Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I'm voting YES

29 (51.8%)

I'm voting NO

27 (48.2%)

Total Members Voted: 54

[Johnny_5]

No - this system is designed for the benefit of political parties and the political system, not the electorate.  It will take a lot more people to organize and run, and a lot more candidates.  Only countries that use it are a fraction the size of BC.  It will become a battle of the experts to decide who wins what.  And if you have an issue, do you now write to the 7 MLA's in your riding?  I'm sure they will all be more responsive 

Assuming all parties run the max. in all ridings it will be the same number of candidates as we have now.
Ireland is a fair bit bigger than BC population wise. Australia is bigger in size and population (They only use it for their Senate though)

This system is actually a large political party's worst nightmare, it will me much more difficult to achieve a large majority.  It also reduces "vote splitting" where a candidate wins with a minority because 2 other candidates split the majority between them.  It also allows people to vote more freely, ie. if a lot of people put Green as a second choice vote, chances are a Green gets elected.  Whereas now, some people who would like do vote Green vote NDP as they feel that is the best way to ensure a Liberal is not elected.  The STV system encourages people to vote for their preferences rather than against their dislikes.

[ja]

I'm voting no. 

I'm very leary of complicated voting systems and the fact that the system makes the candidates rely even more heavily on the political parties to get their message across (due to the very large ridings).

[fishersak]

I'm voting yes.  It is not a perfect system, however I think it is better than what we have now.  I believe that any time decisions are made by a diverse group of people, those decisions will be more informed (with debate from all sides) and better mirror the diversity in our communities.  I've noticed a lot of miss information on this and other forums about this issue (for and against the STV).  I hope everyone will actually do some research on the posted websites to make an informed decision. 

[marmot]

Yes.

I believe that the elected representatives should echo the choices made by the populace.  Currently, as many of you appear NOT to understand, this is not the case!!  Under our current system we are able to have a party in power that receives less than HALF the popular vote making decisions for the 60%(or thereabouts) of the population that DID NOT vote for them.  HOW is this right?  Somebody PLEASE explain how that makes sense at all??

Under STV we will likely have more coalition governments, which I believe in the end is a GOOD thing.  Balance is important when sides do not agree, as is working together towards common goals.  Our current system does nothing but polarize political bodies from one another.

[bcguy]

Well said Marmot, proportional representation, thats what its all about, instead right now, we have parties ramming policy down everyones throat, special intrest groups will have a tougher time of it, and lobbyists like our Premiers buddy Ken will find it harder to double dip. More voices for a better representation of the population

[pinkwool]

NO

[ja]

I actually believe special interest groups will have even more power with the new STV system, as it provides very small parties to have a few votes.  As discussed earlier, STV probably does mean minority governments--it will be the small parties with their single issue type focus that will hold the balance of power for coalition governments. I'm very concerned about some very right or left wing or single issue type party that may hold the balance of power.

[marmot]

I actually believe special interest groups will have even more power with the new STV system, as it provides very small parties to have a few votes.  As discussed earlier, STV probably does mean minority governments--it will be the small parties with their single issue type focus that will hold the balance of power for coalition governments. I'm very concerned about some very right or left wing or single issue type party that may hold the balance of power.

Sorry ja,  this makes absolutely no sense at all.
If these are truly your concerns you should be voting FOR STV, not against it!  A small party with a few votes won't get in....that is not how it works.  A small party with a LOT of votes now has a chance to get representation, that is a good thing.  To me it's the ONLY way that the green party, without years and years of vote splitting, will ever have a fair kick at it....this is the very reason that many people don't support STV, or FAIRNESS in politics....they like the status quo and as long as they are on the winning end of the stick could care less how fair or proportional it is.

[bcguy]

Its like Darwin says, move ahead, evolve or die, and our current first past the post is a dinosaur.
Our society IS made up of alot of different segments, and its about time we were ALL represented, instead of fat union cats getting fatter under the NDP, or the corrupt backroom business dealings of the last 8 years so a few can profit enormously, it's time for ALL the voices to be heard!!!!

[fishersak]

BCguy kind of sums up the way I think about the whole thing.  Which is why I am having trouble picking who to vote for....but no trouble voting YES for the STV. 

[ion]

Absolutely NO!

The result wil be a soup of parties, where everything is established in secret metings and agreements,
and no party can be held accountable, because they have to negociate their vote: you vote yes on this for me
i vote yes on that for you, you leave me alone here, i leave you alone there; on any issue they can claim sacrifice for the sake of the coalition, because we need a government, no? in case of new elections the configuration will be about the same and this is the worst of all because you can't really change anything! you can forget their promises and do nothing about! 

[marmot]

Absolutely NO!

The result wil be a soup of parties, where everything is established in secret metings and agreements,
and no party can be held accountable, because they have to negociate their vote: you vote yes on this for me
i vote yes on that for you, you leave me alone here, i leave you alone there; on any issue they can claim sacrifice for the sake of the coalition, because we need a government, no? in case of new elections the configuration will be about the same and this is the worst of all because you can't really change anything! you can forget their promises and do nothing about! 

I suppose you'd rather one party just have unilateral power and push whatever agenda they wish?  As to "secret meetings and agreements"....How on earth is having a coalition government mutually exclusive to having an accountable party? If anything, it improves visibility to other parties and the public, and forces accountability.  Your last two sentences don't make any sense.

[k.c.]

Yes I am voting No

[ja]

My choice of words was poor.  I meant that under an STV, small parties, that are typically single issue or more fringe in nature that receive a relatively low percentage of the vote will have several votes (i.e., MLAs) in the legislature.  And given that the STV tends to lead to minority governments, it is those parties that will hold the balance of power (votes) and therefore have significant influence over policy.  I

 have no problem with a small party having a small voice, that's fine.  I am more concerned when those small parties can bring down a government with their swing votes.

[alwaysfishn]

My choice of words was poor.  I meant that under an STV, small parties, that are typically single issue or more fringe in nature that receive a relatively low percentage of the vote will have several votes (i.e., MLAs) in the legislature.  And given that the STV tends to lead to minority governments, it is those parties that will hold the balance of power (votes) and therefore have significant influence over policy.  I

 have no problem with a small party having a small voice, that's fine.  I am more concerned when those small parties can bring down a government with their swing votes.

Too much paranoia on that issue ja.....    The only way a small party can bring down a government is if they vote (against a bill introduced by the governing party) along with the official opposition party. I don't think you can blame the small party for that....  blame the official opposition party. As far as having significant influence over policy, I think that's unlikely as they wouldn't be able to table a bill unless either the governing party or the official opposition agreed with them...

I think minority governments can be pretty good governments because they require consensus to stay in power. Look at our federal government. Consensus means they are likely doing the will of the majority of the people. (I know that's a novel idea) Majority governments in my view become arrogant and stop listening to the will of the majority of the people. The idea that minority governments are ineffective is just propaganda espoused by the major political parties.

Unfortunately it is impossible to have a minority government when you have a 2 party system as we have in BC.

STV will give us an option of electing a third or fourth party which could provide for at least the possibility of a minority government. That I think is a good thing..