STV, it's a waste of time/money/resources no?

[Arrrg]

I just read up about STV at the http://www.understandingstv.ca/ and it's really gay on first impression.

What's the point? Who's going to vote for multiple parties? Why would you vote for multiple parties?

Then there's the issue of my vote not counting because the person I voted for has enough votes to win and they're the only person I ranked.

Even if I rank everyone in the same party, there's no guarantee that the votes get spread out probably cause most people who pick all the same party will start with the first name and put a 1, then follow 2,3,4 sequentially. This will probably screw over someone in the party you want.

Lastly, the 2nd place party has a chance to take all the votes of the losing parties which could then push them over the 1st ranked party.

That's really dumb, the 2nd party didn't even get enough first choice votes to begin with.... and the first choice party can't take all their 1st choice votes because they have too many first choice votes. The votes should show someone destroying another in votes.

This is a waste of time and the website really hides the details (you have to go and get the pdfs for the real nitty gritty) as the summaries only talk about how fair it is when infact it's not fair and a big scam. It also screams "easy to abuse" for whatever party's gain since this will have to be hand counted and deduced in regards to sub rankings.

It's my first impression from reading about this so I probably missed something, please enlighten me!

 

[HankQuinlan]

You might want to vote for "multiple parties" because it gives you a second choice. If your first choice, for example is "Green" and your second choice is "NDP", your vote may well count. It is a chance to vote against a dominant party, and aims to prevent a party from taking all the marbles when they do not get a majority of the vote (see our federal government).

If more people vote for Green/NDP than for Liberals or other right wing parties, then their voice would be heard.

If one party clearly takes the majority of votes, they will still be in power.

I need to research this particular system more before voting, but we sure as heck need some kind of government that actually represents what people want.

 

[hunsperger]

...

seats should be allocated on the basis of popular vote percentages...

if STV achieves this, I am in favour of it....

 

[aznboi9]

I just read up about STV at the http://www.understandingstv.ca/ and it's really gay on first impression.

Not gay, just open to alternative lifestyles.

What's the point?

To address many of the flaws of our current system:
1. the percentage of seats a party wins rarely reflects it's percentage share of the popular vote, misrepresenting voter intentions.
2. vote splitting, as a candidate will win not because the voters want him/her but because the opposition voters were split amongst multiple candidates.
3. it forces voters to be dishonest with their ballot as often people can't vote for who they want but for whom they dislike the least
4. artificial majorities as parties can win over 50% of the seats when they don't deserve it.
5. cannot account for support that concentrated in a small area or spread out over a large one (ie, Bloc Quebecois vs Greens as a federal example)
6. the overall negative tone and lack of civility of politics in general.

That's all I can think of off the top of my head but I think there are more. At any rate, BC-STV is designed to address or at least improve on those aspects where our current system fails.

It's my first impression from reading about this so I probably missed something, please enlighten me!

I think so, as I couldn't understand your questions. You can try stv.ca for more info. If you're looking for the nitty gritty facts on counting, then you can check out the Citizen's Assembly's final report.

 

[Bartdude]

and it's really gay on first impression.

Sorry, but this is a pet peeve of mine.

This ain't high school, man.

Smarten the fuck up.

 

[Bartdude]

...and on the topic....

STV and PR, as mentioned, address what are perceived to be some serious shortfalls with the way we elect our representatives.

The weaknesses of the winner-take-all Single-member plurality system (first past the post) are exacerbated by Canada's size, diversity, and the fundamentals of representation by population.

But consider:

While PR and STV systems abound in Europe, one must also remember that they also tend to represent smaller, compact, and more homogenous populations, as opposed to the terrifically vast and diverse nation we have (though this is certainly changing, especially in the Scandinavian countries).

While politics is certainly competitive in European nations like Sweden, Norway, Germany, etc., the adversarial nature of Canada's parliamentary system might not lend itself well to a government that is composed using proportional representation or STV. These systems almost exclusively produce coalition/minority governments, which require a great deal of cooperation to function properly.

One need only look as far as the last three years in Canada to witness the negative aspects of the governing party not having majority power.

While it could be argued that a system more proportionally reflective of the political landscape would lead to more cooperative governments, it is more likely that Canada's huge geographical size and regional diversity would make governing difficult.

There is a significant argument to be made that a government in Canada must have majority power to be able to act decisively and efficiently - keeping in mind that although a majority government can be seen as an "elected dictatorship", it is still democratically elected, and subject to the accountability of periodic elections.

Bottom line - Canada could never completely overhaul its electoral system on a federal basis, though some minor changes might be possible.

Food for thought.

 

[island-guy]

Basically it's so morons who vote for other morons get to have a do-over because there aren't enough morons to get the moron elected.

Do we really want a government by morons for morons?

 

[HankQuinlan]

Basically it's so morons who vote for other morons get to have a do-over because there aren't enough morons to get the moron elected.

Do we really want a government by morons for morons?

And that would be different from what we have now?

 

[susi]

i'm for STV-
as it stands we have a government that represents 40% ish of the population...stv would allow for diversity to emerge and a more acturate representation of the poplation/will of the people-

aren't you tired of the fun police wrecking everything?
or how bout the richest guy gets to be the winner?
or how amazingly all of their buddies(campaign contributors) get all of the government contracts and jobs?

i just want it to be POSSIBLE to vote for the person i really think should win rather than voting strategically to get one of the 2 major parties out...i mean in!LOL and i would like to at least hear diverse perspectives in the legislature as new policies and actions are taken

inclusion people...it's a no brainer!

that's just me...

 

[bobo69z]

I'm with keeping things as they are.

I believe in having somebody in your area (riding, ward) represent you.

STV, I think is similar to what we have in the municipal elections here and I don't think it works well. The most voting and representation seem to be influenced by voters, in Kits, Kerrisdale and the West End.
A sprinkling of voting and representation is smattered around the Downtown
Eastside.

At least with ridings, there is a representation or illusion thereof for the downtown Eastside and those people do get their vote.

 

[Very Veronica]

Sounds too much like std.

Too costly, too confusing & just a rearranging of titanic deck chairs imo.

 

[bobo69z]

At first I thought "STV"s were the new driving choice of the criminal element.

Then I thought it might be something I might be tested for.

I'm with you Veronica about the deck chairs.

Rick

 

[Arrrg]

Thanks for the replies, they've been insightful.

I'm all for fairness but I'm doubting this can be achieved with the proposed STV system.

Definitely we want the votes to mean something but to give a party the second choice votes, is that true representation or considered truly the popular vote? Maybe if the second choice votes were weighted less, but still the people who voted for neither of the top two parties are screwed representation of the party of their choice.

If the second chance voters want their second choice to win then they should vote for them as their first choice to begin with. The parties have to work on those obscure voters to win them on their side.

Watch us end up with the marijuana or sex party as the winner because that's everyone's second choice (not that it's a bad thing but in all seriousness....)

Sometimes it seems the only way is to make the electoral districts smaller but this only increases costs since there's more government personnel to pay and other administrative costs for sure.

More thought needs to be put into this as I think the current proposed STV system is not quite the same as other countries that have it.

 

[bobo69z]

Each voting method has it's flaws.

The key thing is GET OUT AND VOTE" on May 12.

 

[Arrrg]

Each voting method has it's flaws.

The key thing is GET OUT AND VOTE" on May 12.

I concur, probably the best thing said in this thread

 

[onegoalwonder]

Stv

STV is the only system that gives fair and honest election results in a multi party system. First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) is not certain to do so even in a two party system for which it was originally intended. For proof just look at the BC election where the NDP won a majority even though the Liberals won more votes or better yet the last British election where the Labour Party won a majority with just 36% of the vote. The Conservatives, with 33%, where a distant second. Also don't forget that George Bush 'won" his first term with fewer votes, even counting his friends in the Supreme Court. Finally, an easy question. How many political parties, anywhere in the world, use FPTP to elect the party leader? Answer of course is ZERO (0) because a radical candidate could easily win when there are many candidates as is usually the case.
VOTE FOR THE PARTY OF YOUR CHOICE BUT FOR DEMOCRACY'S SAKE, SAY "YES" TO BC-STV

 

[JustCallMeR]

To correct some common misconceptions:

It is NOT proportional representation. The Citizen's Committee (which was given very high marks) rejected that approach as you end up with 4 or 5 parties elected and need a constant coalition of 3 or more of them to create a government to try and get anything done.

It is not the current system, where a party with somewhat of a majority of votes (in most case), ends up with the vast majority of seats and can do whatever they want.

It IS an attempt to come up with something in between. Something that is more representative, but without causing gridlock.

YOU DO NOT HAVE TO VOTE FOR MORE THAN ONE PERSON. If there are 4 or 5 candidates and/or parties you may choose IF YOU WANT TO, to also vote for your second and third preference (listed as such), etc. And that will help to better reflect how the elected seats should be allocated.

If it passes, it will be voted on once again, and after people get a chance to see how it works, to make sure that people are happy with the change.

 

[aznboi9]

But consider:

While PR and STV systems abound in Europe, one must also remember that they also tend to represent smaller, compact, and more homogenous populations, as opposed to the terrifically vast and diverse nation we have (though this is certainly changing, especially in the Scandinavian countries).

While I can see why people would think that geography would prevent PR from working in this country, I disagree with that as an arguement against as I believe this could equally apply to our current first-past-the-post system (FPTP).

While politics is certainly competitive in European nations like Sweden, Norway, Germany, etc., the adversarial nature of Canada's parliamentary system might not lend itself well to a government that is composed using proportional representation or STV. These systems almost exclusively produce coalition/minority governments, which require a great deal of cooperation to function properly.

It is true that politics in Canada and BC is quite polarized. But I think one can make a strong case that part of that is due to the adversarial nature of FPTP in general. STV is not a panacea and will not guarantee better behavior from our politicians. But at the very least, it does provide reasons and incentives to be more civil and respectful (with preferential balloting) as opposed to FPTP where no incentives exist.

One need only look as far as the last three years in Canada to witness the negative aspects of the governing party not having majority power.

The minority governments that we’ve seen under FPTP are not representative of minorities under STV, or PR even. There was a good article (http://www2.macleans.ca/2008/12/03/...alition-is-not-illegitimate-just-ill-advised/) written by Andrew Coyne explaining how PR minorities tend to be more stable compared to FPTP. Since the aspect of government instability with FPTP is removed under PR, parties really have no choice but to concentrate on governance.

As for the other concerns:

There’s no evidence that it will be more expensive to run as while ridings are combined, so are the resources needed to run them. You’re not increasing the number of MLAs any more than there would be under FPTP.

There was actually quite a bit of thought that had been put into this as the Citizen’s Assembly was quite thorough when they were investigating and considering different electoral systems to possibly change to.

As for it being too complicated; gimme a break. It’s being used in various jurisdictions in Ireland, Malta, Scotland, Australia, Tasmania and, yes, the good ol US of A. Are we really less intelligent than the Irish, Scots or Americans? It’s been demonstrated that elementary school children can use this system so I find it hard to believe that it’s beyond the grasp of British Columbians.

And while it’s no guarantee that it’s going to solve all the problems of our voting system, why wouldn’t you at least try. I have yet to hear a good reason why we shouldn’t. People whine and bitch to no end about the problems of voting in this country. Here is an opportunity to do something about it; and it is extremely likely that it’ll be the last opportunity we’ll get in our lifetime. It may not do anything, it may turn out to be a disaster; but it may turn out to be great. We’re not going to know unless we try it out.

 

[treveller]

I just read up about STV at the http://www.understandingstv.ca/ and it's really gay on first impression.

What's the point? Who's going to vote for multiple parties? Why would you vote for multiple parties?

Then there's the issue of my vote not counting because the person I voted for has enough votes to win and they're the only person I ranked.

Even if I rank everyone in the same party, there's no guarantee that the votes get spread out probably cause most people who pick all the same party will start with the first name and put a 1, then follow 2,3,4 sequentially. This will probably screw over someone in the party you want.

Lastly, the 2nd place party has a chance to take all the votes of the losing parties which could then push them over the 1st ranked party.

That's really dumb, the 2nd party didn't even get enough first choice votes to begin with.... and the first choice party can't take all their 1st choice votes because they have too many first choice votes. The votes should show someone destroying another in votes.

This is a waste of time and the website really hides the details (you have to go and get the pdfs for the real nitty gritty) as the summaries only talk about how fair it is when infact it's not fair and a big scam. It also screams "easy to abuse" for whatever party's gain since this will have to be hand counted and deduced in regards to sub rankings.

It's my first impression from reading about this so I probably missed something, please enlighten me!

"Who's going to vote for multiple parties?"

Anyone who cares about who gets elected. I support the Green Party but if I vote for them with Pirst Past The Post I loose any opportunity to choose between the favourites, the NDP and the Liberals. This is wasting your vote. The alternative is strategic voting.

With STV it is still unlikely the Green candidate will be elected but I can make him my first choice and when he is eliminated from the race my vote will be transferred to my second choice in another party.

We used to have more parties in BC. Socred, PC, WCC, Rino, Communist. With First past The Post you can only show one preference on the ballot so the electoral system degererates to a two party system.

The politicians know that First Past The Post is disfunctional. That is why they never use it at their leadership conventions. Instead they use a special case of STV where you are electing a single person. Instead of using a single preferential ballot as would be used with BC-STV they use a series of votes or run-off votes until one person wins with a real majority.

Politicians know that FPTP stinks so they shaft us with it then use another system for their own leadership conventions.

"Then there's the issue of my vote not counting because the person I voted for has enough votes to win and they're the only person I ranked."

You have it backwards. When your vote is used to elect someone under STV it has counted. If the person you voted for can not be elected then your vote can be transferred so that it helps to elect your next preference. Understand that your higher preference was excluded because he had too little support to be elected.

With BC-STV some votes are wasted. In a 2 seat district 33% of the votes will be wasted. In a 3 seat district 25% of the votes will be wasted. There is a pattern here. With BC-STV the number of votes wasted equals 1/(the number of seats in the district + 1). In the Capital Region with 7 seats BC-STV will waste 1/(7+1)=1/8=.125= 12.5% of the votes.

With BC-STV the wasted votes amount to between 33% and 12.5% of the votes cast. First Past The Post, the present system, commonly wastes 50% to 60% of the votes. The present system stinks and BC-STV is much better.

"Even if I rank everyone in the same party, there's no guarantee that the votes get spread out probably cause most people who pick all the same party will start with the first name and put a 1, then follow 2,3,4 sequentially. This will probably screw over someone in the party you want."

You only have one vote. You do not have "votes" that will be spread out. Your whole vote goes to your first choice. If he has just enough votes he is elected and all of your one vote has been used to elect him. If he gets twice as many votes as he needs to be elected then half of your vote (and everyone elses vote) is used to elect him (he now has just what he needs) and the remaining half of your vote(and everyone elses who voted for him) goes to the next choice on your ballot. This does not screw over anyone in the party you want. It just does not work that way.

"It also screams "easy to abuse" for whatever party's gain since this will have to be hand counted and deduced in regards to sub rankings."

Wrong Again. First it does not have to be hand counted. It can be and they have been doing it that way in Ireland for 80 years but Elections BC will probably use paper ballots that are scanned just the way municipalities have been doing it for the past several elections. I have done several counts with a computer and several by hand. No problem either way. There is nothing to be "deduced". Most people are able to print legible numbers and there are no more spoiled ballots with STV than there are with the present system. If you can't print a legible number or you can't count past 1 then all you need to do is put an X by your first choice ant that will count just as it does with the present useless system.

 

[wilde]

This provincial election is basically a 2 horse race, do we really need STV? Seriously?


.