Single Transferable Vote

[ReeferMadness]

OTOH, there is a real poll conducted by Angus Reid that says 65% of British Columbians would vote yes to the STV question.

That is the top line result of a major survey conducted by Angus Reid Strategies. Support for a new way of electing our MLAs is particularly strong among younger voters - those 18 to 34 - at 74 per cent.

[madmax]

This poll is worthless. Five people - what's your margin of statistical error - 97%?

Only a chance to log your vote online through MLW. Polls come up here all the time. Often the closer it gets to crunch time the more involvement. Sometimes the polls are a pretty good reflection of peoples opinion, and other times it shows how out of touch pundits on MLW are compared to the general public.

It is a straw poll, they are for fun.

[ReeferMadness]

Well, this subject is raising it's head again and will be on the ballot of the upcoming election.

Yes. It passed last time 58% to 42% but still we have to do it again. How undemocratic.

It is still not desirable. I listened to the Professor of political science who heads the prime push for it (Dennis something or other)and he isn't convincing. The debate was on CKNW.

You're referring to Dennis Pilon of the University of Victoria. He is an endorser of BC-STV but he doesn't "head" anything. See stv.ca for the organization of the yes committee. I've heard Dennis speak a few times. While he's very knowledgeable, his frustration at the hysteria and misinformation being pushed by the no campaign sometimes shows through in what he says.

THe problem is still the same. If I want to start a political party called the Save the Woodland Creatures Party I can.

Why is that a problem? It's a free country.

And I can possibly get elected with a transferable vote.

You can possibly get elected under our current system.

STV actually raises the bar in terms of the number of votes required to elect an MLA.

Say you are a candidate in a riding where there are 20,000 votes cast. You get 7,000 votes. Candidate B gets 6,500 votes, Candidate C gets 4,500 and Candidate D gets 2,000. Congratulations - you are elected. Note that if there were more candidates or the voting was more evenly spread, you could get elected with even fewer votes.

But wait. Now your riding is combined with 4 others to make one riding with 5 MLA's where there are now 100,000 votes cast. Now, how many votes do you need to get elected? The formula is

100,000/(5+1) = 16,667 votes. You need more votes to be elected and it doesn't matter how many candidates run for election. Sure, your vote can be spread over a wider area but you need more than twice as many votes!

Why the heck should a Save the Woodland Creatures Party be a political party?

Who are you to say what should and shouldn't be a political party?

And how will they represent the interests of anyone else? While I agree we do need to consider all views, all views are not necessarily rationally thought out to the benefit of the province as a whole. We can have the Bicyclists of BC party and they will not consider any expenditure for highways for automobiles since they disapprove of the lifestyle. They do not consider that most of the food, staples and commodities arrive here on transport or that a certain standard of living above communal shelters is preferable to most people.

I think that a lot of legislation that doesn't benefit the province is passed. Unlike you, I think that, as much as possible, everyone's viewpoints should be represented in legislature.

As with all socialist agendas,

This point firmly establishes what I've been thinking from the beginning - that you don't know what you're talking about. People who've endorsed STV include Preston Manning, Deborah Grey and Andrew Coyne. In fact, STV has attracted supporters from all political stripes. STV supporters tend to be independent thinkers as opposed to herd followers - and BC residents tend to be independent-minded.

BTW, the no side is being headed up by David Schreck and Bill Tieleman, two long-time NDP insiders.

Edited April 20, 2009 by ReeferMadness

[ReeferMadness]

Only a chance to log your vote online through MLW. Polls come up here all the time. Often the closer it gets to crunch time the more involvement. Sometimes the polls are a pretty good reflection of peoples opinion, and other times it shows how out of touch pundits on MLW are compared to the general public.

It is a straw poll, they are for fun.

Well, have fun with it then.

[Pliny]

Yes. It passed last time 58% to 42% but still we have to do it again. How undemocratic.

It needed a 60 or 65% affirmative vote to pass, I believe so never did pass.

I wonder how many people had a clear understanding of it after the two hour discussion of it on the radio.

All Dennis said was that Shreck didn't understand it but Dennis still couldn't answer a simple question. And quite frankly, I got tired of waiting for him to answer it.

You're referring to Dennis Pilon of the University of Victoria. He is an endorser of BC-STV but he doesn't "head" anything. See stv.ca for the organization of the yes committee. I've heard Dennis speak a few times. While he's very knowledgeable, his frustration at the hysteria and misinformation being pushed by the no campaign sometimes shows through in what he says.

I understood from the program Dennis did head the push of the STV perhaps he was just heading the debate on the radio.

Yes. the no campaign is all about hysteria and misinformation. Of course. The yes side is about frustration.

STV actually raises the bar in terms of the number of votes required to elect an MLA.

Say you are a candidate in a riding where there are 20,000 votes cast. You get 7,000 votes. Candidate B gets 6,500 votes, Candidate C gets 4,500 and Candidate D gets 2,000. Congratulations - you are elected. Note that if there were more candidates or the voting was more evenly spread, you could get elected with even fewer votes.

But wait. Now your riding is combined with 4 others to make one riding with 5 MLA's where there are now 100,000 votes cast. Now, how many votes do you need to get elected? The formula is

100,000/(5+1) = 16,667 votes. You need more votes to be elected and it doesn't matter how many candidates run for election. Sure, your vote can be spread over a wider area but you need more than twice as many votes!

So with 7,000 votes in my riding am I elected or not? From what I understand if you get no votes in the other ridings you are not elected.

The whole idea of the STV is to give an equal voice to all perspectives, is it not? Smaller parties stand a better chance of getting candidates elected.

Basically, it allows special interest lobbies to be included in the political process instead of having to beg via lobbying but doesn't exclude them form lobbying either.

I am not a fan of special interest groups. The government should represent individual citizens as a whole group and not interest groups. That is the main reason I do not support the STV. It represents special interest groups and the individual is further forgotten in the governmental process.

Who are you to say what should and shouldn't be a political party?

I am a Canadian citizen.

Let's not get away from the fact a political party/parties set the policies, programs and general direction of our government. It isn't a frivolous venture and it shouldn't be, in my estimation, about special interests ensuring they can bully their way to favour over other interests.

I think that a lot of legislation that doesn't benefit the province is passed. Unlike you, I think that, as much as possible, everyone's viewpoints should be represented in legislature.

I agree a lot of legislation that doesn't benefit the province is passed.

It is impossible for government to represent everyone's viewpoint, and I think you realize that. Everyone's viewpoint should not be, that "if a special interest lobby can be formed, only then will I have representation in government."

If the CAW had any interest in the future of their members they would understand that their demands are met by the agreement of others and the sacrifice of the company as a whole. Management, being another interest, will of course not stand for benefit given to Union members that they do not receive and it would indeed be unfair if their benefits remain stagnant. The two will eventually destroy the company. The welfare of the whole in leadership and governance must be considered, not the special interests of the squeaky lobby.

This point firmly establishes what I've been thinking from the beginning - that you don't know what you're talking about.

You've been thinking that from the beginning have you?

People who've endorsed STV include Preston Manning, Deborah Grey and Andrew Coyne. In fact, STV has attracted supporters from all political stripes. STV supporters tend to be independent thinkers as opposed to herd followers - and BC residents tend to be independent-minded.

BTW, the no side is being headed up by David Schreck and Bill Tieleman, two long-time NDP insiders.

The people who will endorse STV are special interests that want a voice. I am not surprised members of political parties with minority support would endorse it on the surface. I believe they would, in practice, soon reject the concept.

David Shreck and Bill Tieleman like the status quo and do not like the STV because the NDP has representation and having a left wing bent they prefer to be the only special interest.

The STV will not bring smaller government, which would be my objective. It will bring bigger government and even more issues to the table that don't belong there.

Vote "no" on the STV. I am going to but it will probably pass because it isn't a propensity for people in social democracies to vote for less government, it is to vote for the largest handout, the most benefit and unwittingly proceed toward the inevitable end of socialism - the totalitarian regime. STV is just another step in that direction. The squealing at the trough will just become more cacophonous and the chop thinner which in the end results in only the State's interests being served.

[ReeferMadness]

It needed a 60 or 65% affirmative vote to pass, I believe so never did pass.

It needed 60. It got 58. The 60% figure is arbitrary. There is no legal requirement for 60%. Actually, there is no legal requirement to consult the people at all. STV was used in Alberta and Manitoba in the early part of the 20th century. When the politicians decided they didn't like it, they simply passed legislation.

I wonder how many people had a clear understanding of it after the two hour discussion of it on the radio.

If Scheck had his way, not very many.

All Dennis said was that Shreck didn't understand it but Dennis still couldn't answer a simple question. And quite frankly, I got tired of waiting for him to answer it.

Scheck probably understands but doesn't want anybody else to understand. The more people understand STV, the more they like it.

Yes. the no campaign is all about hysteria and misinformation. Of course. The yes side is about frustration.

That's very close to the truth. With a 60% requirement and a poorly understood subject, the yes side has to be clear and persuasive. All the no side has to do is spread fear, uncertainty and doubt. And they're doing it very well.

So with 7,000 votes in my riding am I elected or not? From what I understand if you get no votes in the other ridings you are not elected.

The riding is now 100,000 votes large and you need 16,667. Simple.

The whole idea of the STV is to give an equal voice to all perspectives, is it not?

Not even close. No system gives all perspectives an equal voice, nor should it. But you need to go back to the fundamentals of democracy. Democracy is rule by and for the people. Representative democracy is democracy through proxy - ie someone else represents your interest.

But there are 2 big problems with our democracy. First, 15-20% of the voters cast a ballot for parties that don't get any seats - meaning they essentially have no voice. And that doesn't include the portion of the remainder that reluctantly vote "strategically", meaning they vote for someone they don't like to try to block someone else they like even less. Second, the governing party in a majority government normally gets less than half the popular vote, meaning that they don't really have legitimate authority to make all of the decisions.

The whole idea behind proportional representation (of which STV is one type) is to ensure that the strength of the voice is roughly proportional to the number of people that hold a set of views. Not all views can be represented and their are different types of proportional representation with different thresholds for electing representatives. In some countries, the threshold can be as low as 2%. In many, it is 5%. STV (like FPTP) doesn't have a set percentage province-wide but you need regional support of anywhere from 12.5% to 33% depending on the number of MLA's in the constitency.

Smaller parties stand a better chance of getting candidates elected. Basically, it allows special interest lobbies to be included in the political process instead of having to beg via lobbying but doesn't exclude them form lobbying either.

Under FPTP, parties with support across the province typically don't get seats until they reach about 20% popular vote. That can equate to a lot of wasted votes. In practice, it equates to a lot of frustration because people either don't vote or they vote for someone they really don't want to win.

I am not a fan of special interest groups. The government should represent individual citizens as a whole group and not interest groups. That is the main reason I do not support the STV. It represents special interest groups and the individual is further forgotten in the governmental process.

I don't know of any political parties in BC that I would call special interest groups. That's a term a lot of people use to discredit organizations with whom they don't agree.

I am a Canadian citizen.

Which doesn't give you the right to arbitrarily determine what is or isn't a political party.

Let's not get away from the fact a political party/parties set the policies, programs and general direction of our government. It isn't a frivolous venture and it shouldn't be, in my estimation, about special interests ensuring they can bully their way to favour over other interests.

Again with the "special interests". The funny thing is that the party in Canada with the most narrowly defined interest is the Bloc Quebecois. And they are the largest beneficiaries of the first past the post system. So, your favorite political system is helping people break up the country.

It is impossible for government to represent everyone's viewpoint, and I think you realize that. Everyone's viewpoint should not be, that "if a special interest lobby can be formed, only then will I have representation in government."

Not everyone's viewpoint can be represented but setting the bar at 20% of the population is unreasonable and unnecessary.

If the CAW had any interest in the future of their members they would understand that their demands are met by the agreement of others and the sacrifice of the company as a whole. Management, being another interest, will of course not stand for benefit given to Union members that they do not receive and it would indeed be unfair if their benefits remain stagnant. The two will eventually destroy the company. The welfare of the whole in leadership and governance must be considered, not the special interests of the squeaky lobby.

There is no reason to believe that broadening the democratic coverage of viewpoints will destroy us. Quite the opposite, most of the worlds democracies use some form of proportional representation and I don't think that any of the recently democratized countries have chosen FPTP. FPTP is a holdover from the British Empire in the days when only wealthy men were allowed to vote.

The people who will endorse STV are special interests that want a voice. I am not surprised members of political parties with minority support would endorse it on the surface. I believe they would, in practice, soon reject the concept.

In Ireland, STV has survived for 90 years despite 2 attempts by the largest political party to get rid of it. The people voted to keep it.

David Shreck and Bill Tieleman like the status quo and do not like the STV because the NDP has representation and having a left wing bent they prefer to be the only special interest.

Now you're saying that the NDP is a special interest too? Are all parties special interests by your definitionl

The STV will not bring smaller government, which would be my objective. It will bring bigger government and even more issues to the table that don't belong there.

A ridiculous statement. Ireland had STV when it went through the major exercise of lowering taxes and reducing regulation to become the 'Celtic tiger'. Prove it.

Vote "no" on the STV. I am going to but it will probably pass because it isn't a propensity for people in social democracies to vote for less government, it is to vote for the largest handout, the most benefit and unwittingly proceed toward the inevitable end of socialism - the totalitarian regime. STV is just another step in that direction. The squealing at the trough will just become more cacophonous and the chop thinner which in the end results in only the State's interests being served.

Wow. What optimism.

Personally, I think it will pass and it should. I believe in democracy and that stronger government results from fresh ideas.

Politics in BC currently is like World War I. Two sides dug in with very little movement.

[Pliny]

It needed 60. It got 58. The 60% figure is arbitrary. There is no legal requirement for 60%. Actually, there is no legal requirement to consult the people at all. STV was used in Alberta and Manitoba in the early part of the 20th century. When the politicians decided they didn't like it, they simply passed legislation.

There is a legal requirement of 60% or STV would already be enacted. I think you mean there is no legal basis for that arbitrary assignment.

That's very close to the truth. With a 60% requirement and a poorly understood subject, the yes side has to be clear and persuasive. All the no side has to do is spread fear, uncertainty and doubt. And they're doing it very well.

They aren't clear and persausive. You know what my wife said to me after the last election. She said, what was that question about the STV all about. Not being a negative person she voted in the affirmative - must be a good thing since they are asking for our approval."

Well, I hope that the fear, uncertainty and doubt prevails if that is their only weapon.

I don't think people really care too much about politics. I don't think they care about looking into what STV is all about. Throw out a few slogans with the words "fair" and "equal" and that is as far as they want to look. The big questions they have are how much will this raise my taxes or what benefit is this to me or anyone else. Oh, my buddy likes it maybe I'll vote with him. It makes things more equal - sounds good.

Most people, I think, are content to live their lives with as little interference from government as possible.

The riding is now 100,000 votes large and you need 16,667. Simple.

Quick question? What is leadership?

Not even close. No system gives all perspectives an equal voice, nor should it. But you need to go back to the fundamentals of democracy. Democracy is rule by and for the people. Representative democracy is democracy through proxy - ie someone else represents your interest.

Now wait a second? you were the one saying you wanted every voice to have a say. If this doesn't provide it why support it. I will say it does provide for every specialinterst to have a voice. Let's forget individuals about having a voice. The only voice they will have is the one that was transferred to the Woodland Creatures party.

But there are 2 big problems with our democracy. First, 15-20% of the voters cast a ballot for parties that don't get any seats - meaning they essentially have no voice. And that doesn't include the portion of the remainder that reluctantly vote "strategically", meaning they vote for someone they don't like to try to block someone else they like even less. Second, the governing party in a majority government normally gets less than half the popular vote, meaning that they don't really have legitimate authority to make all of the decisions.

The biggest problem with our democracy is that special interests are served instead of the individual. To serve the individual and be really "fair" you have to stick to a very limited mandate of justice, not the broad interests of the public in demanding largesse form government.

As for the problems you mention. If a party doesn't get any seats they are outside the interests of the majority of voters. You are advocating a tyranny of the minority if you support an equalization of special interest lobbies essentially giving them a seat without any concensus and instead transferring a vote to someone the voter may entirely object to. If you are afraid of a tyranny of the majority then you should be demanding government limit it's mandate not increase it to appease what ever special interest can provide enough votes for the representative.

I agree that the governing party in a majority government gets less than half the popular vote and since only half the populace votes they govern with less than a quarter the population's assent. Here is where one needs to understand what the mandate of government is. If you believe it should be able to engineer society then you should demand leadership, many do and end up with dictators. If you believe it should have a limited mandate, as I do then you should demand it stick to protecting the safety of the individual's person and property and not serve to dish out benefit to whoever can muster together enough votes to be a persuasive force for representation.

The whole idea behind proportional representation (of which STV is one type) is to ensure that the strength of the voice is roughly proportional to the number of people that hold a set of views.

Exactly - social engineering at it's worst.

Not all views can be represented and their are different types of proportional representation with different thresholds for electing representatives. In some countries, the threshold can be as low as 2%. In many, it is 5%. STV (like FPTP) doesn't have a set percentage province-wide but you need regional support of anywhere from 12.5% to 33% depending on the number of MLA's in the constitency.

Darn. All views can't be represented, ay? It is more "equal" and "fair" though, right?

Under FPTP, parties with support across the province typically don't get seats until they reach about 20% popular vote. That can equate to a lot of wasted votes. In practice, it equates to a lot of frustration because people either don't vote or they vote for someone they really don't want to win.

Isn't that better than having your vote going to someone you really don't want to win?

I don't know of any political parties in BC that I would call special interest groups. That's a term a lot of people use to discredit organizations with whom they don't agree.

Cutting to the chase here - the special interest groups form the basis of the political parties policies. The liberals represent a certain group of special interests and so do the NDP. Neither represent everyone's interests when government serves, and has a mandate to engineer such a broad range of social interests.

Which doesn't give you the right to arbitrarily determine what is or isn't a political party.

You mean, as an individual, I don't have a voice but if I had enough people supporting me and could lobby as a special interest I would have a voice? Well that's in keeping with your stance of protecting special interests above individual liberty and freedom.

Again with the "special interests". The funny thing is that the party in Canada with the most narrowly defined interest is the Bloc Quebecois. And they are the largest beneficiaries of the first past the post system. So, your favorite political system is helping people break up the country.

Yes. Why don't we lobby for a federal STV so that the Bloc are guaranteed a seat at the table. I have no argument they are a special interest but it is you that wishes to have all viewpoints represented. Do you not like the Bloc? I don't but I see a the STV guaranteeing their representation.

Not everyone's viewpoint can be represented but setting the bar at 20% of the population is unreasonable and unnecessary.

Yes the Bloc sould have a more "equal" and "fair" opportunity. I could even have my vote transferred to them. Fancy that!

There is no reason to believe that broadening the democratic coverage of viewpoints will destroy us. Quite the opposite, most of the worlds democracies use some form of proportional representation and I don't think that any of the recently democratized countries have chosen FPTP. FPTP is a holdover from the British Empire in the days when only wealthy men were allowed to vote.

In Ireland, STV has survived for 90 years despite 2 attempts by the largest political party to get rid of it. The people voted to keep it.

you mean the people had their votes transferred to keep it. It is a transferrable vote.

Now you're saying that the NDP is a special interest too? Are all parties special interests by your definitionl

The NDP is a party and as all parties in our current political system, they represent the special interests that it's ideology will support. In my view, special interests should not be catered to - justice (and not social justice) should be the order.

A ridiculous statement. Ireland had STV when it went through the major exercise of lowering taxes and reducing regulation to become the 'Celtic tiger'. Prove it.

I had to look at what the ridiculous statement was that I made but here is a good article that puts the Celtic tiger in perspective. http://mises.org/story/3405

Wow. What optimism.

I like to take the glass half full perspective.

Personally, I think it will pass and it should. I believe in democracy and that stronger government results from fresh ideas.

Personally, I think it will pass also but it shouldn't. I believe in justice and that stronger government results from whiny citizens.

Politics in BC currently is like World War I. Two sides dug in with very little movement.

There is lots of movement but all the wrong way. The STV may be passed. Wouldn't you call that movement.

I don't particularly care for movement - I care for liberty and justice (not social justice - which is an appeasement of injustice through enforced equalization and not a correction of injustice.)

Basically, our fundamental view of government is what separates us. You believe heavily in social engineering and I don't.

[Oleg Bach]

What does this single vote actually mean? Does it mean who ever gets the most votes wins? That sure would be popular to have a popular vote and a real democratic nation....the system that they have in the states and in Canada seem similar...I really can't tell who is the real winner...is it possible to have a system where the guy who actually gets the most wins? I hope not.... I hate democracy...cos's most people are dumb...and I also hate dictatorship unless I am buddy buddy with the boss..

[sharkman]

I have in my hands an editorial from May 1 by Keith Baldrey. In it he says that it is Gordon Campbell who has put STV on the ballet for this election. STV would eliminate a dozen ridings in the interior of B.C. and replace them with 4 big ones. Ditto the lower Mainland, where 31 ridings in Surrey, Burnaby, New Westminster, Tri-cities, Richmond, Delta, Chilliwack, Abbotsford, Maple Ridge, Mission and Langley would be reduced into 7 ridings.

That's ridiculous. That is a serious reduction in citizen representation in the government. How are 7 MLAs from differing parties going to represent an area this size as well as 31 MLAs? It sounds like a bad joke.

[eyeball]

The whole idea behind proportional representation (of which STV is one type) is to ensure that the strength of the voice is roughly proportional to the number of people that hold a set of views.

Exactly - social engineering at it's worst.

No way. The term engineering is best reserved for times when a FPTP so-called majority of 25% of the population gets to impose its will on the rest.

[Pliny]

No way. The term engineering is best reserved for times when a FPTP so-called majority of 25% of the population gets to impose its will on the rest.

Actually only .01 % of the population gets to impose it's will on the people. 25% will be happy they are doing so. 50% don't care enough to bother voting who imposes their will on them, they just know someone will but if it gets too inconvenient, they might make an effort to pick who it is. And the other 25% are complaining that the wrong guys are imposing their will on everyone. Actually though, if government were kept limited, it wouldn't be imposing it's will on anyone with the exception of criminals.

Under the STV leadership will suffer. Coalitions will exist that are comprised of political deal making like you haven't seen. Government will be imposing it's will on the people from the perspective of parties that may each have 5% support in the election and another party that may have 5% support but no support from the population who voted for the first party and doesn't like the second party and 5% of the third part of the coalition doesn't like the second part. So the .01% of the population that imposes it's will on the rest of the population may have only a very small percentage of supporters - as little as 5%. It's a complicated structure. Subject to electro-magnetic floor mat shifting.

As I said, leadership will suffer. What sort of leadership is composed of compromise? There will be no strong leadership and no leader we can hang at the polls. No particular party could be held accountable either. Nor would the special interests represented wish to hold their party accountable. They will always vote according to their own special interests and it will always be the wrong coalition that failed - never their party.

Of course you could say that strong leadership means fascism if you look at it from the social engineering perspective. But I think it means making sure the government doesn't exceed in imposing itself on too many people who don't wish to be imposed upon too heavily.

Edited May 4, 2009 by Pliny

[Pliny]

Don't get me wrong. The current FPTP system has blemishes and pimples but STV is not the salve to apply. I think lobbying and special interests are serious problems to democracy as they only barter for privilege with a claim of the interest of the public as a whole. They have not often looked beyond the first chess move. And if they do not understand economics at all have no way of measuring the cost to society for the legislation they propose no matter it's seeming urgency in their minds. Many things that people in a society consider should be will come about as the culture develops and evolves. Governments interference in that evolutionary process cannot help but warp it to the benefit of government itself. The least intervention is the best course of action. Besides, it shouldn't be intervening in that process. It should only be ensuring the process continues with as little threat of violence against the security of person and property as possible.

[ReeferMadness]

I have in my hands an editorial from May 1 by Keith Baldrey. In it he says that it is Gordon Campbell who has put STV on the ballet for this election. STV would eliminate a dozen ridings in the interior of B.C. and replace them with 4 big ones. Ditto the lower Mainland, where 31 ridings in Surrey, Burnaby, New Westminster, Tri-cities, Richmond, Delta, Chilliwack, Abbotsford, Maple Ridge, Mission and Langley would be reduced into 7 ridings.

That's ridiculous. That is a serious reduction in citizen representation in the government. How are 7 MLAs from differing parties going to represent an area this size as well as 31 MLAs? It sounds like a bad joke.

Sharkman, the number of MLA's remains the same. If two ridings are combined into 1, there will be 2 MLA's representing the people of that riding. If there are 3 ridings combined, there will be 3 MLA's. And so on.

Their are several advtanges to this approach:

1. It maintains competition between MLA's all the time, not just at election time. Under the current system, if you represent a safe seat, you don't have to be that concerned with your constituents.
   
2. It allows a better balance of representation. If a region containing, say, 3 ridings has 67% support for party A and 33% for party B, party A will send 3 MLA's and 33% of the voters will feel that they have no representation. If you combine them, you get representation that more accurately reflects the votes.
   
3. In the example above, regional differences are exacerbated when regions tend to always send the same parties to represent them.
   

[sharkman]

That is not how Keith Baldrey laid it out and he is a respected journalist here in B.C. I wonder how he could have gotten it so wrong? Are you sure of your sources?

[eyeball]

Actually only .01 % of the population gets to impose it's will on the people. 25% will be happy they are doing so. 50% don't care enough to bother voting who imposes their will on them, they just know someone will but if it gets too inconvenient, they might make an effort to pick who it is. And the other 25% are complaining that the wrong guys are imposing their will on everyone. Actually though, if government were kept limited, it wouldn't be imposing it's will on anyone with the exception of criminals.

Under the STV leadership will suffer. Coalitions will exist that are comprised of political deal making like you haven't seen. Government will be imposing it's will on the people from the perspective of parties that may each have 5% support in the election and another party that may have 5% support but no support from the population who voted for the first party and doesn't like the second party and 5% of the third part of the coalition doesn't like the second part. So the .01% of the population that imposes it's will on the rest of the population may have only a very small percentage of supporters - as little as 5%. It's a complicated structure. Subject to electro-magnetic floor mat shifting.

As I said, leadership will suffer. What sort of leadership is composed of compromise? There will be no strong leadership and no leader we can hang at the polls. No particular party could be held accountable either. Nor would the special interests represented wish to hold their party accountable. They will always vote according to their own special interests and it will always be the wrong coalition that failed - never their party.

Of course you could say that strong leadership means fascism if you look at it from the social engineering perspective. But I think it means making sure the government doesn't exceed in imposing itself on too many people who don't wish to be imposed upon too heavily.

Big if here. I don't expect the government to reduce it size on it own anymore than make itself more transparent on its own.

To be perfectly honest my expectations of governments are becoming bleaker with each and every encounter I have with them. I don't know why I've come to expect so much of STV, I guess its because most old party establishments don't like it or change of any kind as much as anything.

I definitely feel myself sliding towards the more distant end of the 50% who've come to give less than a shit about who or what gets into power anymore. Its becoming to much of a chore to even bother thinking about really.

[Pliny]

Their are several advtanges to this approach:

1. It maintains competition between MLA's all the time, not just at election time. Under the current system, if you represent a safe seat, you don't have to be that concerned with your constituents.
   
2. It allows a better balance of representation. If a region containing, say, 3 ridings has 67% support for party A and 33% for party B, party A will send 3 MLA's and 33% of the voters will feel that they have no representation. If you combine them, you get representation that more accurately reflects the votes.
   
3. In the example above, regional differences are exacerbated when regions tend to always send the same parties to represent them.
   

Sharkman, judging form what he has said, hasn't looked too deeply into this and I admit I haven't got the whole concept either but I understand enough to know which side of it I am on.

I believe on your ballot you make choices and rank all parties according to your preference. Once a percentage of votes has elected an MLA the vote is transferred to the next most popular choice until another MLA is elected. Then the remaining votes are transferred to the next choice until he receives enough of a percentage of the votes. A person who gets one vote could in theory get elected if enough votes remain to be transferred to him.

All parties would run candidates in all regions but only one MLA is allowed to be elected from a party per region. I believe a region must contain a certain amount of ridings.

So your vote could be transferred to a party with which you totally disagree and you find government working at odds with itself - but apparently competition between MLA's all the time is a good thing.

Do I have all that correct?

The system provides what is called "better representation" as though there is no general direction the province wishes to go in and the only determination of government is how to divide up it's revenues among the now varied represented interests. Government becomes a virtual welfare state for those represented interests to feed at instead of the guardian of individual liberty for honest and responsible citizens.

In order to endorse the STV one has to have the concept of government being the great benefactor of all things good where all interests can equally fight for a place at the trough. If that is one's concept of government I understand support for this. I however don't believe in State welfare for those who are not needy but just wish to have privilege for their particular interests.

A Governments mandate has to be broad, general and limited; and not specific to individual or special interests. It is only under a limited government mandate that a society can determine it's own direction. Not all would find heaven in that but the honest and responsible citizen could thrive raising the standard of living for all.

Hey, Reefer did you read that link I posted about Ireland's political woes?

[Pliny]

Big if here. I don't expect the government to reduce it size on it own anymore than make itself more transparent on its own.

Of course it won't on it's own. Like any organization it tends toward growth.

To be perfectly honest my expectations of governments are becoming bleaker with each and every encounter I have with them. I don't know why I've come to expect so much of STV, I guess its because most old party establishments don't like it or change of any kind as much as anything.

No. It's your inclination to go with the flow, being the easy going caring-sharing guy you are.

I definitely feel myself sliding towards the more distant end of the 50% who've come to give less than a shit about who or what gets into power anymore. Its becoming to much of a chore to even bother thinking about really.

Vote or don't. Your choice.

Being familiar with your proclivities I would prefer you slide entirely into the distant end of the 50% who've come to give less than a shit about who or what gets into power.

[sharkman]

Thanks for the explanation Pliny. It's as I suspected, leftwingers in B.C. are just looking for anything at all by which some power would get taken away from the Liberal party. But this particular method is exceptionally screwy.

[Wayne McQ.]

Of course the Liberals like to maintain the status quo because it means they have an advantage in every election, and then they have the nerve to pretend to be concerned that people have become so disenfranchised. No wonder people are fed up with crooked politicians right across this country. STV should be implemented not only here in BC, but right across the country including federally. At least nobody will feel they have lost their vote. The reason the mainstream parties would like to maintain the status quo is that they can easily for majority governments and they no longer have to compromise on legislation. STV means they will have no choice but to compromise since it will mean that the opinions of ordinary people will have to be considered before legislation is passed. From my perspective, I am sick and tired of elitist politicians attempting to tell me what it is that I want or what is good for me, all the while raising taxes to pay for their hair-brained schemes.

[ReeferMadness]

Sharkman, judging form what he has said, hasn't looked too deeply into this and I admit I haven't got the whole concept either but I understand enough to know which side of it I am on.

What an arrogant thing to say. I've read a lot about STV and I understand it quite well. At least we can both agree that you don't get it.

I haven't replied to your post because quite frankly, you don't seem very open minded and I've got better things to do.

Edited May 5, 2009 by ReeferMadness

[ReeferMadness]

That is not how Keith Baldrey laid it out and he is a respected journalist here in B.C. I wonder how he could have gotten it so wrong? Are you sure of your sources?

I don't know how Keith Baldrey laid it out but here is a link to Elections BC. Quick comparison of BC-STV and FPTP. It says plainly there are 85 MLAs in the current system and there will be 85 MLAs in the new system.

For a more in-depth explanation of BC-STV (including some pictorials), click on Understanding BC-STV.

The yes website is stv.ca while the no website is nostv.org.

There was a comprehensive study on STV as it is actually used done by the Scottish Parliament before they adopted STV for their local elections. You can find it here. If you don't want to read the whole thing, you can scroll to the bottom and read the conclusion where it says

Nevertheless, some limited areas of commonality can be suggested from the consideration of the previous cases. Firstly, STV tends to produce reasonably proportional results and certainly more proportional results than FPTP. Secondly, STV appears effective at maintaining linkages between politicians and local communities and indeed it is often criticised for fostering too

localistic a political culture. Thirdly, whilst voters appear not to have any difficulty voting in STV elections there have been cases, for example in the Isle of Man, where the issue of whether voters understand how results are arrived at has been of concern. Lastly, electoral campaigns under STV can also involve intra-party campaigning as well as inter-party campaigning although evidence of party coherence and governmental stability does not appear to be affected.

In answer to your question, yes I am sure of my sources. And don't listen to Pliny because he admitted himself he doesn't really understand it.

Edited May 5, 2009 by ReeferMadness

[ReeferMadness]

Thanks for the explanation Pliny. It's as I suspected, leftwingers in B.C. are just looking for anything at all by which some power would get taken away from the Liberal party. But this particular method is exceptionally screwy.

sharkman, this is a gross generalization. If you look at the endorsements page, you'll see that the people endorsing STV include Andrew Coyne, Deborah Grey, Preston Manning, and Gordon Gibson. It's been endorsed by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. These are hardly Marxists.

My observation is that the people who support STV (and, for that matter, proportional reform in general) are committed democrats who don't share any belief other than that governments should reflect the diversity of the consituents. I was recently at a forum where Judy Rebick shared the speakers table with (former Preston Manning aid) Rick Anderson, Rafe Mair and eco-capitalist Jim Harris. I can't imagine this group being united on very many debates.

The no side president is long time NDP insider Bill Tieleman. In fact, as far as I can tell, the no side is a group of insiders with vested interests supplemented by a bunch who think that the Citizens Assembly chose the wrong proportional system. If you look at the literature, they have virtually nothing to say about the current system. Instead, they trash STV. And it's virtually all misinformation or disinformation.

But since the bar is set at 60% (and both parties agreed to this!), the no side doesn't have to be convincing. All they have to do is spread fear, uncertainty and doubt. And that's exactly what they've done.

[Pliny]

What an arrogant thing to say. I've read a lot about STV and I understand it quite well. At least we can both agree that you don't get it.

I haven't replied to your post because quite frankly, you don't seem very open minded and I've got better things to do.

Did I not explain STV well?

Yes, I have quite made up my mind.

[Pliny]

Of course the Liberals like to maintain the status quo because it means they have an advantage in every election, and then they have the nerve to pretend to be concerned that people have become so disenfranchised. No wonder people are fed up with crooked politicians right across this country. STV should be implemented not only here in BC, but right across the country including federally. At least nobody will feel they have lost their vote. The reason the mainstream parties would like to maintain the status quo is that they can easily for majority governments and they no longer have to compromise on legislation. STV means they will have no choice but to compromise since it will mean that the opinions of ordinary people will have to be considered before legislation is passed. From my perspective, I am sick and tired of elitist politicians attempting to tell me what it is that I want or what is good for me, all the while raising taxes to pay for their hair-brained schemes.

If you are sick and tired of elitist politicians attempting to tell you what it is you want or what is good for you, all the while raising taxes to pay for their hare-brained schemes then STV is not the solution to your problem. The solution is a more limited size and scope of government - less harebrained schemes are hatched and lower taxes are in order for smaller government.

[Pliny]

And don't listen to Pliny because he admitted himself he doesn't really understand it.

Did I mention something incorrect? I said I understood enough about it that I have made my decision.

In all fairness, it is up to each of us to educate ourselves about our government, our politics, our voting structure, and the politicians we cast our votes for.

The links you provided will outline the pros and cons of the STV and it is perhaps there that one's decison should be made, not a political forum. Here I am only expressing an opinion.

As I said supporters of it are in my opinion basically pro-government in their approach to societal problem-solving.

Not being a supporter of social engineering I would prefer to divest government of most of it's meddling in the affairs of society not provide a broader base of interests thinking that better representation of the varied interests brings more efficient government and creates a more equal and just society. It won't. Reducing the influence and size of government is the only thing that will.

Hey Reefer did you read that link I posted about Ireland's luck with the STV?