75 replies to this topic

[martini]

In other words our government for the next 4 years was chosen by about only 23% of the electorate. R.I.P. Democracy

Exactly.
And the disenfranchised who need the most support often are unable to cast a vote.

[Phil McAvity]

Marcat, it doesn't sound like you've participated in politics much because if you had you would know how much booze flows on election night and it's not like I had planned to count votes that night, I was thrown into the job after the guy doing it, bailed. I thought I was just going to have a few drinks and celebrate with all my fellow volunteers. Had I known beforehand that I would be counting votes I can assure you I would have.......still drank! What possible difference would it have made had I been sober? They needed someone to count numbers quickly, so I did, it just so happens that I can do it drunk as well. What are you? A prohibitionist? Since you seem to think democracy is so sacred, have you ever volunteered or participated in it beyond just voting?

NParker, if you can believe it, the results were even less democratic in 1996. Back then one out of every six British Columbians voted for the party that governed us. In other words, less than 17% of the entire British Columbia population voted for the NDP that year, yet they formed government. It never ceases to amaze me what poor memory the average voter has because if they could remember that election (as well as the 2001 election), we would have STV now instead of the pseudo-democracy we will continue using.

Martini, I had little faith that STV was going to succeed but I had a lot more faith in it than I did the Canucks. The team's motto should be, "there's always next year".

[Caramia]

Hehe yeah, good thing we don't have STV and all that computerized counting with it's likelyhood of hackers. Instead we can just get the drunks to do it like we always have.

hee hee.

[CharlieFoxtrot]

...you're proud of the fact you enjoy making a mockery of the electoral system by "participating" in it under the influence of alcohol...I really hope you aren't part of this election, or any future election. There is good participation and there is...

[COUGH]JohnAMcDonald[COUGH]

Ahem, excuse me.

[COUGH]WinstonChurchill[COUGH, COUGH]

I seem to have something in my throat...was somebody saying something?

[CharlieFoxtrot]

NParker, if you can believe it, the results were even less democratic in 1996. Back then one out of every six British Columbians voted for the party that governed us. In other words, less than 17% of the entire British Columbia population voted for the NDP that year, yet they formed government.

Actually, the numbers are pretty similar.

I'm no pollster or mathematician, but using the interweb, my cellphone calculator, and some rough numbers:

A BC population of ~ 4 million.
A voter turnout of ~ 1.5 million, or 37%.
An election winner voted in by ~ 46% of voters,
That is, by ~ 707,000 voters.

In other words, a government elected by:

~ 17.6% of the population of the province.

Wonderful system.

Makes me want to paraphrase some American dude:

"No, we can't!!"

[Bob Fugger]

I sputtered on my coffee...you're proud of the fact you enjoy making a mockery of the electoral system by "participating" in it under the influence of alcohol...I really hope you aren't part of this election, or any future election. There is good participation and there is piss-participation...you've very cleverly shown the later...

Marcat, I just got a call for you from Oliver Cromwell. He wants his puritan ethos back.

[victorian fan]

Only surprise was when Hudson Mack ( A Channel) turned up covering the Island on CTV.

Since little changed, I imagine the voter turnout per age group stayed the same.

[sebberry]

In other words our government for the next 4 years was chosen by about only 23% of the electorate. R.I.P. Democracy

Newsflash - nobody gives a ****.. that's why guys like Coleman and Abbott were re-elected and STV died a horrible death.

[Newlywednotnearlydead]

In other words you don't give a rat's ass about fairness or democracy, you just want your party to win. How truly noble. The irony is that I too voted for the Liberals and are happy they won, but even more importantly, I wanted STV to win.

Yes, you are exactly right. If anyone doesn't support STV, they don't care about fairness or democracy. I wanted to vote fascist, but they weren't on the ballot. I actually support a system of proportional representation, however, I don't like STV and don't want to get stuck with a system I don't like. Are you physically incapable of seeing an issue as being anything other than black or white?

[VicDuck]

Well this sucks, I don't know what's worse Campbell or Mussolini.

[Bernard]

Turn out percentages are based on registered voters on April 21st, that number rose towards election day so the actual turn out percentage will be lower.

Esquimalt Royal Roads

* Maurine Karagianis NDP - 10705 - 53.07%
* Carl Ratsoy Liberal - 6098 - 30.23%
* Jane Sterk Green - 3370 - 16.71%
* Turnout 22605 - 54.62%

Juan de Fuca

* John Horgan NDP - 11008 - 57.10%
* Jody Twa Liberal - 6624 - 34.36%
* James Powell - Green - 1645 - 8.53%
* Turnout 19277 - 58.30%


Oak Bay Gordon Head

* Ida Chong Liberal - 11266 - 46.64%
* Jessica Van der Veen NDP 10736 - 44.45%
* Steven Johns Green - 2152 - 8.91%
* Turnout 24154 - 62.96%


Saanich North and the Islands

* Murray Coell Liberal - 12513 - 45.26%
* Gary Holman NDP - 12118 - 43.83%
* Tom Bradfield Green - 3016 - 10.91%
* Turnout 27647 - 63.34%


Saanich South

* Lana Popham NDP - 11141 - 47.11%
* Robin Adair Liberal - 10728 - 45.37%
* Brian Gordon Green - 1551 - 6.56%
* Doug Christie WCC - 228 - 0.96%
* Turnout 23648 - 63.84%

Victoria Beacon Hill - 176 of 183 polls counted

* Carole James NDP - 12591 - 55.59%
* Dallas Henault Liberal - 5998 - 26.48%
* Adam Saab Green - 3768 - 16.64%
* Saul Andersen Ind - 291 - 1.28%
* Turnout estimate 22700 - 54%


Victoria Swan Lake

* Rob Fleming NDP - 12389 - 60.53%
* Jesse McClinton Liberal - 5456 - 26.66%
* David Wright Green - 2459 - 12.01%
* Bob Savage Refed - 163 - 0.80%
* Turnout 20467 - 54.03%

[Bernard]

We have the dubious honour in Greater Victoria of having three of the four candidates in BC that got more than 10 000 votes but lost anyway.

1/4 of the total NDP vote in BC was on the Island. In numerous ridings on the island three times as many people voted as voted in the ridings with the fewest voters turning up to vote.

A vote in Saanch North and the Islands is worth 1/3 of a vote in Stikine

[Lover Fighter]

Yes, you are exactly right. If anyone doesn't support STV, they don't care about fairness or democracy. I wanted to vote fascist, but they weren't on the ballot. I actually support a system of proportional representation, however, I don't like STV and don't want to get stuck with a system I don't like. Are you physically incapable of seeing an issue as being anything other than black or white?

I cannot understand how you support proportional representation and yet complain about 'getting stuck with a system you don't like'. Have you not noticed we've been stuck with this FPTP system? Or were you just kidding when you said you support proportional representation. The other option of course, is that you're lying to yourself thinking another chance for electoral reform will just pop up in the next 50 years.

[Bernard]

I cannot understand how you support proportional representation and yet complain about 'getting stuck with a system you don't like'. Have you not noticed we've been stuck with this FPTP system? Or were you just kidding when you said you support proportional representation. The other option of course, is that you're lying to yourself thinking another chance for electoral reform will just pop up in the next 50 years.

My 14 year old son Daniel has agreed to take leadership on the issue and we should realistically see something happen in and around 2040

[AllseeingEye]

What really annoys the hell out of me re: the NDP and some of their more zealous ideologues is this constant need to refer to "working people" - as if this was some form of call to Class War against Them. "Them" presumably being Us, i.e. Management.

I would like to say to the Jim Sinclair and Rob Fleming's of the world - both of whom used this insulting, utterly infantile term last night - that they should try spending a few days in the shoes of a White Collar manager such as myself. Many - certainly not all, but many - of your so-called "working people" often put in maybe a 6-7 hour day if that: that's not an opinion either, but based on observation of the work habits I see every day in our building. I on the other hand, routinely work 9-10 hours, often more each day. 37.5 hours a week? You're kidding right - what's that?! Certainly doesn't apply to those of us in the non-'Working People' camp I can tell you. Just ask any "manager" who also happens to Own and Run their own business, and who routinely put in 18-20+ hour days. Perhaps Jim and Rob should remember that the next time they are tempted to spout off. In my case and if I'm very lucky 'maybe' I get away with 45/week, with 50 likely being the average. No complaints mind you as I am well paid for what I do - merely a side line observation from a member of the 'Them' team.....

For those NDP supporters moaning and bleating about last night's result here is a tip: if your party is really serious about doing what it takes to draw away support from Green and/or especially Liberal voters, you can start by dropping this second year, UVic Sociology-inspired "Working Class Hero" b*******. It's demeaning and insulting to anyone with average intelligence and an IQ above 10, and especially to anyone who really, actually "works" for a living. Personally I quite like Carole James, however as long certain members of her party, and their union mouth pieces, insist on parading that tiresome leftist rhetoric and beating that Us vs. Them drum, I say good luck in getting elected. And if you insist on staying on that tedious and loathsome track, I suggest perhaps a 5 year stint in the North Korean People's Revolutionary Army. You know, just so you can see how the REAL Socialists get 'er done.....

[Newlywednotnearlydead]

I cannot understand how you support proportional representation and yet complain about 'getting stuck with a system you don't like'. Have you not noticed we've been stuck with this FPTP system? Or were you just kidding when you said you support proportional representation. The other option of course, is that you're lying to yourself thinking another chance for electoral reform will just pop up in the next 50 years.

I would enthusiastically support a MMP system, but I don't like STV any more than I like FPTP.

I have had three situations in my life where I've called on an elected official for assistance with solving a problem. Twice, those situations involved a provincial matter and I called my local MLA's office. In both cases, my MLA was able to contact the Minister's office and a Ministry staff member contacted me with a resolution to my issues. I should add that these were two different people from two different parties, and one time it was a government member and the other time, an opposition member. Both offices did an amazing job working on my behalf to cut through some red tape.

In the other situation, I attempted to contact a school trustee about an issue at my local school. Since the trustees were elected as at-large members and then assigned to cover a region basically at random, they had no connection or understanding of what the issues in my area were. Not only was this person unhelpful, she was actually quite condescending to me. I lived in a rural area, she lived in the city centre and apparently I was just an ignorant country bumpkin to her.

A small sample size of experiences perhaps, but I personally think local representation is important. I don't want a system that reduces that local intimacy and responsiveness between an elected official and the community they live in and fight for, so I'd rather keep the current system than move to STV. I want to know that I can still go to a local office of a representative who lives and works in my neighbourhood.

I didn't vote against a system of proportional representation, I voted against a system that I didn't think was much or any better than the current system.

[VicDuck]

MMP is by far the best electoral system. STV is just stupid.

[Bernard]

MMP is by far the best electoral system. STV is just stupid.

Convincing the majority of the public to vote for MMP will be more or less impossible. MMP gives small splinter parties power far beyond their electoral strength. You will not convince the majority of the NDP or Liberal supporters to buy into a system that makes work harder for their MLAs and penalizes them for being successfully locally.

The public will also not like the idea that in MMP the party controls the seats and there is no by-election if someone resigns.

BC also does not have enough seats to make an MMP system work, you need closer to 150 seats to make it work as it is supposed to.

The local representatives in the north would be sole MLAs covering much, much larger areas than now.

In MMP the average riding MLA will represent about 70 000 people.

Counting the result in MMP is very, very complex. To do it properly you need to have over hang mandates.

MMP also means that small party list MLAs are accountable to the party membership that chose them and to no one in the public. As long as your party can get more than the threshold in votes, you get re-elected.

In MMP, small parties that only get list MLAs tend to towards being uncompromising because ideological purity is a surer bet to get you the small amount of the votes you need to get elected.

I have been paying close attention to places with MMP since the early 1980s and I am not convinced it offers us any benefits to what we have at the moment.

The Citizens Assembly tried to develop an MMP model that would address the core values people wanted from an electoral system but they had trouble building a model that would work in BC.

[eseedhouse]

One thing we could do without an referendum or constitutional change that would signficantly increase proportionality, would be to have a lot more constituencies, say 300 or so. Of course that won't happen because people hate politicians and don't want more, but it would definitely increase proportionality and any government could do it.

Another thing that might be do-able that would help proportionality would be to have runoff elections whenever no candidate gets over 50% of the vote.

Jiggering around with the ballot, however you do it, won't work and introduces paradoxes and encourages strategic voting. This was proven mathematically back in the 1970's or maybe it was the 1960's. STV would be a disaster on that account since it is even more mathematically unsound that the other ranked ballot ideas.

[Lover Fighter]

I would enthusiastically support a MMP system, but I don't like STV any more than I like FPTP.

I have had three situations in my life where I've called on an elected official for assistance with solving a problem. Twice, those situations involved a provincial matter and I called my local MLA's office. In both cases, my MLA was able to contact the Minister's office and a Ministry staff member contacted me with a resolution to my issues. I should add that these were two different people from two different parties, and one time it was a government member and the other time, an opposition member. Both offices did an amazing job working on my behalf to cut through some red tape.

In the other situation, I attempted to contact a school trustee about an issue at my local school. Since the trustees were elected as at-large members and then assigned to cover a region basically at random, they had no connection or understanding of what the issues in my area were. Not only was this person unhelpful, she was actually quite condescending to me. I lived in a rural area, she lived in the city centre and apparently I was just an ignorant country bumpkin to her.

A small sample size of experiences perhaps, but I personally think local representation is important. I don't want a system that reduces that local intimacy and responsiveness between an elected official and the community they live in and fight for, so I'd rather keep the current system than move to STV. I want to know that I can still go to a local office of a representative who lives and works in my neighbourhood.

I didn't vote against a system of proportional representation, I voted against a system that I didn't think was much or any better than the current system.

I'm sorry, but this still doesn't make any sense to me. How can a single candidate in, let's say, Victoria-Swan Lake be more connected with what's going on in their riding than one of the 7 candidates in the proposed Greater Victoria STV riding? It will be the same issues and the candidates will represent the same people. Accountability of a representative is a huge issue for me and for that reason I supported STV.

Consider this:
In FPTP, what if you live in a riding where your representative isn't the candidate you voted for? You can hope this MLA will listen to you and support your view, but most likely you will have competing views since you're from competing parties (in our apparent two-party system). Under STV, it is likely at least one of the representatives you voted for became elected and you will be able to choose who to talk to about important issues, based on where in the riding they're from, and what issues are important to them. This is far more important to me than having the most local representation as possible and getting stuck with an elected official you don't support.