STV Vote - Yes OR No?

[Grapes]

Originally Posted by mapleleaf4ever

No point in changing for the sake of change. It dicks things up for everyone every time. period.

What about changing for the sake of problems?

PERIOD.

[dabbler]

^^ exactly

[dabbler]

Originally Posted by NinjaBoy

My big problem was the huge ridings. STV isn't a terrible system, but under the BC referendum, it was poorly done.

Having downtown Vancouver under the same riding as West Van, and south Van is crazy.

I live in a densely populated area (VS South Van or west Van), so my area would get more attention then that. But one of my big issues in Provincial/civic elections is renters rights. The NDP who one the by-election, and the one last night, is a huge advocate of renter's rights. That issue is important in my riding, but not so much in South Van. So a fair representation wouldn't occur in my opinion.
.

for those who aren't aware of this already... THE RIDINGS WERE THE SAME SIZE AS THE FEDERAL RIDINGS.

[mapleleaf4ever]

Originally Posted by dabbler

for those who aren't aware of this already... THE RIDINGS WERE THE SAME SIZE AS THE FEDERAL RIDINGS.

Federal ridings are larger for a reason. If they were smaller and the same size as the Provincial ridings we'd have double the MP's in Parliament and that would be too cumbersome and ineffective.

Provincial ridings are meant to be smaller for better representation of community issues in the legislature. There's no need to go consolidating things.

STV would screw things up here because there are only three parties (effectively) and that's not going to change. Now if we had a bigger spectrum of Parties then it would make more sense as you could have enough Parties with similar views to form the inevitable ruling Coalition. Now in BC we have the Liberals (Right of Centre) and two Leftys... the Green and NDP. Not going to work. So let's just drop it, you guys can keep whining and just deal with it.

If BC had a larger and more condensed population, it wouldn't be an issue but due to the distribution of people and large area of the Province, FPTP is the most effective method for the current political scene here.

Ever wonder why BC is the ONLY Province bitching about how we elect MP's? Hmmmmm.... maybe we should look closer at ourselves.

[rustybob]

Originally Posted by ebbomega

How is 40% of the voting populous electing a majority government more suited to the political landscape of this province?

This would be a valid argument if BC was the size of the Maritime provinces, but last time I checked, it isn't. BC is one of the most diverse provinces in Canada. Vancouer Island is a lot different that Vancouver, which is a lot different than the interior, which is a lot different than the northern west coast, which is a lot different than all the small indian villages, which is a lot different than the frozan tundra before you hit the Yukon.

If we lived in such a small dense area, all of our issues would be the same, and hence, the popular vote would be must closer to what you'd see represented. First past the post is anything but perfect, and does allow for fucked up results like when the LIberals won the popular vote, yet the NDP got a majority. It happens. STV is not the solution. If they come up with a solution that doesn't suck, I'll vote yes for it. Until then, first past the post it is.

[rawb]

Originally Posted by mapleleaf4ever

STV would screw things up here because there are only three parties (effectively) and that's not going to change.

...under the current system, there is no reason for that to change, no. We're basically a 2 party system right now, and even if a great 3rd option were to come along it would still take 2 elections for them to gain any ground. This is a system we like?

Originally Posted by mapleleaf4ever

FPTP is the most effective method for the current political scene here.

Really? The most effective system of any conceivable system? I find that hard to believe.

I don't think anyone argues against the fact that how the parties are structured in BC RIGHT NOW serves FPTP well. The argument is that we dont like the system. Our current system of parties will be forced to change under STV and that is great for everyone who isn't in love with the idea of our ineffective 2 parties.

Ever wonder why BC is the ONLY Province bitching about how we elect MP's?

No, but I wonder why there are no arguments in this thread that praise the benefits of FPTP to the average voter. I'm pretty wary of anyone who tries to win me over to their viewpoint simply by bashing the ideas of others without supporting their side.

[ebbomega]

Originally Posted by rustybob

This would be a valid argument if BC was the size of the Maritime provinces, but last time I checked, it isn't. BC is one of the most diverse provinces in Canada. Vancouer Island is a lot different that Vancouver, which is a lot different than the interior, which is a lot different than the northern west coast, which is a lot different than all the small indian villages, which is a lot different than the frozan tundra before you hit the Yukon.

Then why aren't we faced with a minority government? If we're such a diverse province, shouldn't we have more voices have a say in how our politics are ran than a single one that doesn't even represent half the voters? Diversity is EXACTLY why we need some form of proportional representation.

[miss.myra]

Originally Posted by mapleleaf4ever

Ever wonder why BC is the ONLY Province bitching about how we elect MP's? Hmmmmm.... maybe we should look closer at ourselves.

Because federal elections are generally decided by the mood that people living in Quebec and Ontairo happen to be in during that period of time?

[mapleleaf4ever]

Originally Posted by rawb

...under the current system, there is no reason for that to change, no. We're basically a 2 party system right now, and even if a great 3rd option were to come along it would still take 2 elections for them to gain any ground. This is a system we like?

And the chances of a great 3rd option aren't going to happen. The Green Party has been around for how long? Still how many seats? Yeah, they're making ground alright. Unfortunately they're six feet under it.

Originally Posted by rawb

Really? The most effective system of any conceivable system? I find that hard to believe.

There's only so many ways to mark an 'X'. You want us to revert to putting coloured stones in jars or pulling a labelled lever?

Originally Posted by rawb

I don't think anyone argues against the fact that how the parties are structured in BC RIGHT NOW serves FPTP well. The argument is that we dont like the system. Our current system of parties will be forced to change under STV and that is great for everyone who isn't in love with the idea of our ineffective 2 parties.

Who doesn't like the system? Apparently only 39% of the voters don't like it. Hmmmm... very interesting indeed.

Originally Posted by rawb

No, but I wonder why there are no arguments in this thread that praise the benefits of FPTP to the average voter. I'm pretty wary of anyone who tries to win me over to their viewpoint simply by bashing the ideas of others without supporting their side.

The benefits of FPTP are the simplicity of compiling results. It's quicker, less room for manipulation from "transferring votes", one vote is one vote not 0.25 for joe blow and 0.0159834 for the next guy, the representation of the areas is better due to smaller riding size... really... it's been working since the inception of this nation. No need to change it. It's used at the Federal and Provincial level across Canada and the US and most of Europe.


Aaaaand I'm done. Gotta go hike up to Dominic Lake and enjoy the outdoors.

My side won so I'm done for the next four years. :)

[rawb]

Originally Posted by rustybob

This would be a valid argument if BC was the size of the Maritime provinces, but last time I checked, it isn't. BC is one of the most diverse provinces in Canada. Vancouer Island is a lot different that Vancouver, which is a lot different than the interior, which is a lot different than the northern west coast, which is a lot different than all the small indian villages, which is a lot different than the frozan tundra before you hit the Yukon.

One of the lowest population densities in the world.
Votes STV for their senate. Hasn't fallen into the sea.

[NinjaBoy]

Originally Posted by rawb

No, but I wonder why there are no arguments in this thread that praise the benefits of FPTP to the average voter. I'm pretty wary of anyone who tries to win me over to their viewpoint simply by bashing the ideas of others without supporting their side.

The pro stv people didn't argue the benefits of their system either. All that was said is they hate the current system, time for a change. Same thing.

If you must. I've had nothing but good experiences with our electoral map. Keep in mind I don't have a problem with the STV system, just the electoral map that would happen under this reform.

In each riding I've lived and voted in for provincial elections. I've been impressed by the level of interaction I can have with my local representative. Small ridings, allow them to focus directly on events that effect me. For example, Spencer Herbert who won the by election and the one last night has been incredibly active within the West end. He's organized rallies for renter's rights, hosted open meetings. However, he would never have won under the new electoral map. His priorities are centralized around the area and the issues that effect that area (Renter's rights, Gay rights etc). These are a non issue to people in West Van or South Van. Under the new electoral map, things would take a broad generalization over Vancouver, much like your federal representatives.

STV has worked great in other countries, because the parliament was established using the STV system, trying to keep the exact same amount of seats, but using an STV system is ludicrous in my opinion.

Is living in Kerrisdale the same as living in Yaletown? Are you worried about the same issues? As much as we all joke about it not all of surrey and delta is the same. They have different issues, that are best addressed with a representative of that smaller area. The current electoral map allows the sort of one on one interaction that you can't get under the purposed STV system, issues raised, and votes in parliment are more in tune with the local constituents who elected that official.

STV is great, but for local BC politics it's not a great idea, especially if it comes at the cost of broadening local representation.

[stephen_c]

good lord, it's "STV" (w/e that is). i thought it was somethin else. (i voted NOoooooooooo)

[NinjaBoy]

Originally Posted by rawb

One of the lowest population densities in the world.
Votes STV for their senate. Hasn't fallen into the sea.

I believe Australia has terrible representation vs population.

According to wikipediea:

As a body intended to provide equal representation to smaller states, the Senate (like many upper houses) necessarily does not adhere to the principle of "one vote one value"; Tasmania, with a population of 500,000, elects the same number of Senators as New South Wales, which has a population of 6-7 million.

As a side note, I don't think the fact that they "haven't fallen into the sea" is a good way to argue it's a good system for BC. Especially since they've had complaints about their system for years.

[ebbomega]

Originally Posted by NinjaBoy

The pro stv people didn't argue the benefits of their system either. All that was said is they hate the current system, time for a change. Same thing.

Huh?

The reason FOR STV was actually quite simple: better representation of opposition parties and not such an imbalanced result in the legislature when compared to the popular vote.

I think that's been said in just about every single discussion I've seen about this, including this one.

[rawb]

Originally Posted by mapleleaf4ever

And the chances of a great 3rd option aren't going to happen. The Green Party has been around for how long? Still how many seats? Yeah, they're making ground alright. Unfortunately they're six feet under it.

Exactly why FPTP sucks. Thanks.

There's only so many ways to mark an 'X'. You want us to revert to putting coloured stones in jars or pulling a labelled lever?

I'd like to keep us from reverting to straw man arguments when trying to talk intelligently for a start.

Who doesn't like the system? Apparently only 39% of the voters don't like it. Hmmmm... very interesting indeed.

And less than half the people of the province even show up to vote for the current system, and of those who do show up, 40% want to change it. Hmmmm... very interesting indeed. As voter turnout goes down due to apathy and frustration with government and the election process, support for STV goes down... not surprising!

The benefits of FPTP are the simplicity of compiling results.

I've never been asked to compile results for an election, so why the fuck do I care? Would you ride a bike across Canada because its simpler to understand than a car? Would you take a hot air balloon ride over a airliner because the process is simpler to understand?

it's been working since the inception of this nation.

If you call a party getting the majority of the votes but another party forming a majority government "working" then I don't know what your definition of "working" is. Please tell me how a system resulting in the OPPOSITE OF THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE is "working".

[NinjaBoy]

Originally Posted by ebbomega

Huh?

The reason FOR STV was actually quite simple: better representation of opposition parties and not such an imbalanced result in the legislature when compared to the popular vote.

I think that's been said in just about every single discussion I've seen about this, including this one.

And I've said in every post that the problem is with the electoral map, and the BC STV leads to horrible representation for local groups yet people seemed to ignore that one. And keep in mind you live in a parliamentary system, so the popular vote isn't supposed to represent the popular vote.

[fritz]

Why couldn't there be STV with the same sized ridings we have now? I would vote for that.

[rawb]

Originally Posted by NinjaBoy

And I've said in every post that the problem is with the electoral map, and the BC STV leads to horrible representation for local groups yet people seemed to ignore that one.

On the other hand, FPTP often leads to horrible representation of the wills of the majority of the people. If I know my riding has a Liberl/NDP lock, my one candidate vote is essentially worthless.

[NinjaBoy]

Originally Posted by rawb

Exactly why FPTP sucks. Thanks.

The green party has 8% of the popular vote. They shouldn't have any seats. Even under the STV those votes would most likely have transfered to another member of the NDP/Liberal party. If you go by strict popular vote = seats (which would be a best case scenario for the green party) they end up with 7 seats.

And less than half the people of the province even show up to vote for the current system, and of those who do show up, 40% want to change it. Hmmmm... very interesting indeed. As voter turnout goes down due to apathy and frustration with government and the election process, support for STV goes down... not surprising!

Voter turn outs in North America is always terrible. If what your saying and frustration with the government and election process was high, then shouldn't more people show up to support the STV then less? That's a fairly weak argument: The reason why it didn't pass is because people don't like the current system so didn't show up to vote?

And saying of those that showed up 40% want to change it is a pretty weak argument too, because of those that showed up 60% wanted to keep it the same. It's pretty clear that people want the current system.

If you call a party getting the majority of the votes but another party forming a majority government "working" then I don't know what your definition of "working" is. Please tell me how a system resulting in the OPPOSITE OF THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE is "working".

This is how a parliament system works, and always has. You as your local community vote someone to go to parliament and represent your community. You vote for this individual(if you don't understand the concept of individual MP's you should stop voting right now). You vote for him because you believe he will represent your area best. The parliament system is not supposed to conencide with the popular vote, that's never what it's ever been about!

One of the reasons why there's such a problem with BC is that there only appears to be two viable parties (NDP/Liberal), which is pretty much a slap in the face to the parliament system.

[NinjaBoy]

Originally Posted by fritz

Why couldn't there be STV with the same sized ridings we have now? I would vote for that.

You would have to add about 300 seats.

[miss.myra]

What if you're dead set on voting for the party you want and want the second and third choices to go fuck themselves figuratively speaking? What if I only like red gummy bears? I'm not against STV but I was always curious

[rawb]

Originally Posted by NinjaBoy

The green party has 8% of the popular vote. They shouldn't have any seats. Even under the STV those votes would most likely have transfered to another member of the NDP/Liberal party. If you go by strict popular vote = seats (which would be a best case scenario for the green party) they end up with 7 seats.

This is only true if the people who would rather vote for the green party actually did. BC has a stigma of "OH NO NOT THEM" where you vote for the opposite of who you want elected. IMPO both the Liberals and NDP are fucking useless but because of FPTP, I need to pick one to make sure the one I like the least cant form a majority government. The best case scenario for the greens is that everyone who felt like voting for them actually did because their vote would actually matter.

Originally Posted by NinjaBoy

Voter turn outs in North America is always terrible. If what your saying and frustration with the government and election process was high, then shouldn't more people show up to support the STV then less? That's a fairly weak argument: The reason why it didn't pass is because people don't like the current system so didn't show up to vote?

Actually, apathy with a system demotivates people. So yes, when you have a shitty system that runs an unpopular election every few years, you should probably separate the voting for change in the system from the actual election of officials. I'm not saying STV would have won, I'm saying claiming victory that 30% of a population voting one way on an issue most people didn't have enough knowledge on is shortsighted.

And saying of those that showed up 40% want to change it is a pretty weak argument too, because of those that showed up 60% wanted to keep it the same. It's pretty clear that people want the current system.

I'll make a graph:

P=POPULATION
F=VOTED FOR STV
A=VOTED AGAINST STV

P|##########
F|##
A|###

^---Does this graph above tell you that "It's pretty clear that people want the current system."

Because if you say so, I will call you crazy!

This is how a parliament system works, and always has.

But doesn't have to! "This is how we have always done things" isn't a great argument, especially when there are obvious, glaring problems with the current way things are done!

You as your local community vote someone to go to parliament and represent your community. You vote for this individual(if you don't understand the concept of individual MP's you should stop voting right now). You vote for him because you believe he will represent your area best.

But you, as well as I know that people don't actually vote that way. Why keep a voting system that is blind to that fact?

The parliament system is not supposed to conencide with the popular vote, that's never what it's ever been about!

But when it flies in the face of the voting population, it is broken!

[rawb]

What is super funny, is that if we had used some bananas FPTP electoral system to figure out if BC wanted STV in the last election (each riding votes on it, ridings each get one "vote" in the final decision), it would have passed by a landslide.



So FPTP is good for getting everyone's opinion on leaders/a leading party for the province, but not for deciding the outcome of a question like this?

Hey, if FPTP was representing all of these less populous riding so well, how come we don't have full MLA support for STV?

Hey weird, it looks like a lot of the smaller, more remote ridings actually VOTED FOR STV how is that possible!

[NinjaBoy]

Originally Posted by rawb

I'll make a graph:

P=POPULATION
F=VOTED FOR STV
A=VOTED AGAINST STV

P|##########
F|##
A|###

^---Does this graph above tell you that "It's pretty clear that people want the current system."

Because if you say so, I will call you crazy!

Wow, that's grasping at straws lol.

####### many people did not vote. They made this choice. If they wanted the system they would have gone to the voting stations and voted. Are you seriously trying to say you know how those people would have voted? Are you trying to say that they have an opinion?

But of the people who did vote, the majority (no question, the clear majority) made a point of voting against it. So yes. It's pretty clear that the people want the current system. Those that didn't vote, must be fine with the system (or have forfeited their right to claim they aren't). Blaming the lost on voter apathy? No, it was clear that the people voting did not want the system.

Trying to use: "Well this many people didn't vote at all, and I think some of them would have for STV" is a struggling argument at best. Also keep in mind, in a democracy we count those who are willing to participate in elections, not those who aren't.

But doesn't have to! "This is how we have always done things" isn't a great argument, especially when there are obvious, glaring problems with the current way things are done!

This would be great and probably would have put me in my place.

Except I specifically pointed out why I agree with the system now several times. In order for STV to work properly in my opinion, you would have to increase the number of seats in parilment three fold. Sorry, but I don't think that huge electoral districts are in anyone's favor here. I like how the current system works.

But you, as well as I know that people don't actually vote that way. Why keep a voting system that is blind to that fact?

Uh, STV would still be a parliament system. And can you honestly say that people have a better understanding of how the STV system would work?

But when it flies in the face of the voting population, it is broken!

STV is still a parliament system! STV would just decide how the members would be elected in. A parliament system is not supposed to be based around the popular vote. It's based around representatives representing regions... And the way it's set up in the BC referendum is out of line.

Your from North Van, do you think that the same person that represents North Van should represent all the way up to just before squamish? That's what you were voting for when it came to STV.

STV can't work without redoing all of parliment. If you really have a problem with how the election is done I would hope that you wouldn't want STV to be the new system. That's like putting a band aid over a shotgun wound.

Australia's STV system works (sort of) because it's been using that system since the beginning. Changing to an STV system with a population the size of BC's with huge urban centers is nuts.

[NinjaBoy]

Originally Posted by rawb

So FPTP is good for getting everyone's opinion on leaders/a leading party for the province, but not for deciding the outcome of a question like this?

Of course those two should be decided separately! Any province wide reform should be done by a popular vote. That's why Quebec voted on separation through a popular vote, not by ridings.

Hey weird, it looks like a lot of the smaller, more remote ridings actually VOTED FOR STV how is that possible!

That's their choice. It's what they believe is right. Do I think it's the right choice for them? Nope. Go democracy.