Single Transferable Vote

[bill_barilko]

The drop in support for STV this time around is likely because people actually understood what they were voting for.

To illustrate the problem: the NO-STV campaign put the 'Understanding STV' video produced by YES-STV campaign on the NO_STV website (i.e. the 'Understanding STV' video turned people off the STV concept).

Plus the STV nuts were so stupid/had drunk so much Kool Aid they were phoning people on Election Day!

I had a message from them on my answering machine when I got back from voting. they had NFI what they were doing was against electoral law.

[Wilber]

Well, it appears that STV has been soundly defeated.

It looks like we are stuck with FPTP for a very long time.

-k

It's unfortunate, I was hoping for a little more interest in elections and government. Where I live, you could run Bozo the Clown and his brother Bimbo as a Liberal provincially, a Conservative federally and they would still get 60% of the vote. It doesn't motivate people very much to take an interest at election time. This is coming from someone who is generally somewhat to the right of center. Back to confrontational politics and juvenile name calling for the foreseeable future. When you look at voter turnouts and the deportment of our politicians it is difficult to believe that people fought, died and went to jail in order to give us the right to this.

A lot of regular citizens put a lot of thought and work into electoral reform in BC. They had good reasons for recommending it. I would have thought we could have tried their idea for a couple of elections at least.

[madmax]

STV was crushed. The question is what happened to those voters from 05 who supported it???? Did they just stay home???

[Riverwind]

STV was crushed. The question is what happened to those voters from 05 who supported it???? Did they just stay home???

The STV referendum was not widely publicized in 2005 and a lot of people did not know what it was about. They tried to fix that problem in 2009 and did a better job educating people only to find that people were less likely to support STV once the understood what is was.

[Wilber]

STV was crushed. The question is what happened to those voters from 05 who supported it???? Did they just stay home???

It will be interesting to find out what happened, who financed which campaigns and how effective they were at changing minds. It will all come out in the post mortum.

[benny]

It will be interesting to find out what happened, who financed which campaigns and how effective they were at changing minds. It will all come out in the post mortum.

Never ask again to a deliberative assembly to deinstitutionalize itself through whatever representative mechanism (STV, FPTP, etc.). Deliberative democracy is fundamentally an all-encompassing procedure to get rid of representative democracy.

Edited May 13, 2009 by benny

[Wild Bill]

It will be interesting to find out what happened, who financed which campaigns and how effective they were at changing minds. It will all come out in the post mortum.

The same thing happened last election in Ontario. People voted overwhelmingly to keep things as they were!

Afterwards, the "talking heads" have blamed it on pressure groups, misleading propaganda, voter ignorance and secret manipulations of the Illuminati. Virtually NONE of them are willing to mention the most likely explanation:

PEOPLE UNDERSTOOD IT JUST FINE! IT'S JUST THAT THE MAJORITY DIDN'T LIKE IT!

I'm betting two beer we'll see the same avoidance of that explanation coming from BC.

[benny]

The same thing happened last election in Ontario. People voted overwhelmingly to keep things as they were!

Afterwards, the "talking heads" have blamed it on pressure groups, misleading propaganda, voter ignorance and secret manipulations of the Illuminati. Virtually NONE of them are willing to mention the most likely explanation:

PEOPLE UNDERSTOOD IT JUST FINE! IT'S JUST THAT THE MAJORITY DIDN'T LIKE IT!

I'm betting two beer we'll see the same avoidance of that explanation coming from BC.

What you have to understand is that the B.C. Citizens’ Assembly was much closer to what a people is than whatever number of isolated individuals you can aggregate together.

[eyeball]

Voter turnout was only 48% despite the fact that STV was on the ballot. This suggests two things:

1) People who actually vote have no problem with FPTP.

2) The people who don't vote aren't going to be motived by changing the system.

I think it indicates that the same crisis of confidence that's wracking our economic system extends to most institutions and systems. I think many people have been worn down and out by years and even decades of uninspiring governance not only in BC but across Canada. I'm betting if these were more optimistic times we were living in that STV would have passed. Both our economic and government systems have grown so decadent they can't even find the motivation within themselves to change. So much for the leadership role the government would like us to believe it plays.

I predict voter turnout will continue to slide perhaps to the point that government will have to force people to vote if its to have any shred of credibility when claiming it actually has a constituency to represent.

I'm pretty much sick to death of politics myself. I'd rather be out fishing but its blowing a gale so...its funny how the things you couldn't do anything about no matter how much you'd like to never stay the same for very long in any case.

[Riverwind]

What you have to understand is that the B.C. Citizens’ Assembly was much closer to what a people is than whatever number of isolated individuals you can aggregate together.

Surely you jest! The citizen assembly was a group of people selected for their williness to commit time to the process. This meant that the citizen's assembly only consisted of people who already believed that there is a 'problem' that needed 'fixing'. Based on the results of the STV vote I would say that such people are a minority and do not represent the population as a whole.

[Wilber]

The same thing happened last election in Ontario. People voted overwhelmingly to keep things as they were!

Afterwards, the "talking heads" have blamed it on pressure groups, misleading propaganda, voter ignorance and secret manipulations of the Illuminati. Virtually NONE of them are willing to mention the most likely explanation:

PEOPLE UNDERSTOOD IT JUST FINE! IT'S JUST THAT THE MAJORITY DIDN'T LIKE IT!

I'm betting two beer we'll see the same avoidance of that explanation coming from BC.

BC-STV was not a product of the Illuminati as you put it. This is who they were and how they did it.

Citizens Assembly for Electoral Reform

[eyeball]

What you have to understand is that the B.C. Citizens’ Assembly was much closer to what a people is than whatever number of isolated individuals you can aggregate together.

No kidding, these plus things like local councils of elders are what we should be governing ourselves with. Elder councils should be to citizen assemblies as the senate is to parliament.

Parliament should be what represents Canada to the world at large. As for the senate...its like an appendix, who cares unless it blows up?

[Riverwind]

This surprised me:

Student Vote holds elections in high schools. This usually produces results that favour left wing parties (the olde liberal when you're young and carefree - conservative when you're old with responsibilities phenomena).

Yet despite this the students voted STV down 55% to 45%!

http://www.studentvote.ca/bc/results2009/

[benny]

Surely you jest! The citizen assembly was a group of people selected for their williness to commit time to the process. This meant that the citizen's assembly only consisted of people who already believed that there is a 'problem' that needed 'fixing'. Based on the results of the STV vote I would say that such people are a minority and do not represent the population as a whole.

The citizen assembly was a group of 160 people selected nearly randomly to reflect British Colombians and to exchange views in a non-partisan manner in order to form a common will.

[Wilber]

Surely you jest! The citizen assembly was a group of people selected for their williness to commit time to the process. This meant that the citizen's assembly only consisted of people who already believed that there is a 'problem' that needed 'fixing'. Based on the results of the STV vote I would say that such people are a minority and do not represent the population as a whole.

Yup, the voter turnout was 52.3% compared to the national average of 68%. Pathetic. Pretty soon people who vote will be a minority and not represent the population as a whole. But the system ain't broke.

[benny]

Yup, the voter turnout was 52.3% compared to the national average of 68%. Pathetic. Pretty soon people who vote will be a minority and not represent the population as a whole. But the system ain't broke.

A minority can represent the population as a whole as long as this minority is randomly chosen.

[Riverwind]

The citizen assembly was a group of 160 people selected nearly randomly to reflect British Colombians and to exchange views in a non-partisan manner in order to form a common will.

The selection of the initial 15,800 candidates was random. After that only those people who were interested in the process were considered. This process of self-selection introduced a bias into the process (e.g. only people that believed that the system needed 'fixing' would volunteer to spend time trying to 'fix it').

Bottom line: the citizen's assembly was definitely not random.

Edited May 14, 2009 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

Yup, the voter turnout was 52.3% compared to the national average of 68%. Pathetic. Pretty soon people who vote will be a minority and not represent the population as a whole. But the system ain't broke.

The 'system is broken' excuse for low participation has been proven false since people had a chance to vote for change but choose not to vote. The main reason for the low turn out is simple laziness. If people are too lazy to vote they have no business complaining about the choices made by the people who do vote. Edited May 14, 2009 by Riverwind

[Wilber]

The 'system is broken' excuse for low participation has been proven false since people had a chance to vote for change but choose not to vote. The main reason for the low turn out is simple laziness. If people are too lazy to vote they have no business complaining about the choices made by the people who do vote.

I see so what would you see as a limit to a healthy democracy? 40%, 30%, 20%, 10%? Give us a number. At what point do we just aclaim a premier for life and be done with it?

Edited May 14, 2009 by Wilber

[Riverwind]

I see so what would you see as a limit to a healthy democracy? 40%, 30%, 20%, 10%? Give us a number. At what point do we just aclaim a premier for life and be done with it?

There will always be some people who vote and there is no reason to believe that those people will always return the same party to power.

If you want to do something about the low turnout then we need to make 'not voting' a socially unacceptable behavoir just like smoking has become socially unacceptable. However, such a change cannot happen as long as people insist on blaming 'the system' or 'the politicans' instead of blaming the people who are too lazy to vote.

Edited May 14, 2009 by Riverwind

[Wilber]

There will always be some people who vote and there is no reason to believe that those people will always return the same party to power.

If you want to do something about the low turnout then we need to make 'not voting' a socially unacceptable behavoir just like smoking has become socially unacceptable. However, such a change cannot happen as long as people insist on blaming 'the system' or 'the politicans' instead of blaming the people who are too lazy to vote.

So give us a number. The fact is just over 52% of eligible voters cast ballots in this election and the trend is down. At what point to you acknowledge there is something wrong with the system? Do you ever blame the system for anything or just when it suits you, or is the system always right?

[Riverwind]

So give us a number. The fact is just over 52% of eligible voters cast ballots in this election and the trend is down. At what point to you acknowledge there is something wrong with the system? Do you ever blame the system for anything or just when it suits you, or is the system always right?

Blaming the system for poor turnout is like blaming the paintbrush for a bad painting. No matter what system we have turnout will not change unless people start taking responsibility for their own actions (or lack of action in the case of voting). The fact that only 52% of the population could be bothered to vote for a proposition designed to change the system is pretty conclusive evidence that the 'system' is not the problem.

Like I said, if you want people to participate you should be supporting actions like the anti-smoking and anti-drinking and driving campaigns that turned a common behavoir into a socially unacceptable one.

Edited May 14, 2009 by Riverwind

[Wilber]

Blaming the system for poor turnout is like blaming the paintbrush for a bad painting. No matter what system we have turnout will not change unless people start taking responsibility for their own actions (or lack of action in the case of voting). The fact that only 52% of the population could be bothered to vote for a proposition designed to change the system is pretty conclusive evidence that the 'system' is not the problem.

Like I said, if you want people to participate you should be supporting actions like the anti-smoking and anti-drinking and driving campaigns that turned a common behavoir into a socially unacceptable one.

Well give us a number then. We have 85 seats in this province. Assuming that each candidate is going to vote for themselves we would need 85 non candidates to cast votes to declare winners. Is that enough? Would the "system" still be working? Give us a number. It's a simple question. At what point would you acknowledge there is a problem and what would you do to fix it?

[Riverwind]

Well give us a number then. We have 85 seats in this province. Assuming that each candidate is going to vote for themselves we would need 85 non candidates to cast votes to declare winners. Is that enough? Would the "system" still be working? Give us a number. It's a simple question. At what point would you acknowledge there is a problem and what would you do to fix it?

I have answered your questions in my last two posts but you seem to have trouble understanding the answer.

The system is not the problem. The problem is the people. If participation dropped to 10% the problem would still be the people.

The problem can only be fixed by changing the attitude of the people. And changing the attitude of the people must start with the acknowledgement that it is people who are to blame for their choice to not vote.

Why do insist on letting the lazy non-voters off the hook by telling them that its not their fault it is the 'system'?

Edited May 14, 2009 by Riverwind

[August1991]

Well give us a number then. We have 85 seats in this province. Assuming that each candidate is going to vote for themselves we would need 85 non candidates to cast votes to declare winners. Is that enough? Would the "system" still be working? Give us a number. It's a simple question. At what point would you acknowledge there is a problem and what would you do to fix it?

In the last Vancouver mayoralty election, voter turn out was 31%. (In Montreal, it was 39% although if I recall correctly, it was about 7% for school counsellors.)

I reckon that holding an honest election is far more important than the voter turn out. If there is an honest election, then there is a way to get rid of the buggers, and that is the real test of democracy. IOW, however we choose our leaders (even by lottery), it is far more important that we have a way to oust them.

-----

For the record, democracy (one person, one vote) has two fundamental weaknesses. First of all, some people feel strongly about some things while other people are more indifferent. One person, one vote wrongly gives everyone the same influence. It's not fair. (Compare this to someone who loves coffee and drinks it often.)

Secondly, your individual vote will change nothing in the final result. (You have never voted in an election in which your vote was decisive. If you hadn't gone to the polls, Canadian history would have carried on as before.) Faced with this obvious fact, most people choose to spend their time in pursuits other than deciding which candidate to vote for.

The Single Transferrable Vote does not change these fundamental weaknesses. As Riverwind has noted above, it would make no difference and would more likely make our political system even more confusing and complicated. (At worst, we might become Belgium where no one knows who won the election and the PM is decided behind closed doors several weeks after the election date.)