the STV they propose is so convulted it is ridiculous the easiest STV is this you mark your ballots with choice 1 2 3 4 5 etc if your 1st choice is last then they drop him and go to the next choice etc etc, don’t do elect an mla then they convuluted STV would elect someone else, either have all elected with a simple STV or leave as is, hell the way they propose is that the party gets to pick who represents us if they win the STV
No, that’s not how it is at all.
You mark your ballots with your choice just like you said. 1st, 2nd, 3rd. However many you want.
If your first choice isn’t elected, then your vote goes to your second choice, and so on.
The party decides the candidate to run, not who you vote for. Just like they decide right now which candidates run, not who you vote for.
Your vote won’t go to another candidate unless you voted for another candidate.
Also you said " don’t do elect an mla then they convuluted STV would elect someone else" – which STV also won’t do.
stv.ca/faq2 answers all your questions, including some of he most common misconceptions.
How big are the new regions?
Most districts will elect 4 or 5 MLAs, but a few will have as many as 7 or as few as 2 depending on population density. As today, the districts maintain a principle of representation by population – each MLA will represent about 50,000 people
which means most of our canidates would be from Prince George not local
if they kept the same ridings and only had to vote for one MLA and kept the STV simple it would work but not mulitple MLAs per riding
The most complicated part of this process becomes the tallying / counting of votes and accountability for this, which must be monitored and audited very closely.
if they kept the same ridings and only had to vote for one MLA and kept the STV simple it would work but not mulitple MLAs per riding
You mean you’d support reform if it was absolutely no different than what there is now?
[quote=“Jabber63”]
which means most of our canidates would be from Prince George not local[/quote]
Why would a candidate from Prince George want to run in our riding? Wouldn’t they want to run in the Prince George riding? Prince Rupert would not be in the same riding as Prince George.
If you’re going to oppose something, at least do your own research.
How would that bring proportionate representation?
To be clear, I’m not for or against the STV–so don’t try and fight with me over what this post says.
That in itself could be an argument against the STV. Not ignorance per se, but the fact that the process is far more complicated than the current one.
This is one subject where I think your “you just don’t get it” rebuttal won’t work.
Obviously someone fed him some false information. Otherwise, where would one get the idea that candidates from Prince George would want to run in our (larger) riding? Prince George would probably have a riding all to itself.
Jabber, where did you get “which means most of our canidates would be from Prince George not local” ?
the last time this was put to voters the government at the time said we would elect our mla’s normally and use STV for the proportional represetation,it would be a mix of both systems, and rupert would be bunched into a large riding which would include prince george, so in theory if you wanted to get elected the majority of the votes is in Prince George so if you wanted to get elected via the STV you cater to the prince george voters so in theory most canidates would be from there, now if they want to elect all MLA’s via STV and not the half baked idea from the last time, and it was only a single MLA per region then it makes sense but to have mulitple MLA’s would mean our riding would have to be bigger and that would mean the MLA’s running would be from the bigger cities if we are lumped in with Prince George as they wanted to do last time
I just found this our riding will not include Prince George but it will be decidely bigger
… and three candidates will be elected …
Yes, there are larger ridings with multiple MLAs – how else would the voting be “proportionate” if only one MLA per riding? It would be first past the post again, ie: what we have now.
So if you think having a larger riding with multiple MLAs is a bad thing, consider this: the riding would be the same size (roughly) as our federal riding, but it would have more than one representative to cover it. As well, the representatives could be from different parties. So if you don’t want to talk to an NDP member about your issue, you can call your Liberal or Green Party MLA or whatever.
BTW, the sample ballot is a POLL! Just in case you missed it. 
[quote=“MiG”]
So if you think having a larger riding with multiple MLAs is a bad thing, consider this: the riding would be the same size (roughly) as our federal riding, but it would have more than one representative to cover it. As well, the representatives could be from different parties. So if you don’t want to talk to an NDP member about your issue, you can call your Liberal or Green Party MLA or whatever. [/quote]
That’s the theory, Mig, but it doesn’t seem to work in practice. Most of the countries with STV have had very little diversity in the makeup of their governments (the same party has run the country with a majority for the vast majority of the years STV has been used - see Ireland for example - meaning the system doesn’t really promote the diversity it should). My concern is that STV has caused near disasters in some countries. My family is from Malta, and STV almost broke apart the country in the 1980s. The problem is that it is possible for party “a” to get less votes then party “b” and still get awarded more seats. This creates very bad (riots, blood in the streets) feelings as you can well imagine…
It’s funny (funny weird, not funny haha) that you bring up Ireland as an example of STV bringing a stable and unchanging government with a majority. Most of the people I talk to about STV always say something like “great, now we’ll be like Italy and have an election every few months! No stability in government!”
The Irish problem is that STV does its job too well – Irish voters aren’t diverse in their voting. If they’d vote for other parties, then those parties would get seats. That’s been the pattern in the Australian senate (and the states that use it in Australia), for example.
take a look here for irish election results with STV:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_ … of_Ireland
Notice all the coalitions? That’s a good thing. Notice that the Green Party is a member of the current coalition as well.
And the same party certainly hasn’t ruled with a majority as you claim. In fact parties have had to form coalitions with other parties to get a majority. You say that “the same party has run the country with a majority for the vast majority of the years STV has been used.” And that’s just not true in Ireland.
As for riots in the streets over a party getting more seats than votes: That’s the problem STV is meant to fix. Take a look at some of our previous elections for good examples of parties getting 15-16% of the votes and getting less than 1% of the seats (or none at all).
Malta’s probably not a good example, either, because in one way it’s exactly like our current system: when a party wins the most seats but doesn’t get a majority, it is given extra seats to make it a majority. Sort of like all those examples of ours when a party wins 40% of the vote, but gets a majority of the seats.
If Malta did STV without this “top-up”, they wouldn’t have that problem.
I looked at your Ireland link – the same party (Fianna Fail) has formed the government 17 out of 23 times since 1937. Yes, some of these have been coalitions. But that’s not exactly a shining example of diversity. And you are wrong about Malta. The STV top-up was brought in AFTER the crisis of 1981 as a RESULT of STV. It was brought in to solve the problems of the STV system that nearly brought down the country (although I would agree it wasn’t successful) that BC is now suggesting. And while you would contend that this system is designed to prevent blood in the streets, does it not disenfranchise large numbers of voters due to ridiculously high levels of spoiled ballots (11 per cent in the 2004 New Zealand election for example)? There are also numerous scams and schemes that voters and political parties can run to enhance their chances of getting in who they want (Is a Conservative really going to vote for a Liberal? Is an NDPer really going to vote for a Green? Out of spite should Conservatives vote for Greens because it will strip away the NDP power base? Should I run six candidates instead of a full slate of 10 as this may decrease the chance of vote splitting yet maximize my chance of holding a majority? – there’s too much easy manipulation that advocates of STV just don’t see. The system has the potential to be a great deal less democratic then the one we already have. We may need some reform, but any reform at all just for the sake of it is foolish in my opinion…
Interesting debate. I wonder if it would mean more accountability for the MLAs. If they didn’t care for your issue then they could say, “go talk to the other guy” and it might mean a lot more work for the constituent.
The current FPP system requires, though there is no way to measure it, MLAs to represent all voters. I think the effectiveness of that ideal is debatable.
Speaking of Ireland: nostv.org/dailfight.html
Forget the STV debate. This is just freaking hilarious.
That is hiliarious. Was it in Korea that they were fist-fighting in parliament? That was even better. As to the issue of accountability, I would suggest that multiple representatives could have the potential of making MLA’s LESS accountable. Right know as an MP/MLA you at least have a moral responsibility (rarely fulfilled admittedly) to represent all your constitutents. If there are four other guys and the issue is thorny, why not just pass the buck? At least if you have an issue that your MLA won’t represent you on now you have outlets to hold them accountable (media, etc.) and there’s no debate as to whether or not they have a duty to represent you…
Nope. No debate. 
It has been difficult to educate people on what STV means. The more inquisitive voters might educate themselves but those aren’t the only people who will vote on the issue…
I like how this is going. Let’s dig up every bad example of STV, and say that it will happen here. If we were having a debate in Ireland or somewhere else to get rid of STV in favour of FPP, they’d probably be digging up all the bad examples of FPP.
For example, how the Green party received 9% of the vote in BC in 2005, yet received 0% of the seats. Or the Conservatives receiving 15% of the vote in the federal election in 1993 and received less than 1% of the seats.
Spoiled ballots in New Zealand? That’s not because of STV – it’s a form of protest. To make sure the government can’t claim to have a majority of votes. Basically, a “no thanks” vote. But keep digging up these examples if you want. You know, of course, that New Zealand doesn’t use STV for their parliamentary elections? They use MMP.
But let’s go with your New Zealand example, and your claim that FPP=democracy.
[quote]The Gallagher Index is a measurement of how closely the proportions of votes cast for each party is reflected in the number of parliamentary seats gained by that party. The resultant disproportionality figure is a percentage - the lower the index, the better the match. [2]
Election Disproportionality
1946-1993 FPP average 11.10%
1996 4.36%
1999 3.01%
2002 2.53%
2005 1.11%[/quote]
In 1996, New Zealand abandoned FPP for MMP. How’s that for democracy?
The bottom line is that proportionate systems like MMP & STV mean government by consensus, not government by mandate.
[quote]
There are also numerous scams and schemes that voters and political parties can run to enhance their chances of getting in who they want[/quote]
Just like in the current FPP system. Vote splitting?
You say these things like they’re a bad thing. If a party chooses to run 6 candidates instead of 10, why would that be bad?
I see them, and I don’t think they’re manipulation. They’re part of the system.
FPP is democratic if there are two candidates running for a single seat. Introduce a couple more candidates, and it turns into winner-take-all politics.