ReeferMadness

Just because he made one lucky call, it doesn't make him a sage. Let's see some of his more extreme predictions come true. I don't think the market pain is over but I woudn't bet the farm on what he's saying. Was Peter Schiff Wrong?

The markets aren't dead but maybe they should be. For as long as I've been investing, I've been watching periods of failure to react followed by periods of massive overreaction. If the markets truly reflect the collective intelligence of the participants, we're all too stupid for our species to survive. I clench my teeth every time I see some airhead on TV talk sagely about how the market instills "discipline" when conservative and speculative investors alike get crushed by some senseless massive swing. Invest in lottery tickets. The odds are almost as good and at least the proceeds go to good causes.

I'm not against internet voting in concept but the devil's in the details. A voting system has to be secure, anonymous and auditable. It's different from online banking in that it is more difficult to make it auditable. If I think my bank is cheating me, I can look at the records and compare them to my own records. There seem to be two threads open on this topic and between them, I've seen some valid concerns raised about electronic voting. I think that a system could be made to be secure and auditable but I'm not sure how you'd deal with some of the other concerns. Things like ensuring that voters weren't coerced or bribed to vote a certain way and verifying identity. Public confidence is critical to democratic legitimacy. The counting needs to be done fairly, it needs to be done in a way that is verifiable and it needs to be seen[/] by the public to be fair.

I don't remember when I've last seen such a smug, shallow discussion. I guess things are gong well for you guys? No problems? How else could you justify dismissing half the population as lazy and apathetic? The voter turnout in BC dropped by 10 percentage points in one election. Are there an extra 250,000 lazy, apathetic people this year? Is is something in the water? But, hey, it's OK. Let's pass a law that says people have to vote. Hey, mandatory voting worked great in all those countries behind the iron curtain, didn't it? That doesn't solve the problem (heck, we don't even know what the problem IS) but at least it covers it up. When voter participation drops to under 50% (and it just has in BC), smart people, people who understand democracy, start to worry about the legitimacy of the government. Something is going on. People are disengaging from the system, maybe because they're finding it less and less relevant to their existence. If someone could tap into that, they could make some scary things happen. But that's OK. You guys go on back to sleep.

Oh, and before I forget. Bill Tieleman, the president of the NOSTV campaign, has come up with a clever method of dealing with low voter turnout. He wants to use the force of law to coerce you into casting a ballot whether you want to or not. You may or may not not Bill is a political strategist and a former communications director to Premier Glen Clark. Since Bill is against proportional representation, I guess this is his preferred form of electoral reform. It brings a tear to my eye to see a guy so into empowering people that he's willing to send the police to your home to make sure you're empowered. Anyone who's interested is cordially invited to Bill's Blog (scroll down to May 12) to let him know how much you support him.

If the NDP wants to form government, perhaps they should work on changing voters minds rather than getting the system they want. The STV choice should have been based on which system best translates voters intentions into representation. It was based on everything but.

I have to wonder about your definition of democracy. Most people think of democracy as government by the people. It can be direct or indirect but if the people aren't in control, you don't have democracy. When people stop showing up for elections, a democratic government loses legitimacy. That's exactly what's happening in BC and some people are getting worried. You can argue about why people aren't voting and I don't have that answer. But I can tell you that there are a lot of people who feel their votes don't matter. WRT STV, it's not very well known that the yes campaign had thousands of volunteers while the no side consisted principally of a handful of political insiders. Some people in this forum seem to think STV was a leftist idea but the NDP was notably over-represented in the ranks of the insiders who opposed it. The no side also had some important allies. The majority of the established interests as represented by the MSM, the major parties and unions were either indifferent or hostile to the idea. And letters to the editor showed that crackpots and conspiracy theorists were out in full force. The voters did indeed decide on the existing system but it was not an informed choice. STV has quite a number of devoted fans and you may not have heard the end of the system. It's unique among proportional systems in that it does not force you to choose a 'team' (i.e. political party). You vote for individuals and proportionality follows naturally.

That might be OK - how long do you expect to live?

Even if you can't bring yourself to vote for a candidate, vote for democracy. Vote YES for BC-STV!!

While the nostv site is technically correct, it was written in a misleading manner. Since 1977, Fianna Fail has not, by itself managed to get a majority. It needed to partner with one or more parties to form a coalition to make a majority. Regardless, the point isn't whether STV allows majorities or not; it's whether those majorities are real or phony. Under FPTP, it's quite common to get a majority of seats with only 40% of the votes. With STV, that might be technically possible but it's much rarer. What you're talking about is called 'gaming' the system. It's technically possible under STV but it's not that easy and if you make mistakes it can backfire. The best way to vote under STV is just rank your candidates the way you like them. If your first choice is very popular, chances are that part of your vote (and part of someone else's vote) will work towards your second choice. If your first choice is very unpopular, then your entire second choice will probably be transferred somewhere else. The real voters who lose out are some candidates in the middle whose votes never get transferred and the candidate still loses. But it's pretty tough to guess who that will be. Also, the experts say that under STV upwards of 80% of voters get at least 1 MLA they voted for. That sounds pretty impressive to me. In terms of understanding STV, you could try this site: trystv.ca. You can vote online and it will show you the results of your vote and all of the others who've been there before you. STV is perfectly understandable to anyone who wants to invest a bit of time. For those who won't, that's fine too. Elections BC does the counting, not the voters. And Elections BC has said that if voters can remember how they voted, they will be able to figure out where their votes went after the election. Simple is not always better. The simplest form of government is a dictatorship. And in fact, a good portion of the electorate always vote for someone they don't like to prevent someone they like even less from getting elected (strategic voting) That's really not true. If your vote is transferred from the 'losing' end, it is transferred at full value. If it's transferred from the 'winning' end, it's transferred at part value. Either way, it will only add up to 1 at the end of the count. In fact, first past the post is much worse from this perspective because of vote splitting. It's funny you think that the Greens are similar to the NDP. If you look on rabble.ca where the NDP faithful hang out, you can see them trashing the green party as right-wing pretend environmentalists. In fact, neither is really accurate. Chances are very good that STV won't make it. The no campaign, consisting largely of political insiders and spin doctors, has run a very successful negative political-style campaign. Have you noticed that nobody has said anything good about first past the post? We'll have to agree to disagree on that. Coalitions are not unusual in most western democracies and most of them work just fine. We're not used to coalitions in Canada so we get freaked out about the backroom deals. When you have minority governments under FPTP, there is a big game to see who can move the electorate by a few percentage points to turn the minority into a majority. That's why minority governments often don't last. Thanks. We'll need it.

Pliny - contrary to what some anti-STVers have claimed, you only have 1 vote under STV. It may be fractionalized but it's still only one vote. For a party to get all of 5 seats, you need over 80% of the popular vote and than wouldn't happen anywhere in BC. A guy by the name of Wilf Day did some calculations and came to the conclusion (as I recall) that none of the ridings in BC would all go to one party, if people voted the way they did in 2005. Obviously, things will change from election to election, though. It's quite possible that a single party could get both seats in a 2 riding district and somewhat possible to sweep a 3 riding district. As there are more members it gets harder. You're wrong about Ireland. According to Elections Ireland,, the last single party, majority government was in 1977. Since then, there have been coalitions and a couple of minority governments. Fianna Fail has been consistently the most successful party. There's nothing inherently wrong with that - maybe they've done a good job. The key is that representation in legislature is somewhat proportional to the way people vote.

catterinax, that's a very serious and disturbing allegation. If it were even substantiated, let alone proved, it could easily turn the election. I'm no fan of Campbell but it isn't fair to make anonymous accusations. I'm also not a lawyer but I have to wonder whether you (and possibly MLW) could find yourselves the target of a civil lawsuit. Campbell has been premier 8 years and before that, mayor. Why didn't someone bring this forward sooner? If you have people willing to stand behind this allegation, don't put it anonymously on a website. Take it to the media. Take it to the NDP. You may even want to take it to the police, depending of the age of the girls and the nature of the sexual advance.

I've never understood why people find it so important to have an MLA from their town or neighborhood. I can see some importance attached to rural/urban splits or regional differences but even that isn't my overriding concern. I'd MUCH rather have an MLA who shared my views but lived 500 miles away than somebody around the corner who won't do anything for me. STV gives you more MLA's to choose from so chances are better you'll have one you can work with. I wonder how many people have ever taken a complaint to an MLA and the average satisfaction rating of those interactions. My experience is that if you have an issue of policy (as opposed to assistance dealing with the bureacracy) and your MLA's party doesn't agree with you, you might as well forget it. You can take your issue to the opposition, the media, maybe even a lawyer; just forget about taking it to your MLA. Elections BC has a tough job balancing a bunch of objectives and limitations. They try to fit natural communities together, maintain northern representation and still maintain voter parity, all while not adding too many MLA's. I'm sure it could be done better but I don't know enough to criticize them. Ridings are always going to be to some extent artificial. I have a friend who was in a middle class riding in the 2005 election but now thanks to a jog in the riding layout, now finds herself lumped in with one of the wealthiest communities in BC.

The proportionality of STV depends on the district magnitude (DM) which is the number of MLA's in a riding. With single member ridings, you get a system that isn't much different than FPTP. At the high end, you get quite proportional results. You still need significant support, however, to get elected. In BC, the average DM is around 4.5, IIRC, which will give much better proportionality than FPTP.

Pliny, STV has as much to do with a 'pro-government' approach as it does with lclimate change. STV is about better governance, not more or less governance. As I said earlier, I don't have time to waste on people who've closed their minds. I'll come back another time and debate you on whether government is a good thing or bad thing. Meanwhile, you can read Ayn Rand and dream of your utopian ideals. Or read some Dickens to see what happens when they're actually put into action. Later.

It sounds like you're talking about party list proportional representation. You're right in that the party puts together the lists. There are closed lists (where the party determine the order of who will get seats first) or open lists (where you can vote for both a party and a candidate). List PR is used widely around the world but I haven't heard anyone proposing it for anywhere in Canada. Mixed member proportional (MMP) is a hybrid of the current first past the post system and list representation. You have two votes - one for your representative and one for the party. The list seats are held aside to make the result proportional. MMP was proposed in Ontario and PEI but lost in both referenda. All three types of proportional systems have lots of variations on the rules. What's happened in BC (and I understand the same thing happened in Ontario) is that established interests who are doing well by the problems with first past the post banded together and attacked the idiosyncracies in the proportional systems. Most people don't know a lot about voting systems and to people used to voting in first past the post, the PR systems can seem bizarre. In all three provinces, thresholds of 60% for the yes side were imposed. In BC at least, this has allowed the no side to simply campaign on fear, uncertainty and doubt. BC votes again in 1 week and it looks like the result will be the same as last time: higher than 50% but lower than 60%.

In fact, STV is one of the three main types of proportional representation, the other two being party list and mixed member proportional (MMP). The reason I prefer STV is that it allows much richer choice. With other types of PR, proportionality is forced by making you choose a party. With STV, proportionality is just a natural mathematical outcome. The other thing I like is that STV allows you to vote for the best candidates, regardless of party. Second choices count so candidates are less likely to slag each other during the campaign. Parties tend to dislike STV because it puts more emphasis on the candidate and less on the party. STV seemed a bit odd when I first heard about it but the more I learned, the more I liked it. In terms of the campaign finance law and who gets the money. That's a good question. When an indepdent runs today, does anyone get money for the votes?

I would support a system where the cabinet would be elected party-style and the house would be elected non-party, STV style. The cabinet would run the ministries, chair committees and prepare budgets but only the house could vote on bills. That way, you could still get continuity and cohesion in terms of day to day operations and agenda setting but decisions would be done on a non-partisan basis.

If the BC-STV debate in BC is any indication, absolutely not.

You want custom agents at the airport to stop immigrants with a spike belt?

Six weapons and a thousand rounds? I'm sure it was just for self defence. Damned Canadian fascist pigs. Don't they have a 2nd amendment up there?

sharkman, this is a gross generalization. If you look at the endorsements page, you'll see that the people endorsing STV include Andrew Coyne, Deborah Grey, Preston Manning, and Gordon Gibson. It's been endorsed by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. These are hardly Marxists. My observation is that the people who support STV (and, for that matter, proportional reform in general) are committed democrats who don't share any belief other than that governments should reflect the diversity of the consituents. I was recently at a forum where Judy Rebick shared the speakers table with (former Preston Manning aid) Rick Anderson, Rafe Mair and eco-capitalist Jim Harris. I can't imagine this group being united on very many debates. The no side president is long time NDP insider Bill Tieleman. In fact, as far as I can tell, the no side is a group of insiders with vested interests supplemented by a bunch who think that the Citizens Assembly chose the wrong proportional system. If you look at the literature, they have virtually nothing to say about the current system. Instead, they trash STV. And it's virtually all misinformation or disinformation. But since the bar is set at 60% (and both parties agreed to this!), the no side doesn't have to be convincing. All they have to do is spread fear, uncertainty and doubt. And that's exactly what they've done.

I don't know how Keith Baldrey laid it out but here is a link to Elections BC. Quick comparison of BC-STV and FPTP. It says plainly there are 85 MLAs in the current system and there will be 85 MLAs in the new system. For a more in-depth explanation of BC-STV (including some pictorials), click on Understanding BC-STV. The yes website is stv.ca while the no website is nostv.org. There was a comprehensive study on STV as it is actually used done by the Scottish Parliament before they adopted STV for their local elections. You can find it here. If you don't want to read the whole thing, you can scroll to the bottom and read the conclusion where it says In answer to your question, yes I am sure of my sources. And don't listen to Pliny because he admitted himself he doesn't really understand it.

What an arrogant thing to say. I've read a lot about STV and I understand it quite well. At least we can both agree that you don't get it. I haven't replied to your post because quite frankly, you don't seem very open minded and I've got better things to do.

Sharkman, the number of MLA's remains the same. If two ridings are combined into 1, there will be 2 MLA's representing the people of that riding. If there are 3 ridings combined, there will be 3 MLA's. And so on. Their are several advtanges to this approach: It maintains competition between MLA's all the time, not just at election time. Under the current system, if you represent a safe seat, you don't have to be that concerned with your constituents. It allows a better balance of representation. If a region containing, say, 3 ridings has 67% support for party A and 33% for party B, party A will send 3 MLA's and 33% of the voters will feel that they have no representation. If you combine them, you get representation that more accurately reflects the votes. In the example above, regional differences are exacerbated when regions tend to always send the same parties to represent them.