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

[chris gadsden]

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

Too late I already voted.

[alwaysfishn]

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?

I think the fear of being overrun by candidates from major centers is unfounded because of the way the STV is counted....   Once a candidate has a set percentage of votes (17% if there are 5 candidates running) no more of the votes cast for him are counted. (This is because he is elected and the extra votes are not needed) In that case the voter's second choice gets counted. That's the transfer part. When you vote for candidates in your riding you want to vote for only the people that you would like to see elected. (You can vote for more or less if you want)

If you haven't checked out this website, try it; click on your riding and follow the process. http://bc.demochoice.org/ In my riding after I voted along with 750 others it showed 3 liberal and 2 NDP. Unfortunately my BC Conservative candidate doesn't make it..... On the positive side, Mr."I ain't done no crime" John Les, loses his seat!

Political Parties are still going to run candidates that cater to the smaller towns. If they try to stack all their candidates in the large centers they risk having their candidates compete against each other. I can't imagine a party would have a lot of credibility if it had candidates running against each other.

I think the smaller centers would actually have a better chance at representation if they field a strong candidate with strong community connections. Check out the website above and you will see how the ridings are divided.

[Fish Assassin]

I think the fear of being overrun by candidates from major centers is unfounded because of the way the STV is counted....   Once a candidate has a set percentage of votes (17% if there are 5 candidates running) no more of the votes cast for him are counted. (This is because he is elected and the extra votes are not needed) In that case the voter's second choice gets counted. That's the transfer part. When you vote for candidates in your riding you want to vote for only the people that you would like to see elected. (You can vote for more or less if you want)

 

Sounds like it might take longer than Florida to determine the winners

[alwaysfishn]

Sounds like it might take longer than Florida to determine the winners

 

[eddy]

YES-YES-YES-YES-YES-YES[/font]

[RalphH]

No for a couple of primary reasons; the fractionalization of votes violates a fundamental democratic principle - one person one vote; I also don't believe that so many ranked selection (up to 7) can have any meaning so most people will either vote a party slate or make selections on a random basis once they have made 2 or 3. Administratively I think the ridings are too large and will not adequately reflect local interest and so dilutes representation. There's no proof this is a better system. It's virtually untried and where it is in place politics work muych the same as they do here.
 

[lucky]

YES!

Last week Krist Novoselic was in Vancouver giving interviews in support of the STV, after listening to what he had to say I think this change would be a good thing.

Krist sure has gone a different direction from his days in the band, I think its great that he would take the time to come up here to try and make changes.

http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2009/05/canadian_interviews_in_the_pos.php

If you are a fan check out the interviews he did with Jeff Oneil on the Fox.

http://www.cfox.com/DJsandShows/TheJeffONeilShow.aspx

[alwaysfishn]

the fractionalization of votes violates a fundamental democratic principle - one person one vote 

I believe the interpretation of "one person one vote" is based on being able to vote only once for one candidate. STV honors that....  As far as voting for multiple candidates on one ballot.....   we've been doing that for decades in our municipal elections.

[alwaysfishn]

Someone sent me an article from the Vancouver Sun this morning. I think it sums up STV and whether you should vote yes or no...   Here is part of the article.

Rather than worrying about how it's done, we should be focusing on what it is intended to do.

Essentially the question is do you want to switch to a system under which small parties, like the Greens, have a better chance of being represented in the legislature? Getting elected still won't be easy and truly fringe parties still won't stand a chance.

If so, you should vote Yes, even though you will hear the argument that there are other systems that would do a better job of delivering proportionality.

There may be better systems. But holding out for perfection in this case is the same as ensuring that nothing will ever change.

If you are happy with the governments we have now and with a system that effectively excludes any party that can't achieve at least 34 per cent of the vote in a riding, you should probably vote No.

It's that simple.

cmcinnes@vancouversun.com
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/pros+cons/1548497/story.html

[Johnny_5]

Someone sent me an article from the Vancouver Sun this morning. I think it sums up STV and whether you should vote yes or no...   Here is part of the article.

Rather than worrying about how it's done, we should be focusing on what it is intended to do.

Essentially the question is do you want to switch to a system under which small parties, like the Greens, have a better chance of being represented in the legislature? Getting elected still won't be easy and truly fringe parties still won't stand a chance.

If so, you should vote Yes, even though you will hear the argument that there are other systems that would do a better job of delivering proportionality.

There may be better systems. But holding out for perfection in this case is the same as ensuring that nothing will ever change.

If you are happy with the governments we have now and with a system that effectively excludes any party that can't achieve at least 34 per cent of the vote in a riding, you should probably vote No.

It's that simple.

cmcinnes@vancouversun.com
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/pros+cons/1548497/story.html

Bingo.  If you want to continue alternating between 2 parties, vote no.  If you think it is truly time for a change, and would like to see more viable alternatives, vote yes.

[RalphH]

the fractionalization of votes violates a fundamental democratic principle - one person one vote 

I believe the interpretation of "one person one vote" is based on being able to vote only once for one candidate. STV honors that....  As far as voting for multiple candidates on one ballot.....   we've been doing that for decades in our municipal elections.

incorrect on both cases. The One vote principle is that no one casts more votes than anyone else and all get one indivisible vote. In my view the STV does not meet this test. Municiple elections function on a first past the post single vote principle and are not at all comparable to the STV.

[alwaysfishn]

You may be right and you may be wrong......

The argument is similar to you arguing that the best way to get to Kamloops is the Coq and me arguing that Hwy 1 is best...

In the end we will both get there......

You enjoyed the four lane hwy, I enjoyed the canyon views... 

I think if you are in favor of a 2 party system vote "NO", if you are in favor of having proportional representation with potentially more than 2 parties in the legislature then vote "YES". It's just that simple.

[Tom_H]

I clicked on "Yes". 

When today's system can elect a big majority in the House - with fewer votes than a decimated opposition - as has happened - our system is broken.  When I'm afraid to vote for a minor candidate because I know they have no chance of getting in - and I hold my nose and vote for a lesser evil to avoid vote-splitting - our system is broken. 

Most of the "no" arguments I've read are based on misconceptions - easily countered with a little digging. 

Remember where this proposal came from - it was a group of randomly chosen citizens - who really appear to have done their homework.  But the explanations of it have been pathetic - almost no money has gone into promoting the STV.  (You might wonder why.) 

Look at the videos on the stv site - especially the one with John Cleese.  He nicely skewers the "too complicated" scare tactic.  (Your STV vote CANNOT GO WHERE YOU DON'T WANT IT TO.)

http://www.stv.ca/videos

[troutbreath]

I'm voting yes, would like to see if it helps. It's not like it can't be changed back.

[RalphH]

as a last word... there is virtually no  real world evidence that the STV will lead to more parties represented in the legislature or make it easier for smaller parties to get there. Where the STV is used party politics still exist and power tends to stay concentrated in the hands of one or 2 dominate parties. There is no solid evidence the STV will be proportional and there are true proportional systems that work in a number of successful democracies. It was never clear to me why the constituent assembly chose the STV system as opposed one of those. The scenarios that illustrate how wonderfully the STV will solve our problems are fictitious and contrived to meet it's imagined promise.

beyond that we agree to disagree - you take the low road and I will take the high road.