Forum Closed
The forum is now to new posts. All the historical content is still available to browse.
if you are looking for musicians to play with, please view the Bands Seeking Musicians list, or use the Musicians Directory
You can use our pages on social media to connect:
BC-STV Referendum.
| Message Board > Controversy and Quarantine > BC-STV Referendum. |
| Mi*coll* User Info... | Does everyone here understand the new electoral system that we're going to be voting on? - Tue, 3 May 2005 11:22pm | ||
| cooper User Info... | Yes, read one newspaper article/editorial explaining it and it should be clear as can be! Just vote yes, that's all there is to it. Our system needs improving and this is the best possible solution. - Tue, 3 May 2005 11:53pm | ||
| Lythic Matt User Info... | cooper's right, vote yes on this. While the BC-STV system isn't perfect, neither is the current one and the proposed system is well thought-out and will provide some solutions to some of our current problems. Namely, results aren't proportional with first-past-the-post. Check these stats out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Columbia_Election_2001 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Columbia_general_election%2C_1996 The Liberals won the popular vote but lost the election in 1996, and in 2001 they won nearly 98% of the seats with less than 60% of the vote. On top of that, third parties caught more than a fifth of the vote in 2001, and no seats, and about 19% of the vote with 4% of the seats in 1996. - Wed, 4 May 2005 1:38am | ||
| Gman User Info... | For info on the proposed changes to the electoral system, you should check out the site of the Citizens Assembly, who wrote the report that suggested BC use the Single Transferable Vote system: http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/public - Wed, 4 May 2005 11:25am | ||
| jackass User Info... | http://www.knowstv.ca/ definitely read this - Wed, 4 May 2005 12:16pm | ||
| James User Info... | The ignorance of the public to the once in a life time opportunity to take back politics from the massive beaurocratic party policy makers is astounding. LythicBlue is right our current electoral system first past the post (FPTP) is a majoritarian system that is not proportional. Therefore it is extremely difficult for minority parties and interest to be represented. Although I really feel for the Liberal in regards to the 1996 election, that is the least of systems faults. Not only does the winner take all nature of FPTP politicize out smaller parties it is the staple for the status-quo. FPTP leads to the massive u-turns in policy BC has experienced over the last ten years, as voters lose faith; in what happened to be Glen Clarks New Democrats, under FPTP they lack the ability to punish Clark for his idiocy without handing the opposition; which happened to be Gordo’s Liberals, a huge majority. This lead to politicians, like Gordo did after the last election, to claim they have a mandate from the people of BC to go ahead with their “new deal” which lead to government policy that simply was unchecked for the last four years. When the mainstream media is the only opposition to your government your in big trouble. STV would go a long way to solving this, the system itself creates coalition governments, in which the adversarial style of, dog eat dog politics, that are common today under FPTP must be forgotten. Politicians, like the rest of the masses must work together in order to accomplish tasks, this lead to moderation in policy because more voices are listened to when passing legislation. This also tends to help the number of women in politics as the proportionality of the system allows women’s interest to be heard, and it is easier for women to get elected talking about feminine issues, rather than taking up tough alpha-male personas like women in politics have to do today in order to get elected. Margaret Thatcher is a extreme example of this, however, even Carol James in last nights debate looked more like a man with her power suit and stern glares then Gordo did. Any who if you don’t understand STV, don’t worry. It is mathematical and at first can be confusing, however, that doesn’t need to influence your vote, On May 17th vote for electoral reform, and change to the status-quo. I could bore you even more, however, I am starting to bore even myself. Tell your damn friends. To vote in the referendum you don’t have to vote in the election. Just spoil your election ballot, if that is your style, and vote yes to STV. No one is talking about the referendum in the election campaigns because the parties are scared. STV gives the voter the political power, by allowing you to rank candidates your vote is not wasted in the same way many votes are wasted under FPTP. Someone voting for the Green Party in Williams Lake stands no chance of electing a Green MLA under FPTP, however, STV could change that. Society is eclectic, politics continues to be a homogeneous white boys club. Vote for change May 17th. Please email me with any questions, I am a nerd and can probably answer them or direct you to someone who can. [email protected] Oh, and the KNOWSTV website, even a child could see through their biases, but could a child see through mine? Ya, I would think so. - Wed, 4 May 2005 12:20pm | ||
| The Wizzard User Info... | I believe that changing our electoral system to a more democratic one would be a step in the right direction. This new electoral system would give smaller parties the opportunity to express themselves with the hope of an end result of winning seats in the legislature. This new system would make for a more responsible form of government in which there would be coalitions of parties as opposed to the traditional majority government. VOTE IN FAVOUR OF THE NEW STV SYSTEM! Sorry if I repeated any points already outlined in the previous posts. - Wed, 4 May 2005 5:21pm | ||
| lonemonk User Info... | I don't see it mentioned much, so this might be the place... Just because the STV ballot will have the ability to rank preferences, there is no need to rank people you do not wnt to vote for in the first place. I heard some commentary on CBC with people upset about their vote going somewhere they don't wish. This can't happen. Nothing stops people from only selecting one candidate (or a couple) and leaving it at that. It doesn't lessen the validity of that single ballot at all. The current systems sucks (as is well descibed here). Current parties simply know how to win with such a system, and they would rather that system remain. I'd be all for doing something similar for the federal elections. Regrettably, BC does not contain legislation for a 'None of the Above' option (or whats called a 'Refused' vote), so more options are always good. I heard of a time when None of the Above was the winner in a Nevada state (i think it was) election. The second choice won, but with a serious minority situation. (And an inability to tramp upon people's rights with ease) - Wed, 4 May 2005 9:42pm | ||
| Mi*coll* User Info... | good. i'm glad that you all understand the system. why do so many people claim that it is "too complicated"? - Thu, 5 May 2005 2:33pm | ||
| Gman User Info... | "why do so many people claim that it is "too complicated"?" 'Cause 'they' have a vested interest in the system staying the same... either that or 'they' think people are idiots. - Thu, 5 May 2005 2:50pm | ||
| lonemonk User Info... | The only seemingly complicated aspect about it is the equations which process the STV votes somewhat differently than the current system which is simply counting the votes for either ONE or THE OTHER. I think this is the single thing which causes confusion among people. The entire STV system is published for people to understand, but really the opportunity to the voter is simple: Provide a means to be (a bit) more descriptive in who you expect will represent you best. (and possibly second best, and third best...) Such a system will also allow more individual parties to play the game in a more serious way. Think about it, there is nothing wrong with a government composed of a wide range of parties who are forced (by the electorate) to finally get along. Not like what we have now where Canadian federal parties have lost the ability to form consistent coalitions. In many other places in the world this is a crucial ruling capacity! The alternative is to take the government down by force, but I haven't run across too many in this discussion board who are capable of running this place.... - Fri, 6 May 2005 12:07am | ||
| Lythic Matt User Info... | But, if the government of BC *is* brought down by force... it should be the members of this board that form the new legislative assembly. - Fri, 6 May 2005 2:38am | ||
| Gman User Info... | "it should be the members of this board" That's going to give me nightmares. - Fri, 6 May 2005 10:12am | ||
| Mi*coll* User Info... | Hahahah! too funny. A LiveVictoria coup is a great idea. Viva presidente el fuckface-o. - Fri, 6 May 2005 12:22pm | ||
| lonemonk User Info... | Yep, the idea itself is enough to boggle the mind. It would certainly be the drunkenest and most disfunctional legislature on the planet. At least we could make Gordon Campbell the designated driver (as he claims not to drink anymore) and for the younguns' he could boot for them at the corner 24 hour beer stores... - Fri, 6 May 2005 11:00pm | ||
| el fuckface-o User Info... | good to see mi*bitch* swinging from the correct set of testicles! you are learning. - Wed, 18 May 2005 3:40pm | ||
| Mi*coll* User Info... | i'll support your coup, but you have to give me a cabinet post. - Thu, 19 May 2005 4:35pm | ||
| KnifeGhost User Info... | Only if you lose the leadership of the opposition party.... People who understood STV far and away supported it.... Why the fuck are people who don't know what they're talking about the loudest about it? All I saw in the Times Colonist leading up to the election were letters about how STV wouldn't work and blah blah, vested interested in the status quo..... Why is the default for people who don't understand it to be against it? They have no spirit of adventure.... "I don't understand it, but goddamn if it wouldn't be better than what we have now...." - Mon, 23 May 2005 9:18pm | ||
| Chris Logan User Info... | I don't know if a "spirit of adventure" is a good thing in electoral politics. I voted for STV in the end, but I'm not choked it didn't pass. If I hadn't done a fair bit of research on it, I definitely would've voted "No". Just to take things up to the next level - the NSDAP won a lot of votes from people who wanted to "shake things up" without really knowing what was going on. If you just want to shake things up without caring about the possible negative consequences, you might want to consider anarchism - it's an honest, if deeply flawed, political position. - Tue, 24 May 2005 11:08am | ||
| Mi*coll* User Info... | heheh. good points. but in the end, STV is the mathematically most democratic electoral system. the system is perfect for bc -- except some people don't understand it. it isn't that harf. well, then again, some people have vested interests -- for instance the girl i met at the NDP election party who insisted that, under stv, every vote "counts for less than one vote". (in fact, under stv, each person helps to choose at least one candidate). fucking NDP. - Tue, 24 May 2005 9:56pm | ||
| KnifeGhost User Info... | STV isn't Hitler, and that's trite comparison... I _am_ an anarchist, though... But not in the way you have in mind... Considering the negative consequences of our current way of living is the main reason why I have the political philosophy I do, which is closer to anarchism than socialism, blah blah whatever.... But I certainly believe that right now it's a lot more constructive to push for the little positive change we can get through electoral politics than it is to throw a brick through a window.... - Wed, 25 May 2005 9:05pm | ||
| Chris Logan User Info... | "STV isn't Hitler, and that's trite comparison.." My point was that just wanting to "shake things up" is a dangerous option in electoral politics. I actually voted for STV, anyway, but I wouldn't have if I hadn't learned how it worked. Many people didn't know how it worked. And, by the way, many Germans didn't know that much about the National Socialists when they came to power, through a system of proportional represenation, I might add. - Thu, 26 May 2005 10:44am | ||
| KnifeGhost User Info... | I still say it's a trite comparison. Any kind of government can be elected with any kind of (reasonably fair) electoral system, so that's irrelevant. Anyways, that's beside the point. what I meant was that people showed no interest in being informed about the issue. In this case, a spirit of adventure would lead them to become informed about the system, and then make a decision. To indulge your analogy, don't you think we'd have been better off if German voters got informed about the NSDAP before voting for them? My point is that informed voters are better voters, and that some people lack the spirit of adventure to get informed, and instead vote to preserve the status quo. - Thu, 26 May 2005 2:26pm | ||
| Chris Logan User Info... | I couldn't agree with you more that voters should be better informed, but I still think that if one hadn't found out much about STV, the right vote was a No. That doesn't mean people shouldn't've made the effort. - Thu, 26 May 2005 2:51pm | ||
| Mi*coll* User Info... | I am always very dubious of the argument that "Pro-rep is bad because the Nazis came to power under a system of pro-rep". I am dubious because there is no causal link. Pro-rep did not cause the Nazis to come to power -- there were many other causes. - Thu, 26 May 2005 4:35pm | ||
| Chris Logan User Info... | Geez - it's probably time to let the Nazi thing go. I was just trying to point out that uninformed voting can lead to dubious results, NOT that STV in BC would lead to Nazis in power here. I never argured pro-rep was bad - in fact, I pointed out more than once that I voted for it. 'Kay? No more nazis! - Fri, 27 May 2005 10:39am | ||
| The One After Two User Info... | I agree, Down with Nazis! Up with mini skirts! - Fri, 27 May 2005 2:13pm | ||
| Chris Logan User Info... | Sock it to me! - Sat, 28 May 2005 8:14am | ||
| KnifeGhost User Info... | This is my happening, and it freaks me out! For the record: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law I would argue that the right thing to do when you don't understand the issue that you're voting on is not to vote. That's less true in elections, but I think it's the way to go with a referendum. Bah. It just frustrates the fuck out of that so many people who don'tunderstand the system and have made little effort to understand it condemn it. *twitch twitch* (I'm in favour of mini skirts, where worn properly...) - Sat, 28 May 2005 2:21pm | ||
|
|||
Not logged in
Log In / Register (optional)
Featured Events
Featured Historical Events
Featured Article
Newest Profiles
Pacific Arts Market
Showcases local artists & makers, hosts events & workshops
Ladysmith BC
Open / Operational
