[Canadaka]

Thought i would start a topic about the BC-STV Referendum in the upcoming provincial elections. the pros the cons, opionions.

More Info:
http://www.elections.bc.ca/elections/ge ... rendum.htm

[DuncanM]

I will be voting FOR the STV.

Some years ago I did a LOT of reading about politics, electoral reform, and the like. Most of the material I read indicated that an STV system is an improvement over the present system. Now we finally have the opportunity to vote on it. Fantastic!

For anybody who wants to read some information about it, the Citizens Assembly (the group who researched the proposed STV system) website presents some basic information, including a page explaining how votes would be counted in the STV system:

http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/

[Scape]

I have my doubts that this is going to fly. Not enough people know about it or care to know anything about it.

Does anyone care to explain in their works what it is?

[Zipperfish]

I highly recommend that all BC voters visit this Australian site that does a great job of explaining the Sigle Transferable Vote (STV). it's here.

I'm definitely in favour. It's inhernetly more democratic, and will prevent these situations where a party that gets a a little over 50% of the vote ends up with 99% of the seats. It gives a voice to alternative parties, becasue they hve a much better chance of getting a seat.

[zarathustra]

It may very well fail -- but giving up would certainly ensure that it fails. The important part is that there is a significant response for the "yes" side; it must be recognized there is a high degree of dissatisfaction, since the current system is a farce. The 2001 election was an excellent illustration of how our current system (FPTP) isn't exactly fair:

Liberal
916,888 votes
57.62% of popular vote
seats 77

NDP
343,156 votes
21.56% of popular vote
seats 2

Greens
197,231 votes
12.39% of popular vote
seats 0

Unity; 51,426; 3.23%
Marijuana; 51,206; 3.22%
Other; 31,399; 1.98%

77/79 seats = 97.4%, with only 57.62% of the popular vote.

For those who don't want to do any reading, here's how the ridings in BC would likely be arranged: http://bc.demochoice.org Independents and many of the smaller parties are missing from that page, but it still a gives a good idea of how many seats would be available in your riding, and what the ballot would look like. If you'd like to try a sample ballot, and walk through the counting process, http://www.demochoice.org/dcballot.php?poll=BCSTV is a better indication of how the system works. There are over 1300 votes so far, making it more accurate, but the riding is fictitious and the candidates are the party leaders, etc. Note: if there aren't many votes, only the count summary comes up; click "all results" for the full counting process.

On proportionality:

In STV, ridings would be combined thus taking advantage of greater proportionality. When only one seat is being elected, you generally need 30-50% support to get elected. By electing several people on the same ballot, the threshold drops allowing the seats in a riding to better reflect the distribution of votes, not only the "majority". In theory, the support required for the number of seats (approximately):
1 - 50.1%
2 - 33.4%
3 - 25.1%
4 - 20.1%
5 - 16.8%
6 - 14.4%
7 - 12.6%
In practice, this is lower due to vote splitting. Under STV, vote splitting does not occur; when a candidate does not have enough support to be elected, he/she is eliminated and those votes are recounted and attributed to the voters' next choices.

On counting:

There are two mechanisms in the counting process:
1. Eliminate the candidate with the least number of votes, and redistribute those votes to the voters' next choices (at full value).
2. If a candidate exceeds the quota/threshold, he/she is elected. All the votes for that candidate are scaled down appropriately, and redistributed to the remaining candidates. For example:
quota = 1000 votes
# of votes for candidate A = 1500 votes
Each vote for candidate A will be scaled down to two-thirds.
(1500 x 0.6666 = 1000)
The next choices of those votes will each be worth one-third of a vote.
In other words, the excess votes are redistributed, taking all the voters' next choices into account.

On the ballot:

You rank your preferences 1,2,3... Your vote always stays with your highest candidate who is still in the running; you can rank candidates you don't like low in the preferences (#14, etc) -- you aren't voting for them, unless every single candidate above him/her has been elected or eliminated. You don't have to rank candidates you don't like, but it is a good idea -- otherwise you're saying "i don't care, let the other votes decide". If you rank too few candidates, your vote will be wasted if all your choices are eliminated.

There are lots of websites on STV. There are pros and cons, but watch out: some of the "yes" side paints things very rosy (there are cons, ie: greater geographical area to cover for mlas), and some of the "no" side flat-out lies or ignores important facts contrary to their arguments. It seems a campaign of confusion for some, so take everything with a grain of salt and decide for yourself.

Here's a collection of resources:

http://canadianleaders.abctheorists.com ... cle&sid=82

[QBC]

I like the idea and I think I'll be voting for it. What I most hope it will do is stop the wacko one sided magorities that we've had in the last few elections, especialy the last election.

[Scape]

April 15, 2005 – Less than one-third of British Columbians think that BC should adopt the BC-STV electoral system according to a poll conducted by Nordic Research Group.

[zarathustra]

That's a slight misrepresentation; it is true, but doesn't reflect what that survey says:

32% YES
16% NO
52% UNDECIDED

One could also say 67% of decided voters support STV.

[Scape]

Still, this just reaffirms my belief in the publics inertia toward new concepts and ideas. Most are too lazy or indifferent (read self absorbed) to be involved in the political process. This is why our political system has not been reformed. We can harp on people like Harper, Campbell, Martin and the Bloc all day but when it comes down to it people don't want the responsibility and couldn't be bothered.

A lot of Americans think Canadians are just the spoiled brat that doesn't realize how good they have it. On issues like STV I tend to believe them.

[zarathustra]

Max Planck once said that a new paradigm takes over not when it convinces its opponents, but when its opponents eventually die. A scary thought, but it leads me to believe this isn't a problem that can be pinned on Canadians only.

Change could be difficult, but I think this referendum would easily pass if every voter put 30 minutes (minimum) into learning the system (with an open-mind, of course). I just hope those 52% can drop the instant gratification urge for a little while and figure it out, rather than spouting "it's too confusing".

The question is: will the voters who aren't informed do the ethical thing, and not vote? We can speculate, but won't know until May 17th.

I'm not really too concerned if people learn the system and don't like it, but i'll be devastated if we lose the referendum to ignorance. Spread the word, educate those around you.

[Snow]

Their is one thing that bothers me about stv and that is how stable will governments be. If this style of government comes in then we will most likely have many minority governments. I think the main thing is to look at the pros and cons.

[zarathustra]

With fixed election dates, a minority government could be quite stable. If there is no incentive to defeat the government, these goofballs might just work together. There's little point in proposing legislation/budgets that don't have support. Personally, i'd like a government that only did things that 2 or more parties could agree on (that's democracy, isn't it?). It could eliminate the extremism we've experienced both under the Liberals and NDP. However, you're right, it is still a potential problem.

[CdnSkyDiva]

What I like about the STV is that it would encourage Politicians to be more accountable to their constituents, then their party. By ensuring that no vote would be wasted and distributed among less popular parties if one candidate has a clear majority, voters become more powerful then they are under the current system.

[Scape]

Citizen's Assembly video of STV

[twister]

Politics isn't about being fair. 1 vote 1 person thats how democracy works. if I vote for Candidate #1 who receives 25,001 votes. Then that is the person whom I have voted for if Candidate #1 recieves my 1 vote and his standing is1 vote chances are he/she didn't win.

Numbering down the list of people you would like to see 1,2,3,4,5,6,7. is assinine. 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.
The problem with this country is we can't accept winners and losers. In life someone wins someone loses.
If you are chosing 3 candidates for an area (lets say Horsefly BC)
There are 9 candidates Running in Horsefly BC
Candidate #1 receives 125 votes
Candidate #2 receives 50 votes
Candidate #3 recieves 42 votes
Candidate #4 receives 15 votes
Candidate #5 receives 10 votes
Candidate #6 receives 9 votes
Candidate #7 receives 4 votes
Candidates #1, #2 and #3 would serve.
Under STV the drawing line would be lets say 75 votes so that candidate #1 has 50 surplus votes so we have to look at the 50 surplus votes or a percentage of them to decide where the surplus votes are given.
Technically your vote is being shifted to the second person on you list so If candiate #7 appears on the majority of second votes lets say to the tune of 50 votes then he gets in because he would have 54 votes to candidate #2's 50. Candidate #3 would be eliminated with 42 votes those 42 votes mean nothing (total combined vote of the other 4 candidates don't even sum up to 45 but he loses.) yep thats fair. the STV what a stupid assinine way to select a government.
1 vote 1 person put your mark next to the name close and fold place in the ballot box. Whoever wins wins. If someone finishes second or third ...THEN UNDERSTAND THIS. UNLESS THIS IS A MULTIPLE ELECTORAL DISTRICT WITH MORE THAN ONE MLA BEING ELECTED .... "THE OTHER 6 PEOPLE HAVE ... LOST... YES LOST THE ELECTION. IF THE ELECTORAL DISTRICT HAS 3 SPACES THEN THE TOP 3 GO BY POPULAR VOTE.
Not difficult to figure out. If its a landslide the the candidate must be the"popular" choice. This bulls**t of moving votes around is just muddling through and trying to reinvent something by calling it a reform. The only reform that will happen in this country is when we decentralize power from Ottawa to the provinces. Ottawa should only be there to enact new laws at the behest of the provinces to deal with constitutional issues and to mediate disputes between provinces. Every Province should be in control of the everyday working establishment. Health care etc. we don't need 3 tiers of government doing the same thing .. city,provincial and federal. What a waste of tax dollars. We either need to have an elected senate or abolish it completely. Don't give uus this Tripe.. watered down system under the guize of election reform and it will make things "fair and equitable". NEWS FLASH... NOT EVERYTHING IN LIFE IS FAIR AND EQUITABLE GET OVER IT.