[zarathustra]

Here we go...

$1:

Politics isn't about being fair.

Well then, let's all lay down and march in the fascists.

$1:

Numbering down the list of people you would like to see 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 is assinine.

A compelling argument, but having voters rank the candidates in their order of preference is a much more accurate measure of support than forcing them to choose one and only one candidate. I don't know about you, but none of the parties out there fully encompass my opinions; I need to spread my support around to get my range of views heard.

$1:

If the person who I wanted to win has more than the allocated number of votes then the second place person gets my vote.. what the hell is with that. If I wanted my vote to go to candidate #2 I would have "get this".. VOTED FOR THAT PERSON.

You're not paying attention. In a multi-member district you're electing more than one person; if you use a single-choice ballot, it isn't fair as the #1 candidate would have more support than #2, #3, etc... but #3 would still get in even though he has considerably less support. Under STV, everyone still has 1 vote, but it is split up to distribute your support among your top choices. If any of your choices doesn't have a hope in hell of getting elected, your support shifts to your next choice. As the top candidate gets more support, less of your vote goes towards support him/her and more of your vote goes towards your other preferences. It's like saying "I want #1 to be elected, but if he gets elected or is eliminated I'd like to support #2, #3, and so forth."

What's fundamentally wrong with electing people based on consensus? Why should we elect someone that has 30% support when 70% of the population wants someone else? How can one call polarized governments "stable"? Isn't a coalition of parties (a group co-operating and compromising) much more stable (over time) than polar opposites? I admit we don't have much experience with minority governments in this province, but if they become the norm, the politicians will adapt or we'll boot them out.

$1:

The problem with this country is we can't accept winners and losers. In life someone wins someone loses.

That's a rather defeatist attitude. "It's impossible to find a common ground, so don't bother."

$1:

This bulls**t of moving votes around is just muddling through and trying to reinvent something by calling it a reform.

Please invest some time in understanding how STV works before calling it names and tossing in fallacial arguments. If you shut off your TV, approached this with an open mind, and read the facts, you just might like it!

$1:

NOT EVERYTHING IN LIFE IS FAIR AND EQUITABLE GET OVER IT.

Translation: there is no hope; don't bother trying to change anything because it is impossible.

Call me an optimist, but if we change our voting system the sky won't fall.

[twister]

my biggest concern regarding the STV "thus spoke Zarathustra" has to do with Fringe parties. The STV would work well if you vote strictly on party lines. I vote for the best person (who is not NDP because i feel that provincially they are the most corrupt party in the world even leading our federal liberals.) If i cast my STV ballot for candidate #1 who is liberal and somehow that candidate gets more votes that the predetermined number. My vote gets shuffeled to the next person on my list of seven etc candidates, but if I don't like or want a person in office I will rank them lower on my list. But here is the inherent problem, now that vote could go to a fringe party like the party party or the marijuana party etc as per how my list and other people lists are enacted. By some fluke of nature or by chance I don't think that it makes govermental sense to have a government fractionalized by a group of fringe parties that some how some way through peoples 4th and 5th selections get into power. We would be no better than some of those countries out there whose government are constantly falling becuase of constant pressure against the ruling coalitions.. it doesn't make for a strong investment climate having a number of fractionalized parties all trying to impart thier spin on the way we should see the province. Plus I may only like one candidate whom is running, I may not support others who are vying for election in my riding. I am a strong proponent of electoral reform just I feel that this is the wrong direction that we should be going. We need to decentralize power from ottawa. We need more provincial and municipal power but we also need less government not more or the same number. we need less people who just push paper all day and do nothing for the development of our province.

[twister]

oh one other thing.... I barely watch any TV at all.. studied political science in university for 3 years... have run for political office as an independant... Nor do I feel that marching in of the facists was because people didn't want a fair and equtiable deal. Nationalist pride and a feeling of self determinations led to the rise of facism.
Actually Coalition governments are doomed from the start. the thought process behind all of them working together for the common good is flawed becuase everyone is in it for what they can get for themselves or for there enfranchised little group of supporters.
A sinicle view.. but human nature has taught me one thing.. there is very little humane in human.
Oh a couple of other little points.. I'm glad your an optimist.. never lose sight of shore......

I am an "optimistic pessimist". I know that bad shit will eventually happen and I look forward to it.

Secondly I am a realist. an optomist looks down the tunnel and sees a light and says "look were almost there" A pesimist sees the exact same thing and says" Oh look how far away that light is we will never make it." A realist looks up and says "Oh shit the 5:12 pm train is right on time as usual."

[zarathustra]

Nothing I write here is meant as a personal attack; I aim only to attack your ideas. I agree with you on some points, like decentalization for example. I am surprised however, that someone who has run as an independent would be such an ardent supporter of party rule. STV clearly weakens parties and makes individuals more accountable. If I was a staunch supporter of a certain political party, i'd quite like the prospect of being able to choose which of the multiple candidates in my party had his/her head screwed on the firmest in my riding, and supported the others in rank. After all, it should be the voters who decide who gets elected, not the riding association.

The problem seems to be less about fringe parties and more about what people want. No one gets elected if they don't have the support of the voters; there's nothing random about STV. If one has a problem with fringe parties -- too bad. They have support; if people vote for them, then they should be elected. How can voters getting what they want be a criticism? Should a goal of our electoral system to ensure that minorities are not heard? If you don't support certain parties: don't vote for them! Your vote will never help them get elected.

Fringe parties may get a few seats, and that's a good thing. However, they will never come to power.

Preston Manning was just on the radio a few minutes ago, supporting STV. He brought up good points, mainly that 160 British Columbians (the assembly) looked at all electoral systems over one year, weighed all the pros and cons, and decided on the system with the best mix. This was a grassroots motion: voters coming to a consensus, based on the careful investigation of many systems, while considering thousands of submissions. Clearly all sides of the debate were considered; these guys travelled to every corner of the province to hear what voters were saying. How can we simply dismiss what was nearly unanimous consent for STV? Mr. Manning also pointed out that our politicians don't have the skills to deal with minority governments; more experience means skill-building (they'll get better at it, with time).

It's not too late: Learn how STV works. Don't vote for ignorance.

[Scape]

FPTP is a failure when 50% of the vote gets 97% of the seats. Polarization serves neither the people, the legislature or the parties as it inevitably leads to extreme points of view not being countered by an effective opposition. Elections are the only thing we have at the moment to counter this and it leads us switching the devil for the witch. Neither solution is correct. With STV YOUR VOTE COUNTS.If your 1st choice has won handily then your 1st choice isn't counted as they are already in and your other choices are then put in play. With FPTP in a 2 party system you get extreme polarization in a system that is designed to have an opposition. That doesn't work, it's time to change that.