Single Transferable Vote

Riverwind · May 14, 2009

I reckon that holding an honest election is far more important than the voter turn out. If there is an honest election, then there is a way to get rid of the buggers, and that is the real test of democracy. IOW, however we choose our leaders (even by lottery), it is far more important that we have a way to oust them.

I completely agree. However, there is a danger in low turnout since it gives motivated minorities a disproportionate amount of control over the outcome. So I think there is a need to address the turn out issue even if it is really problem with modern culture rather than the system itself.

Wilber · May 14, 2009

I reckon that holding an honest election is far more important than the voter turn out. If there is an honest election, then there is a way to get rid of the buggers, and that is the real test of democracy. IOW, however we choose our leaders (even by lottery), it is far more important that we have a way to oust them.

What good is an honest election if no one votes in it? What is an honest election anyway? Kash Heed, former police chief and successful Liberal candidate said to Christie Clark, a former Liberal cabinet minister, now talk show host that he couldn't believe how much people lied during the election. She just about choked, talk about naivety.

The Single Transferrable Vote does not change these fundamental weaknesses. As Riverwind has noted above, it would make no difference and would more likely make our political system even more confusing and complicated. (At worst, we might become Belgium where no one knows who won the election and the PM is decided behind closed doors several weeks after the election date.)

You guys are long on excuses and short on solutions. STV is not confusing or complicated. You only have to look at who won and how you ranked the candidates to know where your vote went or not. The actual counting would be done by computers under the scrutiny of Elections BC just as it is done now. There is every reason to believe a computer count would be more mistake free than a human one and no reason to believe it would take weeks.

Neither of you will answer the question. How low does voter turnout have to go before you acknowledge there is problem? Do you honestly believe that a 31% turnout for a mayor of a major city is healthy or good? What percentage would you consider to be unhealthy?

For the record, democracy (one person, one vote) has two fundamental weaknesses. First of all, some people feel strongly about some things while other people are more indifferent. One person, one vote wrongly gives everyone the same influence. It's not fair. (Compare this to someone who loves coffee and drinks it often.)

So how do you propose to make people less indifferent, or are you indifferent to the fact that an increasing number (in some cases a majority) are indifferent?

Secondly, your individual vote will change nothing in the final result. (You have never voted in an election in which your vote was decisive. If you hadn't gone to the polls, Canadian history would have carried on as before.) Faced with this obvious fact, most people choose to spend their time in pursuits other than deciding which candidate to vote for.

So why have elections at all if no one's vote counts? That is one weird statement.

August1991 · May 14, 2009

However, there is a danger in low turnout since it gives motivated minorities a disproportionate amount of control over the outcome.

If that ever happened, even at 7% turnout, I suspect an opposing group would organize to change the election.

Riverwind, a successful democracy does not decide who has power; it decides who can lose power. We keep politicians such as Stephen Harper and Barack Obama in line because they know that at the next election, they could lose the adulation and the limo. Just ask Michael Dukakis.

What is an honest election anyway?

Now, that's a good question.

I would say that an honest election is one in which an incumbent government leader truly believes that he/she can lose power.

So why have elections at all if no one's vote counts? That is one weird statement.

Gee Wilber, have you never thought about this? What is collective society anyway?

If you buy coffee at Tim Hortons, your choice makes a (small, even microscopic) change in the world coffee market, and on teh world at large. (If you buy a Chrysler 300 next week, your purchase will have a bigger effect.) If you vote Liberal in your riding in the next federal election, your vote will change absolutely nothing.

So, here's an experiment. Try this. Vote NDP, or even Conservative, in the next election and see if the end result is different. And then, for a week, refuse to buy Tim Hortons coffee to see if there is a difference.

The difference? If you refuse to buy Tim Hortons coffee for a week, you won't get any coffee for a week. If you change your vote in the next election, what changes?

Edited May 14, 2009 by August1991

benny · May 14, 2009

The selection of the initial 15,800 candidates was random. After that only those people who were interested in the process were considered. This process of self-selection introduced a bias into the process (e.g. only people that believed that the system needed 'fixing' would volunteer to spend time trying to 'fix it').
Bottom line: the citizen's assembly was definitely not random.

This Assembly was an experiment in deliberative democracy and totally random experiment can be done only with non-humans. Routinely, people who accept to take part in focus groups have all sort of motivations, including making a bit of money.

Edited May 14, 2009 by benny

Wilber · May 14, 2009

If you buy coffee at Tim Hortons, your choice makes a (small, even microscopic) change in the world coffee market, and on teh world at large. (If you buy a Chrysler 300 next week, your purchase will have a bigger effect.) If you vote Liberal in your riding in the next federal election, your vote will change absolutely nothing

.

Tell that to Wally Opal. Awaiting the recount he is winning by two votes. I'm sure he would be interested that his and his wife's vote didn't count.

Edited May 14, 2009 by Wilber

benny · May 14, 2009

.
Tell that to Wally Opal. Awaiting the recount he is winning by two votes. I'm sure he would be interested that his and his wife's vote didn't count.

The random pre-electoral surveys influence a lot the probability to be a pivotal-voter.

Edited May 14, 2009 by benny

Riverwind · May 14, 2009

You guys are long on excuses and short on solutions. STV is not confusing or complicated.

If STV was the solution then people would have voted for it. They did not and there is no reason to believe that any other change to the system would bring people out to vote. Why do you keeping insisting on a 'solution' that we already know is not going to solve the problem?

August1991 · May 14, 2009

Tell that to Wally Opal. Awaiting the recount he is winning by two votes. I'm sure he would be interested that his and his wife's vote didn't count.

Who is Wally Opal?

[A google later.]

You have more chance of being a lottery winner than being the voter who decided Wally Opal's win. As a lottery winner, at least you'll get some money. What is the decisive voter in Wally Opal's election going to get out of this? Then again: who is the decisive voter?

Or Wilber, do you mean that voting is like buying a lottery ticket?

This seems to be the plot of a Hollywood movie. At least someone (Kevin Costner, Hollywood producers) will benefit from this unlikely situation.

The random pre-electoral surveys influence a lot the probability to be a pivotal-voter.

Benny, in a democracy, we vote as individuals - not as blocks. Edited May 14, 2009 by August1991

benny · May 14, 2009

If STV was the solution then people would have voted for it. They did not and there is no reason to believe that any other change to the system would bring people out to vote. Why do you keeping insisting on a 'solution' that we already know is not going to solve the problem?

Going out to cast a secret vote is not motivating because having to cast that secret vote is like having to recognize that our society is divided, that we have not been able to reach a consensus in a public deliberation.

Wilber · May 14, 2009

Who is Wally Opal?
[A google later.]

You have more chance of being a lottery winner than being Wally Opal. As a lottery winner, at least you'll get some money. What is Wally Opal going to get out of this? Or, do you mean that voting is like buying a lottery ticket?

This seems to be the plot of a Hollywood movie. At least someone will benefit from this unlikely situation.

Benny, in a democracy, we vote as individuals - not as blocks.

Wally Opal is the Attorney General who would now most likely be the ex Attorney General if he and his wife hadn't voted and may still be yet.

Wilber · May 14, 2009

If STV was the solution then people would have voted for it. They did not and there is no reason to believe that any other change to the system would bring people out to vote. Why do you keeping insisting on a 'solution' that we already know is not going to solve the problem?

I've never maintained it was a solution but you don't even have a suggestion.

Riverwind · May 14, 2009

I've never maintained it was a solution but you don't even have a suggestion.

I said many times that we need treat 'not voting' like smoking or drinking and driving. In both of those cases the amount of undesirable behavoir has gone down because of the social stigma attached to those activities. We don't have that with voting today. We have a society where non-voters are coddled and told its 'not their fault' - its the 'system' or the 'policians'. That coddling has to end. Non-voting should not be considered to be socially acceptable (non) activity. Edited May 14, 2009 by Riverwind

Wilber · May 14, 2009

I said many times that we need treat 'not voting' like smoking or drinking and driving. In both of those cases the amount of undesirable behavoir has gone down because of the social stigma attached to those activities. We don't have that with voting today. We have a society where non-voters are coddled and told its 'not their fault' - its the 'system' or the 'policians'. That coddling has to end. Non-voting should not be considered to be socially acceptable (non) activity.

So your solution would be to force people to the polls at gunpoint? How low would the voter turnout have to go before you would admit there might be a problem with the system? It is a very simple question, why won't you answer it?

When you consider that about 53% of those who voted, did so against STV and only 52.4% of eligible voters voted, that means only 27.7% of eligible voters did so against STV.

Has it ever occurred to you that they might be voting on the system by not voting?

Edited May 14, 2009 by Wilber

August1991 · May 14, 2009

Wally Opal is the Attorney General who would now most likely be the ex Attorney General if he and his wife hadn't voted and may still be yet.

Was her vote (or Wally's vote) decisive?

Wilber, you just don't get the main point in this discussion. I feel that I am discussing an inflection point with someone who is a specialist of tangents.

Riverwind · May 14, 2009

So your solution would be to force people to the polls at gunpoint?

Holy hyperbole batman! That is not what I said and you know it.

In any case, if you want a solution then that is it. Reject it if you like.

How low would the voter turnout have to go before you would admit there might be a problem with the system? It is a very simple question, why won't you answer it?

I already answered it several times. The people are the problem - not the system. We already have turnouts less than 20% in many civic elections yet no one really believes that is because of the 'system'. Why would the system be to blame for low turnout for more senior levels of government?

Has it ever occurred to you that they might be voting on the system by not voting?

That argument might have had some merit before Tue. However, the non-voters had a chance to vote to change the system and they did not even bother to show up. The only rational conclusion based on the evidence is people simply don't care. Edited May 14, 2009 by Riverwind

August1991 · May 14, 2009

I said many times that we need treat 'not voting' like smoking or drinking and driving.

And IYV, shaming voters will make society civilized.

BTW, the Soviets/Fascists used your tactics. Have you seen this movie, A Special Day? Sophia Loren and Marcello Mastroianni star. Ettore Scola directed.

Total State protection is an illusion since people are different and the State cannot always cover us individually. Nevertheless, some governments manage for awhile.

Edited May 14, 2009 by August1991

Riverwind · May 14, 2009

And IYV, shaming voters will make society civilized.

August,

Our entire society is built on a complicated set of social rules and conventions. People often do things because for no reason other than the fact that they feel obligated to do so. The advancement of equal rights for women occurred because it was no longer socially acceptable to discriminate based on gender. None of the anti-discrimination laws would have been effective if society continued to treat mysoginists as people making legimate 'choices'.

You also have to put my comments in context. What I am saying is *if* one believes that that the low turnout is a big problem *then* the only solution would involve changing social norms which have made it acceptable to not vote. If one does not believe the turnout is a problem then there is no need for such tactics.

I am curious though, how do you think social change happens if not by shaming?

Wild Bill · May 14, 2009

BC-STV was not a product of the Illuminati as you put it. This is who they were and how they did it.
Citizens Assembly for Electoral Reform

Did you read Riverwind's comment about how you have a group already biased in favour of STV?

I read your link. Almost immediately it says how the group was chosen at random from the voters list. How on earth can that be representative? I can guarantee you that most people would not have the time or the inclination to devote to such a group, PARTICULARLY those who don't see the need for it!

So you phone the first batch from your list and then keep going until you finally get the number you need. The process inevitably means a "stacked" group.

I don't know if this means the people behind the citizensassembly were all "artsies" or simply math-challenged. Certainly they were not experienced pollsters.

It's like the old story about truth in advertising, where a commercial might make the claim " 4 out of 5 Doctors prefer Aspirin!".

You may have to poll 1000 doctors to finally come up with 4. Then you take just one from the 996 who did NOT prefer the product!

You can truthfully and legally now claim that "4 out of 5 Doctors prefer Aspirin".

Please note, I am in no way taking a stand on STV. I don't live in BC, after all. I'm simply pointing out parallels between what just happened and what happened before here in Ontario.

My point was simply that it seems most of the supporters of electoral reform just can't accept that theirs is not the majority view and therefore there must be something wrong either with the vote or with all those who voted against it! I submit that is simple denial.

I think that those who wish change have been putting the cart before the horse. It might be a more positive step to first give their fellow voters a chance to vote on whether or not they agree on a NEED for change before you give them only one alternative choice, as a fait accompli ! If and when people agree on a need for change they will be more interested and perhaps more interactive with developing a specific new system. Perhaps we would see a day when the issue has been more widely thought about and a number of alternatives might be on a ballot, letting the people choose for themselves.

I'd have bet 3 beer that if the Ontario proposal had not included a "standby MP list" for the PARTIES to choose the extra MP's instead of the people it would have received a MUCH higher number of votes!

Voters were asked to swallow too much in one pill and they spit it out.

Wild Bill · May 14, 2009

I see so what would you see as a limit to a healthy democracy? 40%, 30%, 20%, 10%? Give us a number. At what point do we just aclaim a premier for life and be done with it?

Wilber, I don't know what you do for a living but I seriously doubt it has anything to do with the hard sciences.

How on earth can you believe that voter turnout will eventually reach those low numbers? You're just extrapolating the curve. Anyone from the hard sciences knows that Nature doesn't work that way.So demanding some lower limit before your proposal becomes justified is totally moot.

It is far more likely that we have already come close to a 'plateau' set by the percentage of 'lazy' or disinclined voters in our society. The numbers may hit that limit and never go any lower.

As Robert Heinlein, the famous scifi writer. He used to make curves and by the one he made that showed the rate of increase in speed of transportation we should have had faster than light travel a decade or two ago! We don't, of course. The speed of light may very well be impossible to exceed. Nature doesn't work by curves that go on forever. She has 'kinks' in the curves from hard limits or changes.

If you used a curve of temperatures with water that is flowing in your pipes you should definitely pay attention to what happens below and above the freezing and boiling points. The characteristics of that water will dramatically change, making your curve useless.

Personally, from my POV it would seem that what the supporters of STV and similar schemes really want is not "fewer wasted votes" in the name of democracy but rather more power for the parties THEY favour!

They just can't accept that the majority of fellow citizens don't agree with them and so they want to tweak the system a bit more in their favour.

If the numbers showed that the NDP or the Greens would end up with FEWER MP's under a change in our system the entire issue would be dropped immediately!

Edited May 14, 2009 by Wild Bill

benny · May 14, 2009

Benny, in a democracy, we vote as individuals - not as blocks.

The will of the people is not the will of individuals.

M.Dancer · May 14, 2009

The will of the people is not the will of individuals.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T1LIrzsgqA

benny · May 14, 2009

ergo according to the Word of The Benny©... The people are not individuals....

Will is like energy, it can divide and disintegrate all atom-like reality.

M.Dancer · May 14, 2009

Ideas are like children; there are none so wonderful as your own

Wilber · May 14, 2009

Was her vote (or Wally's vote) decisive?
Wilber, you just don't get the main point in this discussion. I feel that I am discussing an inflection point with someone who is a specialist of tangents.

The point is if three people hadn't shown up to vote, he would have lost. Three individuals.

Edited May 14, 2009 by Wilber