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

[HankQuinlan]

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

Yes! I am sick of strategic voting, where I hold my nose and vote for the least objectionable party of the two dominant ones. I haven't voted for a party I actually believe in...federally or provincially...for a very long time. At least with STV, I can rank that less objectionable party as my second choice.

The only real objection is to the larger constituencies. If it is so important that your MLA represent only your smaller area, then vote no, and keep your back-bencher.

If someone's objection is that it is too hard to understand, you probably shouldn't be voting anyway, because you probably don't understand real issues, either (they tend to be complicated, too).

 

[Shakerod]

Yes! I am sick of strategic voting, where I hold my nose and vote for the least objectionable party of the two dominant ones. I haven't voted for a party I actually believe in...federally or provincially...for a very long time. At least with STV, I can rank that less objectionable party as my second choice.

The only real objection is to the larger constituencies. If it is so important that your MLA represent only your smaller area, then vote no, and keep your back-bencher.

If someone's objection is that it is too hard to understand, you probably shouldn't be voting anyway, because you probably don't understand real issues, either (they tend to be complicated, too).

If it is such a good system it would be used by more countries in the world, as of right now it is only used by three, Ireland, Malta and the Australian state of Tasmania. If STV is passed we will be stuck with it for a minimum of 3 elections, that would be until 2025. That's a lot of years to be stuck with something on a leap of faith.

I think that our current system is fine, people just need to get up off their asses and get involved!

 

[wilde]

Yes! I am sick of strategic voting, where I hold my nose and vote for the least objectionable party of the two dominant ones. I haven't voted for a party I actually believe in...federally or provincially...for a very long time. At least with STV, I can rank that less objectionable party as my second choice.

The only real objection is to the larger constituencies. If it is so important that your MLA represent only your smaller area, then vote no, and keep your back-bencher.

If someone's objection is that it is too hard to understand, you probably shouldn't be voting anyway, because you probably don't understand real issues, either (they tend to be complicated, too).

Oh cry me a river, please. If any of these so called non-dominant parties ever came into power, they wouldn't even know what to do with it because they have their heads stuck in their assess for so long. And why do you have to make it so personal at the end there? You think you are better and more qualified to vote just because you understand this stupid system. Well, I got news for you. I understand it just fine, I just don't think it is the answer that it is made out to be by it's proponents. And some of these proponents - namely you and treveller, have turned me off even further with you holier than thou attitude. I predict a resounding NO on May 12.

.

 

[TheSilkenBadger]

First off once you have STV in place you'll never get it out. Even if the majority of people wanted to return to first past the post or some other form. If it was such a great system it would have been impletmented across the world, the STV principle has been around since the 1800's it's not something brand new (like they'd have you believe.)

The concept of transferable voting was first proposed by Thomas Wright Hill in 1821. The system remained unused in real elections until 1855, when Carl Andræ proposed a transferable vote system for elections in Denmark. Andræ's system was used in 1856 to elect the Danish Rigsdag, and by 1866 it was also adapted for indirect elections to the second chamber, the Landsting, until 1915. Although he was not the first to propose a system of transferable votes, the English barrister Thomas Hare is generally credited with the conception of STV, and he may have independently developed the idea in 1857. Thats a system that has been around for 152 years and has only been used briefly... uhm ya no thanks.


I'm a supporter of the FPTP. I don't want to rank order my preference. If I wish to cast my ballot for the liberal candidate in my area thats who I am voting for. I don't want my vote going to the NDP or the Conservative candidate in my area or within the province as a whole to be divied up and handed over. No thanks.

According to extimate calculations on the last federal election we would have had more Bloc member and green party member in the house how exactly does that help the governance of the country.


Not interested. Reviewed the topic many different times. So May 12th vote No to STV I know that what I'm doing..


Senate reform (something the governments have pushed for but never have done) in the house of commons federally is far more important than STV. We should get a vote not only for the house but for the senate. The number of seats in the house is capped so should the number of senators. Mulroney and Cretien proved that by all their fat cat Patronage appointments to their buddies and supporters.

 

[aznboi9]

First off once you have STV in place you'll never get it out.

After 2-3 election cycles, it's use will come under review and we're supposed to have a referendum to return to FPTP. In Ireland, the major political party tried twice to have it replaced with FPTP by referendum so it's highly likely that the parties here will try to do the same. BTW, both times, the Irish voted to keep STV over FPTP.

If it was such a great system it would have been implemented across the world, the STV principle has been around since the 1800's it's not something brand new (like they'd have you believe.)

The same could apply to FPTP, which is also rarely used in the major western democracies. It's used because it's usually the first system implemented and because people have an inherent fear of change.The fact is that the general movement is away from FPTP to some alternative. Additionally, political reform usually has come thru the political parties, do you think they're going to implement a system that shifts control towards the voter at the party's expense?

I'm a supporter of the FPTP. I don't want to rank order my preference. If I wish to cast my ballot for the liberal candidate in my area thats who I am voting for. I don't want my vote going to the NDP or the Conservative candidate in my area or within the province as a whole to be divied up and handed over. No thanks.

If you don't want to rank your preferences, then you don't have to. If you only want your vote to go to one person, then you just rank one candidate. Hell, you can just mark an X if you want and it will still count. Your vote does not go to anyone you don't want it to. I fail to see how that's so hard to understand.

According to extimate calculations on the last federal election we would have had more Bloc member and green party member in the house how exactly does that help the governance of the country.

Actually, under STV, the Bloc would only have 30 seats, not the 50 or so they have now. Under FPTP, regional parties with concentrated support are given more power.

Senate reform (something the governments have pushed for but never have done) in the house of commons federally is far more important than STV. We should get a vote not only for the house but for the senate. The number of seats in the house is capped so should the number of senators. Mulroney and Cretien proved that by all their fat cat Patronage appointments to their buddies and supporters.

Aside from the fact that Senate reform is irrelevant since STV is a provincial issue, it's all well and good to say "we need this, we need that" the fact remains that people have harped about those issues and nothing ever gets done because we have to rely on the politicians to do it. In this referendum, we actually have an opportunity to make a real change that's dictated by the citizen's.

 

[TheSilkenBadger]

One goal George bush won his Presidency because of the Electoral College. Each state is assigned a certain number of seats (points). Even though Gore had the popular vote he failed to carry the electoral college and Bush won the election..it has nothing to do with STV.

Here is my STV vote STV style.

1 Never
2 No
3 not in my lifetime
4 maybe
5 yes....

 

[lars_from_mars]

IMO, STV is some kind of shell game designed to trick voters into believing that they're able to influence the system. Politics still sucks. Politicians still suck.

The answer? Rage against the machine.

 

[island-guy]

Notice how those in favour of STV talk about the benefits of PR.

STV is NOT PR

In fact, the few countries that use STV have found that often the people who get the most votes don't get elected.

In BC that sort of thing would happen all the time under STV. For example:

Suppose you need 10,000 votes to get elected and the vote tallies look like this:

9999 people vote for the liberal candidate and put no other choices because they don't want the NDP or the green at all.

5001 people put the Green candidate with the NDP candidate as their second choice

5000 people put the NDP candidate with the green candidate as their second choice

Guess who gets elected under STD?

Yep, the NDP candidate who was the first choice of the FEWEST voters.

Great system.

Yes I over simplified because I didn't want to show how it works out just as stupidly if you have 5 candidates elected with 15 running and toss in a few other parties like the action party and the pot party. the same thing still happens. I also used simpler numbers but the same thing happens if you use ranges of numbers that are quite plausible. I went over it all with a guy with a PhD in math and it is actually quite the joke of a system.

Also look it up, in Malta, one of the FEW countries that uses it, they have had several recent constitutional crises because the election results it produced were unconstitutional (their constitution has some clause in it about the party with the most votes forming the government or some such) and so their supreme court has had to add extra seats to the government and give them to the party with the most total first place votes to 'fix' the broken election something like four or five times in the last 30-40 years.

As has been pointed out by one of the people in favour of STV, it is a chance for him to vote for the stupidest candidate, because he agrees with all their stupid ideas, and then to get a 'do-over' because his first attempt at voting was too stupid.

Strategic voting is when a moron actually has a glimmer of insight into the fact that anyone with the same ideas they have is also a moron and won't get elected so they vote for someone who is too smart to agree with their stupid ideas even though it really bugs them to vote for someone smarter than they are. No wonder it bugs them so much, they have to admit to themselves that someone else is actually smarter than they are and they have a real problem doing that because their heads are so far up their asses that they don't even realize that EVERYONE is smarter than they are.

 

[island-guy]

Senate reform (something the governments have pushed for but never have done) in the house of commons federally is far more important than STV. We should get a vote not only for the house but for the senate. The number of seats in the house is capped so should the number of senators. Mulroney and Cretien proved that by all their fat cat Patronage appointments to their buddies and supporters.

And those same buddies and supporters are the ones who are now blocking senate reform.

The elected government has passed more than one bill that would make changes to the senate, but each time the senate just 'sends it to committee' and refuses to pass it or even vote on it. They don't want to lose their gravy train and feel that they are "Entitled to their entitlements".

 

[aznboi9]

Notice how those in favour of STV talk about the benefits of PR.

STV is NOT PR

WTF? Every unbiased literature I've read classifies it as PR. Oh, that's right. It's not "PURE" PR. Give me a fucking break. Take a look at the election results from Northern Ireland and Malta. Notice how a parties share of a seats closely reflects its share of the popular vote, around 3-4% agreement.

Now compare that to FPTP. Take a look at the last ten provincial elections. In almost every case, deviations of 10%, 20%, and more are the norm. Nobody claimed STV was perfect, just that it's more proportional than FPTP. There's no comparison.

In fact, the few countries that use STV have found that often the people who get the most votes don't get elected.

Total bullshit, a candidate gets elected when they reach the threshold required for election.

In BC that sort of thing would happen all the time under STV. For example:

Suppose you need 10,000 votes to get elected and the vote tallies look like this:

9999 people vote for the liberal candidate and put no other choices because they don't want the NDP or the green at all.

5001 people put the Green candidate with the NDP candidate as their second choice

5000 people put the NDP candidate with the green candidate as their second choice

Guess who gets elected under STD?

Yep, the NDP candidate who was the first choice of the FEWEST voters.

Great system.

Oh great, can't come up with a real life example so come up with a stupid theoretical scenario so unlikely that it's absurd. Here's one for you:

Let's say we have 10,000 voters and 100 candidates and each candidate gets 100 votes.

Guess how gets elected under FPTP? Nobody! Yep, great system. The fact is we play around with any system of voting and come up with absurd scenarios. The only difference is that under FPTP, the absurdities actually happen on a regular basis.

Also look it up, in Malta, one of the FEW countries that uses it,

Yes, lets look at Malta. They've had four cases where a party won more seats than the other with less of the popular vote. In all cases, the separation in popular vote between the parties was less than 3% and share of the seats were just as close, within 1%.

Now compare that to our system. Again, go through the last 10 elections in BC alone, election results don't need to be close for misrepresentations of voters intentions to occur, they just happen, with surprising regularity. And don't even get me started on our federal election results.

It's easy to criticize a system against perfection but we're not doing that. We're comparing STV vs FPTP.

Strategic voting is when a moron actually has a glimmer of insight into the fact that anyone with the same ideas they have is also a moron and won't get elected so they vote for someone who is too smart to agree with their stupid ideas even though it really bugs them to vote for someone smarter than they are. No wonder it bugs them so much, they have to admit to themselves that someone else is actually smarter than they are and they have a real problem doing that because their heads are so far up their asses that they don't even realize that EVERYONE is smarter than they are.

Oh that's right, because if the majority believe something, then they automatically must be right. Kind of like views on racism, or gay rights, or decriminalization of MJ, or pooning. Who needs to think for themselves, just follow the masses.

 

[island-guy]

Oh that's right, because if the majority believe something, then they automatically must be right. Kind of like views on racism, or gay rights, or decriminalization of MJ, or pooning. Who needs to think for themselves, just follow the masses.

Ahh so you don't believe that the government should be elected by the majority, no wonder you like STV.

Maybe you'd be happier somewhere like China where it doesn't matter what the majority of the people want or believe.

There were plenty of times in the countries using STV where the person who got the most votes did NOT get elected. Wonderful system. They just keep shuffling and recounting until the people they want get elected. Hmm.. didn't the USSR used to do that?

 

[Bartdude]

Ahh so you don't believe that the government should be elected by the majority, no wonder you like STV.

Maybe you'd be happier somewhere like China where it doesn't matter what the majority of the people want or believe.

There were plenty of times in the countries using STV where the person who got the most votes did NOT get elected. Wonderful system. They just keep shuffling and recounting until the people they want get elected. Hmm.. didn't the USSR used to do that?

 

[aznboi9]

Ahh so you don't believe that the government should be elected by the majority, no wonder you like STV.

Maybe you'd be happier somewhere like China where it doesn't matter what the majority of the people want or believe.

There were plenty of times in the countries using STV where the person who got the most votes did NOT get elected. Wonderful system. They just keep shuffling and recounting until the people they want get elected. Hmm.. didn't the USSR used to do that?

You don't even know what your talking about. STV is all about ensuring that the MLAs who get elected do so with a majority share of the vote; that's why the quota is there, unlike our current system where a representative wins despite the majority of people not wanting him or her in office. In fact, under BC-STV, the 85 MLA's being sent to office would do so with a minimum of around 80% support of the voters. It's no wonder voters in the countries where it's used like it so much. Now compare that to the situation now where our MLA's are being elected with less than half of the vote. And you're saying I'm the one who doesn't believe government shouldn't elected by the majority? You have it the wrong way around.

 

[island-guy]

You don't even know what your talking about. STV is all about ensuring that the MLAs who get elected do so with a majority share of the vote; that's why the quota is there, unlike our current system where a representative wins despite the majority of people not wanting him or her in office. In fact, under BC-STV, the 85 MLA's being sent to office would do so with a minimum of around 80% support of the voters. It's no wonder voters in the countries where it's used like it so much. Now compare that to the situation now where our MLA's are being elected with less than half of the vote. And you're saying I'm the one who doesn't believe government shouldn't elected by the majority? You have it the wrong way around.

In Ireland's 2007 election, Sein Fein won 6.9% of the vote and elected 4 TDs while the Green Party won 4.7% of the vote and elected 6 TDs.

And I'm the one who doesn't know what he's talking about?

The same thing happened in about 1/4 of the last dozen elections in Malta, using the STV.

It does NOT work, it has been proven to NOT WORK in the countries that have tried it.

I think it is also quite funny that on the Yes side you have mostly unemployed activist types and on the No side you have mathematicians, political science profs, constitutional lawyers etc...

Leting idiots who want to vote for idiots have a do-over on their vote is NOT the way to fix anything.

And that classic argument that more than 50% of the people did not want Steven Harper as PM (for example) completely ignores the fact that MORE people did NOT want Dion and even more did NOT want Layton and astronomically more did NOT want May. There was NO candidate that had the support of more than half the voters.

STV is something desired by those who are unable to elect the incompetent idiots that they want to elect under the current system, so they think that changing the system is the answer.

The reality is that the answer is to stop trying to elect morons.

Interestingly, the same people who think that the STV was a good idea also thought that the fast ferries were a good idea. I wonder what they'll come up with next?

 

[Arrrg]

I definitely don't want minority governments. All they do is wait for something to bring down the government. Ridiculous.

I care who gets the majority but I'd even rather have a majority of the party I don't want than a minority government. They are more functional, whether you agree with the policies are not. You can say all you want about forcing governments to work together, it's not going to happen. Everyone wants power.

No to STV.

 

[treveller]

The Wrong End of the Stick

Arrrg "I definitely don't want minority governments. All they do is wait for something to bring down the government."

Minority governments with FPTP are unstable because a small change in popularity can cause a large or disproportionate change in the number of seats a party is likely to win. In the last federal election the Conservatives gained only 1 or 2 % popular support but that gave them 5% or so more seats. When the federal Liberals see a 5% gain in popularity they will want an election because that is all they need to beat the Conservatives.

STV is more proportional than FPTP and as a result minority governments are more stable under STV than they are under FPTP.

Because STV provides a better representation of the public's wishes, it allows for more minority governments, but these minority governments are more stable than they would be under FPTP. As a result of the two changes with STV, one favouring and one undermining stability, STV countries have no more or fewer elections than FPTP countries.

The big advantage of STV is not in the number or frequency of elections but in the stability of the policies made by those minority or coalition governments. In BC we have huge, expensive and damaging shifts in policy when we change from Liberal to NDP majority governments and then back again. We have these huge shifts in policy because FPTP gives us arrogant majority governments that can do what ever they want without regard for the 60% of voters who oppose them.

With FPTP a party with 40% support routinely wins 60% of the seats. Below 40% and you get screwed. Above 40% and you get a landslide. This gives us bad government and unstable policies.

Many European governments are minority or coalition governments. You hear lots of noise in the press about he squables they have forming their coalition governments but that is a side show. The policies they eventually develop are workable and stable. On the other hand, BC has a reputation for being a political circus. The businesses and workers of BC never know what to expect after the next election.

I definitely don't want minority governments. All they do is wait for something to bring down the government. Ridiculous.

I care who gets the majority but I'd even rather have a majority of the party I don't want than a minority government. They are more functional, whether you agree with the policies are not. You can say all you want about forcing governments to work together, it's not going to happen. Everyone wants power.

No to STV.

 

[Arrrg]

Thanks treveller for spending your time to promote STV. They've been insightful.

It's too bad the election is coming up... I would have preferred it for next year, after the Olympics. The last thing we need right now is a change in government and besides, BC is doing alright for itself as is. That's for different discussion though

 

[treveller]

Unreasonable Arguements Against STV

island-guy "In Ireland's 2007 election, Sein Fein won 6.9% of the vote and elected 4 TDs while the Green Party won 4.7% of the vote and elected 6 TDs."

Looking at proportionality in terms of two small parties in one election is almost meaningless but not entirely. In this case Sein Fein needed 1.725% per seat and the Green Party needed 0.783% per seat so with STV in this election and ignoring the other 97% of the votes, the disproportionalty amounted to (1.725 - 0.783) = 0.972%. This is insignificant.

On the other hand, if Ireland had use FPTP for the above election neither party would have won a single seat. How disproportionate is that?

To put it in terms that island-guy might understand, how often does a party with 10 or 20% of the popular vote win a seat in BC? How can you possibly complain that STV failed to provide a perfect match for 10 of the seats in one election in Ireland?

island-guy's comments about who supports STV don't merrit much comment but I will mention Dennis Pilon and Norman Ruff, both Political Science Proffs who support STV. I count 62 Political Science academics on http://www.stv.ca/endorsements who support STV. There are something over 200 individuals and organizations listed that support STV and none of them look like "unemployed activist types ".

I understand the NO side is describing itself as a small group of people spending their $500,000 on TV ads. They have few active supporters.

We have a chance of getting past 60% this time so please get out and vote for STV.

In Ireland's 2007 election, Sein Fein won 6.9% of the vote and elected 4 TDs while the Green Party won 4.7% of the vote and elected 6 TDs.

And I'm the one who doesn't know what he's talking about?

The same thing happened in about 1/4 of the last dozen elections in Malta, using the STV.

It does NOT work, it has been proven to NOT WORK in the countries that have tried it.

I think it is also quite funny that on the Yes side you have mostly unemployed activist types and on the No side you have mathematicians, political science profs, constitutional lawyers etc...

Leting idiots who want to vote for idiots have a do-over on their vote is NOT the way to fix anything.

And that classic argument that more than 50% of the people did not want Steven Harper as PM (for example) completely ignores the fact that MORE people did NOT want Dion and even more did NOT want Layton and astronomically more did NOT want May. There was NO candidate that had the support of more than half the voters.

STV is something desired by those who are unable to elect the incompetent idiots that they want to elect under the current system, so they think that changing the system is the answer.

The reality is that the answer is to stop trying to elect morons.

Interestingly, the same people who think that the STV was a good idea also thought that the fast ferries were a good idea. I wonder what they'll come up with next?

 

[island-guy]

If you think for one second that any form of PR (which STV Isn't really anyway, but...) produces more stable minority governments: All I can say is "Isreal", look it up.

Also, yes with FPTP the IRA wouldn't have gotten any terrorists elected. I guess you think that would be a bad thing?

Do we REALLY want the Pot Party and the Communist Party to have seats? What about the Rhinos?

 

[treveller]

Details

STV provides a good level of proportionality. Any political science professor can confirm that and even the simplest examination of electoral results will prove that. It works even better than you would expect based on averages and total numbers. It is a proportional system. The larger the district magnitude (the number of seats) the greater the proportionality and the lower the threshold to win a seat.

Israel has lots of problems. I expect the problems would be worse if they had FPTP. Who knows? BC is not Israel.

Israel does not use STV and I expect the threshold to win a seat is lower than it would be with BC-STV. Island-guy, can you tell us what the threshold is to earn a seat in Israel? What electoral system does Israel use? I would like to see a discription.

Yes, I would prefer to see the IRA represented in the Irish parliament. It leaves them with less justification for action on the streets. With 4 seats there is nothing they can do by themselves in parliament. Doing anything in any democratic parliament requires support from more than half of the representatives.

If you adopt a system that excludes Sein Fein you will also exclude the Green Party and other small parties. Having the small parties represented is a necessary consequence of any system that gives the larger parties a fair share of the seats. Any reasonable system that is fair for the large parties will be fair for the small parties as well. Having some small parties is not a problem because you still need over half of the members to pass anything in any democratic house.

If you think for one second that any form of PR (which STV Isn't really anyway, but...) produces more stable minority governments: All I can say is "Israel", look it up.

Also, yes with FPTP the IRA wouldn't have gotten any terrorists elected. I guess you think that would be a bad thing?

Do we REALLY want the Pot Party and the Communist Party to have seats? What about the Rhinos?