BC-STV Electoral Reform Referendum May 12, 2009

[Homeownertoo]

I can see several problems, though how serious they are is subject to debate.

1. This system makes majority gov't almost impossible in BC, as should be self-evident, turning the kinds of problems we see with coalition and minority gov'ts into a permanent state of affairs. You may consider that a small price to pay for more accurate representation.
2. It makes the party, rather than the individual MLA, paramount. How? Consider your example in which the Greens get 9% of the vote but no seats under FPTP. By awarding them nine seats, you have nine MLAs with no significant connection to the voters of their or any riding, since voters rejected them overwhelmingly. Their legitimacy derives not from the voters but the party they are attached to.
3. In your example, the extra 15 seats go exclusively to also-ran parties. But why should that be so? Why should those seats be, effectively, reserved to reward the 54% of voters who voted for those parties and exclude the 46% who voted for the winning party? What you have done is create a political trade-off: in the name of proportional representation, you have disenfranchised the winning party's voters from consideration in the distribution of the 15 voices in the legislature. Basically, you are saying the winning party, from the outset, will not have a say in how those 15 voices are determined. This is patently undemocratic. Whether it is a justifiable trade-off is, as mentioned above, debatable.

[parachute]

Thank you Homeownertoo,

1. This system makes majority gov't almost impossible in BC

I disagree slightly with your judgment here (see below) -- but what do you think that the proposed BC-STV will produce?

IF (and I say IF) the majority of BC electorate want proportional representation in their legislature then the COMPLICATED BC-STV is the worst way to proceed IMO.

2. It makes the party, rather than the individual MLA, paramount.

I don’t think so. The legitimacy of the MLAs derives from the fact that they (and not any other candidate) got the greatest ratio of electorate support. The political party accepted them as candidates but the electorate MUST have given them a fair amount of support. I only award the party 9 seats because that is the percentage of TOTAL support that ALL their candidates obtained. Then the PARTICULAR candidates becoming MLAs were not chosen by the party.

3. In your example, the extra 15 seats go exclusively to also-ran parties

That is true only because that was the distribution of votes and MLAs in 2005.

Basically, you are saying the winning party, from the outset, will not have a say in how those 15 voices are determined.

Not correct. What if the party that (using our present FPTP system) gets a bare majority of MLAs (say 44 of the 85 seats up for grabs) but when we examine the total vote across the province we find that 51% of the total vote went to this party? Then their seat total would be increased by 7 to get them up to 51 as shown in this example:

Party A = 44 seats Party B = 35 seats Party C = 4 seats Party D = 2 seats
Party A = 51 percent Party B = 35 percent Party C = 10 percent Party D = 4 percent

Then the extra 15 would be distributed as follows:

Party A = 7 extra Party B = 0 extra Party C = 6 extra Party D = 2 extra

[kelownalife]

Interesting discussion.

But here's the thing. I am ignorant. BUT, I am more informed then most. If I find this proposed system (STV) too difficult to understand, so will most people.

An electoral system should be simple enough that EVERYONE citizen can understand it. Kinda like first-past-the-post, even though it may not be the "best" system. STV, barely anyone can understand. Your discussion on this forum illustrates my point. Look at all the back and forths, and you quasi-experts cant figure it out!

Citizens of Malta, Ireland and Tasmania have all expressed regret at adopting STV. Germany and New Zealand were given the option (I believe), and they chose MMP NOT STV.

BC'ers, until you have an option for an electoral system you can understand VOTE NO!

Namaste

[Homeownertoo]

Interesting discussion.

But here's the thing. I am ignorant. BUT, I am more informed then most. If I find this proposed system (STV) too difficult to understand, so will most people.

An electoral system should be simple enough that EVERYONE citizen can understand it. Kinda like first-past-the-post, even though it may not be the "best" system. STV, barely anyone can understand. Your discussion on this forum illustrates my point. Look at all the back and forths, and you quasi-experts cant figure it out!

Citizens of Malta, Ireland and Tasmania have all expressed regret at adopting STV. Germany and New Zealand were given the option (I believe), and they chose MMP NOT STV.

BC'ers, until you have an option for an electoral system you can understand VOTE NO!

Namaste

The flaw in your reasoning is that you assume most people will put the effort into understanding STV and then conclude, as you reasonably did, that it is too complicated. In reality, most people will see that it, like many other things in life, is too complex to spend the time trying to figure out, assume that it works because the experts say it does, and support it, unless politicians look to eager to see it pass.

[nolanrh]

The flaw in your reasoning is that you assume most people will put the effort into understanding STV and then conclude, as you reasonably did, that it is too complicated. In reality, most people will see that it, like many other things in life, is too complex to spend the time trying to figure out, assume that it works because the experts say it does, and support it, unless politicians look to eager to see it pass.

And if works, as the experts say it will, is that really a bad thing?

[kelownalife]

Homeowner, I agree with what you state, however I also really NEED to have faith in people in that they are trying to be informed but are systematically thwarted and kept "in the dark". Through a multitude of mechanisms...

Nolan, its not a bad thing if you fully understand and agree with the experts point of view. It IS a bad thing if people just accept their opinion because they are a so called 'expert'.

Just my opinions of course!

[Homeownertoo]

The flaw in your reasoning is that you assume most people will put the effort into understanding STV and then conclude, as you reasonably did, that it is too complicated. In reality, most people will see that it, like many other things in life, is too complex to spend the time trying to figure out, assume that it works because the experts say it does, and support it, unless politicians look to eager to see it pass.

And if works, as the experts say it will, is that really a bad thing?

Depends on what you mean by "works".

[Homeownertoo]

Homeowner, I agree with what you state, however I also really NEED to have faith in people in that they are trying to be informed but are systematically thwarted and kept "in the dark". Through a multitude of mechanisms...

Nolan, its not a bad thing if you fully understand and agree with the experts point of view. It IS a bad thing if people just accept their opinion because they are a so called 'expert'.

Just my opinions of course!

Faith is great in churches but not in politics, which is the game of power. I suspect your misplaced faith will lead you in the wrong direction.

[parachute]

You may jump on me for being picky but I read the following statements as saying slightly different things.

Homeownertoo wrote: “… assume that it works because the experts say it does…”

Nolanrh wrote: “And if works, as the experts say it will..”

The first statement seems to warn us that we must ASSUME something about the experts. The second statement seems to imply that there is a good chance it WILL work AS THE EXPERTS SAY!

If we want coalition governments --- and that adjective definitely means MORE than two parties (likely 4 or 5) have seats in the legislature --- and it also means that none of the 4 or 5 parties has a majority --- and it also means that the electorate will have no idea which 2 or 3 parties will coalesce to form a government until the legislature numbers are known (i.e., AFTER the election) --- and it means that the government might be temporary --- it also means a large number of voters might vote for a party and that party might obtain the plurality of seats but not form the government because the other minority parties get together in the “back rooms” and form the government --- it also means that coalition governments will be the NORM and we will have them forever more – if we really want all those things to happen --- then accept the “EXPERTS” advice and go forward with BC-STV.

Rots of ruck, everyone!

[Homeownertoo]

You may jump on me for being picky but I read the following statements as saying slightly different things.

Homeownertoo wrote: “… assume that it works because the experts say it does…”

Nolanrh wrote: “And if works, as the experts say it will..”

The first statement seems to warn us that we must ASSUME something about the experts. The second statement seems to imply that there is a good chance it WILL work AS THE EXPERTS SAY!

I think you misunderstood what I was saying in the first statement, which, in its full context, read: "In reality, most people will see that it, like many other things in life, is too complex to spend the time trying to figure out, assume that it works because the experts say it does, and support it ..."

So I wasn't saying we should listen to the experts, I was saying most people will because they haven't done their homework and will turn to experts for the answer they lack.

[parachute]

I gotcha --- and I agree!

[mechanic_virus]

Interesting discussion.

But here's the thing. I am ignorant. BUT, I am more informed then most. If I find this proposed system (STV) too difficult to understand, so will most people.

I don't think I could reasonably consider myself to be more informed than most, but I DO understand STV. Perhaps you haven't learned about it in a way that complements your own style of learning.

I stumbled across this flash video quite a while back - have you seen it?
http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/flash/bc-stv-full

[kelownalife]

Hello Mechanic,

Thanks for that! I have seen it. Several times in fact.

That video still doesn't remove any of my concerns and in fact conveys them better then I could!

No to STV.

Namaste

[LeashCops]

Let's not forget that the Libs hold government by coup e'tat. Canwest engineered the railroading of Glen Clark, by ignoring his barter defence to payments he made to a contact. And cops wanted Clark out as well. Before trial, the NDP was reduced to 2 seats in face of one-sided Canwest spew of smear vomit.

Now Canwest is about to collapse under weight of the $4,000,000,000 in debt that they piled on themselves. Clark was a better fiscal manager; he now does that for Jim Pattison.

The STV is essential to ensure that people are represented, and not subject to the whims of a Stalinist kleptocracy. CONVICT-CAMPBELL has been less able to usurp the rule of law, since the NDP revived in spite of "Keith's" slander (Keith B's wife works for CONVICT-CAMPBELL.

By the way, if you know that CONVICT-CAMPBELL Is driving in the opposite direction, be sure to watch for veering over the white line. He laughed in his mug shot. What a great hero!

Ha Ha Ha. I could have killed your whole family when I DROVE WHILE INTOXICATED and you still give me slavish support. Boy I saw you coming.


What do we do with all the mothballed billion dollar construction projects in the Lower Mainland and else where? An NDP Government would force them to sell, and finish the buildings with public purpose in mind. CONVICT-CAMPBELL worked 24-7-365 for construction of Donald Trump style luxury suites, fitting the above the law class who don't do time, even when their drunken state causes them to veer into opposing traffic. Gosh, CONVICT-CAMPBELL could have killed an entire family. Where do I line up to vote for him? If we had STV, then I could transfer my vote to Clifford Olson, or someone else of CONVICT-CAMPBELL's moral stature.

[strikes&gutters]

How can the Yes camp say this is a more democratic system???

1) How democratic is a system where a vote in one region is worth a different value than in another?

For example a vote could be worth 1.15 votes in South Okanagan, 1.22 in North Okanagan, 1.075 in the Kootenays. No. 1 vote should be worth 1 vote, NO MORE NO LESS!

2) How democratic is a system that REDUCES ACCOUNTABILITY of all MLA's?

The benefit of having one MLA for a smaller area is that you know who you can contact, and who you can hold accountable. I don't want to have to go to 3, 4 or in some cases 7 MLA's to try and raise an issue. Who am I supposed to hold accountable??? Especially when I could have MLA's from both the government and the opposition!

3) How democratic is a system that actually pits COMMUNITIES against each other?

Don't think it won't happen! Candidates from larger communities within a region wil have a MAJOR advantage over candidates from smaller ones! which leads to point 4.

4) How democratic is a system that will destory representation in smaller communities?

Let's look at the proposed Thompson Cariboo and North Central regions. How in the heck is any candidate that is not from Kamloops or Prince George ever going to get elected? I saw a news clip from Williams Lake and Quesnel showing how voters feel disconnected NOW... imagine how they'll like having their MLA being 100's of miles away.

5) How democratic is a system that only allows me to give a full vote to 1 elected official out of 4.

Should I not get 4 first place votes. Right, the special interest parties wouldn't like that!

6) How democratic is a system that allows candidates to be elected with only 12.5% of the vote!?

In 7 member regions that is the case. For Okanagan North, the magic number edges up to 20%. 25% in OK South. A far cry from the 40+ % typically required.