Carman Fox

Are we sliding backwards as a society?

Lesbian Hunter

Throw Me to the Lesbians
Aug 17, 2006
474
4
0
Victoria
Jody Paterson column: Are we sliding backward as a society?


By Jody Paterson, Victoria Times ColonistApril 30, 2009

I suppose every generation wants to believe it’s improving on the past. That’s how it always seemed in my history lessons at school, too — that we were intent on working our way up, from “primitive” to medieval to Renaissance and right on through to the enlightened human beings of modern times.

We’ve made some remarkable progress. We’re healthier than we’ve ever been and surviving diseases that once used to kill us off in vast numbers. We don’t just talk about human rights, we enshrine them in our laws. We wear our seatbelts, bicycle helmets, sunscreen and in-car sobriety with pride, and are better for it.

I used to ponder ugly moments in history and feel grateful for not having been alive in those years. The destructive and stupid behaviours of human beings through the ages baffled me, but I was happy that my generation dwelt in kinder, gentler times and was in turn leaving a better world for their own children.

But is that what’s actually happening? Is life in Canada improving? I’ve got my doubts, given the wear and tear of two decades of federal and provincial governments whose actions have seriously eroded the social fabric of the Canada I was born into.

I don’t mean to suggest another Crusades is imminent, or that we’ll soon be using wild animals to kill off the old and weak in front of a cheering crowd of thousands.

But the disasters of history start out small — one thing and then another, each piling on top of each other to bend a country in a way that no one had expected. The emergence of a growing underclass in Canada is of no small concern.

The decline most evident to me after most of a lifetime in B.C. is a loss of economic and political power for the “common people,” if you will. It’s a subtle change that has come about incrementally, aggravated by a prevailing political ideology in which minimal government is the stated goal even while power and money accumulate at the top in ways that are very nearly feudal.

An interesting statistic, courtesy of child advocacy group First Call and Stats Canada: Between 1989 and 2006, the richest 10 per cent of B.C. families with children saw their average annual income rise 30 per cent, to $201,490. In that same period, the poorest 10 per cent of families saw their income fall eight per cent, to $15,657. The richest of the rich in Canada more than doubled their average yearly income in the years between 1982 and 2004, to $2.5 million. The years weren’t as kind to families in the bottom 10 per cent, who by 2004 had average income of a mere $6,000 a year.

That’s not to say rich people aren’t entitled to their wealth. No doubt many work very hard for the money. But the growing gap between the rich and poor in Canada didn’t come about because the rich work hard and the poor are lazy. We’ve had a series of governments whose policies have made things better for those who already had it pretty good, and considerably worse for those just getting by.

In B.C., one of the first things to go was the fishing industry, given away by Ottawa to a handful of wealthy men. Next was forestry, to the point that even the land where the trees once grew now gets handed off to developers without a whisper of consultation.

Our social systems have become twisted versions of themselves, to the point where our governments reward themselves for taking away people’s benefits.

In the first year of B.C.’s intensified crackdown on welfare under the Liberals, a deputy minister received a $15,400 bonus for slashing the welfare caseload by 22 per cent. Eight years on, there’s little evidence that anything about the immensely costly welfare-to-work years have benefited British Columbians (see this story at tyee.ca). A massive increase in homelessness in the same period has in fact increased the cost and extent of poverty dramatically.

Meanwhile, employment insurance is now so difficult to get that barely 30 to 40 per cent of unemployed Canadians qualify for it, even while Ottawa sits on a $54-billion EI surplus. If you feel frustratingly powerless to change such things, as I do, that’s a pretty serious signal that we’ve lost control of our governments.

In less than two weeks, a new government will be elected in B.C. For the sake of a better tomorrow, please pick with care and thoughtfulness. And vote “yes” for STV, which at least puts a little power back into the hands of the people.

© Copyright (c) The Victoria Times Colonist
 

treveller

Member
Sep 22, 2008
633
11
18
STV Referendum May 12th

Like any of these governments will do a damn thing for BC... When new parties, with new ideas and the ability to implement them step foward, at that time I will become excited about politics in this province.
Read her last line again and GET EXCITED!!

The election is a side show. What matters is the referendum for STV.

You can't whine about how bad things are if you ignore such a fine chance to improve things.

Four years ago voters selected STV by 58% but the politicians are forcing us to use the system that was rejected with 42% for the present election. It is a miracle that they are giving us another chance to vote for STV.

Stop whining and ask everyone you know to vote for STV.
 

wilde

Sinnear Member
Jun 4, 2003
3,040
44
48
There is a referendum on STD?:eek: ;)


So becoming a social welfare state is apparently back in fashion again, what else is new?


.
 

aznboi9

Don't mind me...
May 3, 2005
1,380
3
38
Here Be Monsters
Vote NO for STV

Yes for better representation but NO for the proposed system. More work is needed.
If you vote no, more work will most certainly not be done;. There is no "better" system waiting in the wings; it will simply be business as usual. If we're going to sit around and wait for the perfect system to come along, nothing will ever happen.
 

Arrrg

Active member
Mar 20, 2006
545
206
43
Vancouver
If you vote no, more work will most certainly not be done;. There is no "better" system waiting in the wings; it will simply be business as usual. If we're going to sit around and wait for the perfect system to come along, nothing will ever happen.
In my opinion the proposed STV system is a worse system than we currently have. It's a waste of money and resources to change something only for the fact of lets just change it. Then we can change it again... and again... and again... if we have to.

The proponents of STV will need to go back to the drawing board and figure out a better proposal to put forth. I certainly don't want to pay for continual changes to the voting system. They didn't get enough support the first time. They didn't change anything this time around so it's not like it's any better. I took more of an interest in it this time around and I found it's not a good solution. What's on the table is not proportional representation.
 
Last edited:

treveller

Member
Sep 22, 2008
633
11
18
The worst possible reason for voting no

The 160 members of the Citizens Assembly spent a year studying voting systems and at the end of that they voted 95% in favour of replacing our present with STV.

Voting no because you think there may be a better system is the worst, the saddest and the least reasonable reason I have heard for voting no.

Our present system is a large part of the problem that HubbaHubba was complaining about. Voting NO gives the politicians that HubbaHubba was complaining about what they want, an excuse to do nothing or impopse whatever system best protects the power they have.
 

HankQuinlan

I dont re Member
Sep 7, 2002
1,743
6
0
victoria
Exactly. Ms Patterson, as she so often is, is exactly correct in her analysis of our society, and in the only solution currently open to us.

Every person whose intelligence I value agrees that we should try the STV system, so I will go along with them and vote for it.

The political parties (and I dislike both of them) don't want it. That tells me something right there.
 

Shakerod

Active member
May 7, 2008
616
71
28
The reason that first past the post is not working, is not because of the system itself. It is because of the way it is ABUSED by political parties that want to control candidates/financing/power structure at the top and anything that resembles a proper democratic legislature. Yes, STV might work, but careful what you wish for, you may end up with parliaments that get nothing done because everyone is looking after their particular domain. There are two things that should be tried first with the first past the post system before I would vote for STV. 1) There should be less restrictions on third parties. 2) Put the same constraints on the financing of political parties as they did at the federal level. The more parties that are represented in the legislature, the more legitimate third party candidates would be for the balance of power.(Do any of you pro STV'ers have a problem with the way that our federal parliament works?)
 
Last edited:

Lesbian Hunter

Throw Me to the Lesbians
Aug 17, 2006
474
4
0
Victoria
It's not our political system that needs to be changed it's the people we elect who need to change. Will that happen with a new voting system? No.

Political parties in power tend to represent special interests as opposed to the people's interests and just because we change the system that elects them does not mean they will change.

Our British Parliamentary electoral system is imperfect but it has proven over hundreds of years that it is probably one of the best democratic systems anywhere, certainly far better than the corporate government they have in the United States.

As P. J. O'Rourke stated, "Every government is a parliament of whores. The trouble is, in a democracy, the whores are us.”
 

Cock Throppled

Well-known member
Oct 1, 2003
5,171
1,187
113
Upstairs
It's not our political system that needs to be changed it's the people we elect who need to change. Will that happen with a new voting system? No.
Yes it will. STV will weaken the hold the major parties have over us. Don't you want more than Liberal or NDP as your choices?

If you vote Green or Independent or even Marijuana Party STV gives the members for those parties a chance to get elected.

The current system isn't satisfactory for a lot of people. Give STV a chance and see how it works. At the very least, if it doesn't seem to be working, or satisfying the people we can always vote to go back.
 

Sir_frixalot

Big Pink Steel
Nov 15, 2006
227
1
0
Calgs
WTF is an STV? Single transferrable vote? You mean you can sell it?
How much do they go for? I want IN on this action...
I'm a free enterprise self sufficient kinda guy (aka Albertan) so I only pay cursory attention to Gov't and socialists, whiners and such. Too busy making money and trying to cheat on my taxes to keep 3 levels of IDIOT gov't's from sucking me bone dry. Like they pissed away EI, huh? Sorry - you paid in dutifully but, well, it's g.o.n.e. GONE. Sorry again, but whatcha gonna do?
 

HankQuinlan

I dont re Member
Sep 7, 2002
1,743
6
0
victoria
Do any of you pro STV'ers have a problem with the way that our federal parliament works?
I sure do -- the same as in this province. When one party can get a minority of the vote, and a majority of the seats (and then act like they have all the power) it is a travesty. When one party gets a minority of the votes AND of the seats, and act like they have total power, it is even worse.
 

aznboi9

Don't mind me...
May 3, 2005
1,380
3
38
Here Be Monsters
In my opinion the proposed STV system is a worse system than we currently have. It's a waste of money and resources to change something only for the fact of lets just change it. Then we can change it again... and again... and again... if we have to.
They're not proposing change just for the sake of change. They're proposing change because our current system is badly flawed (hugely distorted election results, voters forced to vote strategically, centralization of power in the hands of parties, over representation of geographically concentrated support, parties winning majorities with less than 50% of the vote, I can go on and on...) and STV goes a long way to addressing those flaws.

The proponents of STV will need to go back to the drawing board and figure out a better proposal to put forth.
Such as? They've already spent a year looking at pretty much every electoral system from all over the world and they've already looked at them from several different angles. They picked STV because they felt is was the best out of all the other electoral systems that they studied.

I certainly don't want to pay for continual changes to the voting system. They didn't get enough support the first time.
They didn't get enough support because half the population didn't even know that there was referendum. They've done polling data and what's clear is that when people understand STV, support goes up drastically, up to 80%.

And yes, it is proportional representation.
 

festealth

Resident Troll
Sep 8, 2005
276
0
0
In theory, one party may win the election because everyone voted them as their secondary choice. That isn't winning because you're the best, that's winning due to default.

In anycase, I don't think smaller parties will even get anymore power. Voting for additional parties is optional. If I'm voting Liberals, I'm sure as hell I'm not gonna put the Green, NDP, misc party as my "other choices".

It's odd that when centre-left parties were in charge, there was less fuss about having "proportional representation".
Now when there are right-of-centre parties in charge, there's suddenly a drive to give more voice to the little guys, those small/alternative parties.
 

aznboi9

Don't mind me...
May 3, 2005
1,380
3
38
Here Be Monsters
In theory, one party may win the election because everyone voted them as their secondary choice. That isn't winning because you're the best, that's winning due to default.
You could say the same under FPTP, where a candidate could win with only 33% of the vote. He/she didn't win because he/she was the best, they only won because the majority of people who didn't want them had their choices split.

In anycase, I don't think smaller parties will even get anymore power. Voting for additional parties is optional. If I'm voting Liberals, I'm sure as hell I'm not gonna put the Green, NDP, misc party as my "other choices".
That may be true for you, but the majority of people are willing to vote across party lines and would do so if given the option.

It's odd that when centre-left parties were in charge, there was less fuss about having "proportional representation".
Now when there are right-of-centre parties in charge, there's suddenly a drive to give more voice to the little guys, those small/alternative parties.
Not really, I have an acquaintance who was a higher up in the Reform Party. PR was a big issue at the time for them and, apparently, STV was one of the systems they were looking at and were in favour of. That's probably why Preston Manning has openly endorsed BC-STV. This isn't a left-right issue.
 
Vancouver Escorts