96 replies to this topic

[Bernard]

Hello there all

In 2005 I was involved with the Yes to STV campaign province wide. We came very, very close to getting an vastly improved voting system. Because we got 58% in favour, there will be a second chance to vote on the issue.

You can find out more about the Campaign at Yes to STV or search for yes to STV on facebook.

If we are going to win this time, we need more people to come out and support Yes.

Bernard
My Erratic Blog on Electoral Reform

[Nparker]

I am all for electoral reform, as I am fully convinced our current system is not representing the "will of the people" (more people vote against a candidate than for that candidate yet somehow they get elected to office). I just hope this time STV is explained in a simpler manner than before. It's interesting to note that MLAs and MPs can get elected with much less than half the popular vote, but this initiative needs a much stronger majority to be put into effect. If I were inclined to believe in such things I would think the current power structure wants to maintain the status quo and only give the pretense of making real electoral change.

[LJ]

Why is it that the local radio commentators have such difficulty with STV. They keep saying how it is a way too complicated and nobody can understand it. Maybe they can't, but I am sure that the majority of the interested population certainly can.

It's not that difficult folks, and if you can't figure it out you are probably one of those folks, earlier mentioned in another thread, that should refrain from voting.

[Caramia]

I didn't find it difficult to understand at all. I definitely support the change too, it will be a welcome break from the partisan politics that have dominated our system so far, and a great opportunity for any of us who feel that neither of the major parties represent our views to vote in a meaningful way, without that depressing knowledge that our vote is wasted. It will also give stellar individual candidates an opportunity to become part of our provincial system without having to restrict their creativity to a party line.

[Bernard]

The problem is that no one understands how the status quo works or why it works, but because they have used it for so long they think that they know why it works.

Because STV is new to people, people want to understand what is happening. It is not hard to understand, but it does need a shift in how you think about casting your ballot. If someone first does not understand the change in how you vote, they can not understand STV.

To see how little people understand the system, ask them to explain how a party can be government even though a different party was more popular. Or ask them how the NDP candidate could lose in the Comox Valley even though he had the sixth highest vote of any New Democrat in BC. Or explain how someone elected with just over 5000 votes is given the same mandate of someone elected by 14 000 votes. Or why someone should win in a riding with as little as 27% of the vote - this happens federally.

No other electoral system is as hard to explain to someone that has never seen it as first past the post.

[LJ]

And no other democratic system is more unfair than "first past the post".

[VicHockeyFan]

I like the current system.

[Nparker]

I like the current system.

Why does that not surprise me? Please tell us you are joking, 'cuz the current system is beyond broken.

[Bernard]

Just to remind everyone, the referendum is only just over six months away.

Please get involved.

Local Yes to BC STV facebook group

Provincial campaign website

Province wide facebook group

Please get involved, this campaign will have no big names, no sources of money and will be dependent on word of mouth to see it pass. Last time we achieved 58% with less than $100 000 of spending. We held a lot of public information meetings during the election that were attended by about 200 000 people.

[Caramia]

I'm there Bernard. In my mind who we elect this time round is of lesser importance than the chance to change the WAY we elect.

A good and painless way to learn how STV works is by watching this little animation: http://www.stv.ca/watch

[mat]

Glad to see this referendum coming around again - I am completely in favour of proportional representation, but not totally convinced STV is the best version of PR to reform our electoral system. Very few countries use STV (4?).

Electoral Systems Atlas.

[jklymak]

I'm pretty leery of different voting schemes. Ours has the advantage that major parties must come up with a well-packaged consensus view that they then take into government. Splinter parties tend to re-ally themselves with the major party that is closest to them ideologically, and the new amalgam adopts some of the splinter party's viewpoints. There is a sad amount of left wing parties now, but if they were smart they would ally with one another.

How does it work when crazy anti-tax person gets elected alongside crazy communist person? I guess I'm not very sad that they are locked out of the process, even though maybe 10% or 15% of the populace buys their ideas.

Anyway, I'd be up for hearing about comparisons as to which systems work the best, not which ones are the most "democratic".

[mat]

Anyway, I'd be up for hearing about comparisons as to which systems work the best, not which ones are the most "democratic".

I guess that comes down to what you mean by 'work best' (?) care to define...

[Caramia]

The way I understand the new system the crazy fringe candidates will still be locked out, simply because they won't be second on people's ballots.

[Bernard]

STV is not a good system for single issue parties or candidates. It also does not make life easy for extremists.

It does mean people from the same party have to compete with each other and you get your choice who you want from your party of preference and are not stuck with the deadwood as so often the case in a lot of our ridings at the moment.

STV also makes it hard to do negative campaigning. If you crap all over the opposition odds are you are not going to get a lot of second choices from them. When it works well, campaigning under STV is about selling your message to the public.

STV also means local representatives compete with each other to provide the best service. In Ireland cabinet ministers have often disliked STV because they have to spend time on their constituency and are not safe unless they are seen to be effective local representatives.

You also have your choice of who to go to as your representative. In this area everyone will have six MLAs representing them in the legislature and they will come from several different parties.

STV also works well for popular independents, the only PR system that has any chance for independents to get elected.

Typically in STV, politicians that are seen as being disruptive for the sake of disruption and nothing else do badly.

[Baro]

I'm so sick of voting against people, strategic voting and all that crap. People should be able to vote for who they want without worrying about throwing their vote away. STV is the perfect system and I'm going to contribute what I can to their campaign.

[jklymak]

I guess that comes down to what you mean by 'work best' (?) care to define...

Aww, no fair - I'm not the one proposing a new system! I'm curious about what is broken with the current system, other than a vague notion that votes are "wasted"?

STV also means local representatives compete with each other to provide the best service. In Ireland cabinet ministers have often disliked STV because they have to spend time on their constituency and are not safe unless they are seen to be effective local representatives.

I'm not sure if this qualifies as an advantage. If a member of parliaments job is to lobby for their constituents, I suppose thats OK. However, if their job is to help craft legislation that is good for the whole country, will any have the guts when roll call comes around? How do you represent "Canada's" interest as minster of X if you are so beholden to your seat? Certainly the current strict party discipline will be out the window. Maybe that's good?

[Baro]

All STV does is give you and 2nd choice. If we had a two party system our current system would be fine, but we don't and we get screwed over with vote splitting.

So many ridings had like 35% voting for conservatives, 30% for ndp, 30% for liberals, 5% green. Conservatives won despite 65% or so of the people probably having the conservatives as their last choice.

All stv does it make sure who people want to get into office get into office based on votes, not strategy. Elections shouldn't be a game of divide and conquer.

[mat]

jklymak "Aww, no fair - I'm not the one proposing a new system! I'm curious about what is broken with the current system, other than a vague notion that votes are "wasted"?"

...totally fair, you set yourself up for that one! ...but I do understand the intellectual exercise required to fathom what maybe wrong with the current system, what to replace it with, and what is politically/socially possible to achieve.

We had just returned to Victoria from living in Europe before the previous referendum so could not vote (6 month residency rule). Having voted in local elections in Belgium, and following regional and national elections closely, I could appreciate the innate fairness in PR (not an STV system) - it does not, however, guarantee good governance and can even work against stable administrations (hence Belgium's current political crisis).

[LJ]

A good and painless way to learn how STV works is by watching this little animation: http://www.stv.ca/watch

That is a great little animation - I will be sending it to everyone on my contacts list.