I think we had an example in our federal riding of this very thing, in reverse. The Conservative candidate wanted people to come to her with problems, rather than the elected MLA. Wow, a fault in FPP?
[quote=“MiG”]
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.[/quote]
That’s a great debating technique – let’s demean me for using EXAMPLES of things which contradict your viewpoint. I’ve used examples about STV being bad because there are plenty. Stop pretending it’s a panacea and being condescending to everyone who contradicts you. You can start with an admission that you spoke out of turn about Malta. I noticed when I pointed that out, you ignored it. Is that your other great debating strategy?
[quote=“MiG”]
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.[/quote]
The problems manifest in STV are very similar to those in MMP. Except that MMP would be considered more democratic by most because it allows people to get elected with significantly less votes then either FPP or STV. The issue is with the complex tabulation system that both employ. If 11 per cent of the population are spoiling their ballots – whether in protest or in ignorance – doesn’t that mean the system is deeply flawed?
[quote=“MiG”]
But let’s go with your New Zealand example, and your claim that FPP=democracy.[/quote]
I said STV can be even less democratic then FPP. Please don’t put words in my mouth, just because it’s easier for you to debate.
[quote=“MiG”]
Just like in the current FPP system. Vote splitting? [/quote]
Vote splitting happens ORGANICALLY. If the Green party appeals to voters who traditionally voted NDP and this allows the Liberals to win a seat so be it. This is not the same thing as deliberately trying to manipulate a situation that is advantageous to a particular agent looking to gain power.
The first principle of a democracy is that all citizens have an equal access to power. If there are four candidates running in an election, each one has an equal one in four chance of being elected. That is a DEMOCRACY. STV can create 2 + 2 = 5 (or 3) situations where not everyone does have an equal chance and mathematical formulas attempt to interpret voter will. Hence, from the perspective of a political scientist or classicist, STV is less democratic then FPP.
[quote=“KOSJ”]
That’s a great debating technique – let’s demean me for using EXAMPLES of things which contradict your viewpoint. I’ve used examples about STV being bad because there are plenty. Stop pretending it’s a panacea and being condescending to everyone who contradicts you. You can start with an admission that you spoke out of turn about Malta. I noticed when I pointed that out, you ignored it. Is that your other great debating strategy?[/quote]
Hey, sorry if you see it as demeaning. It wasn’t meant to be. Just pointing out that there are numerous examples of FPP being crappy too. So many so that the people of BC decided to look for alternatives.
And yes, I was wrong on Malta. A bit of reading on my part cleared up my ignorance.
How about the Gallagher index? You going to ignore that? You want me to do one on BC elections to see how results mirror the actual votes?
When there’s an organized “spoil your ballot by voting NO” campaign, no.
Didn’t mean to put words in your mouth. Just pointing out lots of examples where FPP is undemocratic.
If you look at the history of the Reform/Conservative alliance, you’ll see that wasn’t organic at all. It was a “deliberately trying to manipulate a situation that is advantageous to a particular agent looking to gain power.” ie: give people fewer choices, since it works against them in FPP.
The point being that politics happens in both systems.
[quote]
The first principle of a democracy is that all citizens have an equal access to power. If there are four candidates running in an election, each one has an equal one in four chance of being elected. That is a DEMOCRACY. [/quote]
I thought the first principle of a democracy was majority rule?
A party that rules with a majority of seats but doesn’t have a majority of votes isn’t democratic.
A candidate that wins a riding with 35% of the vote isn’t democratic, in my opinion.
[quote]
STV can create 2 + 2 = 5 (or 3) situations where not everyone does have an equal chance and mathematical formulas attempt to interpret voter will. [/quote]
Great, attempt to interpret voter will. Instead of ignoring it.
Where are the Green voters’ wills expressed in FPP? They’re ignored. Where are the Christian Heritage voters wills interpreted in FPP? They’re ignored. Unless you’re one of the mainstream parties, you’re ignored by FPP.
In what way does STV take away an equal chance? If you don’t want your vote to go to a candidate, don’t vote for him or her. No amount of math will make your vote go to someone you didn’t vote for.
If your definition of democracy is winner-take-all and 35% = a mandate to rule.
I don’t think that a system where a majority of people vote AGAINST a party, and that party takes the majority of seats is very democratic.
I also don’t think that a system that ignores voters unless they vote for a large established party is all that democratic, as it fails even your definition: “that all citizens have an equal access to power.” I guess by “all citizens” you mean as long as they vote for the large parties.
I think the thing that really scares the crap out of some of the established parties, is that STV would encourage all kinds of parties to crop up.
I can imagine a First Nations party, for example. I’m sure that idea scares both of the big parties in BC.
How about a “Northern BC” party? Or a Green Party with seats?
“The Liberal Party has dominated federal politics for much of Canada’s history, holding power for almost 69 years in the 20th century, more than any other party in a developed country.”
Same kind of thing that happens in FPP, I guess. Difference is that Fianna Fail (what an awesome name for a party) has been forced to either get a majority of votes, or form coalitions to form a majority. In fact its last 6 governments have only been possible with coalitions with other smaller parties.
The Liberal Party of Canada often ruled with a majority in Parliament without having actually gained a majority of votes. Jean Chretian, for example, was able to rule the country with three consecutive majorities in the house despite only really having 40% of the vote.
A closer example (which I think mirrors the Malta 1981 example, doesn’t it?) is the NDP in the 1990s. In the 1996 election, the NDP won 39% of the vote, and the Liberals won 42% of the vote. Yet somehow Glen Clark became premier? No riots in the streets for sure, but a failure of FPP.
Which one is more democratic? In my opinion, STV beats FPP. And yes, there are numerous examples of both being crappy.
Sorry, this should all be one post, but I’ve been on a wikipedia-thon.
[quote] If your definition of democracy is winner-take-all and 35% = a mandate to rule.
I don’t think that a system where a majority of people vote AGAINST a party, and that party takes the majority of seats is very democratic.
I also don’t think that a system that ignores voters unless they vote for a large established party is all that democratic, as it fails even your definition: “that all citizens have an equal access to power.” I guess by “all citizens” you mean as long as they vote for the large parties.[/quote]
MiG, a mistake with that POV is assuming the mentality of every voter – that they are voting against a party rather than for one. There are voters who voted for the BCGreen Party, would never vote for the BCLiberals, but could live with the BCNDP and vice versa.
There are also voters who don’t even vote for any other reason than they are expected to, are aware of few issues and have been dragged by their wife to do so.
Sounds a lot like those voters would like the ability to vote for more than one candidate, or rank their preferences.
I personally would consider voting Green in an STV situation, for example, but would never consider voting Green in a FPP situation. If I had an STV ballot, I’d probably vote Green first, then NDP, then even consider voting for Herb Pond. In that order.
Unfortunately, with FPP, a vote for the Green party in this riding will probably not count for much.
You don’t need any comparative indexes for people who live in BC.
Just point out how Glen Clark’s NDP won, yet the Liberals got more votes.
Or how next time, the Liberals got a couple % more votes and the NDP got only 2 seats.
That’s the type of skewing STV is meant to prevent.
57.62% (BCL) versus 21.56% (NDP) is a bit more than “a couple % more votes”–so I think that in this case, the election in 2001 is a bad example.
Here’s the source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Co … tion,_2001
It references www.elections.bc.ca as its source.
[quote=“eccentric”]
57.62% (BCL) versus 21.56% (NDP) is a bit more than “a couple % more votes”–so I think that in this case, the election in 2001 is a bad example.[/quote]
No, It’s another good example of the failure of FPP.
BCLiberals get 57% of the vote and end up with 97% of the seats.
NDP get 21% of the vote and end up with 2% of the seats.
Green Party 12% of the vote and ends up with no seats.
im voting no on STV if it isn’t just for one mla in a riding then it is useless, dont like multiple mla’s in large ridings, what is to prevent them from making all northern ridings just one riding somewhere down the road, i’m reminded of the KISS method, Keep it simple stupid, and the way they want to do it is not simple, first past the post or one mla per riding under stv is simple otherwise forget it
You could look at that as another PRO for STV.
The people who think “Voting’s just too hard” would stay home and chat on LavaLife instead of countering your ballot… 
I disagree. You’ve made the argument that the FPP is undemocratic–what’s more democratic than ‘majority wins’? In 2001 it was a landslide–the province clearly wanted the Liberals more than they wanted anyone else. I’m not saying that the general election in 2001 is an example against the STV, I just don’t think it’s an argument for it–and my major issue was the “couple of %” that was mentioned earlier.
[quote=“eccentric”]
I disagree. You’ve made the argument that the FPP is undemocratic–what’s more democratic than ‘majority wins’? [/quote]
It’s winner-take-all. Which is fine with two parties, but not so great with multiple parties.
How about the previous election? More people voted for the Liberals than the NDP. How is it democratic for the NDP to take power?
I think if you get 51% of the vote, you should get 51% of the seats (or close to that).
do you think it is democratic that with the proposal they have for our riding that our 3 mla’s would have what? a third of the province to see their constituents while in Vancouver you can stand on a street corner and see all your constituents in less then 5 minutes walk by you? I don’t think that is fair at all. Democracy isn’t perfect but if it isn’t flawed majorly don’t tamper with it, if you do tamper with it make it better not worse and the current way for they propose for STV is worse then winner take all, at least for us northern ridings where the MLA would have alot of distance to travel to see his/her whole riding. I have no problem with STV if it was one MLA per riding, heck the results might just be the same as first past the post
The number of MLAs for the north will not change. If we have three MLAs in our riding then the riding is likely to compose of Rupert, Terrace/Kitimat, and the Smithers area, where three MLAs already have some distance to travel within their smaller ridings. Nathan Cullen serves that riding federally by himself.
I can understand the concern that all the MLAs may come from one city, the largest city in the region. To be honest, I have not thought this all the way through. Hypothetically, in a northern riding such as ours (and for the sake of argument let’s use the one I described even though it may be different), the Liberals and NDP would run three candidates. Stategically, the Greens and the Christian Heritage Party, and the Marijuana Party and all the other little parties would run one candidate. Throw in a handful of independents (maybe). We are likely to have enough choice to select the party we like, the person we like, and/or the local candidate we like. If we want to support only Ruperites we can. If we want to support only the party of our choice we can. If we want to support a combination we can. We are not going to get what we necessarily voted for every time, but under FPP 1/2 - 2/3 of us don’t get who we voted for either.
As northerners we are lucky to be able to know our representatives personally. But if Rupert got shut out of an election, I would hope that one or both of the major parties (especially the governing party) would have an office in town. By doing so, they are not only representing us, but they would also be gaining support for the next election.
In other threads we have talked about having an MLA in the governing party. Under STV we can hedge our bets. I can see people voting for the two best candidates from the party they support and then throwing their third choice at the best candidate from the second party.
And that of course means that candidates within parties have to compete against each other. No more holding our noses when we vote. If I don’t like Gary OR Herb, I can throw my support to the Liberal or NDP candidates from other cities.
Ka-ching!
That’s exactly why a lot of us here support it. First we have a disgraced, useless Socred who brings nothing to the riding.
Then we elect Socreds cuz 40% are ssslllloooowwww in the head and haven’t figured out they’re dead.
Then we go on to elect a Liberal who bolts the Party.
Now a total rookie…
20 years of wasted ballots and no representation.
A 3 member riding would have at least one on the gov’t side and 3 people competing to look after your town and your vote instead of one.
I read in the Daily News (last Friday?) that there was to be a meeting/forum on this issue at NWCC tonight. No time was indicated. I just checked with the college and room 240 is being used from 6 -9 for something called fair vote. However I do not know if an information session starts at six or if we just show up at any time to chat with proponents and maybe opponents. The person at the college couldn’t give me any more specifics. Anybody here know anything.
I am revisiting this thread for two reasons. The election is upon us for one, and Mig told me of a very cool site where you can vote as if this election were being run under STV rules.
You get to actually vote for the candidates that have been nominated and get the results immediately of who would win. The purpose of the site is to give you an idea of how the count would go.
Once you vote and even if you don’t go to “view results” and go through all the rounds. If the complicated vote count has concerned you, this site should help you understand it.
Excellent site DWhite, that’s the best explanation of how the process works that I’ve seen anywhere so far. I’m sold.