Single Transferable Vote

[benny]

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

What is ridiculous about the head-counting-type democracy is that we can be stuck with the most popular candidates having exactly the same total of votes.

[Wild Bill]

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

That reminds me of the Ayn Rand definition of 'society', as in 'the good of society'.

She said that "Society is everyone in general and nobody in particular but it is never, ever YOU!"

[eyeball]

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.

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?

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.

The fact people don't care is no excuse for calling them lazy. August's point about the real utility of democracy is using it to oust governments is hard to refute. It really doesn't matter who you vote for when the Government always wins. I guess if you're happy with that, why vote at all?

The only rational conclusion is that people are simply happy with the way things are. They like the system and love the government just the way they are.

[Riverwind]

The fact people don't care is no excuse for calling them lazy. August's point about the real utility of democracy is using it to oust governments is hard to refute. It really doesn't matter who you vote for when the Government always wins. I guess if you're happy with that, why vote at all?

I don't really care that turnout is low. If people are too dumb to show up at polls to exercise their right that only means my vote counts for more. I was responding to Wilber who feels that the low turnout is a 'problem' that needs fixing. As said before, the only problem is people are too lazy to go to the polling booth and changing the system is not going to change that.

[benny]

That reminds me of the Ayn Rand definition of 'society', as in 'the good of society'.

She said that "Society is everyone in general and nobody in particular but it is never, ever YOU!"

Since Rand, philosophers have learn to use the word "always-already" so much so that a society can now be seen as something always-already there for you.

[sharkman]

What is ridiculous about the head-counting-type democracy is that we can be stuck with the most popular candidates having exactly the same total of votes.

And what's so ridiculous about that? Explain your answer, using words.

[benny]

And what's so ridiculous about that? Explain your answer, using words.

Bank robbers may end up killing each other if they cannot agree on who is to get the last dollar because their own share become smaller than the one of their accomplice.

Edited May 14, 2009 by benny

[Wilber]

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!

STV is a system that was proposed by a bunch of citizens who's only interest was improving the electoral system, not a system designed by political hacks and vested interests as is our present system going right back to when the Barons first stuck it to King John at Runnymede. As such I thought it was worth a try for three elections when it would be put to another referendum whether to keep it or not. By then I might be sick of it myself but it is interesting to note that when Ireland brought it back for review after trying it for a few years, they voted to keep it. I wonder if that possibility is what the vested interests against feared most.

I don't dispute that the referendum failed fair and square but as I pointed out that only 27.7% of the eligible electorate voted against STV. Lets turn it around and assume that it met the 60% required to pass. I have to assume that you Riverwind and August would be quite OK with STV even though the electoral system was changed by 31.4% of the eligible electorate. Say the voter turnout fell another ten percent. The referendum could then pass with the approval of only 25% of the eligible electorate.

I don't know what the final voter turnout will be but I know the curve is down and has been heading that way for some time.

Would flying airplanes have anything to do with hard sciences? I know that if you don't put fuel in the aircraft, it won't fly. If I am at 35,000 feet and run out of fuel, I had better find a suitable place to land within about 105 nautical miles because the aircraft is going to hit the ground by itself no matter how many theories you or Robert Heinlein come up with. I also know that if I see the level of hydraulic fluid or engine oil decreasing, at some point that engine will quit and flight controls will cease to work so yes my occupation had something to do with hard sciences and if I ignored them I could get myself and a bunch of other people killed. So cut the condescending crap.

[sharkman]

Bank robbers may end up killing each other if they cannot agree on who is to get the last dollar because their own share become smaller than the one of their accomplice.

If bank robbers end up killing each other, that is a good thing.

[Wilber]

I don't really care that turnout is low. If people are too dumb to show up at polls to exercise their right that only means my vote counts for more. I was responding to Wilber who feels that the low turnout is a 'problem' that needs fixing. As said before, the only problem is people are too lazy to go to the polling booth and changing the system is not going to change that.

You can provide some sort of scientific evidence of course the only reason fewer people are voting is that they are dumb and lazy.

[Wild Bill]

Would flying airplanes have anything to do with hard sciences? I know that if you don't put fuel in the aircraft, it won't fly. If I am at 35,000 feet and run out of fuel, I had better find a suitable place to land within about 105 nautical miles because the aircraft is going to hit the ground by itself no matter how many theories you or Robert Heinlein come up with. I also know that if I see the level of hydraulic fluid or engine oil decreasing, at some point that engine will quit and flight controls will cease to work so yes my occupation had something to do with hard sciences and if I ignored them I could get myself and a bunch of other people killed. So cut the condescending crap.

I apologize for being condescending.

That being said, I am at a bit of a loss to understand how someone involved in such a practical cause and effect discipline could otherwise make such an assumption of a steadily decreasing voter turnout.

Unless you can give me another explanation, I can only assume that you are not as scientific in your politics as you are in your profession.

I would submit that it is even MORE important to be scientific in your politics! Being unscientific about Mr. Bernouli may crash a plane. Being unscientific in politics can crash an entire country!

That's how we keep getting fooled. That's how we go down wrong paths.

[benny]

If bank robbers end up killing each other, that is a good thing.

Politicians killing each other means the end of democracy as we know it.

[Wilber]

I apologize for being condescending.

That being said, I am at a bit of a loss to understand how someone involved in such a practical cause and effect discipline could otherwise make such an assumption of a steadily decreasing voter turnout.

Unless you can give me another explanation, I can only assume that you are not as scientific in your politics as you are in your profession.

I would submit that it is even MORE important to be scientific in your politics! Being unscientific about Mr. Bernouli may crash a plane. Being unscientific in politics can crash an entire country!

That's how we keep getting fooled. That's how we go down wrong paths.

That's not being condescending? You are basing your political assumptions on Science fiction writers and thermodynamics. I must admit, I also am at a loss.

Edited May 14, 2009 by Wilber

[Wilber]

Wild Bill

One more thing. If you look at the history of our electoral system you will see that there was absolutely nothing scientific about the way it came to be.

[benny]

STV is a system that was proposed by a bunch of citizens who's only interest was improving the electoral system, not a system designed by political hacks and vested interests as is our present system going right back to when the Barons first stuck it to King John at Runnymede. As such I thought it was worth a try for three elections when it would be put to another referendum whether to keep it or not. By then I might be sick of it myself but it is interesting to note that when Ireland brought it back for review after trying it for a few years, they voted to keep it. I wonder if that possibility is what the vested interests against feared most.

I don't dispute that the referendum failed fair and square but as I pointed out that only 27.7% of the eligible electorate voted against STV. Lets turn it around and assume that it met the 60% required to pass. I have to assume that you Riverwind and August would be quite OK with STV even though the electoral system was changed by 31.4% of the eligible electorate. Say the voter turnout fell another ten percent. The referendum could then pass with the approval of only 25% of the eligible electorate.

No one should be able, from the outside, to set the agenda and frame the deliberations of a citizens' assembly.

[sharkman]

Politicians killing each other means the end of democracy as we know it.

But they do kill each other. It's called character assassination and they have been doing it almost since politics began. Democracy has survived just fine.

[Wild Bill]

Wild Bill

One more thing. If you look at the history of our electoral system you will see that there was absolutely nothing scientific about the way it came to be.

Wouldn't deny it! Except maybe there's an evolutionary argument to be made.

What I'm talking about is being scientific in criticizing it and with modifying it. STV and similar schemes have a scientific aspect to them. My only beef is how unscientific their spokespeople have been about why in two elections it has flopped so miserably. Blaming it on propaganda and mass ignorance of the electorate doesn't seem scientific to me.

Stacking study groups and then implying they are impartial about it is also unscientific. I understand that you have not been such a champion. I'm merely commenting on the associated points made by others.

Some STV proponents have reminded me of an old criticism of Mike Harris' tactics, about creating a crisis in order to look like a hero dealing with it. The assumption is that the system is broken and on the verge of becoming completely irrelevant. Only by adopting the specific changes offered by some study group with a "hidden agenda" can we be saved.

These are only premises, not facts. The approach is religious in nature, not scientific.

Then again, perhaps a religious approach might work better in the court of public opinion. Astrology has always been popular. Why not STV?

[benny]

But they do kill each other. It's called character assassination and they have been doing it almost since politics began. Democracy has survived just fine.

Fined the corrupted politicians and their rich donators and your rosy illusion of democracy will end there.

[Wilber]

Wouldn't deny it! Except maybe there's an evolutionary argument to be made.

So what are you saying, evolution stops here?

[benny]

So what are you saying, evolution stops here?

Nothing new under the Sun since Plato wrote The Republic (a devastating criticism of democracy).

[M.Dancer]

Plato, they say, could stick it away;

Half a crate of whiskey every day

[benny]

Plato, they say, could stick it away;

Half a crate of whiskey every day

Plato is the spiritual father of Western civilization.

[M.Dancer]

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant

Who was very rarely stable.

Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar

Who could think you under the table.

David Hume could out-consume

Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel,

And Wittgenstein was a beery swine

Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel.

There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya'

'Bout the raising of the wrist.

SOCRATES, HIMSELF, WAS PERMANENTLY PISSED...

John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,

On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.

Plato, they say, could stick it away;

Half a crate of whiskey every day.

Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,

Hobbes was fond of his dram,

And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart: "I drink, therefore I am"

Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed;

A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed!

[Wild Bill]

So what are you saying, evolution stops here?

Hey Wilber, I'm an old guy! To me, evolution stopped with Loni Anderson in her prime!

[Wilber]

Nothing new under the Sun since Plato wrote The Republic (a devastating criticism of democracy).

Believe he also said it is better to be ruled by a bad tyrant than a bad democracy. Wonder what he would have made of Joe Stalin, Adolph Hitler and Pol Pot. Might have got along with Genghis Kahn though.