Single Transferable Vote

[Riverwind]

Compared to the US, our system is the lazy man's way of governing.

Compared to the US system our system actually gets things done.

[Wilber]

That is an artifact of the parlimentary system - not FPTP. The US system gives individual legislators a lot more power because the government does not collapse if they vote down a get peice of legislation.

OTOH, the freedom of the legislators in the US system creates different problems which are more intractable and lead to poorer governance.

Yes but you want to keep FPTP expressly because it keeps that artifact intact. Our government collapses if a piece of legislation is voted down because we have chosen to have it so. If the government could not be voted down under such circumstances, they would be forced to reach a consensus. Having an election allows them to avoid the responsibility of having to govern.

[benny]

That is an artifact of the parlimentary system - not FPTP. The US system gives individual legislators a lot more power because the government does not collapse if they vote down a get peice of legislation.

OTOH, the freedom of the legislators in the US system creates different problems which are more intractable and lead to poorer governance.

Parliament comes from the French word "parler" (talking) and talking together is the most basic and universal element in a definition of democracy.

[Wilber]

Compared to the US system our system actually gets things done.

So does theirs but in a different fashion. Sometimes what a government doesn't do is more important.

[Wilber]

Parliament comes from the French word "parler" (talking) and talking together is the most basic and universal element in a definition of democracy.

From what I see, our parliament consists more of yelling at and mocking each other.

[benny]

From what I see, our parliament consists more of yelling at and mocking each other.

Still, it is much better than exchanging bullets.

[Wilber]

Still, it is much better than exchanging bullets.

So are a lot of things, that doesn't make them particularly worthwhile.

[benny]

So are a lot of things, that doesn't make them particularly worthwhile.

Discourse ethics is particularly worthwhile:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_ethics

[Wilber]

Do you have proof of your assertions? You're saying that the system is the problem, do you have proof?

The only thing that is certain is voter turnouts have been falling for some time. What point do they have to reach before you would acknowledge the system might be a factor?

That's right. It's the way that our system has designed and it has worked for over 140 years in this county and much longer in the United Kingdom.

A system that evolved from vested interests and the pursuit of power, therefore it is perfect and will never need any change. It was aristocrats who designed Parliament to look after their own interests and curb the king's power to tax them, not out of any concern for the people they exploited. Parliament came about to represent the people who sat in it, no one else. We have adapted it to include people who are selected by the public but to some degree it's function remains the same. I may elect an MP but his function is at least as much to represent the government to his constituency as it is his constituents to the government. Not to say that good MP's don't do that but the fact is, in Parliament, "my" MP's vote belongs to the Prime Minister and Cabinet, not me.

I just looked out the window and there was still a Canadian flag flying in my yard. I really couldn't care less what happens in the US. Americans on the other forums that I visit have more than enough complaints when it comes to Congress and the two party system....but, you know, if only the grass wasn't so green over there and so brown here, right?

There is a Zimbabwean flag flying over Robert Mugabe's yard and they still claim to be a parliamentary democracy. What's your point?

I'm not saying the grass is greener or that we should change to an American system or that it doesn't have its own problems, just that there are more democratic systems than ours which do work. Besides we are not discussing changing our system of government, only how our representatives are elected.

You are accusing the system of being broken. Where is YOUR proof? I see none, as declining voter numbers can be attributed to many things.

Like what?

I find it important to mention at this juncture that the US has had similar voter turnout numbers to us in almost every election. I know that you'd like to vote for everything and anything, but that's not the way that the Westminster system was designed and there's no reason to change it based on your whim...anyway, the people of BC have spoken, they disagree with you. Seems to me that our representative democracy worked just fine....despite what you seem to think.

I thought you said you didn't care what the Americans did. Is having turnout numbers the same as the US something to be proud of? Where have I said I would like to vote on everything? Quite the contrary, if we could it would be much less important what kind of government we wound up with.

Yes, the voters have spoken and I accept that but I still haven't changed my opinion. I believe we blew a chance to try something which might have worked better. If it didn't, we could change back. No matter what prophesies of doom and disaster you and others come up with, it is not like jumping off a cliff.

On edit:

160 people working for 11 months and through many public hearings is a whim?

Edited May 15, 2009 by Wilber

[benny]

I believe we blew a chance to try something which might have worked better. If it didn't, we could change back. No matter what prophesies of doom and disaster you and others come up with, it is not like jumping off a cliff.

To me, this STV was merely a chance to copy what other jurisdictions are trying.

Edited May 15, 2009 by benny

[Wilber]

To me, this STV was merely a chance to copy what other jurisdictions are trying.

And?

[Wild Bill]

Too many of us have been convinced of it's necessity to our welfare and think it is something to provide us unearned privilege and entitlement. Is there any wonder democracy once discovered to provide largesse deteriorates to a government of special interests and with it brings an exponential increase in need from it's citizenry until we do indeed reach tyranny and a complete renovation becomes necessary.

The band "Ten Years After" sang it 30 years ago!

"Tax the rich! Feed the poor!

Till there are

No rich no more."

I believe the next line was : "Tell me, where is sanity?"

[Smallc]

From what I see, our parliament consists more of yelling at and mocking each other.

Outside of Question Period, very little of that type of thing happens.

[Smallc]

The only thing that is certain is voter turnouts have been falling for some time. What point do they have to reach before you would acknowledge the system might be a factor?

I won't ever acknowledge that the system is a factor unless there's proof. Voter turnout is falling in almost every western country. People seem to come to the polls based on issues, not the system as demonstrated in the last US election.

A system that evolved from vested interests and the pursuit of power, therefore it is perfect and will never need any change.

Things change as they need to and things will change if they need to. No system is perfect but ours seems to work quite well. I don't buy your cynical view of things.

just that there are more democratic systems than ours which do work.

And ours works too, despite your complaints. Oh, but this is interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

Like what?

There are many places on the internet to find out. I even provided one from this website.

I thought you said you didn't care what the Americans did.

I don't, but you seem to.

Yes, the voters have spoken and I accept that but I still haven't changed my opinion.

I wouldn't expect you too. You're convinced the system is broken and nothing is going to convince you otherwise.

[benny]

And?

Nothing to be excited about.

[Wilber]

I won't ever acknowledge that the system is a factor unless there's proof. Voter turnout is falling in almost every western country. People seem to come to the polls based on issues, not the system as demonstrated in the last US election.

Things change as they need to and things will change if they need to. No system is perfect but ours seems to work quite well. I don't buy your cynical view of things.

And ours works too, despite your complaints. Oh, but this is interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

There are many places on the internet to find out. I even provided one from this website.

I don't, but you seem to.

I wouldn't expect you too. You're convinced the system is broken and nothing is going to convince you otherwise.

As described in the report, the democracy index is a kind of weighted average based on the answers of 60 questions, each one with either two or three permitted alternative answers. Most answers are "experts' assessments"; the report does not indicate what kinds of experts, nor their number, nor whether the experts are employees of The Economist or e.g. independent scholars, nor the nationalities of the experts. Some answers are provided by public opinion surveys from the respective countries. "In the case of countries for which survey results are missing, survey results for similar countries and expert assessments are used in order to fill in gaps."

Sounds very scientific.

I'm not saying our system doesn't work or that it is broken but unlike you I believe it can be improved. I'm quite familiar with people who can come up with no reason for doing things other than they have always done it that way. Usually it is because they have no imagination and are scared stiff of taking any sort of risk, even one that is reversable, though it might well make things better.

[Smallc]

Sounds very scientific.

Yes, because your assessment was much more scientific.

I'm not saying our system doesn't work or that it is broken but unlike you I believe it can be improved.

I always think that things can be improved. Now, what constitutes an improvement? I know what I would like to see, but it probably doesn't agree with what you want to see, and what you want to see doesn't agree with what others want to see. Sorry, your wants and mine aren't always shared by the populous...as shown by the vote in BC. This time, it happened to disagree wit yours and agree with mine. Next time, it may be the opposite. The people shouldn't have a say in everything, but if there is a question about how to elect their representatives, then the question should be put to them and the answer should be respected. End of story.

[Wilber]

Yes, because your assessment was much more scientific.

Actually it was, it was based on a study and a recommendation of a panel of BC citizens working with other BC citizens in public hearings, who weren't anonymous, from places not disclosed or of an unknown number.

I always think that things can be improved. Now, what constitutes an improvement?

That is what I have been asking you.

[Smallc]

That is what I have been asking you.

True rep by pop fro the commons and legislatures...in both provincial and federal jurisdictions... and as much as I oppose an elected senate...there should be a question put to the public, that simply asks, do you want the senate to be modified? Then we should move forward on change...or not. We can talk about things like PR and STV and MMP, but when it comes down to it, the people have to understand what is being proposed (they barely understand what exists now) and they have to approve of what is being proposed. If they don't approve, then such a result should be accepted...if they do approve...then that result should also be accepted.

[Wilber]

True rep by pop fro the commons and legislatures...in both provincial and federal jurisdictions...

I'm not a believer in purely proportional systems but in reality, wouldn't true rep by pop be a proportional system? Guess it depends on how you define rep by pop, don't it.

[Riverwind]

I'm not saying our system doesn't work or that it is broken but unlike you I believe it can be improved.

I would consider change if someone could come up with something that actually offers an improvement over the existing system. The trouble is all of the 'improvements' on the table would result in perpetual minority governments - something that does not generally provide good governance in a westminister parlimentary system because the government falls if it loses a confidence measure.

[Smallc]

I'm not a believer in purely proportional systems but in reality, wouldn't true rep by pop be a proportional system? Guess it depends on how you define rep by pop, don't it.

Representation by population is having 1 MP for every X amount of people. Now, it could never be completely true, but it could be fixed. Example, PIE needs 2 seats less and Saskatchewan 3 less, while Ontario needs 29 more and Alberta needs 8 more.

[benny]

Representation by population is having 1 MP for every X amount of people. Now, it could never be completely true, but it could be fixed. Example, PIE needs 2 seats less and Saskatchewan 3 less, while Ontario needs 29 more and Alberta needs 8 more.

It means that those people who are rushing in Alberta to overexploit natural resources will be able to get more easily a majority government that will then be able to block any attempt to curb negative externalities.

[Smallc]

It means that people would be represented equally and fairly. Of course, this is only my idea of an improvement, and it may not coincide with the ideas of others.

[benny]

It means that people would be represented equally and fairly. Of course, this is only my idea of an improvement, and it may not coincide with the ideas of others.

To me, migrant persons cannot be represented at all by those people already settled somewhere.