STV Vote - Yes OR No?

[tiedye]

I'm just shocked at how many people I've spoken to about this have said, "I just don't like that I don't know where my vote is going."

Originally Posted by 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

I believe you can vote for as many or few candidates as you want to on your vote. If you just want to vote for 1, than just put 1. If you want to vote for all 5, than you can vote all five from favorite to least favorite.

From my understanding, the ridings in the STV may also have more than one representative per party. So in one riding you could have 2 liberal, 2 NDP, 1 Green, and 1 Independent etc. Therefore you not only get to pick for your party, but you also get a choice of what candidate you want for that particular party. Thus for those who believe in voting for your representatives and not a party finally have use to researching their candidates.

Originally Posted by tiedye

I'm just shocked at how many people I've spoken to about this have said, "I just don't like that I don't know where my vote is going."

Although the two head parties said they would stand back from discussing their views on the STV, I think that was just a cop out because they know they are benefiting from the first past the post system. Kristy Clark said so her self on CKNW.

The media could of also done a much better job of educating people, isnt that their job? Even while watching the election last night, the results of the STV were very minimal. Of course it doesn't help when the media is practically owned and run by the government.

The thing is, its not just the young or arrogant, but a lot of older and very educated people where well un-aware of how the STV worked.

I also blame the time of year due to the hockey season and young fresh student voters out of school.

When I first saw the orange/blue STV-BC signs, I thought it was a new form of the NDP party. Thus maybe why Rob thinks a vote for STV is a vote for NDP.

What is so unfortunate is that the yes vote has regressed. Not only will the STV be a shattered idea for BC, but maybe even for the rest of Canada watching over.

I dont know why I even bother to vote anymore, it honestly feels pointless.

[rawb]

Originally Posted by NinjaBoy

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.

Lack of action /= lack of opinion.

Are you seriously trying to say you know how those people would have voted? Are you trying to say that they have an opinion?

I'm saying nobody could say how they would have voted! In fact, I'm saying most people aren't educated enough on the matter to have an actual opinion. Lack of education on any question always favours the status-quo.

But of the people who did vote, the majority (no question, the clear majority) made a point of voting against it.

I like how 61% of voters against STV is a NO QUESTION CLEAR MAJORITY, but 58% of voters voting for STV in a previous referendum is a OBV ANSWER HAZY TRY AGAIN. 3%! Your statement is ridiculous!

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.

Trying to use the will of less than the third of the people as a justification for the supremacy of an idea is a struggling argument at best. Insta-claiming that apathy towards voting equals support for FPTP is insane, if anything people not showing up to polls in the first place is a damning critique of our system.

I like how the current system works.

The system is great if you live voting NDP or Liberal.

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?

I'm sure if you grew up with an STV system a FPTP system would seem batty. Complexity is not an issue here, because all I have to do is put numbers beside names.

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.

I realize all of this, but the person I voted for in North Van would not be the sole Member for the voting area! So it doesn't matter!

STV can't work without redoing all of parliment.

Sweet! Lets redo all of parliament then. Whats the best first step to get there... voting in STV or keeping with the status quo?

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.

So if I have a problem with a system, I shouldn't vote for a system I find better because it's not perfect?

Wait, if I'm reading your analogy correctly, is my choice between the shotgun wound or a shotgun wound with a band-aid? Shotgun wound with a band-aid sounds much better.

[mapleleaf4ever]

NinjaBoy, thanks for elaborating and making the point a lot more clear than me.

rawb... wow. should stop by the local mcdonalds and grab some more straws. i think you've run out.

this is why mother always says don't discuss politics at the dinner table. lol

[rawb]

Originally Posted by NinjaBoy

Any province wide reform should be done by a popular vote.

Including the election of a new leader or leading party? I cant think of many reforms more drastic than that. Luckily, STV mimics popular vote results *much* closer than FPTP. So even you agree it makes sense!

[rawb]

Originally Posted by mapleleaf4ever

rawb... wow. should stop by the local mcdonalds and grab some more straws. i think you've run out.

I thought we were having a discussion, is this really going to turn into something where we just insult each other? Grow up dude.

[tiedye]

Originally Posted by rawb

Lack of action /= lack of opinion.

...

You must spread some Karma around before giving it to $userinfo[username] again.

Originally Posted by mapleleaf4ever

NinjaBoy, thanks for elaborating and making the point a lot more clear than me.

rawb... wow. should stop by the local mcdonalds and grab some more straws. i think you've run out.

this is why mother always says don't discuss politics at the dinner table. lol

What I find interesting is that there are only two people in this thread who are strongly against the STV system. Yet have failed to give any supporting evidence to support your opinion.

Even those willing to give the STV system a try have come up with better counter points to why its not a good idea. Make a point, not an attitude.

[mapleleaf4ever]

There's no motivation in coming up with better counter points when in return all I receive is the standard responses of the masses of NDP and otherwise beyond Liberal.

Agree to disagree is all I'm saying.

[rustybob]

Originally Posted by rawb

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

Actually, I'd say this picture of Australia proves my point perfectly. If you rotate that 90 degrees, you've basically got BC, with the majority of the population at the bottom (Lower Mainland/Vancouver Island) and some rural areas.

[rustybob]

Originally Posted by R Wellbelove

When I first saw the orange/blue STV-BC signs, I thought it was a new form of the NDP party. Thus maybe why Rob thinks a vote for STV is a vote for NDP.

This made me smile. I know EXACTLY what you're saying, but that's just one of my completely irrelevant anti-NDP rants. Theoretically if people used STV properly, it would lead to more representation from the NDP, hense why "a vote for STV would be a vote towards the NDP".

[rawb]

I would never vote NDP and I think STV is a great idea, I think getting a better mix of MLAs based on how people actually vote is awesome and healthy.

[rustybob]

Originally Posted by rawb

I would never vote NDP and I think STV is a great idea, I think getting a better mix of MLAs based on how people actually vote is awesome and healthy.

I completely agree with your conclusion, but disagree with the fact that you'd never vote NDP. Personally, I'd say it's thinking like that that is the problem with FPTP, and not necessarily FPTP itself. You're way of thinking is very American, where you're more or less born and bred Republican or Democrat. For me, conservatism is in my heart, and yet all I do is use my head and vote for the best candidate for my riding, even if that means voting for the NDP.

[rawb]

Who knows, if STV comes into play, maybe one of the multiple NDP candidates that would run in my riding would capture my imagination.

I'd vote a left-wing party, I just really dislike the NDP as it stands right now.

[rustybob]

Originally Posted by NinjaBoy

Of course those two should be decided separately! Any province wide reform should be done by a popular vote.

This is the only thing I don't completely agree on with Ninjaboy, althought I'd say you're half right. It's late so I'm too lazy to look up exact numbers, but because of the urban sprawl in BC, we've got what, probably 60% of the population covering around 15-20% of the land mass of BC. It would never happen, if Vancouver/Vancouver Island/maybe some of the interior? made the 60% needed to pass STV, would that make the people in the other 80% of the land mass of BC very happy? Probably not.

Doing the referendum where it needed 60% of the popular vote and at least 50 of the ridings to pass was the best way of doing it.

Originally Posted by mapleleaf4ever

There's no motivation in coming up with better counter points when in return all I receive is the standard responses of the masses of NDP and otherwise beyond Liberal.

Agree to disagree is all I'm saying.

This discussion has nothing to do with what parties people favor and you have neglected to give any reason or examples to why the STV system is worse than the one we have now except for your fear that the NDP might win.

If anything, I think the NDP would of lost votes to the STV in this election, hence why they also neglected to promote the STV. For instance, where did the 7% of votes go that were earned by the Green? With the current system, that 7% was re-distriputed to a Liberal or NDP candidate. The STV will divide seats up closer to a % average. Therefore either way the Liberals would of still won the majority if you look at the final out come based on %.

What you don't get is that the STV system starts to eliminate people who vote for a particular party and instead start looking at their actual candidates.

With the STV, people are more likely to vote for who they really want. Therefore candidates will no longer win because of the party they are apart of, but because they are actually liked by the people. This will also put an end to strategic voting, wich I think is an other way the NDP earns a lot of votes in some areas.

So really... I dont understand why you think the STV will help the NDP if that is what you are so worried about?

Any other reasons not to try STV?

[mapleleaf4ever]

Originally Posted by R Wellbelove

Therefore either way the Liberals would of still won the majority if you look at the final out come based on %.

So big difference STV would have made right? Not really a favourable argument for it considering how much complaining i've heard about the Liberal Party.

Originally Posted by R Wellbelove

This will also put an end to strategic voting, wich I think is an other way the NDP earns a lot of votes in some areas.

If you think it'll end strategic voting, you're wrong there as well. You can still do it with STV. By ranking strategically the candidates you desire.

Once again, the province and the make-up of the political system in BC isn't suited for it. This is why we don't need to go messing around with it.

I am fully aware of how the system works and have done my research on it. Hence the way my decision is made. And once again, this whole thing can be chalked up to typical BC politics of wanting to be different, more elite or better than everyone else and change for the sake of changing something.

What amuses me even more is that i'm the one that was ineligible to vote in this election and look at this ruckus.

[dabbler]

^^stop saying 'we' then

[ebbomega]

Originally Posted by mapleleaf4ever

So big difference STV would have made right? Not really a favourable argument for it considering how much complaining i've heard about the Liberal Party.

I think she meant that the Libs would still be ahead. 46% is not a majority.

If you think it'll end strategic voting, you're wrong there as well. You can still do it with STV. By ranking strategically the candidates you desire.

That oxymoron just gave me whiplash.

The whole problem with strategic voting is that you're voting for a candidate you _don't_ desire, but you're voting for them anyway because you're afraid you're going to split the vote and the guy you _really_ don't want will get elected.

Once again, the province and the make-up of the political system in BC isn't suited for it. This is why we don't need to go messing around with it.

You've said that three times but have yet to explain exactly how. What elements of our province specifically make it so inoperable for proportional representation compared to other countries that use it?

[rustybob]

Ok it looks like everyone who supports STV seems to think it'll stop strategic voting. But do any of you have any evidence that BC even has a strategic voting problem?

In federal voting, sure. All the fear-mongering against the Conservatives led some people to vote NDP instead of Green or Liberal, and Liberal instead of NDP.

In BC, we're more or less a two-party province. The Greens are useless and will probably never win a seat in BC in my lifetime. So, we're basically like in the US, but instead of Republicans and Democrats, we got Liberals or NDP. Choosing one or the other isn't strategic.

[ebbomega]

Originally Posted by rustybob

But do any of you have any evidence that BC even has a strategic voting problem?

Yup. Right here:

In BC, we're more or less a two-party province. The Greens are useless and will probably never win a seat in BC in my lifetime.

And that is exactly why people vote strategically. Either you vote for the incumbent party, the major opposition, or your vote is thrown away. Vote based on the one who will be able to win, not the one you want to win. That's the very definition of strategic voting.

[SEAN!]

maybe the people that don't vote are just straight thugging and don't give a shit. It could be a personally choice, aathy doesnt necessarily mean there is anything wrong with the system.

[SEAN!]

Originally Posted by rustybob

Actually, I'd say this picture of Australia proves my point perfectly. If you rotate that 90 degrees, you've basically got BC, with the majority of the population at the bottom (Lower Mainland/Vancouver Island) and some rural areas.

You're correct australia is actually one of the most heavily urbanised countries in the planet according to the urban/rural population distribution. I actually think only singapore and hong kong are more heavily rbanised using that metric.

[SEAN!]

Originally Posted by rawb

I would never vote NDP and I think STV is a great idea, I think getting a better mix of MLAs based on how people actually vote is awesome and healthy.

what about when due to the fact this is more like proportionate representation, the 'we hate homos and immigrants party' and the 'lets thump some bibles and tell other people how to live party' get elected to a few seats. Also lets not forget te instability and lack of effectiveness brought by minority goverments. Just look to countries like germany, italy, france and ireland to get an idea of the type of fucked up shit that happens in a system that is more like PR.

there are alot of downsides to STV, shit aint all terrific, Id rather have an electorial dictatorship every 4 years using a westminster parlimentry stle ystem then sacrificing effective governments and to have the possibility of giving legitimacy to some wacko mouthpieces.