Reading the posts in the other threads it is clear that people do not trust one of the two parties. “Look how the Liberals have ruined the economy!” “But not as bad as the NDP!”
We have become so polarized that it might be time to seriously consider a revamping of the way we elect our representatives. Perhaps then we won’t get the swing every 8-12 years when governments change. Maybe we won’t panic so much at the threat of a change of government. Maybe our votes will actually mean something if we aren’t happy with either of the two big parties.
I was one of the 56% who voted in favour last time. I am hoping that another 4% can be found this year. What do the rest of you think?
If it’s too hard, they should stay home and not vote.
Hate to be an elitist, but it’s a scientific fact that over 68% of people are average or below average intelligence. It’s a wonder democracy works at all.
I’m down with the STV, and I think people in BC are too. It’s a good solution to a polarized politics, as it will encourage smaller parties and rule by consensus.
I have a few problems with the STV system. My biggest one is that it isn’t that great of a system, and if it were adopted, it would quiet the call for electoral reform. Sure it’s better than first past the post (FPP), but not by much in my books.
Just to let everyone who does support the STV system, I do understand how the STV system works. The STV’s fatal flaw (ironically) lies in it’s attempt to become more representative of the population, sacrificing transparency along the way. One of the most important parts of the democratic process is transparency. Without it, the election is a sham.
You may ask, how is the STV system not transparent? I will attempt to answer this question. The advantage of the FPP system is that anyone can sit down, count the ballets, and who ever gets the most number of votes wins. You don’t need to be smart, you don’t need to know fractions, and the results are right there in front of you. The FPP system may have other problems, but this isn’t one of them. The STV system on the other hand, creates fractions out of your votes, and transfers the unneeded percent to other candidate until all of the spots have been filled. You also need to have all of the votes at once in order to see who wins. You can’t count them one at a time. This then takes away the ability for everyone to verify the votes, and forces them to rely on the more educated to verify.
Personally, I see this as a problem.
Here are a few other problems which I can foresee (but may not come to pass; I am not clairvoyant): Voting machines, and no more one night elections.
I agree that the counting process is complicated. But the counting process is not secret and each candidate will be able to verify the results. Even in FPP few of us are part of the counting process. We rely on returning officers and party observers to present the final tally. That will not change.
I also agree that it will take longer. In Ireland they don’t start counting the votes until the next day, so it must be a long process. As much as I hate suspense, I am willing to wait 24 hours if the process is better.
I am not a fan of voting machines either. I will let the tech experts vouch for their accuracy if we ever get a choice in the matter.
My biggest concern is the size of the ridings. In the large urban areas (even interior ones) it won’t matter too much. But I can see our riding going from the Charlottes to Vanderhoof and north to the Yukon border. But right now Nathan Cullen represents a large region by himself. Under STV these ridings would have three to five representatives.
Things I like:
Party members have to compete against each other. Some MLAs get re-elected because they come from a riding that wouldn’t vote any other party. Under STV, if they are at best fifth on the ballot of their own party, they have a good chance of losing. If they have become complacent or represent the fringe end of their party, they better change or face defeat.
By having more than one vote I could concevably vote for both Herb and Gary if I were so inclined. Or, I could vote for neither thinking that better candidates lived in another town.
Candidates from the Green Party or independents would have a greater chance at winning a seat. More people would likely participate knowing their candidate has a chance.
That probably means more minority governments so parties would have to seek consensus. (I know some people might see minorities as a negative, but I don’t.)
For a party to gain a majority they are going to have to seek that middle ground that most voters want. This is particularly helpful in a polarized area like B.C.
[quote=“DWhite”]
My biggest concern is the size of the ridings. In the large urban areas (even interior ones) it won’t matter too much. But I can see our riding going from the Charlottes to Vanderhoof and north to the Yukon border. But right now Nathan Cullen represents a large region by himself. Under STV these ridings would have three to five representatives.[/quote]
The other side of this is that a candidate could run as the Prince Rupert Party candidate and have a good chance of getting elected and actually have influence.
[quote]3. Candidates from the Green Party or independents would have a greater chance at winning a seat. More people would likely participate knowing their candidate has a chance.
That probably means more minority governments so parties would have to seek consensus. (I know some people might see minorities as a negative, but I don’t.)
For a party to gain a majority they are going to have to seek that middle ground that most voters want. This is particularly helpful in a polarized area like B.C.[/quote]
I agree these are good reasons too. More small parties and single-issue parties, all with an equal chance of being elected. And all with the same opportunity to join a coalition and rule by consensus. No more of the 37% of the vote = mandate for radical change stuff.
It’s very telling that the major parties seem to not like STV or electoral reform in particular, because they know their days of ruling with absolute power will be over.
“Intelligence” is extremely difficult to measure. Lots of those ‘below average’ people simply don’t do well in our school system where we measure language and mathematical skill almost exclusively as opposed to all the other theorized types of intelligences.
I’m perfectly happy with the idea that most people have ‘average or below average intelligence.’
No it’s very easy to measure. Just not PC to measure it anymore. We wouldn’t want to actually resume measuring or we might see stupidity is increasing and “Idiocracy” was really a documentary film.
IQ is easy to measure, but its value is debateable.
100 is considered average but the difference between 95 and 105 is isn’t worth fussing over. There is a range of scores that are considered average. So you can very well say that 68% of the people are average or below average while somebody else will just as correctly say that 68% of people are average or ABOVE average. By definition all of us cannot be above average.
However, most people do consider themselves above average and that is because we only look at the things we do well. Even the worst doctor has above average medical skills compared to the rest of the population. And even the worst mechanic, accountant, computer programmer etc. etc. are better than the general population in those fields. By considering only what we do well, we can say we are above average. There are multiple intelligences, but we still tend to focus on IQ.
For example, if you were lost in the bush, would you rather be with someone with an IQ of 120 but no tracking skills or someone with an IQ of 80 but excellent tracking skills? You might not care because you are a damn good tracker, but I know who I’d want.
There are some studies that show that IQ has gone down in recent years after several years of going up. I don’t know how significant the decline has been. What I tend to worry about is the apparent decline in common sense and our inability to cope with the speed of change.
Gardner propsed 8 different intelligences. Linquistic, logical-mathematical, musical, spatial, interpersonal, intrapersonal, naturalistic, and bodily-kinethsetic.
As DWhite pointed out–who do you want to be lost in the woods with?
One example that comes to mind is a friend of mine. He barely made it through High School, and yet he’s well on his way to being a very skilled tradesperson. He’ll be making more money than I do when I first get out of school, and he’ll be doing it several years earlier. According to our system, he’s “unintelligent”–but that doesn’t mean he’s stupid.
As for the STV–to try and get this thread back on course–I’ll definitely admit that I don’t really understand it.
How would they figure out which ridings get which party representing them? Might some ridings end up getting the short straw. Like in our riding for example–let’s say Coons gets 55%, and Pond gets 45%. Is it possible that we’d still end up with Pond because of the way things went throughout the rest of the province?
Basically, we’d have more than one MLA per riding (though the ridings would be bigger). So you could have both Gary Coons and Herb Pond representing the area, as long as they received enough votes.
Only the people we vote for in a riding get elected. We vote for as many people as we want but we have to place them in order. If four can be elected then I place a one two three four etc. beside the candidates I like in the order I prefer them. I can stop at any number. Using the total votes cast and the number of candidates to be elected, a total of first preference votes needed to win is determined. If a candidate reaches that quota, he/she is elected. That person’s excess votes are then distributed proportionally to the second ranked candidate on their ballots. If that helps a candidate reach the quota then their excess votes are distributed. As well, when it becomes obvious that some people cannot win, their votes are then distributed to the candidates ranked second on their ballots. This goes on until four candidates are elected.
As DonG pointed out it is complicated and will take time to process but it ensures that most votes are not wasted.
