Single Transferable Vote

Wilber · May 16, 2009

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.

Ah, so you don't want true rep by pop, you want to base it on where people live, not how many people are represented. Doing it on the basis of which province, town or district they live in is purely arbitrary. If 40% of the electorate do not vote for a person who is elected, how does that amount to representation of population by having 1 MP for every X amount of people? If you want true rep by pop it would have to be on a basis of how they vote, not where they vote, otherwise you are representing territory, not people.

One of the criticisms of STV was that people in large rural ridings would not have direct representation because their representatives might live so far away. Your interpretation of rep by pop would put almost all of the seats in the lower mainland, the Okanagan and southern Vancouver Island, with little or no representation from the rest of the province.

What you and others refer to as "rep by pop" is nothing of the sort but merely the moving of electoral boundaries to more reflect your particular idea of fairness in a winner take all system. Exactly what we do now except to someone else's idea of fairness.

Smallc · May 16, 2009

And so, my point is made.

Smallc · May 16, 2009

Although I must point out that what I am talking about is rep by pop.

Wilber · May 16, 2009

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.

It only falls because our politicians have decided that is the way they want the system to work. It is not some natural law of nature and to my knowledge, nor is such a thing enshrined in our constitution.

Wilber · May 16, 2009

Although I must point out that what I am talking about is rep by pop.

No you are not if 40 % of the people who voted are not represented. You are talking about rep by region according to its population. Not the same thing. Such a system would leave certain regions with little or no representation at all. You may think such a system is fair but someone in Fort Nelson or Dease Lake would probably have other ideas.

Smallc · May 16, 2009

No you are not

Look up the definition. I am talking about rep by pop. You're talking about something else...namely PR. Now, the two systems can coincide, but it isn't a necessity. Rep by pop can exist within a FPTP system.

benny · May 16, 2009

Ah, so you don't want true rep by pop, you want to base it on where people live, not how many people are represented. Doing it on the basis of which province, town or district they live in is purely arbitrary. If 40% of the electorate do not vote for a person who is elected, how does that amount to representation of population by having 1 MP for every X amount of people? If you want true rep by pop it would have to be on a basis of how they vote, not where they vote, otherwise you are representing territory, not people.
One of the criticisms of STV was that people in large rural ridings would not have direct representation because their representatives might live so far away. Your interpretation of rep by pop would put almost all of the seats in the lower mainland, the Okanagan and southern Vancouver Island, with little or no representation from the rest of the province.

What you and others refer to as "rep by pop" is nothing of the sort but merely the moving of electoral boundaries to more reflect your particular idea of fairness in a winner take all system. Exactly what we do now except to someone else's idea of fairness.

Not so long ago, only (large) land owners had the right to vote. Their representatives were politically active in the Higher Chamber (Senate). To me, STV still doesn't do enough to part company with this unfair distribution of political power.

Wilber · May 16, 2009

Look up the definition. I am talking about rep by pop. You're talking about something else...namely PR. Now, the two systems can coincide, but it isn't a necessity. Rep by pop can exist within a FPTP system.

No, I will say it again, what you have is representation of regions according to their population. As we have seen, it is possible to form a majority, even though the party in opposition received more of the popular vote. It doesn't matter if the winner gets 80% of the vote or 40%, the result is the same.

I am speaking of representation by population in the literal sense. You call it PR. I don't care what your definition of the phrase is, if a large portion of the population did not vote for someone who was elected, clearly they are not represented.

Wilber · May 16, 2009

Not so long ago, only (large) land owners had the right to vote. Their representatives were politically active in the Higher Chamber (Senate). To me, STV still doesn't do enough to part company with this unfair distribution of political power.

Maybe not but it was a start and to my mind a reasonable compromise that should have been given a chance to prove itself.

Smallc · May 16, 2009

I don't care what your definition of the phrase is

I don't care what your definition is...the actual definition on the other hand...

Representation by Population (Rep. by Pop.) is a method by which seats are allocated in the House of Commons in such a way as to vary with population. The higher the population of a province, the larger the number of seats allocated to that province will be. Essentially, it relates to the basic democratic principle of "one person, one vote" and that all votes should count equally.

http://faculty.marianopolis.edu/c.belanger...al/repbypop.htm

Wilber · May 16, 2009

I don't care what your definition is...the actual definition on the other hand...
Representation by Population (Rep. by Pop.) is a method by which seats are allocated in the House of Commons in such a way as to vary with population. The higher the population of a province, the larger the number of seats allocated to that province will be. Essentially, it relates to the basic democratic principle of "one person, one vote" and that all votes should count equally.

http://faculty.marianopolis.edu/c.belanger...al/repbypop.htm

Votes are counted equally but they are not represented equaly. That is the point.

Smallc · May 16, 2009

Votes are counted equally but they are not represented equally. That is the point.

They have elected representation, whether or not they voted for the representative that won. As long as there is a free vote, democracy has been served.

Edited May 16, 2009 by Smallc

benny · May 16, 2009

As long as there is a free vote, democracy has been served.

Kenneth Arrow has proven that far from been served, democracy is caught in a paradox.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's_i...ibility_theorem

Edited May 16, 2009 by benny

Wilber · May 16, 2009

They have elected representation, whether or not they voted for the representative that won. As long as there is a free vote, democracy has been served.

Then the system is perfect and needs no improvement.

benny · May 16, 2009

Then the system is perfect and needs no improvement.

Don't wary, be happy!?

Smallc · May 16, 2009

If the system is broken, it's not very....and if it ain't broke, maybe we shouldn't be fixing it.

ReeferMadness · May 16, 2009

They have elected representation, whether or not they voted for the representative that won. As long as there is a free vote, democracy has been served.

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.

Smallc · May 16, 2009

People feeling that they don't have any power is the fault of the people and not the system. The reality is that the people do have the power to pick their representatives and to influence those representatives. When people decide not to participate, they lose power, but that decision isn't the fault of the system.

Wilber · May 16, 2009

If the system is broken, it's not very....and if it ain't broke, maybe we shouldn't be fixing it.

I haven't said it is broken. You said it needs no improvement.

Wilber · May 16, 2009

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.

This is apparently true but not really surprising if you think about it. To date the NDP is the only party to form a majority government when they had fewer votes than the opposition party. STV is definitely not in their best interest.

benny · May 16, 2009

When people decide not to participate, they lose power, but that decision isn't the fault of the system.

Look around the World, when people decide not to participate, they gain power to overthrow the system in a revolution.

ReeferMadness · May 16, 2009

This is apparently true but not really surprising if you think about it. To date the NDP is the only party to form a majority government when they had fewer votes than the opposition party. STV is definitely not in their best interest.

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.

Smallc · May 16, 2009

I haven't said it is broken. You said it needs no improvement.

I proposed improvements...and you disagreed with them....thus proving my point that what constitutes an improvement is not always agreed upon.

benny · May 16, 2009

If the NDP wants to form government, perhaps they should work on changing voters minds rather than getting the system they want.

To me, the fatal NDP's flaw, like the one in most of old Left-wing movements, is to believe that putting people to work, far from making them lethargic, will politicize them.

Edited May 16, 2009 by benny