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

[marmot]

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.

Thanks for clarifying JA...
That's an unfounded concern though....and small parties with small numbers of MLA's will still have a small voice....but the point is if they do get elected, it is because enough people voted for them to have a voice, period....and that should mean something.  If it does not mean something, we've lost touch with what democracy should be all about. 

The arguments against STV are largely based on hypothetical arguments....we've seen what the current system does and fails to do...time to give something a little more progressive a chance.

[chris gadsden]

Will be voting in the advance poll tomorrow and the yes campaign has not changed my mind but thanks for all your input. To me the STV looks too much like a Cookies Grill omlette.

[ion]

NO

lets say that ndp and liberals make a coalition; who will be the opposition?

[salmon river]

I am voting NO!

For example: Cariboo-Thompson  which gets 5 candidates to vote for , will it be 'over run' by people from Kamloops where there is far more people? Will any of the 5 or whatever number for other ridings be spread out or will they stay in the large city, like Kamloops for the Cariboo-Thompson riding? Will people in Quesnel, Williams lake 'lose' their MLA?

But MMP is not on the ballot. Why not vote for STV instead of the same old same old?

Yes but if STV was voted down again, would it not force them to offer another alternative like MMP?  I think STV should squeak by this time but if it does not are we going to vote on STV again in 4 years or something else?

Plus in a two party province, is STV going to work? Sure we have the Greens but they poll 10-15% between elections and up to the election but come election day are lucky to get half their polling numbers.

Do people want fringe parties with 2-5 seats holding us 'hostage' threatening to bring the government down on a regular basis? I don't mind voting every year or two but many others do not.

I really do not think STV is the way to go here, so I will be voting No again.  On the off chance it does fail, maybe they will offer us other alternatives to vote on...

Like why other than Ireland and Malta and a few municipalities and the Australian Senate no one else's uses it and if you view the results you will see parties with less popular vote under STV  can still get more seats than parties with more popular vote.

If you Go here and scroll down a bit you will see the Irish results from 2007 with STV... A party with 2.73% of vote gets 2 seats, fair enough but how does a party with 4.69% of the vote get 6 seats while a party with 6.94% only get 4 seats??? It does not seem fair to me. I see parties on that list with 10% of vote getting 12% of seats, 27% of vote getting 31% of the seats and 41.56% getting 46.6% of the seats....seems odd with weird math to me. Plus they only had a 67% turnout.

I want something simple. The percentage you get on election night is the amount of seats you get in the Legislature.

[DavidD]

NO! - too many disadvantages in what is deemed a complex voting scheme...

[HARLEY]

       Absolutely no way. I want my vote to go where I want it to go. Not handled by some new scheme!!

[Jona]

No

[Johnny_5]

       Absolutely no way. I want my vote to go where I want it to go. Not handled by some new scheme!!

How would STV change where you wanted your vote to go?  If anything, it ensures that your vote gets used for a candidate of your choosing.

[nosey]

No,if it ain't broke don't fix it.

[marmot]

No,if it ain't broke don't fix it.

Again, 40% of the population can choose a candidate for the remaining 60%.   That's broken!  If that isn't broken, please, anybody, provide a rationale under which that makes sense!!!!

[Oliver]

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.

Sad though it is, this is the problem.  Anyone want to wager a bet on how many of the people who are against STV are for the Liberals?

There seems to be an underlying difference in conceptions about what one is doing when voting.  Some cast their vote simply for what they think will maximize their own personal political interests in the system.  Others cast their vote for what they they think is better for people, and representation, overall.

Its no mystery, I think, which camp the majority of those voting against the STV fall into...

[marmot]

Hahaha....I just noticed that of over 300 people that have viewed this topic only 10% have taken the "poll"   Just like real voter turnout!

[Splitshot]

NO

[Dr. Backlash]

Without a doubt I'm voting "YES".  When I read people saying things like "STV looks like an omlette at Cookies", or "if it ain't broke don' fix it", it makes me think that those of us who don't completely understand how the STV system works and/or its purpose, should not vote at all.  Heck, they shouldn't even be allowed to vote!

Just my 2 cents

[DionJL]

I'm voting yes. First past the post is silly and outdated.