Which Electoral System Should BC Use?

[treveller]

This is my first try at posting a poll. Sorry if I foul up.

The question on Tuesday's ballot is "Which electoral system should British Columbia use to elect members to the provincial Legislative Assembly?"

The options on the ballot are:

- The existing electoral system (First Past The Post)

- The single transferable vote electoral system (BC-STV) proposed by the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform

One interesting bit, the Citizens' Assembly wrote the question for the vote held four years ago and they said they "Recommended" rather than "Proposed" BC-STV. For this vote the politicians changed the wording and the Assembly members are not pleased.

If you are not sure which way you are going to vote and have questions, please ask.

If you just want to slag STV, please start your own thread.

 

[treveller]

More votes for BC-STV

A bump and a push.

 

[TheSilkenBadger]

BC STV is fo the Sucka's...

 

[niteowl]

STV does not make sense. One vote for one person. I don't want more than one person represent me in my riding. Do I want more than one MLA in my riding?No. The Liberals are not on list of favorites.

 

[bcneil]

If you are not sure which way you are going to vote and have questions, please ask.

.

I have a question for you....as this was already voted down last election.
Will it be on the ballot over and over again? Or if it fails again, will that be it?

 

[kodiak_bear3]

I have a question for you....as this was already voted down last election.
Will it be on the ballot over and over again? Or if it fails again, will that be it?

That is a good point.
Somebody has taken the responsibility to consider that all the people who voted in 2005 were either stupid or ignorant.

This is the first time ever that the same referendum is submitted in a 4 year time frame. This is an insult to democracy and to the British Columbians.

 

[FunSugarDaddy]

I think the first question to ask before deciding on whether to vote for a particular voting allocation system, is whether or not the current system is working.

If it is, end of story. If it's not then its worth discussing.

Personally I think the current system works fine, so I don't really see the point of voting for a different system if I don't feel the old one is broken. Having said that, I'm not married to the current system and I could possibly be interested in a different system if pursuasive agruments were brought forth.

Keith Baldry wrote an article for the North Shore News last week that raised some interesting questions regarding the STV, mostly about it's complexity and the fact there would be fewer ridings, and presumably less representation.

 

[treveller]

Reminder

For those unfortunate people who have trouble with the English language and oppose BC-STV I will repeat from the opening post:

If you just want to slag STV, please start your own thread.

This is also not for debating which party you like best.

Again to repeat:

If you are not sure which way you are going to vote and have questions, please ask.

And while it was not a question but was instead a foolish comment from someone who just wanted to slag STV;

BC-STV was not rejected by voters four years ago.

First Past The Post was rejected 42% to 58% in favor of BC-STV.

The sleazy politicians who were elected with 40% support are screwing you by forcing you to use the system that was rejected by voters four years ago.

If you do not understand this please start another thread and I will try to explain it there.

 

[hunsperger]

...

STV...

give it a try just for the hell of it...

Campbell and James are both incompetents...

 

[aznboi9]

I think the first question to ask before deciding on whether to vote for a particular voting allocation system, is whether or not the current system is working.

If it is, end of story. If it's not then its worth discussing.

Personally I think the current system works fine, so I don't really see the point of voting for a different system if I don't feel the old one is broken. Having said that, I'm not married to the current system and I could possibly be interested in a different system if pursuasive agruments were brought forth.

Andrew Coyne writes about some of the many problems or our current system.

Listened to Christy Clark commenting on STV, you can go to the CKNW audiovault (May 7th, 12:30pm) and hear her talk about the problems of FPTP from an insiders perspective. She basically talks about how FPTP serves the interests of the political class at the expense of the needs of the voters.

 

[lars_from_mars]

STV increases the likelihood of ending up with a coalition government, which is terrible. Just look at how that's working out for so many European countries! No progress happens -- politicians end up spending all their time (and taxpayer money) playing political games.

 

[kodiak_bear3]

For those unfortunate people who have trouble with the English language and oppose BC-STV I will repeat from the opening post:

If you just want to slag STV, please start your own thread.

This is also not for debating which party you like best.

Again to repeat:

If you are not sure which way you are going to vote and have questions, please ask.

An while it was not a question but was instead a foolish comment from someone who just wanted to slag STV;

BC-STV was not rejected by voters four years ago.

First Past The Post was rejected 42% to 58% in favor of BC-STV.

The sleazy politicians who were elected with 40% support are screwing you by forcing you to use the system that was rejected by voters four years ago.

If you do not understand this please start another thread and I will try to explain it there.

Maybe you want to anticipate that, should the referendum results show another 42%-58% like last time, we will probably need to change the rule that requires a qualified majority of 60% to change the electoral system.

Have you ever thought why the referendum requires a qualified majority to make a valid change in the existing system?

 

[treveller]

Clarification and bump

Fair comment by k_by-me. I will clarify.

I intended to asked for questions from people who were not sure which way they would vote on Electoral Reform.

I do not want comments from people who simply want to slag STV or discuss party politics.

I am highly biased in favor of BC-STV as an alternative to FPTP. No argument there. Over the last 5 years I have counted half a dozen elections using STV. I know how it works and I know how well it works.

95% of the people who come to understand STV will like it judging by the response of the members of the Citizens' Assembly.

STV is not difficult to understand. I expect those who claim not to understand it have made a choice not to understand it so they can justify their opposition to something new.

 

[FunSugarDaddy]

From the little I've read there are both pro's and con's to this system as well. Keith Baldry pointed out that there would be less elected officials and the ridings would get bigger. This seemed to be supported by the Andrew Coyne article.

The other big issue as far as I'm concerned is I don't think the average voter can name the platforms of 3-4 candidates, never mind put them in order. Fact is, if they are happy with the current system the simply vote for the status quo and if they aren't they vote for the part most likely to replace them. The issues themselves are almost auxiliary to this mind set.

 

[treveller]

Have you ever thought why the referendum requires a qualified majority to make a valid change in the existing system?

Qualified majority is a requirement for a proposal to gain a specified level or type of support which exceeds a simple majority in order to have effect. In some jurisdictions, for example, parliamentary procedure requires that any action that may alter the rights of the minority has a super majority requirement (such as a two-thirds majority). Wikipedia

I have not for some years thought why our politicians are insisting on a 60% majority before they will allow us to use BC-STV. It is because STV moves some power from politicians to voters and the party backroom opposes and such shift of power.

Per wikipedia, a qualified majority is sometimes used to protect minorities. By this logic First Past The Post would need a 2/3rds majority before it could be used because it strips minorities of their opportunity to be represented in the Legislature, relative to BC-STV.

First Past The Post has never had any endorsement from voters. It was developed in England 300 years ago by and for a small number of male landowners choosing between the Wigs and the Tories. In BC FPTP was simply imposed on voters by WAC Bennet in 1952. There was no consultation of voters.

The only time that voters have ever been consulted in BC with regard to an electoral system was four years ago and VOTERS REJECTED FPTP BY A MARGIN OF 16%.

FPTP is not a legitimate voting system for BC because it has never received endorsement from voters, either by simple or qualified majority.

 

[wilde]

FPTP is not a legitimate voting system for BC because it has never received endorsement from voters, either by simple or qualified majority.

Using the same logic, I suppose one can say the same about STV. The difference is that STV has already been rejected once.

.

 

[treveller]

Clarification

Keith Baldry pointed out that there would be less elected officials and the ridings would get bigger.

The other big issue as far as I'm concerned is I don't think the average voter can name the platforms of 3-4 candidates, never mind put them in order.

The ridings or districts would be bigger with BC-STV but both systems provide the same number of elected officials or MLAs which is 85.

BC-STV groups the present 85 ridings into 20 electoral districts. One of the BC-STV districts is a combination of two large northern ridings. At the other extreme the Capital Region district will be a combination of 7 present ridings. Grouping the ridings into larger districts allows voters to enjoy some degree of proportional representation. In the northern two seat district voters would be able to go to either a Liberal or an NDP candidate for help. In Victoria I would be able to choose between several Liberal, several NDP and perhaps even 2 Green MLAs if I need help or want to voice an opinion. This is proportional representation at the ground level. On average the BC-STV districts are a combination of 4 or 5 FPTP ridings (85/20=4.25).

With BC-STV voters will not need to know the platforms of individual candidates in order to support a party. Candidates will be grouped according to party on the ballot. If all you want to do is support a single party then just show your preference for the candidates of that party by writing in 1,2 3,4, etc. for that party's candidates. The order doesn't matter. All of your vote will go to that one party and nowhere else just as it does now with FPTP.

The beauty of BC-STV is that if your preferences are more detailed and complex, if you do know something about the platforms of individual candidates, you can show your more detailed preferences using the preferential ballot that BC-STV provides.

 

[treveller]

Wrong

Using the same logic, I suppose one can say the same about STV. The difference is that STV has already been rejected once.

No, you cannot say the same thing about BC-STV and FPTP.

Four years ago FPTP was rejected by voters. It was rejected with 42.3% of the vote province wide and less than 50% of the vote in 77 out of 79 ridings.

Four years ago BC-STV was endorsed by voters. It was endorsed with 57.7% of the vote province wide and more than 50% of the vote in 77 out of 79 ridings.

Four years ago there were only two ridings in BC where BC-STV was rejected in favor of FPTP. These were two ridings either side of Kamloops where BC-STV lost to FPTP by a fraction of one percentage point. This loss was more than compensated for by the strong support for BC-STV everywhere else in the province.

When voters choose between two options it is fair to say that one option is endorsed and the other is rejected.

Four years ago FPTP was rejected and BC-STV was endorsed by voters.

 

[wilde]

Four years ago BC-STV was endorsed by voters. It was endorsed with 57.7% of the vote province wide and more than 50% of the vote in 77 out of 79 ridings.

Well isn't it kind of ironic that STV would have passed using the FPTP rules (had that post been a simple majority)? I guess all of this talk about STV has swayed me from a resounding No to a perhaps. Keep up the good work!

.

 

[treveller]

Irony

Well isn't it kind of ironic that STV would have passed using the FPTP rules? ...

Yes, it is ironic. We would have had BC-STV for this election if the politicians had any respect for voters and had use either FPTP or BC-STV rules for the referendum four years ago.

When there are only two choices or candidates on a ballot, both FPTP and BC-STV give the same result. There is no difference between the two in this special case. There was no difference between the two systems 300 years ago when FPTP was developed for electing the Wigs and the Tories.

Has anybody on this board ever voted in a Provincial or Federal election where there were only two choices on the ballot? That would be the only case where FPTP would be an adequate system.