entitled to democratic representation and a voice, *in proportion to their numbers*. The idea that holding the balance of power in a coalition equals controlling the agenda, just doesn't bear out in real life situations.


I think we would see a lot more situations like that recently seen in Ottawa where an unpopular, defeated and about to resign Liberal leader teamed up with the NDP and Bloc to have a go at the reigns of power. 

We need less of that, not more.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mneub said:


> If you were a libertarian, you would understand.


You're mistaking some sort of micro-managed populism for Libertarianism.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

What I prefer is a system by which citizens keep all of their money and vote which public projects they favour by sending their money to support them. That's democracy so direct it would scare the pants off STV supporters.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

wonderful. So those with less means, have even less say.

I can see how you would think that was fair.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

True democracy would be too frightening for most people to bear: the will of the people unfiltered and unconcerned about any pressures from such concerns as the next election.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Sounds like something experimental and highly clinical - like some entirely new state of matter which has been carefully created under strictly constrained laboratory conditions and has a demonstrable shelf life of .004 nanoseconds before it disintegrates back into its component entities.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> Sounds like something experimental and highly clinical - like some entirely new state of matter which has been carefully created under strictly constrained laboratory conditions and has a demonstrable shelf life of .004 nanoseconds before it disintegrates back into its component entities.


Incredibly, when it is exposed to temperature approaching Absolute Zero it actually appears to defy gravity.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Of course it does. I'm betting it also dopplers as it passes the political zenith of indecision, then red-shifts in favour of omni-partisan field stasis.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Aye, but you never counted on the filibuster wormhole!


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Occh, aye!


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

ertman said:


> After further review of this STV system, it would seem that it is not really anymore fair than first past the post. Also similar to ireland?
> 
> Peoples first choices can still be ignored, and depending on how the voters vote, many people's last choice can be used to elect people. This doesn't really seem fair as the most popular candidate within the district may not be elected, and peoples second choice can be elected.


I think you should do some further study because your analysis is incorrect. The results of the BC-STV system would be proportional overall. The counting system used takes the aggregate of voters preference rankings and translates that to the candidates available fairly. It works elsewhere.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I think we should find a way to change all of the rules in Olympic races as well. Apparently they give the Gold medal to the first person past the post. Instead I want to see countries nominating a whole field of racers, then have the judges use STV to determine the outcome so that at least they know that their vote wasn't wasted on someone who didn't make it to the podium. Sometimes this may not result in the fastest people being declared the winner, and we will need to hand out a lot more awards, but at least the judges will feel better about their input.


Your analogy is off. The Olympic rules that FPP uses correspond to the judging rules for figure skating, easily manipulated and random, where the final result does not accurately reflect what happened on the ice. 

When the winner-take-all FPP system gives 100% of the power to someone who gets 40% of the vote, this is equivalent to giving the gold medalist the silver and bronze too, as well as the titles of 4th place, 5th place and all the other places. STV and proportional representation systems in general give the parties the medals they have fairly earned.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

PenguinBoy said:


> Do you mean it looks good on paper, but is expensive to maintain, not really practical, and occasionally unreliable?


Ha Ha, touche! Of course that isn't what I meant at all, since that would be untrue. Maybe I should have taken the negative approach and said that first-past-the-post is the Yugo of voting systems — completely useless.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> The current ridings for Provincial elections are about 50k people. Federally, it is about 100k people. Under STV, the riding size would be increased to about 200k. That's a massive increase in geographic area for the northern part of the Province. It doesn't matter that the riding has 4 times as many MLAs, it is still much larger. I don't think you should discount face to face meetings so readily. It's an important part of representing people.


Some of your facts are wrong here. Provincial ridings in BC average closer to 30,000 with a single MLA. The larger geographic ridings proposed under STV will vary in population covered by the number of MLAs that the riding has. The large northern ridings, to reduce their physical size, have 2 and 3 MLAs. The 3 largest and least populated in the North are almost exactly the same size as their federal counterparts. Some of the city ridings are larger. Some of these have 5, 6, or 7 MLAs. 

*In all cases the proportion of MLAs to population remains unchanged.* Most people meet their MLA face to face when they visit their neighbourhood or community. The vast majority of contact between constituents and representatives is via phone, letter, email etc. If it's not a problem for 1 MP to represent these areas federally then it won't be a problem for 2 or 3 to represent those areas provincially. This issue is not very important, certainly not a compelling reason to retain the crappy FPP system.

It's like saying "I'm upgrading my car to a much better model, but the better model doesn't have the cup holders I like". Nothing but fear-mongering to try and pretend this is important.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> I think we would see a lot more situations like that recently seen in Ottawa where an unpopular, defeated and about to resign Liberal leader teamed up with the NDP and Bloc to have a go at the reigns of power.
> 
> We need less of that, not more.


The situation that happened was a direct result of FPP, where minority governments can not work. We are living in a time where it's almost certain we will continue to have federal minority governments for some time, yet they are using a system where a minority government will last only as long as the polls convince the parties they can jump for a majority with minority support. Witness Harper abandoning his own law to call an election last September, because the polls told him he had a chance at grabbing the brass ring with 37% support.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> What I prefer is a system by which citizens keep all of their money and vote which public projects they favour by sending their money to support them. That's democracy so direct it would scare the pants off STV supporters.


I hope this crazy fringe idea never see the light of day. That's not democracy, that's plutocracy.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

The most important points Ms. Clark made in her radio commentary:



Christy Clark said:


> (Christy Clark's editorial, May 7th, 2009)
> 
> And when I look at so many of the people who are actively campaigning against STV, some of whom you often hear on CKNW, that is what I see: strategists and interest groups who have grown accustomed to the power the current system grants to them. I see people whose interests and in many cases, whose income is dependent on keeping our system the way it is. People who, unlike you, relish the ugly realities that are the consequence of our first past the post system.
> 
> ...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> True democracy would be too frightening for most people to bear: the will of the people unfiltered and unconcerned about any pressures from such concerns as the next election.


the will of the people with money you mean.

But don't let my simpleton interruption spoil your think wank.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I hope this crazy fringe idea never see the light of day. That's not democracy, that's plutocracy.


The will of the people must be muffled into something manageable, eh 'sauce?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> The will of the people must be muffled into something manageable, eh 'sauce?


As GT mentioned, you're talking about the will of the people with $$$. Not much different than what we have currently, just more direct.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> As GT mentioned, you're talking about the will of the people with $$$. Not much different than what we have currently, just more direct.


All systems depend on the "people with the $$$." It seems that re-jgging the system toward STV is designed to ensure that a broader range of candidates get their chance to stick their hands into the pockets of the "people with the $$$."


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> *In all cases the proportion of MLAs to population remains unchanged.* Most people meet their MLA face to face when they visit their neighbourhood or community. The vast majority of contact between constituents and representatives is via phone, letter, email etc. If it's not a problem for 1 MP to represent these areas federally then it won't be a problem for 2 or 3 to represent those areas provincially. This issue is not very important, certainly not a compelling reason to retain the crappy FPP system.


Then why bother with ridings at all? Why don't we lump the whole province into one big riding? It would be even more representative then because the fringe parties that get only 1% of the vote would also get a seat.

I don't like how STV cuts democracy up. Democracy is about the will on the majority, not enabling the minority or fringe.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Democracy is about the will on the majority, not the enabling of the minority or fringe.


dead wrong....it's also about the protection from the mob aka majority. 

Learn some civics....that's what founding documents are about.....to protect from abuse of power by ANY group.

That's why there are separate pillars of democracy to prevent abuses. Checks and balances.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Learn some civics....that's what founding documents are about.....to protect from abuse of power by ANY group.


To which founding documents are you referring?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> dead wrong....it's also about the protection from the mob aka majority.
> 
> Learn some civics....that's what founding documents are about.....to protect from abuse of power by ANY group.
> 
> That's why there are separate pillars of democracy to prevent abuses. Checks and balances.


We aren't talking about civil rights here. We are talking about budgets and legislation. That's not an abuse of power. That's democracy.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Vandave said:


> We aren't talking about civil rights here. We are talking about budgets and legislation. That's not an abuse of power. That's democracy.


No, again, you're still completely wrong.

You must have really slept DEEPLY through civics class.

Democracy is about direct representation of the people. ALL OF THEM.

Yes, minority views will "get their way" a lot less often in a democracy, but what's important about it (and the fundamental thing that makes it work) is the importance attached to hearing -- and debating -- all views.

A democracy as you define it is just mob rule. Which inevitably leads to persecution of Those Who Don't Agree.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I think you should do some further study because your analysis is incorrect. The results of the BC-STV system would be proportional overall. The counting system used takes the aggregate of voters preference rankings and translates that to the candidates available fairly. It works elsewhere.


I don't really see how further study would benefit me from your analysis. I only applied the concepts that were provided by the BC-STV link provided earlier in the thread. You are applying an argument against my statement based on a fallacy, by saying it works everywhere, without actually defending the argument or challenging my assumptions.

It is an assumption that this system translates the votes to the candidates fairly, which I respectfully disagree.

On the note of other countries using this does not imply that it is done anymore fairly, or better. People are concluding that if others do it this way or that way, that it is better.

The small or large government argument by Macfury is aside from the point, but I find the post humourous.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Then why bother with ridings at all? Why don't we lump the whole province into one big riding? It would be even more representative then because the fringe parties that get only 1% of the vote would also get a seat.
> 
> I don't like how STV cuts democracy up. Democracy is about the will on the majority, not enabling the minority or fringe.


Dave, I'm sure that an extreme example as you propose is ridiculous. If we made the province into one giant riding, then there would be no local accountability. The size of the STV ridiings provide enough local accountability with a reasonable level of proportional representation. And your dreaded extremists that you worry about are shut out. 

Realistically in most ridings something in the range of 10% would be required to be get one of the riding seats. You won't have to worry about the BC Sex Party holding the balance of power (if that worries you.) Overall, the proportions of seats to votes will be close.

I'd also like to know how local accountability is so enhanced with FPP. It's a myth that never appears in reality but is touted by the anti-STV camp as one of the benefits of FPP. Basically if a party gains majority power, the government MLAs become nothing more than trained seals taking orders from the Premier or PMO. The idea of majority government under FPP should be re-named temporary dictatorship by the PM.

And this grand will of the people that you wax on about is frustrated if a party that gets 40% of the vote can get 60% of the seats and 100% of the power.

Under STV that is altered quite a bit. Parties have less power over their members, who will have to seriously think a lot more about representing their constituents.

An example: In my riding we have a Liberal MLA, Murray Coell. Even though this riding is comprised of people who are very disturbed by the Liberals approach to the management of BC Ferries and are dependent on the service, Coell toes the official line on the Ferries. He has refused to say one word that indicates BC Ferries under the Liberals is anything but fabulous. I'm sure he reports the angry letters from his supporters to the Premier's office, but his response will be, "don't worry there's too many conservative voters in your riding and they've got no one else to vote for but you". 

Even die hard Liberal supporters here disagree with Coell, but, they will hold their nose and vote for him again on Tuesday because they don't want the NDP in. Under an STV system, those same Liberal supporters could rank Coell as their lowest choice if he chose to continue being a spineless trained seal for the party. Parties could not rely on ridings where they have a majority of supporters who have no other choices but to cast a ballot for them. This forces the parties and candidates to do more than pay lip service to representing their ridings and working for them. And this is why the party hacks both left and right hate STV. They don't like anything that smacks of bottom-up power, their whole lives are about being the guys who dole out the power and call the shots.

If you're happy with your party's trained seal, and fake majority governments run from the Premier's office by guys like Liberal Patrick Kinsella and NDPer David Schrek or Bill Tielman then vote against STV. FPP will give more party hacks than you can shake a stick at.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

ertman said:


> I don't really see how further study would benefit me from your analysis. I only applied the concepts that were provided by the BC-STV link provided earlier in the thread. You are applying an argument against my statement based on a fallacy, by saying it works everywhere, without actually defending the argument or challenging my assumptions.
> 
> It is an assumption that this system translates the votes to the candidates fairly, which I respectfully disagree.
> 
> ...


If you're looking for a political science essay to defend the point, I think this forum may be the wrong place. All I can say is that many political scientists have written volumes on the subject and much of what they have written is out there on the internet. STV and the variant designed by the BC Citizen's Assembly on Electoral Reform, BC-STV, is considered to be a system of proportional representation, despite what your impression might be.

Edit: Here is one of the background documents, a study of STV systems around the world, that the BC Citizen's Assembly used when they were comparing electoral systems.



> • PR-STV (the model that BC-STV was based on) provides the benefits of proportional representation—a close match
> between seats shares and vote share of parties (but this varies with district
> magnitude). Smaller parties have a better chance to gain representation.
> 
> ...


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> If you're looking for a political science essay to defend the point, I think this forum may be the wrong place. All I can say is that many political scientists have written volumes on the subject and much of what they have written is out there on the internet. STV and the variant designed by the BC Citizen's Assembly on Electoral Reform, BC-STV, is considered to be a system of proportional representation, despite what your impression might be.
> 
> Edit: Here is one of the background documents, a study of STV systems around the world, that the BC Citizen's Assembly used when they were comparing electoral systems.



This was a much better response, I was in no way looking for an essay to discuss the merits of the proposed system, but only for a respectful counter to my thoughts, I did not think it was too much to ask to have an actual response instead of a critical response.

While I am sure that there are alot of writings that support the proposed system, I would also be willing to bet there are also a lot of writings against or atleast championing the FPP. I don't believe that the results of the committee mentioned necessarily reflect what is necessarily the best solution, but only their opinions, much like us on this board. 

The proportional system proposed will do little to address the sway the parties have with their members.

I am not denyng the flaws in the FPP system, and i whole heartedly think there could be improvements. However, I find that supporting a system while ignoring it flaws only creates a more complex voting system that would be more proportional but could be less fair.

I look forward to your response, but am unlikely to continue.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> An example: In my riding we have a Liberal MLA, Murray Coell..... Under an STV system, those same Liberal supporters could rank Coell as their lowest choice if he chose to continue being a spineless trained seal for the party.


Good hypothetical. But... what percent of people have trouble keeping up with who their MLA is to begin with? Now imagine having to keep track of 6. Now imagine having to select from 30 to 40 on the ballet. Crazy...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

When Ontario created its own disastrous Citizen's Assembly, the common thread among them appeared to be self-aggrandizement. Most of them were ordinary Joes and Janes who had never been asked to do anything of importance in their entire lives. Suddenly, they're being asked to decide if they like the current system or they want to propose a new one. Guess which one they went with? When interviewed, may of them admitted that they proposed a new system because it was their chance to "make a difference" or to "be a part of history." 

I wasn't surprised. If you show the Sistine Chapel to 50 people at random and ask them how it could be improved, they'll come up with something. When it went down in flames with the voters, the Assembly was furious, lashing out at Ontarians who sunk it--and killed the Asssembly's chance to show how important they were.


----------



## Wayne Smith (May 9, 2009)

Vandave said:


> Good hypothetical. But... what percent of people have trouble keeping up with who their MLA is to begin with? Now imagine having to keep track of 6. Now imagine having to select from 30 to 40 on the ballet. Crazy...


It is unlikely there will be that many candidates on the ballot, but in any case, you don't have to select them all. If you want, you can vote the way you do now, just put an X beside the one you like and stop there, and your vote will count the same way it always did, which is to say probably not at all. If you rank five, your vote will probably help elect someone. If you want, you can rank them all, but you don't have to.

Having six MLAs will mean you have six to choose from when you need their help or want to straighten them out, and they will all be competing for your attention. You can talk to the closest one, or to the ones you helped elect, or the one with an interest in the issue, or to the one who listens best, or to all of them. Your choice.


----------



## zlinger (Aug 28, 2007)

I'm voting NO on Tuesday to STV. It is too complicated and less accountable in my view...and I agree fully at what Macfury says!

Sure, with first past the post, if you're candidate was not elected it is still an important vote and measure of voters. 

What we need is people to get out to vote, we'd be better off... keep it simple, I want accountability to one MLA... not 2 .. 4... 6 with shared and split responsibilities in an areas.

Also, I'd rather not see government controlled by fringe parties and coalitions. Less work will get done, and too much influence by the few.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

So you approve of a system that allows a party with 10% of the vote get 49 seats?? 

Bloc Québécois - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> So you approve of a system that allows a party with 10% of the vote get 49 seats??
> 
> Bloc Québécois - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


No, he'd rather not see government controlled by fringe parties and coalitions. Less work will get done, and too much influence by the few.

And he's 100% right. There are enough wackos in government now without opening the floodgates. :clap:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> So you approve of a system that allows a party with 10% of the vote get 49 seats??


Instead of a statistically accurate 31 seats? Sure, I approve of it. This is the price of having LOCAL riding elections for an MP or MPP to represent us. The losers' votes are not counted there or elsewhere. I have no problem with 51% of voters electing 100% of the legislature either. This is a grand inducement for the fringe parties to work harder at convincing people of their viewpoint.

The solution isn't to create a Three Stooges coalition in each super-riding in which 5 or 6 of these mugs bicker constantly about various issues and in which I have to have a score card to figure out which issues I'm supposed to bring to each of them. And why even bother going to an MP or MPP who is a member of a party that does not control the legislature? I think people would beat a path to the door of the elected members of the ruling party instead.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Wayne Smith said:


> It is unlikely there will be that many candidates on the ballot, but in any case, you don't have to select them all. If you want, you can vote the way you do now, just put an X beside the one you like and stop there, and your vote will count the same way it always did, which is to say probably not at all. If you rank five, your vote will probably help elect someone. If you want, you can rank them all, but you don't have to.


Under our current system all votes are equal. 1 person, 1 vote. If I don't fill out my full ballet under STV, then I would have less than a full vote. The person who fills out the whole card would have a full vote. That's hardly counting them the same way as before.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Did anybody ever watch that Simpson's episode where Homer designed his own car?

That's STV.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I thought that was the one where he reprised Canada's current system....

times change


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Vandave said:


> Did anybody ever watch that Simpson's episode where Homer designed his own car?
> 
> That's STV.


well gee -that- settles it now doesn't it!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

That's why VD adores lead dog Harper.....and his alpha role.....dad knows best. No dissent allowed.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

VanDave: Go easy on MaccyD--it's tough on him when the intiatives he champions go down in a ball of flaming glory...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
I see nothing inherently wrong with the picture of the horse and buggy - it does little if any harm to the environment. Sure, there's some CO2 and Methane emitted, but that is cycled back through existing technology (plants, trees, swamps), the energy source is entirely renewable on a yearly basis, exhaust is entirely recyclable (in anyone's garden). It's all benefits all around.

As for these crazy voting schemes - it doesn't matter what scheme is put into place, it still sits upon a rotted foundation embedded in a corrupted system. Until the system is changed, no voting scheme will be "better".

Some things that need to be in place include the right of recall and impeachment of corrupt public officials, mandatory attendance on legislative days (rather than the "oh, all of the real business is done in Committees - which are entirely hidden from public scrutiny), term limits, election of the Lieutenant-Governors and of their Council (if they have one - which they should, in order to have someone in charge of the various branches of the Administration). All high level officials, like Deputy Ministers, should have to be approved through public hearings, and ratified by the legislature.

Electoral reform can follow - either by the implementation of a "Run Off" system where each elected candidate would have to net a clear 50%+1 majority, or a ballot where one gets to pick seconds and thirds, etc. But the exact form of election is less important than holding the right for the citizen to call for the ostracism of corrupt officials - because the lack of recall or impeachment leads to the various forms of corruption that are entirely self-evident.

If you are equating "horse and buggy" to our electoral system - then I think that the fact that we elected some greats, like MacDonald, Thompson, Laurier, King, and Diefenbaker show that the system entirely works - just as the election of Mulroney saves us from Turner, and of Chretien from Campbell.

Making any point about the Bloc also holds no water, since their 10% is carried in one province - where they end up winning many of their seats by a clear majority. The raison d'etre for the Bloc is to demonstrate the perversion of our system, if only because a "party" needs only to have a dozen seats, and can run in as many or as few seats as they wish. That they remain popular simply shows the damage done after years of parochialism on the part of Ottawa, and of the addiction to the graft that Ottawa was more than willing to pump into Quebec in order to avoid dealing with those issues that are central to Confederation and the Constitutional Instrument.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Ahhh, but Evan, there are all sorts of White Elephants inthe wings, ready to vie for the pubic purse. A new voting system would give more people a chance to see the White Elephant of their choice roaming around and wrecking things.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

One could only imagine the magificent of such White Elephants, seeing that people whould have no idea of how their elected official even got elected. I think it could lead, in the future, to some Tory government deciding to erect a Canadian counterpart for the Statue Of Liberty, perhaps called On The Take, featuring a giant statue of Heinz-Schrieber handing a large briefcase over to Mulroney. People could travel up to the observation deck inside the briefcase, where they could display the Voice of Fire painting, or perhaps to travel further up and look through the rose coloured glasses of Mulroney, looking down on Oerlikon or Airbus, so some other fiasco. New immigrants would certainly be impressed - knowing that they can live the dream, if becoming a politician, becoming excessively corrupt and on the take, then being able to hire some Fillipino nannies to use as virtual slaves.

Maybe we could carve our own Mount Rushmore: MacDonald taking money from Hugh Allen; St. Laurent making secret deals with C.D. Howe; Trudeau saying "fuddle-duddle"; Clark leading the cause of democracy by letting the bells ring for a month in Parliament; Turner signing off on massive patronage (or maybe getting rogered by Mulroney at a debate); Campbell telling the homeless dude that it's OK to be a failure; Chretien checking out his golf balls; Martin's glee in destroying the political empire of Sheila Copps; or of Dion and Layton making some deal that leads to a Putsch that goes down in flames in two weeks (And Dion doesn't get the luxury of being able to write about "My Life" while in prison)

All of the greats of the Canadian political scene could be features - the Rockies are big and White Elephants are entirely within the scope and ability of our Government, and since they did way more than Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln or Roosevelt, at least according to the CBC, they deserve it. So we could feature some other important figures: Hatfield handing cash over to Bricklin; Rae pooping on his own Electors; Ernie Eves looking greasy during a campaign; and the various figures of BC politics that had their careers ruined by corruption, like VanderZalm.

Maybe there's not enough mountains though...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

ertman said:


> The proportional system proposed will do little to address the sway the parties have with their members.


You don't say why your opinion disagrees with so many learned political scientists. I disagree with your opinion for reasons that I have expounded on in detail in other posts in this thread.



ertman said:


> I am not denyng the flaws in the FPP system, and i whole heartedly think there could be improvements. However, I find that supporting a system while ignoring it flaws only creates a more complex voting system that would be more proportional but could be less fair.
> 
> I look forward to your response, but am unlikely to continue.


FPP is widely regarded by those who have seriously looked at voting systems to be the worst system based on numerous flaws and few positives. I happen to think STV is a far better system and I don't think it has any serious flaws. Others may believe it has some, but even most of those people who have looked at electoral systems will say that the downsides of most other systems don't come close to the negatives of FPP.

We now have a chance to choose another electoral system that will be an improvement at the very least, it will be our last for a long, long time. I think it is a system that can stand the test of time, but it may require some tweaking after it is used in our particular circumstances in BC. Proponents of multi-member proportional systems or run-off systems or whatever else don't have their options on the table, and those won't be in future either.

It's like we've been driving this wreck of a car, with bad steering linkages, so that a slight turn of the wheel left or right, causes us to lurch headlong into each ditch and we have been given the chance to replace it with a better car that has steering that reflects exactly where we choose to steer it. The offer is take the better car now, or keep the car with the broken steering for a couple more decades or so. Then up come the folks who say, don't take it, the better car doesn't have the right cup holders or it has the wrong colour upholstery, hold out for the perfect car. These people are connected to the body shop owner who profits from each crash, but they don't like to tell you that.

The problem is, there is no perfect car - and if we don't take the one being offered, we are stuck with the lemon. If we take the one being offered, if enough of us agree, we can bolt on new cup holders or fiddle with the upholstery, or bolt a fin on the back, if that's what we want to do in future. Part of the deal with the new car, is that if we still don't like it after 3 elections, we can go back to the old lemon if we choose to - that's written into the contract.

Why anyone would choose to stick with the rusted out lemon is beyond me, unless they just love watching the crashes.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Good hypothetical. But... what percent of people have trouble keeping up with who their MLA is to begin with? Now imagine having to keep track of 6. Now imagine having to select from 30 to 40 on the ballet. Crazy...


Again with the odious argument that the NO side has been using, people in BC are just to stupid to deal with a new voting system. What nonsense, if other countries can handle something slightly more complex than first past the post, I think it's insulting to suggest we can't.

First bit of misinformation Dave, that anyone has to keep track of 6 or 20 or 30 candidates. Many people currently don't even know the name of their candidate when they go into the voting booth. They look for the party identification next to the name. The proposed STV ballot will have candidates grouped by party. If you're the type of person who is too busy to find out about your candidates, then you can go into the booth and vote for everyone in your party of choice. Simple, easy, not difficult. Or you can put a single X beside the name of the guy you like, that's still a valid vote under STV. The voter chooses.

If you're a political junkie like I am, or probably like Dave is, you can do a whole lot of in-depth research on your available choices and rank the candidates any way your little heart desires. If there's 20 on the ballot, you can rank them 1 to 20 if you want. The voter chooses. This idea that STV is complex is nothing but nonsense and more fear-mongering by the NO side. Why can't they make an argument that isn't based on distorting the facts to make up boogeymen?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Did anybody ever watch that Simpson's episode where Homer designed his own car?
> 
> That's STV.


Actually this is very telling and gets to gist of what the NO side is all about.

The people behind the NO side, both the right-wing BC Liberals, old Socreds and the NDP union-backed bagman, share one thing in common. They all think that the average person is too stupid to be given the opportunity to fairly choose his or her government. Those on the left and right who don't think this way are backing STV and don't be fooled, there are people from every political persuasion who are for it. The right is saying to their supporters that it's a socialist plot and the NDP bagmen are saying that STV is anti-union and anti-worker. Which one's right? Neither, they are just trying to scare you into doing what they want you to.

They benefit from FPP's distortions. One election a minority elects the Socreds or BC Liberals to majority government and business guys get complete complete control of the agenda, until their side starts to frack things up enough that they get thrown out. Then the next time the NDP gets a minority of voters to do the same and we get control that is beholden to CUPE or the IWA. Both of these sides are willing to take their time-out because they know that they get to go back to the trough next time.

They don't want democratic control to be reflective of the majority of citizens and they certainly don't want their trained seal MLAs to actually have to be accountable to the citizens in between elections.

Vote for First Past The Post and you do exactly what these contemptuous party hacks want you to do. They think you are just like Homer Simpson, so that's what they expect you to do.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Vote for First Past The Post and you do exactly what these contemptuous party hacks want you to do. They think you are just like Homer Simpson, so that's what they expect you to do.


A little reverse psychology, eh, GA?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Why can't they make an argument that isn't based on distorting the facts to make up boogeymen?


Who is 'they'? I have only heard a 30 second radio commercial for the no-side on CKNW. I have heard a lot more yes-side advertising. 

I am not distorting facts. Those are the facts.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Please tell me that parties wouldn't be funded by the government under STV.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Who is 'they'? I have only heard a 30 second radio commercial for the no-side on CKNW. I have heard a lot more yes-side advertising.
> 
> I am not distorting facts. Those are the facts.


I explained exactly who "they" are in my posts in this thread and so did Christy Clark in the video at the top of this thread. They are the party hacks and political insiders on both the left and the right who profit from the distortions of FPP. They are scared of the idea of anything that would put more power into the hands of citizens.

As I said earlier, those anti-STV voices on the right are calling it a socialist plot. That sentiment seems to be reflected here and maybe some are surmising that since I'm a lefty and for it, it must be so. Most notably on the right you have Bruce Strachan and former Premier Bill Bennett who have spoken out against STV.

And those anti-STV voices on the left, would be the two main guys behind the official NO-STV campaign, former NDP bagman Bill Tielman and former Glen Clark government insider David Schrek. These guys are not only against STV, they're against any kind of PR, although Schrek at least disingenuously claims to be in favour of MMP. He's not.

Tielman and Schrek have convinced some of the large BC unions to come out against it, like CUPE and the IWA. That may be a function of the leadership of those unions rather than a voice of the membership. Some unions have endorsed STV as well. Tielman and Schrek believe that STV was a plot by Campbell to leave the NDP in the wilderness and that it is anti-women, anti-union and anti-worker. It is none of those and most notably some womens groups have backed it, as has Judy Rebick.

On the other hand there is an ample supply of people left, right and centre who are championing STV. Christy Clark is a centre-right former Campbell government cabinet minister who bravely and honestly states why she opposed STV in the past - it was not politically convenient to her and others like her who enjoyed FPP's distortions of the voters wishes.

Recently in the Vancouver Sun, former BC-NDP attorney-general Andrew Petter and Troy Lanigan, the president of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation wrote a joint editorial in favour of STV:



> As two people who hold different views on a multitude of issues, we share a common belief that a single transferable vote system (BC-STV) can breathe fresh life into our moribund democracy.
> 
> By producing legislatures that are unrepresentative, the current system breeds cynicism and discourages citizens from becoming politically engaged.
> 
> ...


'

As far as radio and TV ads go, both sides have them. The BC government, in setting up this referendum funded each campaign with $500,000 to get their side out. Any additional funds the campaigns have is the result of fundraising. The YES side has a far larger grassroots organization compared to the NO side, so they have probably raised more money from greater numbers of people. I'll guess we'll see the donation details after the election.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Please tell me that parties wouldn't be funded by the government under STV.


I don't know if provincial parties receive any government funding in BC, like the parties do federally. I don't think they do, but I'm not sure. I don't think the voting system would have anything to do with that subject, and I don't think there were any recommendations from the Citizen's Assembly on that.

By the way cute illustration above. I believe Satan is on the NO-STV side, although he hasn't come out as an official sponsor.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

Since when has politics been a science? Political scientist is a person educated in policy and politics but it is only an opinion, like yours or mine, not fact. My opinion is just that, an opinion, not disguised as fact or argued through fallacies. I disagree with the proportion system as outlined by many of the main speakers, and have stated the basics why I do. I don't believe in fixing this "broken" system by replacing a flawed part with another flawed part.

People in this discussion have become stuck in their beliefs and will not entertain any other ideas. We are all guilty of this, even myself, but I am willing to listen if it is a discussion and not a lecture.

I guess I am probably done in this topic, but consider this:

One of the major pushes towards a proportional voting system is because people do not like how their votes for smaller parties don't see any results in the final tally. The problem would then be with the party system, and how people vote for their representatives. Think about it. If you vote for the candidate that best represents your interest of your riding, despite how the voting is spread out. The candidate that best represents the district would be the one who recieve the majority of the votes. So if you look at voting on the individual riding level, FPP makes more sense, even if the percentage voting does not match the overall results because that is who the people in that area want.

With all this said I would prefer the homermobile.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I could also imagine a case where I wanted my MP to vote a certain way on a particular issue. Instead of finding the specialist among my six or seven MPPs (as suggested by the PRO STV side), I would be required to contact ALL OF THEM in hopes of swaying their votes. Convincing the "environment MPP" to support my idea would be meaningless if the other five riding reps voted against that MPP.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

ertman said:


> I guess I am probably done in this topic, but consider this:
> 
> One of the major pushes towards a proportional voting system is because people do not like how their votes for smaller parties don't see any results in the final tally. The problem would then be with the party system, and how people vote for their representatives. Think about it. If you vote for the candidate that best represents your interest of your riding, despite how the voting is spread out. The candidate that best represents the district would be the one who recieve the majority of the votes. So if you look at voting on the individual riding level, FPP makes more sense, even if the percentage voting does not match the overall results because that is who the people in that area want.
> 
> With all this said I would prefer the homermobile.


OK, for the sake of argument, I'll agree with your reason for the cause of the push for PR systems. I believe there are other possibly more important reasons, but I'll leave that for now.

Arguing the second part of your paragraph I would have to say that FPP absolutely fails in this regard, due to the fact that FPP creates so many safe seats where the local rep is unresponsive to the electorate and where in a race comprised of more than two parties the winning candidate rarely gets the majority of votes. FPP sends reps to parliaments with as little as 25% of the votes from a riding.

In this case STV is a clear winner for accountability. As I have explained elsewhere in this thread, STV fosters competition between candidates of the same party within multi-member ridings to get your top ranking. This means that any bump on a log safe seat dweller better start being accountable if he wants to be one of riding's MLAs from his party. This directly takes power away from parties to control who they can put into parliaments, unlike under FPP in which the majority of ridings are not swing ridings and the party knows that their nomination of the candidate is the real election, not the one the public votes on.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I could also imagine a case where I wanted my MP to vote a certain way on a particular issue. Instead of finding the specialist among my six or seven MPPs (as suggested by the PRO STV side), I would be required to contact ALL OF THEM in hopes of swaying their votes. Convincing the "environment MPP" to support my idea would be meaningless if the other five riding reps voted against that MPP.


I'm not sure I'm following the point you're trying to make here.

If you're suggesting that all the MLAs (provincial reps, like an MPP in Ont) in the multi-member ridings vote as a block and that their vote cancels each other out, that would be incorrect. There will be the same number of MLAs under STV, but will represent fewer ridings. In each riding you could talk to all of them or one of them. Some will be in government and some will be in opposition, but any of them can speak on behalf of their constituents in the Legislature.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I'm not sure I'm following the point you're trying to make here.


The pro STV suggested that you could bring up a problem with the one MPP you would most like to approach with your concern. The example given was that the MPPs would attempt to divide their riding into areas of expertise, so that you would want to bring up environmental concerns with the environment MPP in your riding. My counterpoint is that it would induce me to do the opposite, requiring me to bring up the same issue with not just one, but with all 6 or 7 representatives, since I would have a better chance of success by convincing all of them to support my viewpoint.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Arguing the second part of your paragraph I would have to say that FPP absolutely fails in this regard, due to the fact that FPP creates so many safe seats where the local rep is unresponsive to the electorate and where in a race comprised of more than two parties the winning candidate rarely gets the majority of votes.


If the local rep is unresponsive, the riding can vote him out next time around. The fact that they win shows they have the highest level of support amongst any candidate. 

A seat is only as safe as the electorate let's it become. 



GratuitousApplesauce;823028FPP sends reps to parliaments with as little as 25% of the votes from a riding.[/QUOTE said:


> Just one sentence ago, you criticized situations of somebody getting elected with less than a majority of votes. Now, the 25% threshold is a great thing. Huh?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I am getting so tired of society focusing on losers. It's like the kiddie ball games I coach where we're not supposed to let the kids know the score--except they ALL count the score. We can only re-tool society so far to make losers feel better about themselves. STV is no more than a redistricting policy to reward losers by transforming them through the most painful transmutation into winners. What's next? A guaranteed 10 cent prize if you buy a lottery ticket, just so everybody wins???!!!


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Macfury said:


> The pro STV suggested that you could bring up a problem with the one MPP you would most like to approach with your concern. The example given was that the MPPs would attempt to divide their riding into areas of expertise, so that you would want to bring up environmental concerns with the environment MPP in your riding. My counterpoint is that it would induce me to do the opposite, requiring me to bring up the same issue with not just one, but with all 6 or 7 representatives, since I would have a better chance of success by convincing all of them to support my viewpoint.


Good example. I don't understand how a candidate elected with a narrow margin (say 25% of 2nd choice votes) can represent the whole constituency. It seems to me like they would be better off sticking with supporting their narrow interests (25% of the vote) and ignoring the larger majority of their riding. 

Under FPP it is clear how your electorate is and it is transparent. One riding, one MLA. It is easy for the public to hold their representative to account. Under STV, it isn't clear who the MLA represents. That strikes me as being less accountable.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

^^^^
If you brought up an environment concern with a Green Party MPP or a labour issue with an NDP MPP in your riding, but the Liberal party was in power, what good would it do? If nothing came of your concerns they need only point out that they didn't win the election--you should have brought it up with the Liberal MPP. Sounds just like FPTP to me.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> ^^^^
> If you brought up an environment concern with a Green Party MPP or a labour issue with an NDP MPP in your riding, but the Liberal party was in power, what good would it do? If nothing came of your concerns they need only point out that they didn't win the election--you should have brought it up with the Liberal MPP. Sounds just like FPTP to me.


Sad thing is MF, taking a concern to an Oppositioner is usually far more effective than going to someone in Government. It's all about making an issue look like a disgrace and plopping it onto the Government's lap during Question Period. For instance, Hamilton ended up being shafted for years because we returnede Fiberals to a Fiberal Government. We ended up with an airport basically shut down, a major lawsuit over an expressway, and the old rusted out Haida (that used to be in Toronto) that they spent millions on but is still rotting out. We have the "Discovery Center" which has the only known purpose of being a plum so that Sheila could say she "accomplished" something in the face of Jane Stewart and her misappropriation of funds when she built warehouses in Brantford so they could cabbage industry in Hamilton.

We have been doing much better putting in NDP people - at least they are not afraid to ask questions and stand up for what they believe in. This is something that poeple like Copps, Keyes and Valeri did not do - they didn't even have the guts to stand up to ask anything about AdScam, or any of the other malarkey which lead to the Government engaging in continual attacks against the people.

Think of it this way - if someone in the Gulf Islands has a problem or issue, would it be worth the oxygen and time to bother going to Gary Lunn?

That aside, all of these "proportional" schemes end up with the same result, installing fake candidates into non-existent ridings so they can reap the benefits of fat pay cheques and all of the abuse of power they can dole out, without having any responsibility to any constituents, and not being accountable to anything except political cronies in the back offices.

As I have said before, it doesn't matter if we have FPP, SVT, or whatever system - we simply do not have the right to recall and impeach corrupt politicians, it is all by the whim of the Prime Minister or Premier - and thus, no voting system will gain us anything of value. That is the real power we need as citizens - and not only the right of recall and impeachment, but to impose set term limits, and have all major political positions subject to election, or to public hearings and confirmation.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> ^^^^
> If you brought up an environment concern with a Green Party MPP or a labour issue with an NDP MPP in your riding, but the Liberal party was in power, what good would it do? If nothing came of your concerns they need only point out that they didn't win the election--you should have brought it up with the Liberal MPP. Sounds just like FPTP to me.


oh likely about as much good as taking a concern to a ruling party MP.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> oh likely about as much good as taking a concern to a ruling party MP.


Not at all. I've gotten some direct results from talking to ruling party MPPs/MPs, even if they were not my candidate of choice. Next to no results from talking to members of parties that didn't win. 

I'm certainly not discounting any unfortunate experiences you night have had.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Not at all. I've gotten some direct results from talking to ruling party MPPs/MPs, even if they were not my candidate of choice. Next to no results from talking to members of parties that didn't win.
> 
> I'm certainly not discounting any unfortunate experiences you night have had.


How nice for you MF. If only the world worked according to macfury!

Actually I've ad no such unfortunate experiences, ruling or no.

However in the real world, there are many many people out there, who have had unfortunate experiences with ruling party's members. 

I guess with the ruling government in such a minority, most of Canada is pretty much screwed then eh? So if Iggy looks like he might form the next government, it'd be best if we all voted liberal en masse to ensure we all get effective government then.:lmao:


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> The pro STV suggested that you could bring up a problem with the one MPP you would most like to approach with your concern. The example given was that the MPPs would attempt to divide their riding into areas of expertise, so that you would want to bring up environmental concerns with the environment MPP in your riding. My counterpoint is that it would induce me to do the opposite, requiring me to bring up the same issue with not just one, but with all 6 or 7 representatives, since I would have a better chance of success by convincing all of them to support my viewpoint.


OK, I see what you're saying now. So why is having the ability to contact a number of MLAs a problem? 

Under single-member ridings you have access to one and one alone. If Macfury lives in an NDP or Liberal riding he gets access to that person, the other reps won't answer his letters or will refer him back to his own MLA. Under STV a riding will likely elect a range of party's candidates in proportion to the number of votes that party received in the riding. Even in urban Toronto, if STV existed you would likely get at least one conservative-minded representative in your riding, because even in urban Toronto there is a proportion that votes that way. It's all about providing fair representation based on the percentages across the political spectrum. FPP hands all power to the largest collector of votes, even if that person only represents a minority of the voters, they receive all the spoils.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> If the local rep is unresponsive, the riding can vote him out next time around. The fact that they win shows they have the highest level of support amongst any candidate.
> 
> A seat is only as safe as the electorate let's it become.


Of course that is baloney. Many ridings are full of trained seals, who continue to do nothing and are happy warming a seat in the legislature, but the local voters hold their noses and still vote for that party because they agree with the party and leader.

Going against that is really difficult under FPP, because voters have to make a strategic calculation about who is their least worst option. A prime example is Delta South. Liberal Val Roddick who is retiring, beat back a recall campaign, even though she supported things that made most in the riding livid. The argument was and still is, you can't split the vote and vote for the conservative independent, because then the NDP will get in. Delta South is a very conservative riding so voters chose what to them was their least worst option.

Under STV, voters in Delta South, could have easily got rid of Roddick at the next election and still voted for BC Liberals as well as other conservatives, without fear that a vote split would mean the NDP took the riding, because MLAs would be elected in proportion to the votes they got. If conservative candidates get 70% of the riding's votes, they'll get 70% of the MLA spots.





Vandave said:


> Just one sentence ago, you criticized situations of somebody getting elected with less than a majority of votes. Now, the 25% threshold is a great thing. Huh?


Re-read the sentence my friend, I did not say it was good thing at all.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I am getting so tired of society focusing on losers. It's like the kiddie ball games I coach where we're not supposed to let the kids know the score--except they ALL count the score. We can only re-tool society so far to make losers feel better about themselves. STV is no more than a redistricting policy to reward losers by transforming them through the most painful transmutation into winners. What's next? A guaranteed 10 cent prize if you buy a lottery ticket, just so everybody wins???!!!


More baloney, proportional systems reward parties with power equal to the percentage of votes they get.

Your pet system FPP, takes parties that didn't "win" and gives them all the power. Getting 40% of the vote will get you 60% of the seats and 100% of the power. FPP is a rigged game.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Good example. I don't understand how a candidate elected with a narrow margin (say 25% of 2nd choice votes) can represent the whole constituency. It seems to me like they would be better off sticking with supporting their narrow interests (25% of the vote) and ignoring the larger majority of their riding.
> 
> Under FPP it is clear how a candidate is electorate is and it is transparent. One riding, one MLA. It is easy for the public to hold their representative to account. Under STV, it isn't clear who the MLA represents. That strikes me as being less accountable.


STV is transparent and accountable. Ballots are of course secret, but your post-election counts will clearly state exactly how the rankings of voters translated into the final rankings of winning candidates. Nobody can win with a narrow amount of support. The results are proportionate to the overall wishes of the voters.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

EvanPitts said:


> Sad thing is MF, taking a concern to an Oppositioner is usually far more effective than going to someone in Government. It's all about making an issue look like a disgrace and plopping it onto the Government's lap during Question Period. For instance,
> 
> .... (snip edited for length) ....
> 
> As I have said before, it doesn't matter if we have FPP, SVT, or whatever system - we simply do not have the right to recall and impeach corrupt politicians, it is all by the whim of the Prime Minister or Premier - and thus, no voting system will gain us anything of value. That is the real power we need as citizens - and not only the right of recall and impeachment, but to impose set term limits, and have all major political positions subject to election, or to public hearings and confirmation.


I can't even began to respond to the truckloads of misrepresentations you are presenting here, because I have to get out and do things today.

You can be sure of one thing Evan. Keeping the dystfunctional FPP system will guarantee that you have no shortage of party hacks and corrupt insiders to rant about at length ad naseum forever. Since this is your favourite hobby and something you obviously derive deep satisfaction from I can see why you support FPP.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Not at all. I've gotten some direct results from talking to ruling party MPPs/MPs, even if they were not my candidate of choice. Next to no results from talking to members of parties that didn't win.
> 
> I'm certainly not discounting any unfortunate experiences you night have had.


You are either very lucky to have an MP/MPP that is not simply an organism that converts oxygen into carbon dioxide by means of a catalytic reaction that occurs when cash slides over a greased palm, or are in a swing riding where the parties put their best candidates on display in order to win a key seat. Hamilton just has not obtained "results" from an MP/MPP that was in the ruling party, at least since Lincoln Alexander - that dude knew how to get things done. Our current MP is pretty good, he's all about getting the business done, and stands up for issues - unlike his predecessor who was there to glad handle sandwiches.

Our MPP is also pretty good when it comes to things - considering that she is now the honcho of the NDP. But even without her being the leader of a party, she'd pretty much have to chop herself into bits and have a dead worm put into her place in Queens' Park to decend to the abysmal qualities that her predecessor inhabited. In fact, this was the only riding the Fiberals lost outright in the last election, since their candidate, well, it's a lon story about corruption, graft, influence peddling, and a seemingly endless train wreck of scandalous behaviours and conflicts of interest.

We can debate personalities all day - but it comes down to the facts, that we have some severe problems, but simply changing the system so that the parties can get their cronies into office without having to do any of the things that regular candidates would have to do (like campaign, debate, answer questions, be accountable to a riding, gain votes by various means in order to win office) will serve no purpose.

Of course, Campbell is trying to pull that stunt in BC so he can attempt to consolidate power, while facing the fact that he has managed to accumulate a bad record that only looks good when compared to the turkeys that were before him.

FTP is certainly not a good thing since it doesn't dole out mandates - but that is the huge problem with our system, that MP's can't vote for what they represent, but for something some party whip tells them to vote for. All of this leads to the situation where we elect an endless set of dictators who can't resist ruining things in order to grasp for even more power. At least in the US, it is a rare thing for parties to "throw out" members for voting against a bill or whatever - whereas it happens all the time here, like the Chretien Dozen...


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

I'm still undecided about the whole STV thing, it seems to work in theory but it does present a few flaws like losing the one local representative thing in favour of having 4-7 local representatives. But with the STV, you can in theory vote the government you want and vote for who you want to form as part of the opposition. 

Heck I still don't know if I'm voting Campbell or James.

Isn't it supposed to be First Past The Post - FPTP?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> FPP hands all power to the largest collector of votes, even if that person only represents a minority of the voters, they receive all the spoils.


And why should it be any different? They have more support than anybody else and represent the largest common interest within the riding. That's democracy. 

I don't think we should 'cut up' democracy to give governing power to groups who have secondary levels of support.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I can't even began to respond to the truckloads of misrepresentations you are presenting here, because I have to get out and do things today.


Or because you know those things to be true, and thus, can't respond to "misrepresentations" because they don't exist.



> Since this is your favourite hobby and something you obviously derive deep satisfaction from I can see why you support FPP.


It certainly is not a "favourite hobby". As a citizen of this nation, it saddens me to see how retrograde the nation has become. It's not just because of ideologies, rather, the fact that all of the parties make endless policy statements, then the moment they are in power, the same old tired policies are dragged out. We just have too many governments that accomplish far too little for our own good. One can pick any problem we face, and simply look back forty years and see that we had the same problem back then, except that malfeasance, corruption and vote buying have attached an endless mass of unintended consequences to the original problem. For myself, it would be far better if our nation just decided to solve the problems, or at least work on the problems, rather than fall further down on the list of Third World countries - because half the world has overhauled us already.

I am not fan or advocate of FPP, I think it is a terrible system because unless a candidate can net a full majority, and thus, have a "mandate" - the outcomes will always be in dispute, and used against whatever policy, based on the agenda of whatever special interest group in promoting or dismissing it. Personally, I think we need to have mandatory voting - and anyone that doesn't vote gets an automatic ten year sentence to hard labour. Then there is no dispute, every elector votes, every vote counts. I think all elections should be "run offs", so that if a candidate can't gain a full majority of votes in the first round, the bottom candidate is knocked off the ballot and we go to the second round - until a clear winner happens.

But I also think that all of the "alternate" systems are tainted. I don't know about the STV system they are proposing for BC - but I know the system they proposed in Ontario was a load of sewage - just a way for someone like McGuilty to drag some of his cronies into the Legislature because none of them could win a legitimate election. I am suspicious of politicians that want "change" like this - but don't back it up with reforms of the system, like being able to recall and impeach corrupt politicians. It's just too many rotten fish in Denmark for our own good.

I don't think it is wise for the Electors to allow politicians to "pick and choose" these things. It's like the last crazy referendum in Quebec where the question was so vague that a Oui win could lead to anything, and I mean, anything. That's why they had to bring in the "Clarity Act" - to protect voters from vague, meaningless questions of which the result could serve to interpret "the will of the people" into pretty much anything.

All of the "alternate" systems suffer from the same flaw, that it introduces into a legislature those people who were not directly elected, and do not represent the people who voted for them in a given area. We would be better off to stick with FPP - and bring in the other fundamental reforms to our system: an Elected and effective Senate, Elected and effective Governor-General and Lieutenant Governors, public confirmation hearings for all high non-elected postings and proper term limits. Once that is in place, and we have a regular Election Day that isn't held on someone's whim, then we can talk about altering the system of voting. To alter the voting will not solve anything - in fact, it will accelerate the gangsterization of government even more - without first putting out the ground rules.

The problem with our nation is that we try to fix symptoms, rather than fixing the disease that causes the symptoms, and not only that, with something like STV, we're not even fixing the symptom but catering to those who wish to have a sop when their vote "loses". That's the sad thing because no vote ever "loses" or is ever "wasted" - it expressed "the will" - and that is the thing we need to attain.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

I have spoken to about 10 to 15 people about STV. So far, only one has come out to support it. I really doubt this is going to break 50% support. My gut says it will probably get about 45%. 

The first time around STV received 58% support and was given a second chance because many complained too few voters knew about it and that there wasn't sufficient time to educate people. That excuse will not fly this time. I am surprised that people are talking as much about this as they are the election. I think the electorate is better informed than we often make them out to be.

GA, I really hope you don't blame the failure of STV on a 'no-side' misinformation campaign. The 'yes' side had more resources than the 'no' side did and is much better organized.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Vandave said:


> And why should it be any different? They have more support than anybody else and represent the largest common interest within the riding. That's democracy.
> 
> I don't think we should 'cut up' democracy to give governing power to groups who have secondary levels of support.


We don't have "democracy", nor it is attainable outside of a city-state. In a real democracy, every citizen votes on every issue, bill, law or policy - directly. But it was entirely unweildly, a kind of mob rules kind of government that is "exciting" but proved to be too easily swayed by demagogues, or by appointed tyrants in times of danger...

We have a representational form of government, which served us well when we had two or three clearly defined parties to vote for, and in an environment were going against the party will was not equal to political death. Governments have been debating the whole thing, and even though people don't like FPP (well, the people who "wasted" a vote on one of the "losers") - all of the other proposed systems stink. We would either get legislators that have no responsibility, or we will complain about because having 4-7 sitting members per riding will be "expensive".

As for "transparency", reforming the election system is not the first step - it would be better if they fessed up, and just told us what they wasted our money on lately, or what dysfunction lead to some giant pile of red tape being accumulated over some ten dollar problem. Don't say it doesn't happen - everyone has heard about some Government departent going nuts and spending weeks over someone that owes 42 cents for something.

Just last week, one of the roads caved in in this city - so logic would dictate that a crew go out and fill it in. But it's government. So they went out, and because it drains into the Harbour - it's a Federal responsibility. But the road is a City road - so the Feds can't pave it because that's the City's job, but the City can't pave it because the Fed's say that the water drains into the lake, so fixing it requires an Environmental Assessment. It doesn't end there, because the harbour drains into the lake, and the lake is drained into a pumping station, and since people drink from that, drinking water is a Provincial responsibility. So then they have to have an Environmental Assessment to assess the Environmental Assessment - then they have to negotiate who is going to pay what, and whether the Feds should kick in "infrastructure" money. Wait until the Americans hear about it - it will become a bureaurcracy paradise once they get the IJC, a bunch of state Governors, and NAFTA involved.

Meanwhile, a few trucks ended up busting their axles on what amounts to a rather large pothole - so the steel company donated a giant steel plate because that was cheaper than fixing their trucks all the time. It takes on a life of it's own, and in the end, a thousand dollar road repair will cost us millions, and take a few years instead of five smokes.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Re-read the sentence my friend, I did not say it was good thing at all.


I don't follow GA. If you support STV, then you have to believe that giving a seat to somebody with a small vote total (say 25%) is a good thing.

Please address this hypothetical situation with three available seats (maybe this is a bad example, but bare with me). Let's say the totals are:

- Candidate 1 - 60%
- Candidate 2 - 25%
- Candidate 3 - 10%
- Others - 5%

Why should Candidate 2 and 3 be given equal powers to Candidate 1? Or do the 'over threshold' votes from Candidate 1 get transfered to second choice candidates? I don't get it. 

Either way, it seems to me that we are transfering the support of the most popular candiate to somebody else. If that is true, why does it make sense to 'undermine' their support? Is that not undemocratic by it's nature?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

VanDave: this seems to be at it's heart what is so unfair about the STV system. Once past the threshhold they get a full vote no matter how few votes they received, compared to the winner. 

In essence, for the STV system to be more democratic they would need to dole out voting power equal to the percentage of people who voted for that candidate. So Candidate 1 would receive 60% of a single vote, and Candidate 2 would receive 35% of a single vote in government matters. The cut-off would occur at the bottom, so that if the riding had 5 MPPs, the votes for the lowest candidates--6th place and and lower--would be moved up to bolster the voting power of those candidates most favoured by those who cast ballots for the losers.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'll come back later to stick a fork in STV--it's done.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

Never mind this whole STV debacle, I still don't know who I'm voting for!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

dona83 said:


> Never mind this whole STV debacle, I still don't know who I'm voting for!


Well stick a fork in some candidate--they're done!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Hey GA: go pull the lever for the system where all you have to do is sit on your ass and be good enough to appeal to about 20% of the electorate to get into office!


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

When I can't decide who to vote for, or all of the contestants for the election are entirely distasteful, I vote for someone on the fringe, like the Communists or the local Church Of The Universe candidate. At least they show up to debates, unlike McGuilty's last shill that was running here.

If they can't explain the advantages of STV in four points, and it takes them two hours to explain how this will be "better" when ridings get something between 4 and 7 MPPs - it's time just to say NO. Now, if they ever did come out with a system that was actually good, that's another thing.

I think that the cornerstone has to involve recalls, the elimination of "party whips", and proper judicial impeachment proceedings - which are far more important for "democracy" than cramming a bunch of electoral losers into a parliament just to assauge those who think that just because "their candidate" failed to get elected somehow leaves them "unrepresented". I'd rather see that a riding could recall someone who doesn't practice what they preach, like Dhalla - than to see a parliament stuffed with a bunch of unelectible goons. If a public official knows and understands that there is more to punishment for malfeasance than perhaps losing some votes in the next election, they'd be on better behaviour.

Of course, she was trying to explain how Politicans are very much like People, and that Politicians and People are both **** Sapiens. Campbell - wasn't he the clod that was caught driving around Hawaii drunk, pretending he was Magnum PI but with no pants on?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Stick a fork in it--STV is done.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Hang your head in shame BC. The Green Party failed to elect a single member with 8% of the popular vote based only on the fact that not a single one of them could convince local voters to choose them as their representative. Had you chosen STV you might have woken up this morning to a brand new day with a dream team government dominated by the Geens and NDP.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

"dominated" by the greens and the ndp? Even though I haven't read all the details of stv, I didn't think this was the case.

Was the sky gonna fall too? Was Campbell going to force BCer's to put Dijon on their hamburgers forevermore? It's a crazy world out there with the lefties at the helm. Crazy.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

BC re-elected Campbell, which is proof that either that Marijuana should entirely be banned, or the NDP are astonishingly weak (or that at least Marijuana should be banned from the NDP).

How did the whole STV thing work out - can a fork be stuck in it officially yet?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

EvanPitts said:


> How did the whole STV thing work out - can a fork be stuck in it officially yet?


Boldly rejected it seems, as BC citizens began to understand it. Fork inserted.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

EvanPitts said:


> BC re-elected Campbell, which is proof that either that Marijuana should entirely be banned, or the NDP are astonishingly weak (or that at least Marijuana should be banned from the NDP).


Now that's just plain insulting. Shame on you.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

EP: Carbon nonsense aside, I would rather have Campbell running Ontario than McGuinty.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

EP: BC has recall provisions for MPPs, by the way.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

Clarification, BC has Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs), not MPPs.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Thanks for the correction, Dona. I will refer to them properly from now on.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

Learn something new everyday. I had to Google the MPP thing myself.


----------



## sarah11918 (Jul 24, 2008)

Is Ontario the only province with MPPs? I didn't have a clue what an MLA was when I moved to Manitoba, and now seems it's the same here in PEI.

ETA: If you have MLAs, do you still call it "Parliament" at the provincial level, or is that different, too?


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

The provincial government would be called the Legislature or Legislative Assembly, and the building and grounds are called the Legislative Building and Legislative Grounds.

Maybe because Ontario has the Federal Parliament, they cannot have a Legislature but rather a Provincial Parliament?


----------



## sarah11918 (Jul 24, 2008)

dona83 said:


> Maybe because Ontario has the Federal Parliament, they cannot have a Legislature but rather a Provincial Parliament?


Maybe. Thanks for the info! It's interesting.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

The STV in its pure form is simple... the BC proposal combined the STV with a multiple member system which is much more complicated. I would strongly support inserting the STV into our current system; it wouldn't create PR but it would remove the incentives for strategic voting. And I think anyone can understand it. Maybe someday...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Ouch... STV went down in flames. Less than 40% of the vote. I think it is dead for a generation.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Vandave said:


> Ouch... STV went down in flames. Less than 40% of the vote. I think it is dead for a generation.


I'm already hearing the whining: "People were too stupid to understand the issues." "We were the victim of a disinformation campaign, etc." You can bet they think it should be offered up as a proposition in each election until it passes.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Macfury said:


> I'm already hearing the whining: "People were too stupid to understand the issues." "We were the victim of a disinformation campaign, etc." You can bet they think it should be offered up as a proposition in each election until it passes.


The whining doesn't fly with me. 

The more people understood STV, the less they supported it. The pro-STV camp had more money and more supporters to make their case than the no-side did. 

There is no reason for this to be offered again anytime soon. It got shot down big time with a majority against it in 75 out of 85 ridings. 

I would like to do a regression analysis of the results against NDP, Green and Liberal support in each riding. My guess is a high correlation of left wing parties supported STV because they saw it as an opportunity to gain more power.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

I could point to a stack of phone books - and every one of those people would be better than McGuilty at running Ontario. He was so lucky, being able to run against greasy Ernie Eves, then not needing to even campaign once John Tory played the KKK card; and the NDP are not an alternative, there are still too many people alive that remember the Bob Rae maladministration, and Hampton has one of his ministers (read shill).

But wasn't Campbell the one that was caught drunk driving in Hawaii, thinking he was some kind of Magnum PI but without his pants on??? I suppose when it comes to BC, I'd rather have a Premier that lets things hang out in Maui than to have one that misappropriates government funds for his own circus. The Election shows the continuing weakness that the NDP have, and especially the effect of loosing 8% of the vote to the Greens...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

sarah11918 said:


> Is Ontario the only province with MPPs? I didn't have a clue what an MLA was when I moved to Manitoba, and now seems it's the same here in PEI.
> 
> ETA: If you have MLAs, do you still call it "Parliament" at the provincial level, or is that different, too?


It comes by way of tradition. Upper and Lower Canada originally had Legislatures, but the Rebellions of 1837 called out the corruption that the Legislatures had. The Durham Report resulted in the merger of Upper and Lower Canada into the United Provinces Of Canada West & Canada East. Since no one wanted the taint of the whole "Legislature" thing - they changed it to Parliament.

When Canada was created, Ontario and Quebec had their own Provincial Parliaments, while New Brunswick and Nova Scotia had Legislatures. Quebec changed theirs to a National Assembly. All other provinces were created after, thus, all adopted Legislatures.

So Ontario has MPPs, Quebec has MNAs and everyone else has MLAs. Conventionally, Ontario refers to the provincial parliament as "Queens Park", and sometimes the Ontario Legislature, while "Provincial Parliament" is used formally. Queens Park, in particular, gets used in much the same way as The White House (seat of the Chief Executive of the US), or the Sublime Porte (formerly seat of the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire).

Sometimes, especially in the old days, the Premier of Ontario was referred to as the Prime Minister of Ontario - so MacDonald was both Prime Minister Of Canada (when it was the United Provinces) and Prime Minister of Canada (post-Confederation). This usage has diminished, though it is still an official title that the Premier has attached, especially when it comes to legacy legislation, like the treaties with various Indian bands - which causes no end of wrangling because no one wants to be Prime Minister in that case...


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

EvanPitts said:


> ...the Rebellions of 1837 called out the corruption that the Legislatures had...


Hmmm...

Time for another rebellion? beejacon


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

EvanPitts said:


> The Election shows the continuing weakness that the NDP have, and especially the effect of loosing 8% of the vote to the Greens...


BC has always had more right of centre support than left of centre. When the NDP won in the past, it was due to vote splitting on the right or anger against the right for a particular issue. But, in a normal year, the right of centre party will win.

The NDP seem to have no interest in updating their party to modern realities. Your average centrist or right of centre voter knows theirs policies would be a disaster. Until the NDP gives up on some of their dinosaur ideas, they will never make inroads into the centrist / swing vote. People haven't forgotten the 90's in BC. The NDP made BC one of the worst economies in North America at a time when North America was booming, particularly the West Coast. The BC Liberals have done a good job of restoring the optimism and prosperity of BC. Why risk that?


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Vandave said:


> The whining doesn't fly with me.
> 
> The more people understood STV, the less they supported it. The pro-STV camp had more money and more supporters to make their case than the no-side did.
> 
> ...


Well, in my riding the NDP candidate got almost 60% of the vote, while 60% of the population voted for FPTP (or against BC-STV, if you like), which runs counter to your initial guess.

I'm not opposed to the theory of STV, but I was vehemently against the proposed implementation of it, because it would have resulted in my riding being combined with four others on Vancouver Island, and the likelihood of all four MLAs for the huge riding being based two ferry rides away was pretty high, statistically. (I crunched the population numbers and looked at probabilities.) Good idea, poor implementation, especially for rural areas.

Therefore, I think you'd probably want to look at the ratio of city dwellers versus rural residents pro/con STV, perhaps in addition to party affiliation. A lot of people just didn't like the idea of these huge ridings with the possibility that they would end up with less local representation.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

FeXL said:


> Hmmm...
> 
> Time for another rebellion? beejacon


Yeah! beejacon

We'll all meet at Montgomery's Tavern, and don't forget to bring a pitchfork or something...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MLeh said:


> Well, in my riding the NDP candidate got almost 60% of the vote, while 60% of the population voted for FPTP (or against BC-STV, if you like), which runs counter to your initial guess.


N=1. Enough said.

I had a look through the data and all the ridings. I think the correlation is there. If I have time, I will crunch the data and post here again.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Vandave said:


> N=1. Enough said.
> 
> I had a look through the data and all the ridings. I think the correlation is there. If I have time, I will crunch the data and post here again.


It's good to analyse things, just to verify the gut feeling.

The NDP are hampered by a few things: the Greens picking off the Youth and Environment votes; the recession because people are afraid of the NDP pick pocketing them with taxes and endless welfraud programs; and perhaps a lack of candidates that have a public image. Now I don't know if that can apply to BC, but it seems to be true in these parts. The NDP simply do better if they front a candidate that has a public image - like in Hamilton, two of the current NDP people are well known because of their years of service on City Council, another because he was a long time union activist, and yet another because she is related to a man who was a long time figure in local politics and has a recognized name. It just seems in many places, the NDP just can't find these things.

As for STV, I think it comes down to public distrust. I don't think the need for changing the current system resonates. Sure, people may not like FPTP, but they understand it because it is simple. All other systems proposed carry the bitter pill of distrust, since they involve adding people to the legislature that haven't been voted in directly, and may or may not have an actual constituency. I think the addition of politicians to a legislature is just too hard of a sell because of the idea that it will cost more, especially if it does not enhance our representation. (People will accept more members if the population has increased, or of ridings are split in order to represent regions in a better manner, so long as it doesn't reek of gerrymandering.)


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

I think the fact that only 51% of the eligibile voters actually voted is just dismal. Two things come to mind... the people who would've voted for Liberals assumed he was a shoe in, but I think the people who would've benefitted from some of the NDPs platform really blew it. I'm thinking alone raising minimum wage from $8 to $10 an hour. I'm thinking that since in general the young people tend to be disinterested in politics, their disinterest cost then $160-$320 a month in additional salary (that is, if they're even working). I voted Liberal but I'm just underwhelmed that this election was not close as I thought it would've been, like in 1996 when the NDP barely managed a majority by 1 seat.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

EvanPitts said:


> The NDP are hampered by a few things: the Greens picking off the Youth and Environment votes; the recession because people are afraid of the NDP pick pocketing them with taxes and endless welfraud programs; and perhaps a lack of candidates that have a public image. Now I don't know if that can apply to BC...


There's at least some evidence this applies to BC as well:
Jumping Ship | OurFernie

The NDP can't succeed trying to be all things to all people, there seems to be a real split between the different factions...


----------



## sarah11918 (Jul 24, 2008)

PenguinBoy said:


> The NDP can't succeed trying to be all things to all people, there seems to be a real split between the different factions...


I agree. Is it the party of the university student? the auto worker? the single parent? In Ontario at least, the membership is extremely diverse, sometimes to the point of wondering how they can be compatible at all.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

sarah11918 said:


> ...the membership is extremely diverse, sometimes to the point of wondering how they can be compatible at all.


They aren't.

Sometimes they can pretend to get along for a while when they are in opposition - but if they ever get power the cracks quickly appear.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

sarah11918 said:


> I agree. Is it the party of the university student? the auto worker? the single parent? In Ontario at least, the membership is extremely diverse, sometimes to the point of wondering how they can be compatible at all.


It's the party of the have-not and the wannabe. They can get along until the NDP achieves control over the flow of cash, then it's everyone for themselves as they fight each other to put their mouths on the spigot.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

sarah11918 said:


> I agree. Is it the party of the university student? the auto worker? the single parent? In Ontario at least, the membership is extremely diverse, sometimes to the point of wondering how they can be compatible at all.


The NDP is a party of special interest groups (some mentioned above) who see the NDP as a mechanism for getting their agenda into government, or as MF correctly points out, their mouths under the spigot.

Until the NDP dumps the baggage from these groups, they are unlikely to gain power in BC. The 'labour movement' is slowly dying off and our economy is shifting away from their strange view of the world (e.g. us vs. them). The narrow interests within the NDP are not compatible with a common sense economic agenda. Until they can straighten that out, the average middle class person isn't going to support them. I suspect the NDP won't come around to this realization for another decade or two. In the meantime, Campbell could be a six term Premier if he so wants.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

There's a rumour that Campbell doesn't plan on running for a fourth term.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> It's the party of the have-not and the wannabe. They can get along until the NDP achieves control over the flow of cash, then it's everyone for themselves as they fight each other to put their mouths on the spigot.


Ontario got a good dose of that with Bob Rae - it could kill the NDP's chance of ever forming another Government, at least until everyone that was alive for that fiasco has crossed the bar.

They were savage - utterly savage. They got into power and rapidly descended into scandal beyond all belief. I think it was just over a month in, Bob Rae is firing Peter Kormos because Kormos was a Sunshine Boy - funny thing is, just check out who still has his seat and is still with the party - and which one got the boot and is not a shill of the Fiberals.

Sure, the NDP wer "pro worker", and even passed progressive minded legislation that banned "replacement workers" - otherwise known as scabs.

Then they turned around and stabbed the workers in the back by imposing the "Social Contract", where workers were forced into working without pay - otherwise known as slavery.

The excess and decadence that went on was unparalleled, and paramount was how rapidly the NDP were able to destroy Ontario Hydro so utterly and brutally - then force the citizens of the province to "pay" for the mess in perpetuity.

The NDP is something that we should have - but in limited doses, and never in control of the cash - because we don't need another glad handler like Maurice Strong destroying some sector of the economy faster than the crew of the Enola Gay destroyed Hiroshima...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Ouch... STV went down in flames. Less than 40% of the vote. I think it is dead for a generation.


Yep, it's completely dead. I'm feelin' that ouch. Not only is STV dead but proportional representation is dead across Canada for a long time with this defeat. Those who voted against it but thought they liked MMP, AV or some other electoral reform won't get that either. It will be FPP both provincially and federally for a long, long time. Those who are in their 20s might possibly see the issue re-emerge when they're my age (52).

Obviously, I don't like this, but them's the breaks. Although I was on the losing side, I'm not on the wrong side. 

First Past the Post is not a defensible electoral system, pretty much the worst of all that have been used, but those who prefer it will have an easy time raising irrational and unsubstantiated fears about using any other system.

To answer Dave's contention that it was the left that supported it, polls bear out that indeed it had greater support from the left than the right. But fully a third of right wing supporters supported it also. The YES side had prominent supporters on the right in the 2 referendums. 

But STV was defeated in this contest primarily by NDP insiders, like Bill Tielman, David Schreck, and Moe Sihota, who led the charge on the NO side. A significant number of NDP voters must have also voted against it or it would have done better.

FPP as it is used in our parliamentary system is all about gaining a majority government, with 100% of the power and with significantly less than a majority of voter support. Majority governments with total control have been formed with the amount of electoral support BC-STV got this time, such as some of Chretien's governments. Harper was hoping that 38% would give him this control, and last election he came close.

Once that majority is gained, MP, MLA or MPP representation is destroyed. All power emanates from the the PMO or Premier's office and is the hands of a small group of insiders and power-mongers. Those who are rank and file MPs, MLAs or MPPs have little or no influence to do anything that goes against what the party leader decides.

But for me, sadly, FPP is entrenched for as long as it will matter to my life. Any discussion of whether it is good or bad is now merely an academic pastime, like whether it would be nice if we all had flying cars. I've campaigned and advocated for proportional representation for a good 10 years and now that fight is done. I'll still point out how bad FPP is when it's distortions and problems are manifested but will have to live with those nevertheless.

Enjoy your First Past the Post governments folks.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Thanks for your informative posts G.A. Never say never.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The point is, GA, that they do undersand FPTP and prefer it, though this appears incomprehensible to you. 

Suggesting that people ought to have voted for BC-STVs bizarre gerrymandering of districts in order to get a better crack at some form of proportional representation is a non-starter. Why not start with a small change and attempt to build on that, instead of asking people to accept a system untested here whole hog with promises that they might be able to fix it later?


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Yep, it's completely dead. I'm feelin' that ouch. Not only is STV dead but proportional representation is dead across Canada for a long time with this defeat.


Maybe it's dead because it shouldn't have been an issue in the first place. I think there would be much more value in having an elected Senate, and elected Governor-General, and such - these are things that people can identify with. I just think that despite the fact that people have their reservations about FPTP, they have far more reservations about implementing a system where party hacks are "elected" but don't have actual constituencies and don't actually participate in the campaign.

As for it coming back, I am sure that any Government that is inept and gutless, and denies the people the fundamental reforms we need to establish a truer form of democracy, will return to it, because these systems are nothing but a ruse that hides the real systemic problems we have.



> FPP as it is used in our parliamentary system is all about gaining a majority government,


So you are saying that some system, like STV, is about gaining minority governments? That is crazy - it's just a scheme to gerrymander ridings and to get safe seats for unelectable party hacks.



> All power emanates from the the PMO or Premier's office and is the hands of a small group of insiders and power-mongers.


So you are saying that with STV, a gerrymandered system that installs insiders and party hacks into the legislature, without having stood for election, is somehow a good thing? Wouldn't it be better to have term limits, a set election date, and other such reforms than to just come up with a different way of stuffing a parliament?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Macfury said:


> The point is, GA, that they do undersand FPTP and prefer it, though this appears incomprehensible to you.


I agree. I know GA really believed in STV, but I don't think it is fair to say those who voted against it were somehow ignorant or supported a bad system. The more that people learned about STV, the less they supported it. No system is perfect and most people believed FPTP is a better system.

It should be dead for a generation as well. It has two chances in BC already. Why should it get a third when it was resoundingly defeated?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

EvanPitts said:


> So you are saying that with STV, a gerrymandered system that installs insiders and party hacks into the legislature, without having stood for election, is somehow a good thing? Wouldn't it be better to have term limits, a set election date, and other such reforms than to just come up with a different way of stuffing a parliament?


No I'm not saying anything like that, because your idea about what STV is, is misinformed. Read up on it a bit.

It might be possible to have a reasonable discussion with you if you could somehow just turn down the hyperbole.



Macfuy said:


> Suggesting that people ought to have voted for BC-STVs bizarre gerrymandering of districts in order to get a better crack at some form of proportional representation is a non-starter. Why not start with a small change and attempt to build on that, instead of asking people to accept a system untested here whole hog with promises that they might be able to fix it later?


There is no gerrymandering of anything. Gerrymandering means that a riding boundary has been changed by corrupt insiders to guarantee a result that favours one party. The riding changes that STV and other proportional systems require are not gerrymandering, they are changes to the structure to guarantee a result that is proportional to votes cast. In other words, a fair result that accurately reflects the political will. Using the word "gerrymandering" is something more like would expect from EP.

But again, this is all now academic. Your favoured system is now safe from any challenges. Congrats.



Ottawaman said:


> Thanks for your informative posts G.A. Never say never.


You're welcome. 

The problems with FPP will eventually be its own undoing. But these have to occur very blatantly and in grand numbers for any movement to occur. What pushed it in BC were two unfair elections in a row - a result in '96 where the party with the smaller percentage of the popular vote, the NDP, won a majority government - and the next election where the governing party got 56% of the vote and won 97% of the seats in the Legislature, leaving the opposition without official status and reduced to 2 seats. The last 2 elections since have produced results a little closer to popular vote, although the majority seat winner both times still has not achieved a majority vote.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> I agree. I know GA really believed in STV, but I don't think it is fair to say those who voted against it were somehow ignorant or supported a bad system. The more that people learned about STV, the less they supported it. No system is perfect and most people believed FPTP is a better system.
> 
> It should be dead for a generation as well. It has two chances in BC already. Why should it get a third when it was resoundingly defeated?


I'm not suggesting it get a third chance.

STV or another form of PR will get another chance, but that will be a long time off.

By the way, your insistence that people were informed about STV this time as opposed to last time is only your supposition, not necessarily fact. Judging by the comments I read here and elsewhere from those who voted against it I wouldn't call them informed.

But I think that we on the YES side have to take some responsibility for that. It was a difficult sell because it required more than sound bite attention to the issue. The NO side didn't have that problem, their main argument boiled down to "too complicated".


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> But I think that we on the YES side have to take some responsibility for that. It was a difficult sell because it required more than sound bite attention to the issue. The NO side didn't have that problem, their main argument boiled down to "too complicated".


And, having listened to the arguments, the voters made their choice--a SECOND time.

I would have said that BC-STV wasn't gerrymandering if the system wasn't designed to elect Green Party members.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> And, having listened to the arguments, the voters made their choice--a SECOND time.
> 
> I would have said that BC-STV wasn't gerrymandering if the system wasn't designed to elect Green Party members.


The first time the voters voted in favour of it, in what would be an FPP opposition-crushing landslide - but it didn't reach the unprecedented 60% bar. This is why a second vote was put in place - the government was getting a lot of heat and didn't want to can something that got 12% more voter support than their majority government did.

And I'm not suggesting that it be given a third vote. BC-STV lost, I'm not disputing that. But it was still the right choice, in my opinion, just like you think libertarian ideas are the right choice, even though 97% of the population would either disagree or not know what you are talking about.

Designed to elect Greens? You're just taking a cheap shot there, EP, ... I mean MF. Of course that's BS, MF. Once again, the system was designed to reflect the proportionate votes for each party, and the will of the voting public, hence the term proportional representation - not winner take all.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Designed to elect Greens? You're just taking a cheap shot there, EP, ... I mean MF. Of course that's BS, MF. Once again, the system was designed to reflect the proportionate votes for each party, and the will of the voting public, hence the term proportional representation - not winner take all.


I say this because it was actually a screening criteria for candidates running for the Green Party of BC. Of all the parties they had the most to gain by redistricting.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> The first time the voters voted in favour of it, in what would be an FPP opposition-crushing landslide - but it didn't reach the unprecedented 60% bar. This is why a second vote was put in place - *the government was getting a lot of heat and didn't want to can something that got 12% more voter support than their majority government did.*
> 
> And I'm not suggesting that it be given a third vote. BC-STV lost, I'm not disputing that. But it was still the right choice, in my opinion, just like you think libertarian ideas are the right choice, even though 97% of the population would either disagree or not know what you are talking about.
> 
> Designed to elect Greens? You're just taking a cheap shot there, EP, ... I mean MF. Of course that's BS, MF. Once again, the system was designed to reflect the proportionate votes for each party, and the will of the voting public, hence the term proportional representation - not winner take all.


I find it rather curious, that those in such opposition to STV consider a party with far less popular support than what STV got, a winner.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> I find it rather curious, that those in such opposition to STV consider a party with far less popular support than what STV got, a winner.


In 2009, BC-STV scored lower than the Liberals. Even if the bar had been lowered to 50% BC-STV would have lost.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

yes macfury. You get a hero sandwich.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

FPTP is superior to any other system I've seen explained. STV seemed like a particularly bad idea. It's the antithesis of democracy.

Earlier, I referred to STV as the choice of losers, let me explain what I mean. The proponents of such systems are primarily those looking in from the outside. Those without the numbers to get a seat. What they want, is to find a way to rig the system so that they can get seats anyway, even though they don't have the numbers. The way they think they can sell this, is to misdirect people with their TOTAL vote numbers, as opposed to their support in any one riding. So what they propose is to take away the right of residents of a particular riding to directly choose their representative. Instead, they'll be part of a larger conglomerate of ridings. Different ridings have different concerns, and vote accordingly, but STV and similar system proponents want to homogenize all that and take that representation away.

If there is a change that we could/should do to our current electoral system, it's to make it MORE representational by having more smaller ridings. Give geography greater weight in the riding breakdown, and get rid of these half-the-province ridings. In other words, the only thing lacking in FPTP is that that we need MORE of it.

If the Greens want to get representation (provincially or federally), they have to start regionally. If they cannot win even one seat in BC for instance, they literally do not have the support to justify even existing. The need to be able to represent somebody in particular, this back door attempt to include third and fourth place votes cumulatively is anti-democratic, and was correctly voted down.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

groovetube said:


> yes macfury. You get a hero sandwich.


Hey! While you're up, make me a sammich too.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

groovetube said:


> I find it rather curious, that those in such opposition to STV consider a party with far less popular support than what STV got, a winner.


If it makes you feel better we could limit the number of parties to two so that we can actually make such a comparison. In the meantime, it seems you are mathematically inept.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GA, can you answer my questions on page 14? No rush, because I really don't need the info for a few decades.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bsenka said:


> What they want, is to find a way to rig the system so that they can get seats anyway, even though they don't have the numbers. The way they think they can sell this, is to misdirect people with their TOTAL vote numbers, as opposed to their support in any one riding.


Exactly. So they combine the ridings that are most likely to result in particular parties gaining seats. One thing I hadn't thought of though--would it have been possible under this misbegotten proposal to have a combined riding district served entirely by members living in one town, or one part of a municipality?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GA, scenario 2... assuming STV...

Liberals 47%, NDP 43% and Greens 10% of the total seats, which roughly reflects the recent vote.

It seems to me that the Greens are the most powerful party because they have the balance of power. It would be easy for them to form a coalition with either the Liberals or NDP, who are unlikely to work together. We saw as much federally recently.

Why would this be a good thing? Why should a marginal party have that level of power?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

bsenka said:


> FPTP is superior to any other system I've seen explained. STV seemed like a particularly bad idea. It's the antithesis of democracy.


There is nothing at all antithetical to democracy about using STV or any other PR system. If you're going to make grand sweeping statements like that you'll have to explain them. So the democracies that choose to use STV or other PR systems are a sham? Please, there are people all over the world who would take great exception to that statement.



bsenka said:


> Earlier, I referred to STV as the choice of losers, let me explain what I mean. The proponents of such systems are primarily those looking in from the outside.


Not true. PR and STV had proponents from across the political spectrum. Every side is eventually on the outside at one point or another.



bsenka said:


> Those without the numbers to get a seat.


By numbers to get a seat do you mean the ridiculous way that FPP translates numbers into seats?



bsenka said:


> What they want, is to find a way to rig the system so that they can get seats anyway, even though they don't have the numbers. The way they think they can sell this, is to misdirect people with their TOTAL vote numbers, as opposed to their support in any one riding. So what they propose is to take away the right of residents of a particular riding to directly choose their representative. Instead, they'll be part of a larger conglomerate of ridings. Different ridings have different concerns, and vote accordingly, but STV and similar system proponents want to homogenize all that and take that representation away.


PR systems don't seek to "rig" anything. They seek to allocate votes proportionally based on the percentage voting for particular parties. STV in particular doesn't take away the rights of voters to choose their representatives. In most ridings under FPP a MINORITY of voters are the people who choose the representative. Under STV the representatives that are elected are chosen based on the proportion of votes that a particular candidate receives. It is a direct election and the voters directly choose their rep.

Under FPP while local concerns can occasionally effect the election, candidates disingenuously mouth promises about local representation that they can never fulfill. If their party gets into government, they might advocate for local concerns in caucus, but if the local concerns are in opposition to the Premier or PMO the local concerns will be ignored, which is almost all the time. In general people vote based on party platform, rarely even remember the name of their candidate because they know that local concerns are ignored even if their rep becomes a cabinet minister.

Under STV, uniquely among PR systems, candidates for the same party compete with each other as well as the other party's candidates to receive a top ranking by the voter and thereby ensure their election. If they are simply seat warmers or party hacks, their seats will be less safe than under FPP. STV also is more prone to electing popular independents than FPP, where it is difficult.



bsenka said:


> If there is a change that we could/should do to our current electoral system, it's to make it MORE representational by having more smaller ridings. Give geography greater weight in the riding breakdown, and get rid of these half-the-province ridings. In other words, the only thing lacking in FPTP is that that we need MORE of it.


Here I agree with you. But just try selling more MPs and MLAs as a solution in this country. That will be less popular by far than electoral reform. 

In BC we have about 1 MLA to 30,000 population. Federally across Canada it's about 1 MP to 100,000. There are some places where there are differences to those numbers for geographic and historical reasons. I think we could double that number both provincially and federally. Federally I would just deep-six the Senate to pay for some of the additional MPs. But ultimately having more representatives will increase the chances of some better local representation.



bsenka said:


> If the Greens want to get representation (provincially or federally), they have to start regionally. If they cannot win even one seat in BC for instance, they literally do not have the support to justify even existing. The need to be able to represent somebody in particular, this back door attempt to include third and fourth place votes cumulatively is anti-democratic, and was correctly voted down.


If I were part of the Green party I would recommend focusing on a few ridings rather than all of them. If and when they get their foot in the door under FPP they can expand. If they want to survive now, with no chance of PR coming, that's what they will have to do. The only problem for them is that if this doesn't work they will lose their $ per vote funding.

Again you call a system used by other democracies anti-democratic without explaining how that is. What is far more anti-democratic in my opinion is a system where 40% of the vote or less can equal 60% of the seats and translate to a majority government that concentrates total power in the hands of the PMO and a few backroom insiders, while leaving Parliament a rubber-stamping body, where events are a foregone conclusion.

The so-called "stability" that FPP ensures - if a party can gain a majority - is really nothing more than promoting a party leader as dictator for 4 or 5 years. Your MPs might as well go fishing, except they have to show up at votes and do their trained seal impersonations. 

And this "stability" is overturned when the populace eventually gives one dictator their time out and chooses the other. FPP swings wildly between competing visions of the country with their social and economic theories. PR systems even that out as parties have to focus on working out their differences and compromising if they want to stay relevant.

FPP is what we got. Federally, eventually a party will find a way to get a majority government again. Probably that will be the Liberals again and we'll be back to having our dictator PM.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> GA, scenario 2... assuming STV...
> 
> Liberals 47%, NDP 43% and Greens 10% of the total seats, which roughly reflects the recent vote.
> 
> ...


Balance of power scenarios already exist under FPP if more than 2 parties are contesting the election. What seems the issue to me and those who agree with PR is that you should give parties their proportional share of the vote regardless.

PR opponents seem to be saying, "It's too dangerous to give small parties their fair share of the vote because they might do something I don't like." That is nonsense and many countries in the world manage perfectly well giving small parties a share. Most PR systems are designed to have a lower end threshold, from 3 to 5 percent that a truly "fringe" party would have to cross. That lets out the Christian Heritage party, the Work Less Party, the Sex Party, unless they can attract greater support.

I think your idea of "fringe" and "wingnut" is off base. I'm amongst 10% of computer users, using a Mac, which has been as low as 2.5%, but I don't see myself as a wingnut because I don't agree with the majority. I'm sure MF doesn't consider himself a fringe wingnut because he happens to believe in Libertarianism. So at what point does a political group cease to be "fringe" and have no legitimate claim to political representation? 15%, 20%, 25%, 35%?

Apologists for FPP are willing to disenfranchise voters on some arbitrary and unnecessary basis. It's unnecessary because the fears around smaller parties having the "balance of power" are overblown. Parties have political power on the basis of their popularity with the electorate.

For instance, Harper would dearly love to use the Bloc's share of seats in the House to keep his government limping along (a share that is enhanced by FPP incidentally). If he announced tomorrow that he was adopting the Blocs policies as his own, he would be killed in the next election. If he announced he was even adopting a few of their more controversial policies he would be killed. He has to be careful if he wants to make any deals with the Bloc and can only do so to the extent that the majority of Canadians might support. *So this "balance of power" that the Bloc supposedly has, is only power in terms of where their policies can be made to appeal to large group of Canadians.* 

This is how it works around the world in PR countries when smaller parties join with larger ones. Your fear of the fringe is not a valid reason to disenfranchise smaller groups from having political representation.

As to your page 14 question, I don't have the time or energy to answer it fully. I'm crunched for time now and going on a business trip in a few days. And since this discussion is now academic with the demise of STV, we've got lots of time to pursue it in the future if you really, really want to. Or we could debate the utility of flying cars. 

I'll just point out that you are indicating that votes are transferred to candidates that a voter didn't vote for. This was one of the prime bits of misinformation that the NO side used and it's simply not true. They used it anyway and went on to misinform many. If one ranks a 1, 3 or 7 candidates on an STV ballot your preference vote is only applied to those you ranked, no others.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> No I'm not saying anything like that, because your idea about what STV is, is misinformed. Read up on it a bit.


What it means is that the candidate that garners the most support in a given riding will be outweighed by some people that never made the grade. Perhaps the biggest problem is that we would simply end up with even more legislators (which would inflate costs and hence, would drop the parliamentary IQ significantly). Or we would have some kind of gigantic riding where no elected legislator could ever have a chance at understanding local problems.

STV is nothing more than a sop to those who have a belief in "wasted votes". I, for one, do not think any vote is wasted - it is simply an expression of the will of the people, in the same way low voter turnouts expresses the will of the people.

I do not see how we would obtain any practical benefit from STV - those things that STV would "cure" could more easily and more reliably be addressed through other systematic reforms, like the election of all high officials, like Senators, the Governor-General and Lieutenants-General, the direct election of Premiers and Prime Ministers, term limits, fixed election dates (where 1/3rd of the Senate is elected every 2 years, while half the Commons is elected every 2 years), etc... Other basic reforms can also take place, like the banning of "party whips", and of making every vote in Parliament a "free vote" - and the elimination of this non-confidence crud, replaced with proper recall and impeachment processes.

The system they promoted in Ontario was utter garbage, where the Premier could select any of his cronies from a secret list of cronies - none of which would stand for election or have a riding. What BC proposes is equally onerous, that many places would loose any chance of a local voice, instead, each Riding would become a quarreling place for 4-7 party partisans.

It may not be quite as gratifing, but a much better system would be one where ridings that do not elect a member by a clear majority would go to the polls again in a run-off election, with the bottom candidates eliminated. It wouldn't be FPTP, but rather, who managed to get 50%+1, easy peasy.



> There is no gerrymandering of anything. Gerrymandering means that a riding boundary has been changed by corrupt insiders to guarantee a result that favours one party. The riding changes that STV and other proportional systems require are not gerrymandering, they are changes to the structure to guarantee a result that is proportional to votes cast. In other words, a fair result that accurately reflects the political will. Using the word "gerrymandering" is something more like would expect from EP.


Until someone devises an appropriate term - we could refer to it as "gerrymandering by other means". STV would knock the parties off balance for an election or two, but they would soon figure out how to pervert the system for their own gains. Now one could point to Australia as some kind of example, but then, their system elected John Howard, so flush that down the toilet.



> What pushed it in BC were two unfair elections in a row - a result in '96 where the party with the smaller percentage of the popular vote, the NDP, won a majority government - and the next election where the governing party got 56% of the vote and won 97% of the seats in the Legislature, leaving the opposition without official status and reduced to 2 seats.


I don't think it is unfair at all - as the rules state that it is the party that has the most seats can front the Government. In the first case, it just shows that the NDP won all the key seats they needed, while in the second case, it showed that the wheels fell off the party that ended up in opposition. I do not see how STV would alter that, next to the fact that since the ridings would be quite a bit larger, the elected representative would have even less chance of doing anything for the people they represent. Instead of waging a political battle within the confines of the legislature, it would end up as a political battle in each riding, as each representative joggles for power and supremacy.

If we went by "popular vote", I doubt that we would have any chance at a stable government, since most governments are formed without carrying the popular vote. And if carrying the "popular vote" is so important - pretty much each election would be entirely won by Apathy and Lethargy, since the single biggest block of votes is by the people that don't bother voting. Oh, and STV would have to have some dude named "Spoiled Ballot", since that is fairly popular in some areas...


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

EvanPitts said:


> systematic reforms, like the election of all high officials, like Senators, the Governor-General and Lieutenants-General, the direct election of Premiers and Prime Ministers, term limits, fixed election dates (where 1/3rd of the Senate is elected every 2 years, while half the Commons is elected every 2 years), etc... Other basic reforms can also take place, like the banning of "party whips", and of making every vote in Parliament a "free vote" - and the elimination of this non-confidence crud, replaced with proper recall and impeachment processes.


I like many of these ideas, but no party is offering them.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Ottawaman said:


> I like many of these ideas, but no party is offering them.


Of course not - it would do the current batch of turkeys in in seconds. Just imagine the first batch of recalls - a hit parade indeed, with scum like Gary Lunn getting the boot first for his pathetic malfeasance. And imagine if these turkeys had to swear to an oath of allegance? There'd be 50 tete-du-Blocs out the door before lunch...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

EP: They _can_ recall MLAs in B.C.--Gary Lunn got a free pass from most of the electorate.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> EP: They _can_ recall MLAs in B.C.--Gary Lunn got a free pass from most of the electorate.


At least they have something in BC - but we do not have such a system across the board when it comes to public office. I think we were better off years ago, when most positions came up on a yearly basis - it kept people from becoming too greedy. These days, Government do all kinds of "hidden reforms", like when McGuilty stuck us with 4 year terms for City Councils. Shouldn't that kind of thing be up to the cities, and not McGuilty? Amagamation was another disaster, and they rogered the taxpayers out of $2000 on extra property taxes per year, and that after rogering the taxpayer with the "market assessment", which is nothing more than a system that rewards slum landlords and punished people who mow their lawn.

So maybe some provinces have "recall" - but I am talking about the real thing. I want to see our corrupt officials face real justice, on TV, where they can confess to their sins. I want to see real impeachment proceedings, followed by punishments - rather than these back office dealings that end up rewarding the corrupt by covering it up.

As for Gary Lunn - people in BC had a chance to turf that turkey, and now we see the result of what happens when you don't punish law breakers. Because of a power outage, and the legislation that allows CRNL to operate a patently unsafe reactor without safety backups, the reactor vessel failed and is now out of commission. I think it would have been better to prosecute the corrupt officials that stole the money that was intended for the backup system in the first place - and then to prosecute Lunn for the threats he levied at the agency responsible, including the threats made in his letcherous letter. Any system that does not dispose or treat such political filth is simply not a system.

Of course, King Harpo dropped the ball, but then, he has dropped the ball on everything, including dishing out large cash to failing corporates. This being Canada, I see no future that will bring us liberty or democracy, or even of responsible government...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

One of these days Canada will crawl out of the voting dark ages.....



> The Observer wrote:
> *My vote will really count this week: but then I’m lucky enough to have PR*
> 
> Fintan O’Toole
> ...



My vote will really count this week: but then I'm lucky enough to have PR | Politics | The Observer


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> One of these days Canada will crawl out of the voting dark ages.....


Either that or join the usual political rabble that have made messes of many PR countries.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

This style of voting reminds me of the fishing pond games for little tykes. They make sure the magnet picks up a prize each time so their feelings won't be hurt. Everyone's a winnah little fella!!


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

I think PR style voting is a lark - since it will achieve nothing, while providing no substantive reforms to the system. We need to have more elected officials, like elected Lieutenant Governors and Governor Generals, an elected Senate - as well as public nominations and hearings when it comes to top level appointed positions (as well as all Cabinet positions). Then add in a dose of recall and impeachment, as well as the end of severance and giant benefits for those convicted of crimes and misdemeanors.

All it is is a slight reshuffling of the numbers in Parliament, where unpopular parties gain free seats, and the governing party can sneaky Pierre some cronies into Parliament without them ever to have to stand for election or be accountable to a constituency...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Just like that........



> Brown plan to reform UK politics
> 
> Gordon Brown explains why he proposing constitutional change
> 
> ...


more

BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | Brown plan to reform UK politics


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

MacDoc said:


> Just like that........
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No referendum - no democracy. It looks like Brown is just trying to keep his entire career from falling apart on the rocks, especially since his MPs were caught red handed with their entire bodies in the cookie jar.

And how can Britain have a "constitutional change" - since they don't have a constitution? I think they need to elect a Bretwalda to clean things up the Anglo-Saxon way...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Why wouldn't Gordon Brown want to change the rules in his favour? He's got no other hope of clinging to power.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I have to admit that this revelation that a government leader would want to do things to keep things in his/her favor rather fantastic.

Never heard of such insanity, certainly not here at all.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> I have to admit that this revelation that a government leader would want to do things to keep things in his/her favor rather fantastic.


Such suppositions will drive one mad. Better not dwell on it.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

groovetube said:


> I have to admit that this revelation that a government leader would want to do things to keep things in his/her favor rather fantastic.
> 
> Never heard of such insanity, certainly not here at all.


That's some bad hat Harry...


----------

