Single Transferable Vote

[ReeferMadness]

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.

[Riverwind]

He wants to use the force of law to coerce you into casting a ballot whether you want to or not.

Spare us the crocodile tears. Australia fines people who don't vote and turn out is 80%+ and few people complain about the 'violation of their rights'.

Note that the fine is only $AUS20 which is not enough to bother someone who insists on not voting. However, the law does make it clear that not voting is a socially irresponsible act that falls into the same category as smoking in a pubilc place.

As I said before the real problem in Canada are people who are too lazy to care and use the system as a excuse to justify their inaction. Changing the electoral system is not going to do anything about these people because they would just find some other excuse. The fact that on 50% of the population could not be bothered to show up for a referendum on changing the system proves this point beyond any reasonable doubt.

Edited May 16, 2009 by Riverwind

[benny]

As I said before the real problem in Canada are people who are too lazy to care and use the system as a excuse to justify their inaction. Changing the electoral system is not going to do anything about these people because they would just find some other excuse. The fact that on 50% of the population could not be bothered to show up for a referendum on changing the system proves this point beyond any reasonable doubt.

The more complex a system, the more incentives reasonable people need to have to get involved.

[Riverwind]

The more complex a system, the more incentives reasonable people need to have to get involved.

Extremely unlikely. Increase the complexity and even more people will stay away. The Australian example is quite relevant. If we want the turnout to go up then fine people who don't vote. If we don't want to do that then there is no point worrying about low turnout.

[benny]

Increase the complexity and even more people will stay away.

That is what I said.

[Riverwind]

That is what I said.

Sorry I read:

the more incentives reasonable people need to have to get involved.

as

the more incentives reasonable people have to get involved.

Edited May 16, 2009 by Riverwind

[benny]

To me, the crux of the matter is that people have been unfairly brainwashed to think that the market is simpler and more powerful than political negotiations/deliberations.

[ReeferMadness]

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.

[Riverwind]

The voter turnout in BC dropped by 10 percentage points in one election. Are there an extra 250,000 lazy, apathetic people this year?

The Canucks playoff run ended the day before. I suspect that had more do to with the drop than any hypothetical problem with the system.

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.

If people don't vote then that is their problem. Civic elections have had turn out in the 20% range for years yet everyone pays the taxes and follows the laws passed by those elected officials. The "I did not vote therefore I don't need to follow the laws' excuse won't get anyone very far in court.

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.

There is a cultural shift in our society as the boomers kids replace the pre-war generation. The drop in voter turnout is simply a symptom of the fact the boomer kids have had it pretty good and take things for granted.

Obviously, it would be nice if the echo generation did not have such an attitude but there is not much politicians and governments can do about it. The required attitude change had to come from within. In the mean time. mandatory voting won't change anyone's attitude but it would get the numbers up if that is important to you.

Edited May 17, 2009 by Riverwind

[benny]

The Canucks playoff run ended the day before. I suspect that had more do to with the drop than any hypothetical problem with the system.

As an Italian reflecting on the Roman Empire, Machiavelli would have applauded at hockey as a game to be used by despots to buy out voters.

[Smallc]

There is a cultural shift in our society as the boomers kids replace the pre-war generation. The drop in voter turnout is simply a symptom of the fact the boomer kids have had it pretty good and take things for granted.

I agree. It's sad that my generation cares so little for politics. It's funny...the boomers are cynical..and their children are apathetic. Perhaps one is partly the reason for the other.

[benny]

I agree. It's sad that my generation cares so little for politics. It's funny...the boomers are cynical..and their children are apathetic. Perhaps one is partly the reason for the other.

I would rather say boomers and their children are both narcissistic to a point where they are too eager to look at themselves through flashy mirrors, like MySpace, to go hide themselves behind a polling booth.

[Riverwind]

I agree. It's sad that my generation cares so little for politics. It's funny...the boomers are cynical..and their children are apathetic. Perhaps one is partly the reason for the other.

A generation who grows up believing that you 'can't trust anyone over 30' is not going to instill values like 'respect for democratic institutions' in their children.

[benny]

A generation who grows up believing that you 'can't trust anyone over 30' is not going to instill values like 'respect for democratic institutions' in their children.

When something old becomes ugly, it is good for business.

[Wild Bill]

In the mean time. mandatory voting won't change anyone's attitude but it would get the numbers up if that is important to you.

Quite true! Making voting mandatory or even STV-type changes will not change basic attitudes among a certain percentage of the population. A mandatory vote would simply be swamped out in randomness as people just marked their X anywhere to escape a fine.

Thinking that simply getting the numbers up is the same as making people more politically motivated sounds like yet another 'Liberal' solution, where "It doesn't have to work, as long as we can say we've got one!"

[Wilber]

I hate to break it to you Bill but you cannot force people to vote. You can force them to the polls but unless you are prepared to get rid of the secret ballot, you cannot force them to vote.

[Wilber]

I agree. It's sad that my generation cares so little for politics. It's funny...the boomers are cynical..and their children are apathetic. Perhaps one is partly the reason for the other.

So why are they cynical and apathetic? It seems to me that just writing it off to laziness is a somewhat lazy position to take in the first place. It takes no real thought or effort and it conveniently supports ones own prejudices.

[Wilber]

A generation who grows up believing that you 'can't trust anyone over 30' is not going to instill values like 'respect for democratic institutions' in their children.

What generation has trusted people over 30 until they themselves turned 30? This saying came about during the Viet Nam war and it referred to the feeling that it was the over 30's who send the under 30's to fight the over 30's wars. Were they wrong?

I'm a boomer, my kids are now on both sides of 30 and have always voted.

[Smallc]

So why are they cynical and apathetic? It seems to me that just writing it off to laziness is a somewhat lazy position to take in the first place. It takes no real thought or effort and it conveniently supports ones own prejudices.

You're right of course. Our very old very successful system is terrible...in fact, every western system in the world must be terrible since they all have falling turnout...you're right, it's the system.

When people can't even describe the system to me, and when they don't know what rep by pop means (ahem), then I can't help but this think that it's a lack of education relating to the system that creates apathy and cynicism...and that returns us to laziness.

[Wilber]

You're right of course. Our very old very successful system is terrible...in fact, every western system in the world must be terrible since they all have falling turnout...you're right, it's the system.

When people can't even describe the system to me, and when they don't know what rep by pop means (ahem), then I can't help but this think that it's a lack of education relating to the system that creates apathy and cynicism...and that returns us to laziness.

It's not all the system of course but for you it is everything but.

[Smallc]

It's not all the system of course but for you it is everything but.

Oh, it could very well be in some part the system that is causing it, but unless people understand the system, I don't think that we should be rushing to change it. Most Canadians don't know who Canada's head of state is, they don't know how parliament works, and they don't know what the GG and the Senate do....many don't even realize that they're province has a Lieutenant Governor and if they do, they don't know what they're role is. Until people understand those things, then how can they decide whether or not the system is good or bad?

[Wilber]

Oh, it could very well be in some part the system that is causing it, but unless people understand the system, I don't think that we should be rushing to change it. Most Canadians don't know who Canada's head of state is, they don't know how parliament works, and they don't know what the GG and the Senate do....many don't even realize that they're province has a Lieutenant Governor and if they do, they don't know what they're role is. Until people understand those things, then how can they decide whether or not the system is good or bad?

And how do you plan to address that? Why don't they understand these things? Why aren't they interested?

[Smallc]

And how do you plan to address that? Why don't they understand these things? Why aren't they interested?

I'm not sure how to address it. People don't usually learn about things unless they're interested, and at this point in history, people aren't interested in politics. Putting in a more complicaed election system certainly isn't going to make them more interested.

[Wild Bill]

I hate to break it to you Bill but you cannot force people to vote. You can force them to the polls but unless you are prepared to get rid of the secret ballot, you cannot force them to vote.

Who's arguing? I was pointing out the flaws in some other folks suggestions!

Even with the Australian example someone mentioned that they have an 80% turnout. That means 20% were content to just pay the fine.

Your point just enhances the silliness of trying to force people to be more involved. I hadn't thought of your point that they could just show up and spoil their ballot to avoid the fine. Quite true.

So outside of a few political junkies like ourselves, explain to me again how a more "proportional" system would make a significant percentage of those non-voters more active.

[Wilber]

I'm not sure how to address it. People don't usually learn about things unless they're interested, and at this point in history, people aren't interested in politics. Putting in a more complicaed election system certainly isn't going to make them more interested.

If it was merely more complicated I would agree with you but the intent is to give a persons vote more meaning, not to make it complicated. Besides, voting under STV is not complicated. Counting the votes will be and quite possibly would not be practical before we had computers. We certainly don't want technology improving the way we vote.