Single Transferable Vote

[benny]

Believe he also said it is better to be ruled by a bad tyrant than a bad democracy. Wonder what he would have made of Joe Stalin, Adolph Hitler and Pol Pot. Might have got along with Genghis Kahn though.

After Plato, citizens should ask no less than to have a philosopher in lieu of king.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosopher-king

[M.Dancer]

Plato was just a wannabe who was miffed cause not only did he not get the girls and boys like Socrates, he didn't get the hemlock either...

[lictor616]

Plato was just a wannabe who was miffed cause not only did he not get the girls and boys like Socrates, he didn't get the hemlock either...

yeah plato schmato right dancey pooh!

Like all you insight you need is in Das Kapital anyways!

the greeks were racists anyways... so everything they have to say os wrong and evil.

[Smallc]

Believe he also said it is better to be ruled by a bad tyrant than a bad democracy.

Since we still have a democracy that works, I don't see how that proves anything.

[benny]

Since we still have a democracy that works, I don't see how that proves anything.

People are too busy working to care about democracy (voting).

[Smallc]

People are too busy working to care about democracy (voting).

I'd say that's about right...and it's a shame really.

[benny]

I'd say that's about right...and it's a shame really.

To me, we have to give democracy one last chance to prove it is able to solve problems and to maximize its chance of success we have to make of participation to deliberative assemblies, a new way to earn a living. Let's Deliberation Day begin!

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/kfiles/b223167.html

Edited May 15, 2009 by benny

[Smallc]

To me, we have to give democracy one last chance to prove it is able to solve problems

It's proven that, time and again...especially here, I would say. Despite people's complaints, Canada has had a government that is quite competent for a long time...because of our democracy...because our democracy works...because the system works. It's not the systems fault if people don't show up at the polls.

[benny]

It's proven that, time and again...especially here, I would say. Despite people's complaints, Canada has had a government that is quite competent for a long time...because of our democracy...because our democracy works...because the system works. It's not the systems fault if people don't show up at the polls.

The system is simply manufacturing consent.

[Smallc]

The system is simply manufacturing consent.

No, in fact our system is designed to do the exact opposite.

[benny]

No, in fact our system is designed to do the exact opposite.

Spin doctors are not paid to enlighten the populace.

[Pliny]

Gosh, I was wrong. STV didn't pass muster. I was sure it would.

I read some interesting posts and some posters made some good points.

Someone asked me how I arrived at the conclusion that STV would bring about a type of European socialism.

Well, August 1991 said that the one saving grace of democracy is that we could if it became necessary turf out the governing parties. And I think that says alot. STV, in my estimation, would make it more difficult to turf out an unpopular government. Just from the mere fact that there is better voter representation with STV. It means more viewpoints are considered. How many different views are necessary to directing federal or provincial affairs?

If government is only governing there shouldn't be that big a difference in our views except from general ideological stands. If government is about social engineering and redistributing wealth then there are going to be many different views that want representation. STV does provide better representation according to vote but if people are voting for handouts then democracy is lost to special interests.

Education is I think key to voter turnout. Unfortunately it is lost to the public, possibly through a "public" education, what the dangers of government are. I always think of Washington's comparison of government to fire, like fire it is at best a dangerous servant and at worst a relentless tyrant. 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.

Edited May 15, 2009 by Pliny

[benny]

Gosh, I was wrong. STV didn't pass muster. I was sure it would.

Someone who is wrong has to change his views. Our democracy is just a front to hide a corrupt oligarchy.

[Wilber]

It's proven that, time and again...especially here, I would say. Despite people's complaints, Canada has had a government that is quite competent for a long time...because of our democracy...because our democracy works...because the system works. It's not the systems fault if people don't show up at the polls.

Then why are fewer and fewer people showing up at the polls? Something based on research please, not just an opinion that more and more people are becoming dumber and lazier than you.

As I said before, because we put almost all the power in the hands of one party leader (because we are scared stiff of minority governments) democracy in Canada amounts to voting for an autocracy. The democracy ends after the votes are counted and only appears again for one day at the next election. I guess that is the Canadian way but it is far less democratic than some other systems such as our neighbours to the south.

On the contrary I would say that proponents of FPTP and the Canadian form of parliamentary government are the lazy ones because they aren't willing to make the effort to reach a consensus. They prefer a "it's my way or the highway" method of governing.

[benny]

Then why are fewer and fewer people showing up at the polls? Something based on research please, not just an opinion that more and more people are becoming dumber and lazier than you.

As I said before, because we put almost all the power in the hands of one party leader (because we are scared stiff of minority governments) democracy in Canada amounts to voting for an autocracy. The democracy ends after the votes are counted and only appears again for one day at the next election. I guess that is the Canadian way but it is far less democratic than some other systems such as our neighbours to the south.

On the contrary I would say that proponents of FPTP and the Canadian form of parliamentary government are the lazy ones because they aren't willing to make the effort to reach a consensus. They prefer a "it's my way or the highway" method of governing.

How can you ask for something based on research when you allow yourself to guess this autocracy explanation?

[Smallc]

Then why are fewer and fewer people showing up at the polls? Something based on research please, not just an opinion that more and more people are becoming dumber and lazier than you.

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

As I said before, because we put almost all the power in the hands of one party leader (because we are scared stiff of minority governments) democracy in Canada amounts to voting for an autocracy. The democracy ends after the votes are counted and only appears again for one day at the next election.

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.

I guess that is the Canadian way but it is far less democratic than some other systems such as our neighbors to the south.

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?

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.

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.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/voter...canada#possible

Edited May 15, 2009 by Smallc

[benny]

Do you have proof of your assertions?

He said: "fewer and fewer people showing up at the polls".

[Smallc]

He said: "fewer and fewer people showing up at the polls".

And as shown, that is not necessarily proof of what he claims.

[benny]

And as shown, that is not necessarily proof of what he claims.

What about your own claim that the system is just fine anyway?

[Riverwind]

Then why are fewer and fewer people showing up at the polls? Something based on research please, not just an opinion that more and more people are becoming dumber and lazier than you.

Research says people are 'disengaged' and don't want to take the time to sort out the issues to make an informed opinion. Which is a polite way of saying that people are lazy and take their freedoms for granted.

On the contrary I would say that proponents of FPTP and the Canadian form of parliamentary government are the lazy ones because they aren't willing to make the effort to reach a consensus. They prefer a "it's my way or the highway" method of governing.

Consensus is a nice buzz word but it means nothing in a system dominated by party politics. The trouble occurs because parties need to re-elected and they can't get re-elected if they co-operate with their rivals. That is why countries with PR systems almost never have coalition governments with the 2 largest parties. The coalitions always consist of one of the largest parties plus one or more smaller parties. These dynamics do not encourage consensus. They encourage pandering to views of the minority parties which hold the balance of power.

OTOH, concensus building can and does happen within big tent political parties beause the different factions within these parties all share common goal (i.e. get the party elected). This common goal ensures that the different factions will make the compromises necessary to achieve consensus. That is why we need a system that encourages two big tent political parties instead of a collection of narrow interest parties.

Edited May 15, 2009 by Riverwind

[benny]

Consensus is a nice buzz word but it means nothing in a system dominated by party politics. The trouble occurs because parties need to re-elected and they can't get re-elected if they co-operate with their rivals. That is why countries with PR systems almost never have coalition governments with the 2 largest parties. The coalitions always consist of one of the largest parties plus one or more smaller parties. These dynamics do not encourage consensus. They encourage pandering to views of the minority parties which hold the balance of power.

OTOH, concensus building can and does happen within big tent political parties beause the different factions within these parties all share common goal (i.e. get the party elected). This common goal ensures that the different factions will make the compromises necessary to achieve consensus. That is why we need a system that encourages two big tent political parties instead of a collection of narrow interest parties.

Politics should model itself on the justice system: in a court room, lawyers are confrontational but jury's members have to reach a consensus.

[Wilber]

How can you ask for something based on research when you allow yourself to guess this autocracy explanation?

What's to guess? The majority party has all the power and if an MP votes against a party leader's wishes he is out of the caucus on his ass, unless they have very big balls and lots of other people in the caucus are willing to put their asses on the line in support. Therefore the leader of the governing party can and often does govern like an autocrat. It's matter of historical record.

You can't even run under a party banner unless the leader personally signs your nomination papers, no matter what a constituency association or the grass roots of that constituency wants.

[benny]

What's to guess? The majority party has all the power and if an MP votes against a party leader's wishes he is out of the caucus on his ass, unless they have very big balls and lots of other people in the caucus are willing to put their asses on the line in support. Therefore the leader of the governing party can and often does govern like an autocrat. It's matter of historical record.

You can't even run under a party banner unless the leader personally signs your nomination papers, no matter what a constituency association or the grass roots of that constituency wants.

What is matter of historical record is that autocrats (Kings) don't even bother to govern.

[Riverwind]

Therefore the leader of the governing party can and often does govern like an autocrat. It's matter of historical record.

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.

[Wilber]

Research says people are 'disengaged' and don't want to take the time to sort out the issues to make an informed opinion. Which is a polite way of saying that people are lazy and take their freedoms for granted.

That is obvious, the question is why. Just saying they are lazy doesn't cut it, although could it be that they are lazy because the system which you love so much demands nothing of them?

Consensus is a nice buzz word but it means nothing in a system dominated by party politics. The trouble occurs because parties need to re-elected and they can't get re-elected if they co-operate with their rivals. That is why countries with PR systems almost never have coalition governments with the 2 largest parties. The coalitions always consist of one of the largest parties plus one or more smaller parties. These dynamics do not encourage consensus. They encourage pandering to views of the minority parties which hold the balance of power.

OTOH, concensus building can and does happen within big tent political parties beause the different factions within these parties all share common goal (i.e. get the party elected). This common goal ensures that the different factions will make the compromises necessary to achieve consensus. That is why we need a system that encourages two big tent political parties instead of a collection of narrow interest parties.

And yet the ultimate example of a system with two big tent parties is the US, which with it's distribution of powers relies heavily on factions in both parties reaching a consensus together. Compared to the US, our system is the lazy man's way of governing.