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

[aznboi9]

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.

Actually, they looked at the frequency of elections over the last 50 years in western democracies that use FPTP vs PR. They found that on average FPTP governments conducted more elections than PR governments.

And Israel uses a pure list system, not STV. To say that Israel is representative of all PR governments is akin to saying India (which has a coalition of 18 parties) is representative of all British Parliamentary governments (ie, Canada, UK etc.).

Additionally, this ignores all the other, stable PR governments like Ireland (their last three minorities have lasted 5 years, try getting a majority in Canada to last that long), Germany, Denmark, Iceland, Australia, Belgium, etc..

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?

Actually, over influence of fringe parties was one of the many aspects taken under consideration and one of the reasons why the Citizen's Assembly, 160 citizen's from all walks of life, who voted 95% in favour (so you claim that each and everyone of them thought the fast ferries were a good idea? Interesting), chose STV. Because it works with preferential ballots.

With preferential ballots, a candidate that doesn't get elected right off the bat, but is still in the running, will need the votes of his/her opposition to win a seat. So he/she will need to convince the voters of the opposition candidates to consider ranking him/her as a second or third choice. This won't happen with fringe parties because they generally only appeal to their core supporters. STV rewards candidates that have more inclusive, more broad based appeal.

Finally, the threshold that a single candidate needs to win election is around 15,000-20,000 votes. Fringe parties like the Communist and Sex Party only have around a few hundred votes in total; there's no way they could make up that gap. The Marijuana Party got 11,000 votes, but that's also spread across all of BC so they wouldn't come close either.

 

[treveller]

Lies My No-STV Ad Told Me

The NO-STV ad on TV is not a complete lie. They have mostly avoided outright lies.

"BC-STV is a complicated electoral system."

That could be fair comment. If you want to take advantage of the power that BC-STV gives voters you have to be able to count from 1 to 2 and print both numbers legibly. Alternatively, if you have trouble counting from 1 to 2 then you can simply mark an X beside your first choice as you are limited to doing with the present First Past The Post System. I suppose you could call this complicated.

I'm not sure I want someone voting if the most they can handle is a single X on a ballot but that is another issue.

"BC-STV creates giant ridings."

You could say this is true. 6 of the 20 BC-STV ridings cover a large area, about the size of Federal ridings. However, the Federal ridings have a single MP while the BC-STV ridings have from 2 to 5 MLAs and the ratio of voters to MLAs is the same for both BC-STV and First Past The Post. Only 6 of the 20 BC-STV ridings could be called giants and these serve a quarter of the voters in BC.

When we voted for STV four years ago it was preferred over First Past The Post in the large northern ridings and every other riding in the province except two ridings around Kamloops where BC-STV trailed behind FPTP by a fraction of a percentage point. Overall there was a strong preference for BC-STV across the province, including the giant northern ridings.

BC-STV creates ridings or districts "each with up to 7 MLAs and 300,000 voters."

The BC-STV Capital Region will have 7 MLAs and a large number of voters so you can argue this is a true statement. All other regions have fewer MLAs with the average being 4 MLAs per riding or district. (4.25 to be precise but who wants to think about a quartered MLA. That's way too messy.)

Having 7 MLAs is a bonus for the Capital region because we will have the most proportional representation in the province by virtue of having the largest number of MLAs to represent us.

I expect Ireland has less variation than BC in district magnitude (the number of MLAs per district) because it has less variation in population density. The selection of district magnitude requires a trade off between proportionality and district size. The Electoral boundaries Commission has sorted that out for us.

"BC-STV would remove local accountability of MLAs."

This is an outright lie. MLAs are accountable because they are elected. They are more accountable to voters with BC-STV because each MLA needs more votes to be elected under BC-STV than under First Past The Post, on the order of 18,000 versus 8,000 votes. In addition, the MLAs in a district will have to compete with each other for your support regardless of party affiliation. It is this greater accountability to voters that transfers some power from the political party backroom to the voters.

"The complicated BC-STV system chops votes into fractions. You may never know where your vote went."

This may be true if you are one of those voters who has trouble counting to 2 and you don't care enough to ask someone else to show you how your vote was transferred. For anyone else it will be easy to know exactly where your vote went when the election results are announced.

I will admit that following the transfer of your vote is more complicated than voting. While most elementary school children have no trouble with the voting, you may need to understand fractions to follow the transfer of your vote. If you have trouble with fractions then ask a high school student for help.

If you know how you voted then the election results will show you precisely how your vote was transferred to the preferences shown on your ballot, from the first preference to lower preferences. Your vote (or portions of it) is only transferred if it cannot be used by the first preference shown.

It is this transfer of your vote that gives STV its power to represent voters and when you see it at work on your own ballot you will never want First Past The Post again.

Irish politicians have twice tried to get rid of STV and both times the voters have chosen to keep STV.

 

[onegoalwonder]

Vote Yes To Stv

FPTP is a stupid system designed for a two party system (undemocratic) and even then produces bizarre results. In a multi party system, we may as well draw lots to decide who gets how many seats. The Labour party in the last UK general election got 36% of the vote and a solid MAJORITY government. Even Tony Blair was sheepish about the result. THe results of an election should correspond to the wishes of the people. If the people want to election members of 10 parties, that is democracy. the alternative is a dictatorship. Too many Canadians have given their lives to even contemplate anything other a full dmocracy.
A final thought: no political party in BC, Canada or any place in the world uses FPTP to elect the party leader. If FPTP is not good enough to select a party leader, then no way is it suitable to elect a parliament or legislature, which in turn selects the government. VOTE STV

 

[kodiak_bear3]

Do anybody remember Chuck Cadman?

The story of Chuck Cadman is emblematic.
With the STV nobody like him could ever make it.

For a quick comparison of the 2 system you can check here.

I personally prefer the FPTP system that tends to provide majority governments and alternance.
With minority or coalition governments, whoever governs cannot be held accountable for not fulfilling election campaign promises as they are forced to negotiate and compromise.
Another big downside of the STV is the loss of the connection between the constituency and the elected MLA for each riding.

 

[treveller]

Kodiak supports the right goals but the wrong system

Kodiak has the same goals I have for an electoral system, opportunity for independent responsible representatives, accountable governments and a connection between the electors and the elected. These are the same goals the 160 members of the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform had when they spent a year studying electoral systems. At the end they were 95% in favor of BC-STV over FPTP.

STV gives independent candidates a better chance to earn votes and win election.

With STV, MLAs will be more accountable to the voters and less accountable to the back room party funders and the party whip.

The minority or coalition governments that you get with STV give you more reasonable and stable government policies and laws with no increase in the number of elections. This is the way STV has worked in the places that use it.

This is different from the kind of minority government you get with FPTP where the dis proportionality of the system rewards opportunistic bickering and instability.

 

[aznboi9]

Keep in mind also that the two guys heading the No vote are ex-political insiders while the Yes side is comprised of ordinary citizen's. Are you really going to take the word of political hacks who have a vested interest in maintaining in the status quo or citizen's who have no hidden agenda except for trying to affect positive change?

Also, as has been pointed out repeatedly, the No sides arguments are based on half truths, if not outright lies. The fact that they have to rely on such deceptive debate tactics should tell you a lot about the strength of their position.

 

[treveller]

I started a Poll

The Citizens' Assembly was 95% in favor of BC-STV.

Four years ago voters were 58% in favor of BC-STV.

I started a poll and so far Perbites are 61% in favor of FPTP.

This is embarrassing. Lets get those votes registered for BC-STV

 

[onegoalwonder]

Kodiak has it all very wrong. Chuck Cadman would have been elected more easily under STV an voters could, and would, have voted for Chuck and also any other candidates/parties of their choice. FPTP prevents this.
The federal Liberals have decided that in future the party leader will be selected by all party members, not by convention delegates. Will they use FPTP? NO WAY. The Federal Liberals will use a transferable vote system as it is the only true democratic system.
VOTE YES - STV

 

[kodiak_bear3]

Let's try to foresee what will happen...

Suppose that in BC we would be using STV at this upcoming elections and that the results would reflect the actual polls (42% Liberals, 39% NDP, 13% Green, 3% Conservatives). We would end up with a legislative assembly made by:
34 Liberals
32 NDP
11 Green
2 Conservative

As you need 40 votes to legislate, how do you think that it will work?

I have lived most of my life in a country where a proportional system was used and we never had a stable government.
An electoral system that determines a stable majority government, eventually favoring the formation of coalitions before the vote, has superior advantages for the public administration.

 

[aznboi9]

Suppose that in BC we would be using STV at this upcoming elections and that the results would reflect the actual polls (42% Liberals, 39% NDP, 13% Green, 3% Conservatives). We would end up with a legislative assembly made by:
34 Liberals
32 NDP
11 Green
2 Conservative

As you need 40 votes to legislate, how do you think that it will work?

It depends on how the people respond. We saw how the people reacted when the federal coalition was proposed so that is unlikely to occur. From what I've read, in Ireland, the coalitions are announced beforehand which the people are ok with. It may be the case that we don't want formal coalitions at all in which case the Liberals would have to work with the Greens or the NDP. The latter scenario isn't all that unlikely since none of the parties would be gunning for an election for already stated reasons.

My question is what are you so scared of? Sure, there's no guarantee that the positive changes that we've seen in the other jurisdictions will happen here; but maybe they will and we'd be missing out on taking advantage of the many benefits that are already seen to occur in those other jurisdictions. Instead, everybody is cowering in the corner, wringing their hands with worry with "What if?" scenarios that just have not panned out on closer investigation. I'm continually amazed at how fearful and timid a society we are.

I have lived most of my life in a country where a proportional system was used and we never had a stable government.
An electoral system that determines a stable majority government, eventually favoring the formation of coalitions before the vote, has superior advantages for the public administration.

Again, governments that use FPTP have more elections that PR. Ireland's last three minorities have lasted 5 years. The countries that have used STV have been quite stable. So unless your country is Israel or Italy, which use entirely different systems, there is no evidence to suggest that PR minorities are inherently unstable.

And don't forget that a lot of problems occur with majorities where a party with a minority of the vote does whatever it pleases with no checks. Have we all forgotten about the fast ferries, gun registry and convention centre? Decisiveness is not good when it's not balanced with accountability.

 

[treveller]

Cheap Shot

Apologies for this but I don't like to leave bad information in place without correction.

For this election and next we are going to elect 85 MLAs rather than the 79 that kodiak is referring to. A majority will be 43 votes if everyone shows up.
If you want more info or detail check the "Get Ready To Vote" pamphlet that Elections BC sent to all voters a week ago.

We used to have 79 MLAs but the Electoral Boundaries Commission re-arranges the deck chairs every two elections so the carpenters will be busy as we speak making all the little desks a bit narrower and building 6 new ones. Personally I think they should all be made to sit on benches as in England, preferably benches with no cushions or backs so they will get on with their business. I may not feel this way if they are elected by SVT at the next election.

Moving from simple fact to informed opinion, the percentages below are a distortion of the real popularity of the parties because with FPTP many people vote strategically. This reduces apparent support for the trailing parties and gives the leading parties more votes than they deserve. The preferential ballot that is used with BC-STV eliminates the need or justification for strategic voting so that the count of first choice votes with BC-STV is a true record of the popularity of the parties and candidates.

STV at this upcoming election...
34 Liberals
32 NDP
11 Green
2 Conservative

As you need 40 votes to legislate, how do you think that it will work?

 

[kodiak_bear3]

Coalitions before, not after

If the NDP and the Green were smarter, they would make a common platform before the elections, present a common program and wipe out the Liberals with our existing system.
Unfortunately our politicians are not that smart and they prefer to lose an election than come to a compromise before the vote.

With the STV, like all other proportional systems, there will be no incentive whatsoever to form coalitions before the elections.
After the vote, with a fragmented assembly, we will witness the strangest coalitions forming and none of the electoral programs will be maintained as they will need to compromise.
But if they need to compromise anyway, why don't they do it before the elections?
At least the voters would have the chance to make an educated choice.

Coalitions before the elections are driven by issues, coalitions after the elections are driven by the greed of sharing power.

 

[treveller]

If the NDP and the Green were smarter, they would make a common platform before the elections, present a common program and wipe out the Liberals with our existing system.
Unfortunately our politicians are not that smart and they prefer to lose an election than come to a compromise before the vote.

This is an example of why and how the First Past The Post electoral system degenerates into a two party system.

First Past The Post is a useless system because you can only show a single preference for one candidate over all others equally.

BC-STV lets you put more information on the ballot so if you can count past 1 you can have more power in the election.

It works for elementary school children, seniors and 58% to 95% of the voters in BC.

It might even work for kodiak.

 

[island-guy]

from an editorial in the National Post, since the right wingers aren't breathing as fiery as the left wingers, and just for fun.

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=1570620

I think this quote explains the type of people who are pushing for this joke of a method quite well.

"The effect is to arbitrarily reward voters who picked loony-tune candidates from the extreme left.."

 

[treveller]

Garbage Writing

The National Post opinion piece is so full of lies, half truths and meaningless adjectives that I wouldn't know where to start.

I tried to find an indication of who wrote it without luck. This isn't surprising. I expect there is no commentator alive with a reputation worth protecting that would accept responsibility for such worthless garbage.

 

[aznboi9]

Yes, those lefties like Andrew Coyne and Preston Manning. When will they ever learn?

They posted Christy Clark's STV op-ed from CKNW on youtube. She presents a pretty compelling argument on the real reasons for the No side's opposition to STV.