Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum
Fishing in British Columbia => General Discussion => Topic started by: alwaysfishn on May 05, 2009, 07:37:30 PM
-
I'm curious what people think of the single transferable vote (STV) system that we are being asked to vote for on May 12th? I've read their education page http://www.stv.ca/learn (http://www.stv.ca/learn) and I think I understand it better. ???
What are your thoughts?
-
Im going to check yes !
-
no
-
no
-
One thing I beleive is that no government is perfect and both sides spew rhetoric.....lot's of rhetoric. The real outcomes of electing either party are probably closer than we think. Either way don't think of youtube as a factual source of information; try and do some more research. Whichever party you do vote for, vote no on STV; that has to be the scariest proposal that happen to this province.
-
no
-
Why 'yes' and why 'no'? I don't think many people know what is good or bad about it.
I think I'm voting yes because it seems to be a fairer system than we have now. I think it will result in more minority governments, which I think are more democratic. The current system allows one of the 2 major parties to come in with a majority and then they spend the next 4 years undoing what the previous government did. The proposed system would give a party like the greens a seat or 2... I think they have some good ideas as well. Heck it might even get the BC Conservatives a seat or 2.
I just don't see anything really negative about it. What am I missing?
-
Voting no for the many reasons that are mentioned on the vote no STV web site.
-
Undecided
-
NO
-
I found this website that simulates how the STV vote works. It is not designed to predict who will win in your riding and the results will vary over time as more people try it out. It's a simulation...... It helped me understand it a bit more.
Check it out: http://bc.demochoice.org/ (http://bc.demochoice.org/)
-
Voting no for the many reasons that are mentioned on the vote no STV web site.
Have you checked out the "vote yes" web site?
-
No to STV. Why? STV = more pigs on the trough and more bureaucrats.
If you look into other courtiers that have coalition governments you will quickly find that they get less done because they spend more time squabbling over party political interests and agendas. The only country I know of where coalitions work is Switzerland because there the government is powerless as all decisions are made by the people at the ballot box.
-
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 ::)
-
I'm voting yes, as it seems to provide more proportional representation. For convenience, here are the links to the yes and no websites:
Yes: http://www.bc-stv.ca/ (http://www.bc-stv.ca/)
No: http://www.nostv.org/ (http://www.nostv.org/)
Original Report from the Citizen's Assembly: http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/public (http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/public)
Read them all, and make up your own mind. The TV commercials don't provide enough info either way.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
NO
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!!!!
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
Yes I am voting No ;)
-
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.
-
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.. :)
-
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.
-
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. ;D
-
NO
lets say that ndp and liberals make a coalition; who will be the opposition?
-
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_general_election,_2007) 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.
-
NO! - too many disadvantages in what is deemed a complex voting scheme...
-
Absolutely no way. I want my vote to go where I want it to go. Not handled by some new scheme!!
-
No
-
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.
-
No,if it ain't broke don't fix it.
-
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!!!!
-
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...
-
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!
-
NO
-
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
-
I'm voting yes. First past the post is silly and outdated.
-
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. ;D ;D
-
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/ (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.
-
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
-
Sounds like it might take longer than Florida to determine the winners
;D ;D ;D
-
YES-YES-YES-YES-YES-YES
[/font]
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.vancouversun.com/news/pros+cons/1548497/story.html)
-
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 (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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
I'm voting yes, would like to see if it helps. It's not like it can't be changed back.
-
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.
-
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.
hahah no YOU take the low road, we'll take the high road ;)
I guess we'll find out if it works or not soon enough :) Of course, it probably won't pass referendum....bunch of 'fraidy cats in BC !
-
Not that polls are always correct but the latest released today is, NO 55% and Yes 45%, looks like it going down for the 10 count.
-
After reading all the comments I think I am going fishing.
-
STV not winning favour, according to poll
It's not looking good for supporters of the single transferable vote.
Sixty per cent of B.C. voters would have to support STV for it to pass, along with the majority of voters in 60 per cent of ridings.
But a growing number don't like it. In an Angus Reid poll commissioned by CTV and The Globe and Mail, 55 per cent support the current system. Only 45 per cent of the 1,000 people questioned are in favour of STV.
Link to the rest (http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20090508/bc_Straight_Goods_090508/20090508/?hub=BritishColumbiaHome)
I am somewhat surprised the last two polls show 33% and 45% support this STV. I thought it was going to be a lot higher and even pass since it was so close to the 60% mark that is needed for it to pass last time...BVut I am still voting NO as I want full pro rep or MMP..
-
Christy Clark (former Liberal minister) on STV.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhccpzI4lbQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhccpzI4lbQ)
-
Yes.
....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.
That may be true, but keep in mind...the very reason that many people DO support STV, or FAIRNESS in politics...is because THEY have been on the losing end of the stick, and would support anything that could give them an opportunity to wield more political clout. This is NOT the case with me.
Although an STV system would likely make majority governments a rarity, and would possibly contribute to "muddying" the political waters in this province, I would appreciate the opportunity to be served by a government that is tempered by healthy binding debate.
For example;
I am a business owner, and think that the Liberal party (for all of it's problems), is our best bet from an economic standpoint. (obviously that is IMO).
I am a family man and a fisherman, and think that the NDP or Green parties (for all of their problems) are our best bet from an environmental and social standpoint. (again, IMO)
Assuming a Liberal government, I would love to see the NDP, and the Green party be able to have some say on issues such as privatization of river projects, and other environmental issues.
On the flip side, should we get to a point in time where the NDP or Green party forms government, I would absolutely be in favor of having Liberal input on economic issues.
I saw the anti-STV ad tonight on the tube, and wasn't happy. Clearly, as it has been stated in this thread already, there are two "campaigns" being run. In my opinion, neither one can be considered objective, and further research needs to be done by everyone interested in this issue.
The anti STV ad suggests that your vote can be split and go to support a candidate NOT of your choosing. This is false. In the STV system, your vote can ONLY support candidates beside which you write a preference number. If you want, you can still vote exactly the same way that you currently vote. You just need to put a 1 beside the candidate that you would put an X beside in the current voting system, and then leave the rest blank. Your number 1 preference will be counted to support that candidate, and then, because you chose no secondary preferences, your vote will be considered exhausted.
The STV system will IMO affect the locality of our representation in a negative manner. Our current 81 ridings will be lumped together to form 20 new ones. There will still be 81 available seats, so each of the 20 new ridings, will elect more than one candidate. As I currently live in the lower mainland, this representation locality issue will not affect me as dramatically as it will someone living in rural northern BC. Each of the large rural ridings will have a good chance of electing all or most of their allotted representatives from the population centers, such as Prince George, leaving some (less populated) areas, as far as 350 kilometers away without effective local representation. This issue is of concern to me, and I have no defense to offer anyone who would take issue with me understanding the representation issue, yet still planning to vote YES to the STV. I only have two options. Vote, or don't vote. All I can do is educate myself on how the current system works,...how the proposed STV system works, and cast my vote as I understand the issue to affect me and my family.
I would encourage everyone to spend at least a few hours, looking at ALL of the unbiased information that they can find,... and go out on Tuesday and vote.
-
I am voting "yes." There is a strong advertising campaign as to why we should not accept a new system. Sure it's confusing but I have great faith in the intelligence of British Columbians and know they will figure it out. One of the arguments of the "no" vote is that the ridings will be too large and we will lose our representation. Nonsense ! Constituency areas will be no larger than federal ridings and I don't hear complaints about that. What is unfair is the current situation where 49% of the popular vote can translate into all seats but two (remember that one !)
-
Yes.
Interesting pie charts in Saturday's Vancouver Sun. In the polls, more high school graduates are voting no than yes, and more of those with a university education are voting yes than no.
Not making a judgement, just interesting...
-
Voting YES.
I don't know about anyone else, but doesnt the officail NO website have some pretty silly reasons for voting no:
"It is easy to understand our current system where there is one MLA to be elected and the winner is the candidate who receives the most votes".
-
No for STV
Intelligence and wisdom are two different things (now that somebody mentioned the university degree)
A simple question: why aren't we given the possibility, in a STV style, of choosing a voting system from
lets say, 5 possible; is the matter so complex that only that assembly was able to discerne the best for us?
Because now, we are practically asked to validate their opinion!!! We do not choose anything!!!
regards
-
I think I'm a Yes,
I think it is likely better for the environment and our fish.
I think?
-
YES!!!! Never be afraid of trying new things if there is a chance of improvement, I find a majority of the older generation intends to vote no because change is scarey for them, they know what works (But actually doesnt, in first past the post) If STV leads to better proportional representation, THATS A GOOD THING.
It stops crooks like the Liberals and NDP from jamming things through to meet their own needs(be it big business or unions) with out having to worry about accountabiliity, do we want more accountability in our current political system???...MMMm tough call...BUT I'M thinking...YES!!!!
-
The stupid bastages @ STV left a Please Vote Yes message on my machine-while I was out voting!
They are so stupid/ignorant of the law the have NFI that there's no promoting allowed on voting day!
No wonder they make me puke!
-
The stupid bastages @ STV left a Please Vote Yes message on my machine-while I was out voting!
They are so stupid/ignorant of the law the have NFI that there's no promoting allowed on voting day!
No wonder they make me puke!
Sorry about your resulting ill health.
I believe the ban on promoting only applies to the election and that there is no ban on promoting a referendum such as STV.
I hope you get better soon.
-
Done for good just like the Canucks Stanley Cup hopes.( For this season anyway)