Single Transferable Vote

[Wilber]

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.

Sorry, I was referring to Bill Tieleman though I don't know if he participates in this forum. Should have been clear about that.

I don't know if a more proportional system would but how do you know if you don't give it a shot for awhile? The status quo isn't doing to well in that regard. If we tried STV for three elections I don't know if I would want to keep it or not, but I am willing to give it a trial in the hope that it might improve participation.

[benny]

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.

We certainly don't want techocrats in control.

[Wilber]

We certainly don't want techocrats in control.

Without technology we wouldn't be having this discussion.

How would that happen? It wouldn't be impossible to count votes manually, just time consuming. You might have to wait till the next day for election results and we expect same day everything.

[benny]

Without technology we wouldn't be having this discussion.

How would that happen? It wouldn't be impossible to count votes manually, just time consuming. You might have to wait till the next day for election results and we expect same day everything.

To me, face-to-face oral deliberations are the future of politics.

[Wilber]

To me, face-to-face oral deliberations are the future of politics.

Good Luck.

[benny]

Good Luck.

People who don't want to die in wars will make it happen.

[Riverwind]

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.

The experience in Australia suggests that the law has created a culture where voting is accepted as a social responsibility and people don't spoil their ballots. A similar effect would not occur here immediately because the narcissistic if-i-can't-get-my-way-i-am-going-to-pout culture has already set in here.

[Wilber]

The experience in Australia suggests that the law has created a culture where voting is accepted as a social responsibility and people don't spoil their ballots. A similar effect would not occur here immediately because the narcissistic if-i-can't-get-my-way-i-am-going-to-pout culture has already set in here.

s

Gee Riverwind, one might as well go out an put a bullet in their head right now as there is obviously no hope for mankind.

[Riverwind]

I don't know if a more proportional system would but how do you know if you don't give it a shot for awhile?

Electoral systems are not shirts that you can try on. It would take a generation to fully understand the implications of any given system. In the case of BC, the electoral politics would likely result in a legislature split between the NDP and the Liberals with the Greens holding the balance of power. Such an outcome would give too much political power to a small special interest group. That possibility is enough to take a pass.

[Wilber]

Electoral systems are not shirts that you can try on. It would take a generation to fully understand the implications of any given system. In the case of BC, the electoral politics would likely result in a legislature split between the NDP and the Liberals with the Greens holding the balance of power. Such an outcome would give too much political power to a small special interest group. That possibility is enough to take a pass.

An assumption on your part. You know no such thing. STV was supposed to be revisited with another referendum on the third election after it was introduced meaning that if people didn't like it, they would only have to endure it through three terms.

Regarding mandatory voting in Australia, it was never put to a referendum but imposed by Parliament. Also you would not know what kind of culture it created unless you removed the law to see if people still voted in the same numbers. That would be very interesting.

I assume you are of the beat them with a stick until they want to do it my way school.

[Riverwind]

An assumption on your part. You know no such thing.

Of course not. Bu it is a plausible outcome and cannot be dismissed.

STV was supposed to be revisited with another referendum on the third election after it was introduced meaning that if people didn't like it, they would only have to endure it through three terms.

Where is your reference for that claim? I could not find it after the first time you mentioned it.

Regarding mandatory voting in Australia, it was never put to a referendum but imposed by Parliament. Also you would not know what kind of culture it created unless you removed the law to see if people still voted in the same numbers. That would be very interesting.

The Australians I have met find it odd that we don't make voting mandatory and see mandatory voting as a way to make sure the rich don't dominate the electoral system. My personal anecotes have been confirmed by some academic commentators I have heard in the media recently.

[benny]

STV would already be a reality if only the Liberal government would not have set an arbitrary threshold higher than 50% for its acceptance.

[ToadBrother]

To me, face-to-face oral deliberations are the future of politics.

You mean like a parliament?

[Riverwind]

STV would already be a reality if only the Liberal government would not have set an arbitrary threshold higher than 50% for its acceptance.

The fact that the same proposal was voted down 4 years later demostrates why such changes should never be made based on a 50%+1 vote.

[benny]

The fact that the same proposal was voted down 4 years later demostrates why such changes should never be made based on a 50%+1 vote.

By understand the concept of path-dependency, you will understand how time, against the will of the people, may determine (frame) the political reality.

[benny]

You mean like a parliament?

Something more like a Summit.

[Wilber]

Where is your reference for that claim? I could not find it after the first time you mentioned it.

This was the proposal the first time STV was put to the vote. I assume that hadn't changed but perhaps I am wrong.

The Australians I have met find it odd that we don't make voting mandatory and see mandatory voting as a way to make sure the rich don't dominate the electoral system. My personal anecotes have been confirmed by some academic commentators I have heard in the media recently.

Possibly and I don't discount the possibility but the only way that could be verified would be to remove the law. If the law was removed and voter turnout continued to be high, I would be in favour of trying it here. I would put the same qualifications on STV.

Edited May 18, 2009 by Wilber

[benny]

The Australians I have met find it odd that we don't make voting mandatory and see mandatory voting as a way to make sure the rich don't dominate the electoral system. My personal anecotes have been confirmed by some academic commentators I have heard in the media recently.

I think that, with mandatory voting, much more people will spoil their votes for the same reason that they, right now, abstain to go voting: they are too upset to see how the rich are fixing the list of candidates and setting the political agency, far in advance of the elections day.

Edited May 18, 2009 by benny

[Wilber]

You mean like a parliament?

Unfortunately, Parliament is not a democracy. Party discipline makes that impossible.

[benny]

Unfortunately, Parliament is not a democracy. Party discipline makes that impossible.

Kitchen-table family meetings are more conducive to deliberative democracy than any representative democracy institutions.

[Martin Odber]

The single transferable vote is a viable option only when applied directly to the issues themselves. In life, we each use a form of stv when choosing from available options on a daily basis.

This however is very different when applied to choosing persons to represent us. Especially in a system where the elected are so poorly controlled by the voters, are rarely held accountable, are in office for extended periods, and are subject to pressures from "party paradigm's" "party whip objectives" "large contributor interests" and a variety of other impediments.

I agree that our government elections system needs tweaking however. As a counterproposal I would offer the following:

* a party mandated to anonymously, securely, gather the voters opinions on the issues facing our leaders and establish / recognize majority votes on those issues by the constituents affected.

* a party mandated to take those majority votes and forward them as their own

* a party with no goals of its own save forwarding the collective will of its constituents

This, addresses the root of the issues, not the symptoms, and until we recognize this and act on it, the names will change, but the issues will remain the same.

www.canadianreferendumparty.com

"It is not our differences that make us a people, it is what we share in common."

regards,

Martin Odber

[benny]

www.canadianreferendumparty.com

"It is not our differences that make us a people, it is what we share in common."

I believe that representative democracy has to be replaced by deliberative democracy. The most straightforward definition of a deliberative democracy is a process that goes beyond the majority rule towards broader consensus. On major issues, it can take a decade or more to change policy. The role of deliberation is to keep that long journey on track and out of unproductive complaining and blaming.

[Wilber]

This however is very different when applied to choosing persons to represent us. Especially in a system where the elected are so poorly controlled by the voters, are rarely held accountable, are in office for extended periods, and are subject to pressures from "party paradigm's" "party whip objectives" "large contributor interests" and a variety of other impediments.

We need to make our representatives more accountable to the people who elected them than to the party leader. STV was a step in that direction.

[benny]

We need to make our representatives more accountable to the people who elected them than to the party leader. STV was a step in that direction.

What the failure of STV demonstrates is that to make democracy a reality, it will take more than steps, it will take more leaps like the BC Citizens' Assembly.

[Pliny]

We need to make our representatives more accountable to the people who elected them than to the party leader. STV was a step in that direction.

Is the STV an attempt at the decentralization of power then?

I would support it if it were but somehow I think of it as an inefficient concentration of power.

In essence making representatives more accountable to the people is not an arguable point. You are saying they are not accountable enough under the current system. I am concerned about what they should be held accountable for and think the STV system will bring issues to the table that have no importance to the province overall and regional interests may demand an inefficient and more demanding use of provincial government resources.

The system of voting becomes moot when the responsibilities of government are not clearly defined. What should representatives be held accountable for? If government does not have the mandate to be responsible the representative cannot be blamed for not being accountable.

We have three basic levels of government - federal, provincial and municipal. How should their responsibilities be divided? Is the division of responsibilities currently defined clearly, efficient and adequate for the purpose?

The protection of the individual is prime in the consideration of government. It is for the individual that it exists.

The masses need no protection. They can usually overwhelm whomever they choose. If an individual should become powerful enough to overwhelm the masses he could only do it in the absence of government or via the powers of government if they should favour him - and that isn't impossible.

If it is agreed government is primarily for the sanctity of the individual how does it operate fairly in dealing with individuals? Can it offer favour to one over the other? If so it abandons it's responsibility of fairness and it's ability to deliver justice.

Rationally, government responsibilities cannot benefit an individual or group over other individuals and groups. Should it favour families over single people? Should it favour the single parent over the family? Should it encourage women with incentives to enter the workforce in the name of equality? Well once it starts favouring one over another it can no longer deliver justice; as justice becomes tainted with bias.

Not only is bias in the delivery of justice then a problem, government, being a consumer of wealth and not a generator of wealth, is a not a zero sum activity - In order to give one person a benefit it must take from other persons - an even further departure from justice and equal treatment under the law. When it starts to determine what is fair and acts upon it in the name of equality without there being any determination of criminal activity it has, in my view overstepped it's bounds. And begins punishing productivity and rewarding non-productivity. Eventually, this will lead to economic disaster.

I have to go but I think that is enough to chew on for now. Essentially, I think the STV will bring more government to the table with more issues and even less efficiency than under the current voting system.