Author
|
Topic: BC-STV Referendum 2009
|
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276
|
posted 28 November 2007 07:59 PM
Continuing from this thread, I still see no indication that the government will have any public education campaign for the 2009 referendum. It can't be put together quickly, as anyone in Ontario can tell you.And it's remarkable that they let Bill 39 sit on the order paper until too late in the session. More history repeating itself: that's just what the Ontario government did in the spring of 2005, and when they ran into an identical end-of-session filibuster from the Opposition, they caved and gave them their Select Committee, holding up the process by six months -- the six months that could have made all the difference in Ontario if we had had the CA Report by November 2006, or if the CA had had a couple more months to deliberate, and we had had the report in January leaving time for public education last winter and spring. The Ontario Minister herself has admitted the citizens' assembly process should have begun earlier. The legal maxim that people are presumed to intend the natural consequences of their acts is sound, especially in politics, where they generally do, though they protest it was just an accident. In fact, when a government protests that it never intended to delay a Bill, it's a strong indication that they intended precisely to delay it. quote: Originally posted by Centrist in another thread: STV does not and will have any traction with the general public... 1) No STV public assembly for media attention to be focused upon; 2) No STV media attention since last provincial election; 3) No appetite for change; (unlike last time around with 2001 virtual one-party government still in voters minds).
Comments?
From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Centrist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5422
|
posted 28 November 2007 09:14 PM
quote: Originally posted by Wilf Day: In fact, when a government protests that it never intended to delay a Bill, it's a strong indication that they intended precisely to delay it.
My sense of Bill 39 in BC is somewhat different. After the initial backlash the gov't received from interior residents, regarding the reduction of interior representation, the gov't had a knee-jerk reaction and drafted Bill 39 on the back of a napkin, so to speak. Rather than increasing the allowed maximum number of seats "up to 85" as exists under the current act, Bill 39 mandated that the commission must come to an exact number of 87 seats, which was ludicrous and the NDP rightfully opposed such legislation. (Again, one motive behind that number was likely to decrease the electoral quotient). Many columnists referred to that specific seat provision as "gerrymandering", and one must be mindful of the "Gracie's Finger" episode of the early 1980's, whereby Socred cabinet minister Grace McCarthy apparently interfered with the Justice Fischer commission to allow a *strange* finger of right-wing support to suddenly appear in Vancouver-Little Mountain. Methinks the government did not want to hand the NDP an issue, which would allow the NDP to cast doubt on the commission's findings and the *ethics* of the current gov't. As I stated in another thread, the commission held one boisterous meeting in Prince George, where the anger was apparent over the deletion of three interior seats. The commission reads the papers, watches the news, has had numerous submissions both before and after the report and sense where the wind is blowing. Ergo, I believe that they will revise their report to accommodate those concerns under the "upto 85 seats" provision. As for STV in BC, the momentum and foundation was laid by two contiguous election results... 1996 whereby the NDP won gov't without a majority of the popular vote and subsequently during 2001 where the Liberals took 77/79 seats with 57% of the vote. The CA received extremely good media coverage while it was extant leading up to the '05 election. That said, that exposure is long gone and I doubt that STV will gain much traction during the next election. I would also predict that it will receive much less that 50% ... and aside from us political junkies... if one would ask the proverbial "man in the street" what STV is... I believe that 90% would give you a blank stare.. I also believe that the following STV poll, undertaken four months after the '05 election, is a good analysis of public opinion in '05,.. but not now. http://nrgresearchgroup.com/media/documents/BC-STVSept2005.pdf
From: BC | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276
|
posted 29 November 2007 04:28 AM
quote: Originally posted by Centrist: The CA received extremely good media coverage while it was extant leading up to the '05 election.
That's the real mystery still in Ontario. We know the government had, by May 2007, lost enthusiasm for its own initiative. But why the media in Toronto failed to cover the CA in September 2006 and all that fall is a puzzle. The only decent coverage that fall came from James Wallace, Queen's Park Bureau chief for the Osprey chain, which collectively has more readers across Ontario than any one Toronto paper. When someone writes the book "Who Killed Electoral Reform in Ontario?" the first spotlight should be on the Toronto media, who performed as though they had all agreed to boycott the whole event.The only other theory I've heard is that "it was way out at York University." For some, perhaps, it's not just Toronto that is the centre of the universe, it's "downtown Toronto." Perhaps Downsview, "Scarberia" and the proverbial Coboconk -- which was the end of the railway line to cottage country in the 1920s -- are all beneath the notice of downtown types? Hard to believe. quote: Originally posted by Centrist: Rather than increasing the allowed maximum number of seats "up to 85" as exists under the current act, Bill 39 mandated that the commission must come to an exact number of 87 seats, which was ludicrous and the NDP rightfully opposed such legislation. (Again, one motive behind that number was likely to decrease the electoral quotient). Many columnists referred to that specific seat provision as "gerrymandering" . . .
I don't get this at all.Federal Boundaries Commissions always know the number of seats they have to work with. Ontario increased its number of MPPs to 117 in 1967, 125 in 1975, and 130 in 1987. To the best of my recollection those numbers were all chosen by the legislature or the government. Has any province other than BC ever given the Commission a floating number of seats to work with? When the government told the Commission "up to 85" I thought that was a dishonest way to avoid responsibility for increasing the number of MLAs. Apparently the Commission felt so too. The government now says they gave the Commission lots of clues during debate that it should keep all the present rural and northern seats, that is, use the full 85. But the Commission must follow the statute, which was silent. That's an example of the government evading responsibility. Stating 85 or 87 was the right thing to do, and in no way "gerrymandering." And if they had second thoughts about the number, the right thing to do was to say so and withdraw or amend the Bill, not duck responsibility by leaving the Bill to the end of the session and blaming the NDP for debating it. So there's a hidden agenda here. What is it? [ 29 November 2007: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]
From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
skeiseid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14212
|
posted 29 November 2007 05:48 AM
We know the government had, by May 2007, lost enthusiasm for its own initiative.This assumes that the government had enthusiasm to begin with. Not a good assumption. William of Ockham would suggest that if there never was any good faith enthusiasm, it's absence as of May is no mystery. The OCA was an inadvertent gift from the government -- like a corral gate left open. In BC the horses recognized their opportunity and galloped out. In Ontario they remained milling about in the corral. If the press seemed indifferent to the OCA it was merely reporting what it saw. It's defeatist to assume that the public cannot galvanize strongly and quickly around the issue of the referendum. The public can easily get excited and decisive over a single election statement -- as John Tory well knows. [ 29 November 2007: Message edited by: skeiseid ]
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
skeiseid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14212
|
posted 29 November 2007 11:34 AM
I didn't use the corral imagery then but I did tell the OCA that they shouldn't really be too concerned about why the OCA was convened but they should instead figure out what problems electoral reform could and should solve and then do that. It was clearly in their mandate to "take the reins" so to speak. They didn't. Of course the media is crucial -- in fact they're the one of the main venues. They're also the "instrument" -- there's no reason why the BC-CA alumni and reformer types couldn't "play" that instrument. It will happen in any event. You want to be the composer and/or the musician. [ 29 November 2007: Message edited by: skeiseid ]
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276
|
posted 29 November 2007 11:37 AM
quote: Originally posted by skeiseid: It's defeatist to assume that the public cannot galvanize strongly and quickly around the issue of the referendum.
If I ever said last May that it was defeatist to assume Ontario didn't have enough time for a good public education campaign, I apologize. quote: Originally posted by skeiseid: The OCA was an inadvertent gift from the government.
As I say from time to time, inadvertance is usually a poor excuse for an explanation: it's more likely that they intended to do what they did.It's actually not hard to understand at all. In 1995 John Gerretsen, who knew all about European PR and was a lawyer who had been president of the Ontario Municipal Association, found himself the only Liberal elected between Toronto and Ottawa, facing a lopsided radical conservative majority government elected by a minority of votes. He started working for MMP, with regional lists. In 2003 Dalton McGuinty was elected, only the second Liberal premier in 60 years, and in 49 of those years another party had held power with a "manufactured majority" of seats elected by a minority of votes. Intelligent Liberals, especially outside Toronto (where Liberals did well even against Harris), saw the need for PR clearly -- except for those who preferred the Alternative (preferential)ballot, or IRV as the Americans call it. quote: Originally posted by skeiseid: If the press seemed indifferent to the OCA it was merely reporting what it saw.
The average involved Ontario journalist understand the need for PR: John Deverell, when he was president of the CEP-affiliated Southern Ontario Newspaper Guild, kept winning votes at membership meetings to make donations to the cause.Yet the Queen's Park beat reporters just didn't show up at the OCA. No, they didn't report what they saw; they didn't see it, mostly. They were mostly at best indifferent to the story, at worst hostile, quite unlike BC. I think no one anticipated this. I'm not sure why it happened. [ 29 November 2007: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]
From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
skeiseid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14212
|
posted 29 November 2007 11:42 AM
Not everything is about you, Wilf. "Centrist" is the apparent defeatist. As for the rest of it... you've missed the point(s) again. Ah well. Business as usual. [ 29 November 2007: Message edited by: skeiseid ]
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
skeiseid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14212
|
posted 29 November 2007 12:58 PM
A level playing field -- on all levels -- is what's important. Achieving that so as to eliminate all the "gerrys" so that they cannot be mandered.Electoral reform, by rights, must get to the heart of the issue of "fairness" and how we want fairness to operate in practical terms within the scope of our (well, BC's) notion of representative democracy. BC-STV gets a lot of that right. [ 30 November 2007: Message edited by: skeiseid ]
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
RANGER
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7667
|
posted 30 November 2007 07:41 AM
quote: Originally posted by Centrist:
My sense of Bill 39 in BC is somewhat different. After the initial backlash the gov't received from interior residents, regarding the reduction of interior representation, the gov't had a knee-jerk reaction and drafted Bill 39 on the back of a napkin, so to speak. Rather than increasing the allowed maximum number of seats "up to 85" as exists under the current act, Bill 39 mandated that the commission must come to an exact number of 87 seats, which was ludicrous and the NDP rightfully opposed such legislation. (Again, one motive behind that number was likely to decrease the electoral quotient). Many columnists referred to that specific seat provision as "gerrymandering", and one must be mindful of the "Gracie's Finger" episode of the early 1980's, whereby Socred cabinet minister Grace McCarthy apparently interfered with the Justice Fischer commission to allow a *strange* finger of right-wing support to suddenly appear in Vancouver-Little Mountain. Methinks the government did not want to hand the NDP an issue, which would allow the NDP to cast doubt on the commission's findings and the *ethics* of the current gov't. As I stated in another thread, the commission held one boisterous meeting in Prince George, where the anger was apparent over the deletion of three interior seats. The commission reads the papers, watches the news, has had numerous submissions both before and after the report and sense where the wind is blowing. Ergo, I believe that they will revise their report to accommodate those concerns under the "upto 85 seats" provision. As for STV in BC, the momentum and foundation was laid by two contiguous election results... 1996 whereby the NDP won gov't without a majority of the popular vote and subsequently during 2001 where the Liberals took 77/79 seats with 57% of the vote. The CA received extremely good media coverage while it was extant leading up to the '05 election. That said, that exposure is long gone and I doubt that STV will gain much traction during the next election. I would also predict that it will receive much less that 50% ... and aside from us political junkies... if one would ask the proverbial "man in the street" what STV is... I believe that 90% would give you a blank stare.. I also believe that the following STV poll, undertaken four months after the '05 election, is a good analysis of public opinion in '05,.. but not now. http://nrgresearchgroup.com/media/documents/BC-STVSept2005.pdf
It's great to know that some folks on this forum look at this subject from an "average persons" viewpoint.
Well said, Centrist
From: sunshine coast | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
skeiseid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14212
|
posted 30 November 2007 08:50 AM
On the other hand, Centrist could get out of his comfy chair and help SW and the rest overcome the supposed antipathy of the "average" and raise awareness. After all, democratic reform -- of which electoral reform is only a part -- is aiming, in part, to increase voter participation and civic engagement to the point where your "average" passive point of view would become the marginal one. In other words the average person would be much more of an activist. Why wait for spring... ? [ 30 November 2007: Message edited by: skeiseid ]
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
skeiseid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14212
|
posted 30 November 2007 12:06 PM
That hasn't been my impression from all reports out of BC.What has been said -- as is likely true -- is that the more people learned about BC-STV the more they liked it and the more likely they would (and did) vote for it. Those who voted for it because it was the product of an assembly of citizens will be reminded of that and educated as well. There is a lot of work that needs to be done to pick up the threads of the discussion but there's a lot of scope for good results.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Centrist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5422
|
posted 30 November 2007 12:35 PM
quote: Originally posted by Wilf Day: When the government told the Commission "up to 85" I thought that was a dishonest way to avoid responsibility for increasing the number of MLAs.Stating 85 or 87 was the right thing to do, and in no way "gerrymandering." And if they had second thoughts about the number, the right thing to do was to say so and withdraw or amend the Bill, not duck responsibility by leaving the Bill to the end of the session and blaming the NDP for debating it. So there's a hidden agenda here. What is it?
Actually the original boundary commission bill from a few years ago was supported, without any qualms, by both parties in the house. The "up to" number of seats was also a provision in the legislation governing the previous boundary commission governing the current 79 seats. That "up to" provision provides the commission with the flexibility to deal with issues like effective representation, rural representation (i.e. a larger land base balanced with a smaller population base, governing case law (the +- 25% electoral quotient), Charter of Rights matters, etc. You are right though, the amended bill requiring exactly 87 seats in no way reflected gerrymandering. The so-called "gerrymandering" idea was thrown about by prominent New Democrat columnists such as Bill Tieleman and David Schreck on the basis that at least a further two seats (from up to 85 to exactly 87) would be placed into high-growth Liberal areas to their benefit. Both parties agreed that the loss of one seat in the north, Cariboo, and the Kootenays respectively was not acceptable for obvious political reasons (the outrage could be heard all the way to Victoria). The party that would not support changing that concept could likely suffer from voter wrath in those areas during the next election. Now, if the government had rammed the amended bill through the house, they would have been accused of high-handed tactics for their own benefit, which would have tainted the supposed non-partisan nature of the commission and the government itself. Probably not a politically wise move. They should have changed the ammended legislation from exactly 87 seats to "upto" 87 seats. In that context, the bill might have received unanimous support without debate, but decided not to do so. Of course, I'm referring to SMP here, not STV.
From: BC | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Centrist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5422
|
posted 30 November 2007 01:00 PM
quote: Originally posted by Stunned Wind: I'm still waiting for the proof that there was any gerrymandering involved. I don't see it myself.
From the Province newspaper: quote: _________________________________________________ "They knew there would be a public backlash -- maybe even a lawsuit for interfering in an independent commission," said NDP house leader Mike Farnworth, whose troops were delighted at preventing what they felt was a case of brazen Liberal gerrymandering. _________________________________________________ From the Prince George Citizen: quote: _________________________________________________ Prince George-Mount Robson MLA Shirley Bond said the Liberals offered to change the phrasing to allow the commission to add "up to" eight seats but the NDP turned down that suggestion. Conversely, Simpson said the NDP was willing to allow the commission to add as many seats as thought necessary to meet guidelines for representation by population but the offer fell on deaf ears. _________________________________________________ Methinks, there was too much politics in this amended bill and not enough practical considerations given by both sides to have the legislation passed without controversy.
From: BC | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Assembly Talker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7272
|
posted 30 November 2007 04:26 PM
Hey Ranger!!! Where have you been!!!???
It's great to know that some folks on this forum look at this subject from an "average persons" viewpoint.
Are you talking about the 37% from Ontario? Or the 58% from BC? Or did only above average people vote in BC? AT
From: The Heartland | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
skeiseid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14212
|
posted 03 December 2007 03:02 AM
"And democracy delayed is democracy denied."Well said Brian.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Jamie Deith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14084
|
posted 07 December 2007 09:30 PM
quote: Originally posted by CCBC:
Holding the referendum after the provincial election would still allow STV in the next election, should the Yes vote win. There is no delay.
You might recall that the repeat referendum was initially to be held concurrenly with municipal elections in Nov. 2008, to allow for possible implementation for the May 2009 election. It soon became clear that this approach was unworkable. 6 months would be too little time for Elections BC to prepare for an STV election, and the municipal boundaries don't mesh particularly well with provincial ridings. The alternative - a stand-alone referendum - was also rejected because of the incremental cost of I-can't-remember-how-many millions. In the end the government decided that it had sufficient justification to delay the referendum until the next general election, with the convenient side effect of protecting FPTP for another 4 years.The problem that I see with your assertion is that it makes no more sense to hold a stand alone referendum in 2010 or 2011 than it does to hold it in, say, May of 2008. Mind you, if you happen to be one of the lucky ones who benefits from FPTP, just about any excuse to delay the referendum might be tempting... [ 07 December 2007: Message edited by: Jamie Deith ]
From: The Island | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
CCBC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3696
|
posted 11 December 2007 09:04 PM
quote: Originally posted by Jamie Deith: it makes no more sense to hold a stand alone referendum in 2010 or 2011 than it does to hold it in, say, May of 2008. [ 07 December 2007: Message edited by: Jamie Deith ]
I believe that it does. Holding the election in 2010 would allow enough time for Elections BC to provide for an STV election in 2013, which is the earliest one could be held anyway (barring a government falling). The benefit, as I said before, is to enable folks to have a clear look at the options without the distraction of a provincial election. As for cost, well, nobody said democracy was cheap. (Just for the record, I was ready for a 2008 referendum. It was Elections BC who put it off, not me.)
From: Nelson, BC | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
scott
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 637
|
posted 21 February 2008 09:21 PM
quote: Originally posted by Wilf Day: I still see no indication that the government will have any public education campaign for the 2009 referendum. It can't be put together quickly, as anyone in Ontario can tell you.
Well, the recent budget put $1.5 million on the table to fund public education. I take this as a signal that the referendum is still on: from the Tyee: Funding Found for New Vote on How BC Elects quote: $1.5 million to explain pros and cons of STV.The British Columbia government has budgeted $1.5 million to help spread information about the Single Transferable Vote system, which voters will have their say on in a referendum to be held with the May 2009 election. There is $500,000 each for a "yes" and a "no" campaign, said a spokesperson for the Ministry of the Attorney General. Two-thirds of the money will be available in the 2008-2009 fiscal year. There is also $500,000 for an office in the Attorney General's ministry to provide neutral information. Giving the groups money to spend may not help the "yes" side, said Pilon, author of The Politics of Voting: Reforming Canada's Electoral System. "The fact that there's any money in a sense favours the 'no' side," he said. "The 'no' side has no broad-based public support." During a 2005 referendum on STV, "yes" and "no" sides came up with their own funding. The Yes to STV campaign raised $51,829 from a wide range of sources. The anti-reform group Know STV raised $10,715. Their seven donors were almost all people listed as members on their website. While the "yes" campaign found support from a strong grassroots movement, Pilon said, the "no" campaign was run by a handful of political insiders. "Last time they had a difficult time coming up with money. This time they're being handed money." Giving the campaigns money may not lead to a more informed electorate, he said. During the last B.C. referendum the "no" side was "unscrupulous" in how it presented the issue, he said, adding the campaign spread misinformation about what was proposed and how similar systems work elsewhere.
From: Kootenays BC | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
scott
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 637
|
posted 07 May 2008 02:03 PM
The wording of next years pro-rep referendum is up for debate in the leg.Next year, voters will get an either/or choice on electoral reform (Vaughn Palmer, Vancouver Sun) quote: Which electoral system should B.C. use to elect members to the provincial legislative assembly?The existing electoral system, known as first-past-the-post? Or the single transferrable vote system (BC-STV), proposed by the citizens' assembly on electoral reform? The B.C. Liberals say the foregoing should be the wording of the next referendum on electoral reform, to be held with the provincial election, a year and a week from today. Last time out, the question was simply: "Should B.C. change to the BC-STV system as recommended by the citizen's assembly on electoral reform? Yes/No." The Liberals haven't offered an explanation for the change, which is still subject to debate and approval by the legislature. They may be trying to give the status quo a little boost by highlighting the existing system as one of two options.
[ 07 May 2008: Message edited by: scott ]
From: Kootenays BC | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Politics101
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8962
|
posted 07 May 2008 04:04 PM
Some interesting comments from the NDP regarding the Bill and the requirement for a 60% majority. quote: "The thinking is that if we're going to have a fundamental change in the way in which we vote, then it should be by more than 60 per cent," Attorney-General Wally Oppal told the legislature this spring."It would appear to be a reasonable threshold, given that what's being proposed is a major change in the electoral system" agreed New Democratic Party MLA Bruce Ralston. His colleague John Horgan, no fan of electoral change ("I don't have a quarrel with our system") questioned whether the "supermajority" would even be necessary this time out. "We've had three years go by," since the last referendum, Horgan noted. "The balance in this place has changed. Government has stepped back from some of its more draconian policies and I believe, based on what I hear in my constituency" -- a riding in the provincial capital region -- "that people are by and large satisfied with the electoral system." Therefore: "Could it not be argued that it's a bit of a waste of money and resources and energy to put forward a question again with a supermajority that wasn't achieved at the height of discussion on electoral reform?"
It is also interesting to note that in this case it appears that the NDP wants 60% but in Vancouver for a change in the way we are governed - ie a ward system they only want 50% + 1.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
melovesproles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8868
|
posted 08 May 2008 12:55 AM
quote: "We've had three years go by," since the last referendum, Horgan noted. "The balance in this place has changed. Government has stepped back from some of its more draconian policies and I believe, based on what I hear in my constituency" -- a riding in the provincial capital region -- "that people are by and large satisfied with the electoral system."Therefore: "Could it not be argued that it's a bit of a waste of money and resources and energy to put forward a question again with a supermajority that wasn't achieved at the height of discussion on electoral reform?"
An NDP MLA is arguing that a Liberal majority is getting better at governing and therefore electoral reform is pointless? Wow. So we don't only have a useless federal official opposition but a provincial one too.
From: BC | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
CCBC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3696
|
posted 08 May 2008 08:44 PM
quote: Originally posted by melovesproles:
An NDP MLA is arguing that a Liberal majority is getting better at governing and therefore electoral reform is pointless?
Read his Hansard statements again. Horgan wasn't arguing against reform, he was arguing against the 60% majority.
From: Nelson, BC | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052
|
posted 08 May 2008 09:12 PM
The BC government must have been very impressed with how well the Ontario government minimized support for electoral reform, because their new question is almost a carbon copy of the Ontario question.Ontario question for last year's referendum: quote: Which electoral system should Ontario use to elect members to the provincial legislature?The existing electoral system First-Past-the-Post)? The alternative electoral system proposed by the Citizens’ Assembly (Mixed Member Proportional)?
BC question for the next referendum: quote: Which electoral system should B.C. use to elect members to the provincial legislative assembly?The existing electoral system, known as first-past-the-post? Or the single transferrable vote system (BC-STV), proposed by the citizens' assembly on electoral reform?
This kind of question strikes almost the perfect balance for opponents of reform: to most people it sounds like an impartial question, but the effect is really a toned-down version of: "What do you want? The clear and simple existing system? Or some complicated-sounding idea for change that somebody came up with, that you don't really understand? Combine that question with the lack of a proper campaign to educate people about the proposed system, and toss in a 60/40 threshold, and the outcome is guaranteed. A sad day for democracy.
From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
melovesproles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8868
|
posted 09 May 2008 11:00 AM
quote: Read his Hansard statements again. Horgan wasn't arguing against reform, he was arguing against the 60% majority.
My only reference was the Palmer piece above, now I've read the Hansard, your right the quotes were taken out of context. quote: I guess when cabinet is faced with approving legislation, you take it to your caucus and put the question to the caucus. You say: "Well, we could have gone with 50-percent-plus-one, or we could have gone with the supermajority. We chose to go with the supermajority."The challenge that poses for all of us here as we vote for this legislation, presuming it's going to pass, is that we'll go back to our constituencies, and there will be many who will say — and the Attorney will hear from them, I'm certain — that we are protecting our vested interests here in this place. The first-past-the-post system works for us, and therefore we're trying to preserve it. That's not my argument. I want the Attorney to be clear on that. I don't have a quarrel with our system. I believe in representing an area rather than representing a point of view, so I'm quite comfortable with what we've got. But as I've said in the debate, I do hear from a lot of people in the community — not just my own, but since I've been taking an interest in this — that by putting forward a supermajority, we are protecting our self-interest. Does the minister have a comment on that or on how I could better make the case when I go home — that I'm not doing that?
Hansard
From: BC | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276
|
posted 11 July 2008 09:28 PM
quote: Originally posted by melovesproles: An NDP MLA is arguing that a Liberal majority is getting better at governing and therefore electoral reform is pointless? Wow.
Good one. quote: Originally posted by scott in another thread: Carr was disappointed that the CA did not choose something closer to the MMP system that she promoted previously. So was I, but I changed my position also as I learned more about STV.I think that what is needed is a clear position on pro-rep from the BC-NDP, and we don’t have that yet.
There's still time, if enough New Democrats across Canada ask the BC party not to embarass the rest of us by opposing PR. quote: Originally posted by kropotkin1951 in another thread: I agree that the BC NDP should take a firm position in favour of STV in the next referendum. However when I look at the results in Ontario I wonder how much influence the parties positions played in the votes cast by their supporters. In retrospect given the results in BC compared to the results in Ontario I think that having the BC Fed and the NDP on the sidelines in the debate allowed Liberal supporters to vote for a better system on the merits of the system itself not the ideology of its promoters. A citizens drive is required that stays away from BC's left/right union/non-union polarization because no matter what their political views most citizens would like a more representative system. It will not pass if the wrong groups try to become the messengers.
Agreed. But that doesn't excuse spokespeople for the BC Fed and the NDP actually opposing PR. quote: Originally posted by MCunningBC in another thread: What makes you think that the STV system is going to somehow incline voters to support minority candidates? There is no guarantee whatsoever that STV will result in more diversity in elected members.
True, there's nothing automatic about it. Just as MMP doesn't automatically result in more women or minorities being elected. It does, however, have a statistical tendency to. STV is harder to classify on that point because it depends on the local political culture. STV in Tasmania elected lots of women -- but only after the Labor Party started nominating them, which in turn was for fear of the Greens showing them up. Exactly as happened in the German Social Democrats with MMP.The other point about STV is that it gives voters more choice. Canadians (90% of us) say we want to elect more women, but often we face a choice between two men, or a man we like and a woman of the wrong party. With STV there will normally be several candidates from each major party, so very likely at least one woman from each. Each party's voters can defeat an old incumbent male in favour of a new younger woman if they wish. You can find many examples of voters doing that in STV jurisdictions. Less common is a few feminists ranking all the women ahead of all the men, but it only takes a few to give a few women the edge in close races. I have looked at Northern Ireland election results (not a woman-friendly culture) and can show you half a dozen races where cross-party transfers have made the difference in electing women. Could that happen with aboriginal voters in BC? I don't see why not. Anna Lo is an example: quote: Born in Hong Kong, of Chinese ethnicity, Lo was elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly for South Belfast in the 2007 assembly election. She was the first ethnic minority politician elected at a national level in Northern Ireland, and the first politician born in East Asia elected to any national parliament or assembly in the United Kingdom.
South Belfast is the most racially tolerant riding in the UK? I don't think so.This was a new seat for the liberal/centrist Alliance Party. She won one of South Belfast's six seats after she picked up 41% of the transfers from Green Party candidate Brenda Cooke, taking away from the mainstream conservative unionist party one of its two seats. An evenly divided riding, it elected three nationalists (2 SDLP, 1 Sinn Fein) and three unionists (1 UUP, 1 DUP, 1 Alliance). quote: Originally posted by MCunningBC in another thread: that's an operative fear, no more majority governments for any one party.
To recap the discussion in the closed thread:I can see the Greens winning a seat in five of the 20 districts, but in the other 15 their second preferences could easily put the NDP into majority territory. In the five districts that Greens should win, yes, the NDP would be wishing they still had the winner-take-all system, where they could appeal to Green voters to vote against the enemy, not split the vote. But this overlooks the great virtue of STV: it lets you vote for your first choice AND against your enemy, both at once. So in those 15 districts it works better for the NDP than winner-take-all. This assumes that more greens would prefer the NDP over the Liberals than would prefer the Liberals to the NDP. There have been several surveys on this topic in BC that I have heard of. I think the consensus is Green voters' second choices divide something like 71% NDP and 29% Liberal. But even if it's only 60/40, it helps push the NDP into majority territory. Of course, neither figure would apply province-wide. Perhaps the question is, would the transfers help the NDP in districts like Cariboo - Thompson, the Northwest, Burnaby - New Westminster, and Columbia - Kootenay (yes, I think), and Okanagan - Shuswap and Fraser Valley West (probably?). quote: Originally posted by MCunningBC in another thread: the criticism that STV will mean provincial electoral districts that are far larger than at present is beyond dispute. Whether or not that's a serious problem is a matter of opinion, but far larger districts are unavoidable. They will make it difficult for people to visit offices of MLAs unless there are many more offices than at present, and will make it rather impractical during elections to do such things as all-candidate meetings in every part of the riding.
Larger, yes. The Boundaries Commission looked at that in each case.I live in a federal riding with a lot of geography, where we have six centres and six all-candidates meetings in each, which every candidate shows up for. Perfectly practical. As for MLA's offices, in an urban district I would expect three East Vancouver NDP MLAs would combine forces in one big local office -- their staff would appreciate the mutual support -- and a constituent calling the office could ask for their favourite MLA or could say "whoever" and be told by staff which one normally looks after issues in that section of the district. But in Columbia - Kootenay the three NDP MLAs -- by my projection the 2005 election would have generated three NDP and one Liberal in Columbia - Kootenay -- would most likely have separate offices, one in each area as they have split up the district between them. [ 12 July 2008: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]
From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138
|
posted 12 July 2008 10:22 AM
Look whose talking. The STV referendum might have actually passed if that brain dead rightwing woman running the BC green party didn't have a temper tantrum when the citizens assembly recommended STV and then rejected it and then supported it (sort of) and generally sent out very, very mixed signals.Meanwhile, here in Ontario, the NDP leader Howard Hampton strongly supported MMP in the referendum - but his own riding rejected it by the biggest margin in the province. Should he resign from the legislature because he failed to anticipate the fact that his own voters would vote differently in the referendum than he did? This is really turning into a "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" type of argument.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276
|
posted 12 July 2008 02:42 PM
quote: Originally posted by RANGER: http://nrgresearchgroup.com/media/documents/BC-STVSept2005.pdf
Several similarities with Ontario: quote: This data - juxtaposed with the referendum results - suggests a correlation between feeling informed and supporting the proposal. It begs the question, 'had STV been better communicated to the electorate would it have passed?' Without an effective communication effort the referendum almost did pass. This question, however, is difficult to answer since greater communications by both sides in the debate could have influenced the results in either direction.
In Ontario the media hostility was the No Campaign, so greater communication could only have helped MMP. In BC the media were less hostile so the effect of a fuller debate is unknown. But in both provinces, the more voters knew about the reform proposal, the better they liked it. quote: voters were voting for some kind of change in general, but not this particular proposal. Conversely, the 'no' voters said they simply didn't know enough about it. This post-election survey confirmed what our data suggested - better communications were required by the 'yes' side to alleviate opposition and shore up support.
Over the next 10 months $500,000 will be made available to each side of the debate. This will create the debate that is needed for the public to more more about why the Citizens' Assembly recommended BC-STV. For more information see the Facebook group page. Great quote by Tony Hodgson: quote: STV will make the BC legislature more representative. To me, that's a first step well worth taking. I've personally had enough experience with trying to lobby politicians who are technically my 'representative' but who don't actually share my political perspectives, so they are unwilling to do anything to advance the causes I'm promoting. If I try to go to someone else who I think will be more sympathetic, the first question I get is "Are you one of my constituents?" When I answer "No", the response is something like "I'll try to fit you in sometime, say, next century". Needless to say, this is pretty frustrating. With STV, I will be virtually guaranteed to have someone representing my district who will be sympathetic to my concerns and with whom I can develop a sustained relationship.
And go to the Yes for BC-STV page. There will also be an information office that will also receive $500,000. This is less than what they had last time and so, they will have an even more limited ability to inform voters of this upcoming referendum. This means that, again, they will not have enough money for TV and radio ads. But in Ontario the official ads were not only useless, but just turned people off. So the good news is the million-dollar debate. [ 12 July 2008: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]
From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
MCunningBC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14903
|
posted 12 July 2008 07:04 PM
quote: Originally posted by Centrist: Rather than increasing the allowed maximum number of seats "up to 85" as exists under the current act, Bill 39 mandated that the commission must come to an exact number of 87 seats, which was ludicrous and the NDP rightfully opposed such legislation. (Again, one motive behind that number was likely to decrease the electoral quotient).
One of the few sensible things the Campbell Govt ever almost did was pick the number 87. They should have done that before the EBC started their work in the first place.
If BC had the same ratio of population to MLAs as Alberta, it would have over 100 seats. The NDP opposed any significant increase in the size of the house because they were terrorized by stupid advice received from party advisor John Pollard, and to some degree Gerry Scott as well. They told the Caucus that if a lot of additional seats were added in rapidly growing areas in the Fraser Valley and the Okanagan it would favour the Liberals. So the NDP wanted to keep the numbers down. The advice was based on stupid assumptions about how additional seats would actually be distributed and was disgraceful in principle. As to why the Liberals later gave up on Bill 39 I have no idea. Generally speaking, the EBC should be assigned one task, boundaries. The number of seats in total and the allowable variation in population should be fixed before hand, and a statute should set out criteria to be considered, including Aboriginal and minority interests. The use of "very special circumstances" allowing seats to have less tha 75% of the quotient should be elminated, unless the statute creates one such seat in the far north, as the Saskatchewan act did for many years, and may still do, I haven't had time to check that.
From: BC | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276
|
posted 12 July 2008 11:15 PM
quote: Originally posted by MCunningBC: One of the few sensible things the Campbell Govt ever almost did was pick the number 87. As to why the Liberals later gave up on Bill 39 I have no idea.
On this, we agree. quote: Originally posted by MCunningBC: Generally speaking, the EBC should be assigned one task, boundaries. The number of seats in total and the allowable variation in population should be fixed before hand, and a statute should set out criteria to be considered, including Aboriginal and minority interests. The use of "very special circumstances" allowing seats to have less tha 75% of the quotient should be elminated, unless the statute creates one such seat in the far north.
I almost agree. But why not put some meat on the bones of "special circumstances" too? Most commissions try to set a standard for the variance and deviate in special circumstances. The last federal Manitoba Commission caused great problems by picking 5%. If the basic standard is 10%, or 15%, the Act should say so. Then Aboriginal and minority interests, severe geographic limitations, and community of interest can be special circumstances justifying up to 25% deviation. And then the Commission could be authorized to create a very small number of "super-exceptional" seats -- maybe one, maybe up to 2 or 3 -- if they find no acceptable alternative. Going back to STV, the Commission should not be given the task of deciding the degree of proportionality. This is a task they were never designed to do. Just as they should be told the number of MLAs, they should also be told the number of STV districts.
From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276
|
posted 14 July 2008 04:33 AM
quote: Originally posted by Brian White: how will aboriginal interests be served in STV? Do you need a 5 seater?
Gary Coons and Robin Austin are no doubt excellent MLAs, but neither is native, although Robin and Colleen have cared for many foster children, many of them teenagers of first nations descent. Skeena federal riding has 27% "aboriginal identity" population which I expect is true for these three Northwest provincial ridings. In the Northwest, no doubt the NDP would still win 2 of the 3 seats as they did in 2005. If the 2009 election were fought under STV, would the NDP nominate three candidates, one being of First Nations identity? And would that candidate win, bumping out either Gary Coons or Robin Austin? Why not?Reverting to the earlier discussion: each party's voters can defeat an old incumbent in favour of a new younger MLA if they wish. In the last Irish election this happened in Mayo where Fianna Fáil's Dara Calleary, aged 35, edged out Fianna Fáil incumbent John Carty, aged 57. (Ireland being what it is, I would not want to imply Dara Calleary was a young rebel: his father had been TD for Mayo East from 1973 to 1992, and his grandfather had been TD for Mayo North from 1952 until 1969.) As to the Northwest three-seater, the EBC noted: "We are also keenly aware that, if the 2009 BC-STV referendum passes, BC will be embarking on a bold new electoral experiment in the 2013 general election. We should, in our view, proceed incrementally whenever possible. If BC-STV comes into force for the 2013 general election, there will be a new electoral boundaries commission appointed within the following year. If it emerges that the BC-STV electoral districts used in that election have made it unduly difficult for MLAs to represent local and regional community interests effectively, that would be the time to adjust boundaries." They decided: "• in sparsely populated areas of the province, the desire for proportionality must be balanced against the need to create BC-STV districts that reflect local community and regional interests, and that are serviceable. We should avoid creating BC-STV districts with a district magnitude of two, except in exceptional circumstances; • BC-STV boundaries should, to the extent possible, respect the province’s geographic and demographic regions, and existing administrative units such as regional districts and municipalities;" It notes the Northwest (North Coast, Bulkley-Nechako, Skeena-Stikine, extending north to the Yukon border) is a very challenging area for an MLA to represent, with many constituents living on Haida Gwaii or in small coastal communities accessible only by water or air. Appendix P, dealing with the additional seats that the government then added, states: "We considered how a total of eight SMP electoral districts in the North should be grouped into BC-STV electoral districts. We would have grouped them into three BC-STV electoral districts." Given that the Peace is a 2-seater, they had to make the other six one district or two. I think they had no real choice. They also note: f. The Fisher Commission (1988) Judge Fisher was determined to create electoral districts whose deviations fell within his self-imposed limit of plus or minus 25 percent. The sparsely populated North proved to be his most difficult challenge: “I was deeply moved by testimony detailing the hardships experienced by residents of this frontier and concerned about the expressions of feelings of alienation from centres of economic and political power in the south.” The Wood Commission "was satisfied that all five of these electoral districts constituted “very special circumstances” within the meaning of section 9(1)(c) of the legislation, justifying deviations in excess of minus 25 percent. The commission was persuaded that residents of the North felt a strong sense of alienation from Victoria, that they believed that they needed to retain their present level of representation in order to receive effective representation, and that any reduction in representation would heighten their sense of injustice. In finding “very special circumstances” in specific cases, the Wood Commission relied on the usual factors that would justify any deviation – history, large geographical areas, remoteness, inaccessibility and strong regional identities. There was nothing qualitatively different in these areas; the factors were simply more extreme. Reverting to the topic of riding size, Ireland has 43 ridings with 166 members: "Under the Constitution of Ireland there must never be fewer than one TD for every thirty thousand of the population, nor more than one for every twenty thousand. In the 29th Dáil there was one TD for every 21 thousand citizens, one of the most generous such ratios anywhere in the world." So don't complain about riding size: you could easily have smaller ridings if you wanted as many MLAs as Ireland, which has 93% of BC's population.
From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
largeheartedboy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5360
|
posted 14 July 2008 07:16 AM
quote: Originally posted by Stockholm:
Meanwhile, here in Ontario, the NDP leader Howard Hampton strongly supported MMP in the referendum - but his own riding rejected it by the biggest margin in the province.
I really think it's a huge overstatement to say Hampton "strongly supported" MMP. He couldn't even bring himself to make the (very easy, IMHO) case that MMP would be good for Northern Ontario. Which is likely why it did worst in his riding.
From: Ottawa | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
scott
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 637
|
posted 14 July 2008 12:23 PM
continuing from this thread quote: Originally posted by kropotkin1951: I agree that the BC NDP should take a firm position in favour of STV in the next referendum. However when I look at the results in Ontario I wonder how much influence the parties positions played in the votes cast by their supporters. In retrospect given the results in BC compared to the results in Ontario I think that having the BC Fed and the NDP on the sidelines in the debate allowed Liberal supporters to vote for a better system on the merits of the system itself not the ideology of its promoters.
I agree that direct party endorsement may be the kiss of death given the polarized nature of BC politics, but there are ways that the parties can give the nod to STV among its own supporters - mail lists, kitchen table meetings, support at non-partisan public meetings, letters to the editor etc. What we had last time was prominent NDP supporters such as Bill Tieleman and former premier Dave Barrett not only publicly denouncing STV - but denouncing pro-rep in principle. Fair enough, but I waited in vain for any counter balancing arguments in favour, with the exception of Corky Evans, but he only spoke on it in his own riding. If the party says that it is an individual decision to make, but the only voices heard are in opposition, the effect is opposition. quote: A citizens drive is required that stays away from BC's left/right union/non-union polarization because no matter what their political views most citizens would like a more representative system.
The Greens publicly endorsed STV and green voters supported it by about 80%. NDP voters supported it by about 60% and the Liberals somewhat less, so there is room for improvement there. I campaigned for STV last time out but I found it a bit tricky sometimes. In a progressive forum such as this you can argue that the NDP would benefit more than the Liberals under STV, because the NDP would likely get more of the Green transfer vote than the Liberals, but you can't do that in public, letters to the editor for instance, because with a 60% threshold you can't afford top alienate Liberal voters - you need the support of all parties. quote: It will not pass if the wrong groups try to become the messengers. … The wrong groups include the BC Greens, especially if they were to try to use it as a political football to win over soft NDP votes. That would likely taint the whole drive.
I think that the greens already have all the soft NDP votes that they will get for the time being. The scenario of greens voting NDP if the party were to promise to implement STV after a 50%+1 YES vote may still work. [ 14 July 2008: Message edited by: scott ]
From: Kootenays BC | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276
|
posted 14 July 2008 09:32 PM
Britain proposes an elected second chamber chosen by STV or open list.They propose that members be elected for three parliaments, one third being elected at each general election. They provide simulations showing that, as between the parties now represented in their House of Commons, either six-seater STV in 24 districts or open-list on the 12 European Parliament districts would produce about the same results. Hardly surprising, since their simulation assumed no cross-party transfers. But they don't plan to implement this before the next election. [ 14 July 2008: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]
From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276
|
posted 15 July 2008 05:27 AM
To explain the math better: I said above "Skeena federal riding has 27% "aboriginal identity" population which I expect is true for these three Northwest provincial ridings. In the Northwest, no doubt the NDP would still win 2 of the 3 seats as they did in 2005. If the 2009 election were fought under STV, would the NDP nominate three candidates, one being of First Nations identity? And would that candidate win, bumping out either Gary Coons or Robin Austin? Why not?"In 2005 the NDP got 47% of the vote in that region. Assume there are 47% NDP first preferences in the three-seater. Two NDP candidates will get 16% or more while the third will get 15% or less, and will be the first to drop. Would a good aboriginal candidate get at least 16% of the first preferences, when 27% of voters are aboriginal and the good majority of them vote NDP? Why not? [ 15 July 2008: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]
From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
CiaranQuinn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9430
|
posted 15 July 2008 01:59 PM
quote: Originally posted by Wilf Day: To explain the math better: I said above "Skeena federal riding has 27% "aboriginal identity" population which I expect is true for these three Northwest provincial ridings. In the Northwest, no doubt the NDP would still win 2 of the 3 seats as they did in 2005. If the 2009 election were fought under STV, would the NDP nominate three candidates, one being of First Nations identity? And would that candidate win, bumping out either Gary Coons or Robin Austin? Why not?"In 2005 the NDP got 47% of the vote in that region. Assume there are 47% NDP first preferences in the three-seater. Two NDP candidates will get 16% or more while the third will get 15% or less, and will be the first to drop. Would a good aboriginal candidate get at least 16% of the first preferences, when 27% of voters are aboriginal and the good majority of them vote NDP? Why not? [ 15 July 2008: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]
This actually shows up one of the main advantages of STV. Suppose that the NDP decided to only nominate their existing 2 members in order to try and keep both their seats. A popular aboriginal NDP member could run as an "independent NDP" candidate, without hurting the NDP. If he won, he would presumable be readmitted to the party after a suitable period. If he lost, his votes would likely transfer back to the NDP.
From: Dublin | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276
|
posted 15 July 2008 03:30 PM
quote: Originally posted by CiaranQuinn: Suppose that the NDP decided to only nominate their existing 2 members in order to try and keep both their seats. A popular aboriginal NDP member could run as an "independent NDP" candidate, without hurting the NDP.
The mere threat that this could happen would likely convince the NDP to nominate three candidates.This is a common scenario in Ireland. Fianna Fail is notorious for keeping central control and wanting to nominate just their incumbents. In several ridings in recent elections a popular local councillor has threatened to run as "Independent Fianna Fail" if headquarters won't let the riding nominate an additional candidate. Sometimes HQ backs down and lets the local members nominate an extra candidate, who sometimes then defeats an incumbent. Sometimes HQ calls the local councillor's bluff, he or she runs as an Independent, and if elected then gets readmitted to the party. [ 15 July 2008: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]
From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doug Woodard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8679
|
posted 20 July 2008 11:27 PM
Here's an article somewhat relevant to the task although biased to new democracies. It contains some wise thoughts and may give some useful background to inform persuasion."Designing Electoral Rules and Waiting for an Electoral System to Evolve" by Rein Taagepera Doug Woodard St. Catharines, Ontario
From: St. Catharines, Ontario | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doug Woodard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8679
|
posted 21 July 2008 01:48 PM
quote: Originally posted by Doug Woodard: Here's an article somewhat relevant to the task although biased to new democracies. It contains some wise thoughts and may give some useful background to inform persuasion."Designing Electoral Rules and Waiting for an Electoral System to Evolve" by Rein Taagepera
http://www.nd.edu/~kellogg/events/pdfs/taageper.pdf Doug Woodard St. Catharines, Ontario
From: St. Catharines, Ontario | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276
|
posted 27 July 2008 01:39 PM
quote: Originally posted by Fartful Codger in another thread: The surveys I've seen indicate a 20-20-60 split: 20 would go NDP, 20 would go Lib and 60 would stay home or not indicate a second choice.
If that were true, why would so many BC New Democrats be annoyed at the Green Party for splitting the vote? Clearly BC New Democrats feel voters may be tempted to cast a vote for the Green Party without seeing that, if they voted NDP instead, they could get Campbell out. The implication is that the majority of Green voters have the NDP as their second choice, in most ridings. And I suspect that's quite accurate. So BC-STV would help the NDP in the 15 or so of the 20 STV districts where the Greens would not elect an MLA. In those 15 or so districts the Green votes, instead of being futile vote-splitting, would help elect another NDP MLA on the final count. Except in those districts where the majority of Green voters would have the Liberals as their second choice. So if you don't want democracy in BC to be hurt by vote-splitting, join the BC-STV Campaign.
From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
MCunningBC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14903
|
posted 28 July 2008 07:16 PM
I have a question.Suppose it's an STV district with multiple seats. There is strict party line voting, but voters for each party rank the individual candidates of that party randomly. What is the final result? Are there people from more than one party elected, or does the party with a district wide plurality take all the seats, as would happen, most of the time, when we had multiple member ridings under FPTP.
From: BC | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276
|
posted 28 July 2008 07:55 PM
quote: Originally posted by MCunningBC: Are there people from more than one party elected, or does the party with a district wide plurality take all the seats, as would happen, most of the time, when we had multiple member ridings under FPTP.
There is no such concept as "a district wide plurality" under STV. That is what happens with block voting in multiple member districts, such as for Vancouver council.With STV each voter has one vote, so people from more than one party are elected -- except in the extreme case where, using the example of a five-seater, one party gets 84% or more of the votes, and elects all five MLAs. quote: Originally posted by MCunningBC: Suppose it's an STV district with multiple seats. There is strict party line voting, but voters for each party rank the individual candidates of that party randomly. What is the final result?
Let's take an actual example: The Richmond-Delta five-seater, and the votes cast in 2005, which totalled: Liberals 55,011 NDP 36,386 Greens 7,742 DRBC 282 Marijuana 785 Independents 8,308 BCP 187 Total 108,701The quotient to elect one MLA is 18,117. Even without any cross-party transfers, the Liberals have 3.04 quotients and the NDP 2.01, so the Liberals elect 3 MLAs, and the NDP 2. This happens to be a very simple case, which makes it easy to follow. The Greens have 0.43 quotients, and Vicki Huntington has 0.44 of a quotient. In a more usual case, we would be speculating on who their voters' second preferences would transfer to, but in this case it doesn't matter. If the NDP ran 3, 4 or 5 candidates in Richmond-Delta, then on your assumption -- strict party line voting -- the NDP candidates with the fewest votes would drop, and their votes would transfer to the two top candidates who would then be elected. As you may recall, in 2005 the NDP elected only one MLA there, in Delta North.
From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
jrootham
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 838
|
posted 28 July 2008 08:06 PM
Exactly what would happen would also depend on how many candidates each party put up. Also, the expectation is that almost everybody ranks the whole list, good politicians on top, bad ones at the bottom, don't cares in the middle is the standard algorithm.A party which put up exactly the number of candidates that they got votes for would nail down their seats early in the count. Parties which ran more candidates than they had votes for would have to wait for some of their candidates to drop. Parties which ran fewer candidates would elect early, but a lot of their second preferences would go to other parties. A sweep by a single party is exceedingly unlikely, unless they swept the first preference votes.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MCunningBC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14903
|
posted 28 July 2008 10:33 PM
quote: Originally posted by Wilf Day:
Let's take an actual example: The Richmond-Delta five-seater, and the votes cast in 2005, which totalled: Liberals 55,011 NDP 36,386 Greens 7,742 DRBC 282 Marijuana 785 Independents 8,308 BCP 187 Total 108,701... If the NDP ran 3, 4 or 5 candidates in Richmond-Delta, then on your assumption -- strict party line voting -- the NDP candidates with the fewest votes would drop, and their votes would transfer to the two top candidates who would then be elected.
The other part of my assumption, that the voters for a party rank their party's candidates in a random fashion, means that all of the less powerful parties candidates have fewer first ballot votes than any of the more powerful parties candidates, and that there is no distinction, beyond a random chance element of a few hundred or so, between the standings of candidates for a given party. I don't know why you say that each person has one vote, they have five. First preference, second preference, etc. I suppose it could go something like this: Round 1 11000 11000 11000 11000 11000 7400 7400 7400 7400 7400 Eliminate one of the 7400 vote candidates and distribute their second preferences among the remaining candidates of that party, giving them 1850 each: Round 2 11000 11000 11000 11000 11000 9250 9250 9250 9250 Eliminate one of the 9250 vote candidates, and distribute their second preferences among the other three, except that where the second preference was for the already eliminated candidate of that party, distribute the third preferences, adding 3083 to each candidate. Round 3 11000 11000 11000 11000 11000 12333 12333 12333 Things are starting to be fun, here. The less powerful party's candidates are in the lead, and now the lowest of the 11000 vote people is dropped adding one quarter that number, 2750 to each of their four running mates through their second preferences: Round 4 13750 13750 13750 13750 12333 12333 12333 Now we have to go back to the weaker party and eliminate one of theirs, giving second, third and fourth preferences to the remaining two people from their party, adding 6166 votes to each of the two remaining candidates of that party: Round 5 13750 13750 13750 13750 18500 18500 This must be causing the supporters of the more powerful party an apopletic seizure. Their candidates now trail those of the weaker party by a wide margin, and two of them are now over the 1/6th threshold of 15,333 (one sixth of 55,000 + 37,000), and they are elected. The fifth round yields this final standing, after each of the three remaining candidates of the stonger party have collected 4583 second and third preference votes from their eliminated running mate: Round 5 18333.3333333333 18333.3333333333 18333.3333333333 18500 18500
So it's three MLAs for the stronger party, two for the weaker party, but the weaker party's candidates have actually finished with about 230 more votes each!
From: BC | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276
|
posted 29 July 2008 03:58 AM
quote: Originally posted by MCunningBC: Suppose it's an STV district with multiple seats. There is strict party line voting . . .
quote: Originally posted by jrootham: A party which put up exactly the number of candidates that they got votes for would nail down their seats early in the count.
Winning early in the count would not matter if there was strict party line voting, since you're assuming no leakage of votes from the candidates who drop first, so jrootham is taking the next step from your question. He's talking about a real-world election. So let's take it the next step and look at how Mary White got elected for the Green Party last year in Carlow-Kilkenny:FF is a bit like Canada's Conservatives. FG is a bit like Canada's Liberals. To try to make the columns format better, I've made all the names the same length: Quotient 11,276 Candidate and party, Count 1, Count 2, Count 4 AYLWARD, B FF, 11600, elected BROWNE, Fer FG, 4948, 5084, 5092 FUNCHION, K SF, 2568, 2597, 2638 HOGAN, Phil FG, 8589, 8673, 8751 LACEY, Walt PD, 1073, eliminated McGUINNESS FF, 11635, elected NOLAN, M.J. FF, 9037, 9481, 9901 O'BRIEN, Mic LA, 2923, 2939, 2972 PHELAN, J.P FG, 6494, 6548, 6604 TOWNSEND, LA, 3401, 2329, 3536 WHITE, Mary GP, 5386, 5533, 5573 Count 3 is after distribution of the first FF man's surplus, and Count 4 is after distribution of the second FF man's surplus, so I skipped to it. Mary White starts with 0.48 of a quotient. After picking up a few transfers from the centre-right PD and the conservative FF, she still has only 0.49 of a quotient. Standing sixth, she looks like a long-shot to win one of the five seats. Worse, the two Labour men together have 0.58 of a quotient. Labour held a seat here until now, but their man retired. Still, Labour hopes to hold the seat. Candidate and party, Count 5, Count 6, Count 7 AYLWARD, B FF, elected BROWNE, Fer FG, 5190, 5226, eliminated FUNCHION, K SF, eliminated HOGAN, Phil FG, 9056, 9543,11360 McGUINNESS FF, elected NOLAN, MJ. FF, 10350,10457,11136 O'BRIEN, Mic LA, 3304, eliminated PHELAN, J.P FG, 6841, 7361, 8170 TOWNSEND, LA, 3732, 5285, 6389 WHITE, Mary GP, 6266, 6695, 7405 Mary has picked up only 26% of the Sinn Fein woman's votes. She would have expected more. (Sinn Fein's hardliners who refuse to rank any other candidates amount to only 12% of Sinn Fein voters, but 24% of Sinn Fein voters transfer to FG, 20% of Sinn Fein voters transfer to Labour, and 17% of Sinn Fein voters transfer to FF.) But then 13% of Michael O'Brien's voters prefer her to the other Labour man, keeping her ahead of Jim Townsend who had hoped to overtake her. And then 14% of Fergal Browne's voters prefer her to the other FG man. She is still in sixth place with only 0.66 of a quotient, but closing in on FG's man Phelan. Candidate and party, Count 8, Count 9 AYLWARD, B FF, elected HOGAN, Phil FG, elected on count 7 McGUINNESS FF, elected NOLAN, MJ. FF, 12,593 elected PHELAN, J.P FG, 9499, 9815 TOWNSEND, LA, eliminated on count 7 WHITE, Mary GP, 9883, 10464 Mary has picked up only 39% of Jim Townsend's Labour voters, but that's enough to put her in the lead over the second FG man Phelan for the fifth seat, since he picked up only 21% of Jim Townsend's Labour voters. Then Nolan's surplus favours Mary over Phelan, keeping her in the lead on the final count. She still has only 0.93 of a quotient, but thanks to some exhausted ballots that's enough to put her into the fifth seat on the final count. Was it female Labour voters and female FG voters who preferred Mary to their party's other man? Could well be. quote: Originally posted by MCunningBC: I don't know why you say that each person has one vote, they have five. First preference, second preference, etc.
You are not limited to five preferences. You can rank them all, or almost all, and the good majority of voters in Ireland do.But you have only one vote. It will either count for your first choice, or be transferred to a lower preference, or become exhausted. That's why it's called Single Transferable Vote. quote: Originally posted by MCunningBC: So it's three MLAs for the stronger party, two for the weaker party, but the weaker party's candidates have actually finished with about 230 more votes each!
Which makes no difference. In your simulation, the weaker party still won only two seats.[ 29 July 2008: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]
From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the grey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3604
|
posted 29 July 2008 04:40 AM
quote: Originally posted by MCunningBC:
I don't know why you say that each person has one vote, they have five. First preference, second preference, etc.
They have one vote, which is bumped along their preferences. When you backtrack through the votes after the winning candidates are elected, if you follow any individual vote you'll see where it ended up -- and the fractions will all add up to "1". Calling it five votes, on the other hand, doesn't make any sense. There may be five candidates elected, but there will be more than five candidates in the election, and each voter can list all those candidates in preference. A voter might get to list 10, or 12, or 15, or 20 preferences, depending on the number of candidates. That doesn't mean they get 10, or 12, or 15, or 20 votes; it means 1 vote that moves to another candidate after your first choice is eliminated, or 1 vote a portion of which moves to another candidate after your first choice is elected. Once any portion of your vote has elected a candidate, that portion is used up and can't elect any other candidate. So you might end up with .8 of your vote electing A, .1 of your vote electing B, .05 of your vote electing C, and .05 of your vote wasted. But that still all adds up to 1 vote.
From: London, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
MCunningBC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14903
|
posted 29 July 2008 06:00 PM
quote: Originally posted by Wilf Day: Which makes no difference. In your simulation, the weaker party still won only two seats.
Supporters of the stronger party might feel differently when they see that their candidates came in second, albeit my extremely small margins. They might not like the symbolism of seeing their 55,000 to 37,000 margin turned into a second class finish.
From: BC | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276
|
posted 29 July 2008 06:43 PM
quote: Originally posted by MCunningBC: Supporters of the stronger party might feel differently when they see that their candidates came in second, albeit by extremely small margins. They might not like the symbolism of seeing their 55,000 to 37,000 margin turned into a second class finish.
In a winner-take-all system, it matters whether you come first or second, and people take notice.In STV jurisdictions, people take notice if a certain candidate was so popular they romped home on the first count, getting a full quotient of first preferences. Then, if you can say you were elected on the third count, that sounds better than being elected on the seventh count. I don't recall ever seeing anyone brag about the order on the final count. Typically there are only two candidates left on the final count, the winner and the loser. However, sometimes you might see an election with a lot of exhausted ballots, where only four candidates remain in the count for three seats, so the lowest loses and the other three all win. I don't think anyone would remember, or care, which order those three were in. As to all of a party's winning candidates "coming in second" I have never seen such a result. The closest would have to be in Northern Ireland where Sinn Fein is notorious for their vote management skills. If you can organize your voters to rank different candidates first in different wards, so that they will all get about the same number of first preference votes, you might be able to finesse your way past a candidate of Party B where their more popular candidate has a larger number of first preference votes (but still not more than a quotient, or the trick won't work) and their other candidate will drop before all the Sinn Fein candidates, so the surplus votes and transfers from candidates of Party C (see how hard this is to imagine in BC?) will end up giving Party B's sole surviving candidate more than a quotient, but with no second candidate of Party B left in the count. This sort of thing occasionally works in Northern Ireland where SF voters are unusually disciplined. If they could pull off getting all their candidates elected in this way, they would be very happy, and not feel "second class" at all. But that's in a place with a five-party system and rigid divisions. It couldn't be made to work in BC. [ 30 July 2008: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]
From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
CiaranQuinn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9430
|
posted 30 July 2008 03:46 PM
quote: Originally posted by Wilf Day:
Let's take an actual example: The Richmond-Delta five-seater, and the votes cast in 2005, which totalled: Liberals 55,011 NDP 36,386 Greens 7,742 DRBC 282 Marijuana 785 Independents 8,308 BCP 187 Total 108,701The quotient to elect one MLA is 18,117. Even without any cross-party transfers, the Liberals have 3.04 quotients and the NDP 2.01, so the Liberals elect 3 MLAs, and the NDP 2. This happens to be a very simple case, which makes it easy to follow. The Greens have 0.43 quotients, and Vicki Huntington has 0.44 of a quotient. In a more usual case, we would be speculating on who their voters' second preferences would transfer to, but in this case it doesn't matter. If the NDP ran 3, 4 or 5 candidates in Richmond-Delta, then on your assumption -- strict party line voting -- the NDP candidates with the fewest votes would drop, and their votes would transfer to the two top candidates who would then be elected. As you may recall, in 2005 the NDP elected only one MLA there, in Delta North.
The votes of the Greens and Huntington would matter if the NDP had run 3 or more candidates. Suppose that the NDP ran 3 candidates and that all received a roughly similar first preference vote. The Greens and Huntington would be eliminated first, but their transfers could determine which 2 of the 3 NDP candidates were elected. For example, suppose the 3 NDP candidates, A, B and C each got about 12,000 votes. If candidate A had supported policies that the Greens opposed, (for example, supporting taking more timber from teh forests, etc) then you would expect that candidates B and C would receive more Green transfers than A. In Ireland, transfers across party lines (unless there is a transfer pact between parties) are generally on a basis of geography - ie voters transfer to candidates from their locality.
From: Dublin | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276
|
posted 30 July 2008 07:29 PM
quote: Originally posted by CiaranQuinn: The votes of the Greens and Huntington would matter if the NDP had run 3 or more candidates. Suppose that the NDP ran 3 candidates and that all received a roughly similar first preference vote. . .
Of course I agree. Well explained. I was just showing other posters the basic math. In a real election the lowest of the three NDP candidates might have more or fewer votes than the Green at that point in the count, and if more, then the Green drops first as you pointed out. This wouldn't change the number of seats the Liberals and NDP get (still assuming Liberal and NDP voters voting on strict party lines, as we were asked to assume), but it could affect who fills those seats. Which might help the greenest NDP candidate, or the one from Richmond, or the woman, or the youngest, or (as in my South Belfast example) the Chinese woman, or . . . [ 30 July 2008: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]
From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
keglerdave
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5839
|
posted 03 September 2008 08:12 AM
I have a simple comment on this. Spending one million dollars of taxpayers money on this is outrageous. I have always followed the simple precept of KISS, Keep It Simple Stupid. And when I read some of the posts explaining Sexually Transmitted Voting, it doesn't seem all that simple, but rather confusing, which I believe its intended to do.Because of another precept that kind of fits, if you can't dazzle them with intelligence, baffle them with bullshit. I'm curious when all the talk about electoral reform began. If memory serves me correctly, it was after the 1996 election, when Gordo was whining and complaining that he had actually won the election. (having won the popular vote, but not carried enough seats to hold power). All over the place he and his ilk were crying and ballyhooing that the BCNDP had no right to govern because they had lost the election. And the system needed to be changed. In 2001, when the votes were in effect 70 percent Liberal 30 percent NDP, yet the libs held a 77-2 seat advantage, there wasn't the same screaming and yelling from the majority of NDP'ers that it wasn't fair etc. What wasn't fair was that Campbell was an arrogant bully from the get go. But what else Campbell had was a wedge, known as the Green Party. Who did alot of ballyhooing and crying because they couldn't break through with first past the post, being a sort of newer political party. Play up the wedge, through up an issue that they are high on, and presto, they appear to have some legitimacy. "Don't like the NDP, vote Green" was the talk in 2001. Perfect tactics. Split the centre left vote, and trounce them time and again. Funniest thing, Green's not centre left, other than on one or 2 issues. They're more aligned with Campbell's policies than anything else. One only needs to look federally to see that. But I digress. Electoral reform is almost no different than what happened with the equity mandate in the BCNDP. It takes time and money to build profile, campaigning, etc before there's a breakthrough. How long were the BC Liberals without a seat prior to 1991? My likening to the equity mandate is that that with that, rather than mentoring, educating, and working with people to make that breakthrough, they took what could be called the easy way out. Change the rules. Same thing with electoral reform. Let's be honest Adrianne Carr wasn't going to breakthrough in BC, through FPTP. The Greens had their shot from 2001 to 2005 to build, fight and run a winning strategy. And once again, they were shut out. And federally, they've resorted to poaching a pariah, to claim a seat in the house of commons. And cutting a deal with the liberal leader to not run in his riding (I'm sure he was shaking in his boots, though given his weakness he probably was), and having an open shot in May's riding. It's not the electoral system that's broken... it's the political spectrum in BC that's askew.
From: New Westminster BC | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
RANGER
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7667
|
posted 04 September 2008 10:24 AM
quote: Originally posted by kropotkin1951: They would never stoop to specious attacks merely for the sake of attacking. Nor want the STV for "political reasons"
The neo-cons from Howe Street got it right and those of us out here who smell a rat well we are idiotic.
Ahh the smell of sarcasm, good to see you Krop.
[ 04 September 2008: Message edited by: RANGER ]
[ 04 September 2008: Message edited by: RANGER ]
From: sunshine coast | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 04 September 2008 06:14 PM
quote: Originally posted by Brian White: The carbon tax works by making carbon based fuels more expensive in comparison to the alternatives. It is your choice to either whine or change your energy habits
Bad luck for Dion. Désirée McGraw advised the Liberal Party against a carbon tax as chair of the Environment and Sustainable Development Taskforce commissioned by the party’s renewal process in 2006. And then this year, Three Liberal MP's voted for a motion calling for a review of their own party's policy for carbon taxes just days before Liberals were to unveil the policy it hopes will be an election winner instead of the gimmick thrown together at the last minute by Dion's Liberals that it is. [ 04 September 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490
|
posted 16 October 2008 09:31 PM
STV has been called a preferential balloting system, though I know it has some differences.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_voting As seen in the above link. [ 16 October 2008: Message edited by: DrConway ]
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 17 October 2008 12:23 PM
quote: Originally posted by Cueball: Not being allowed to not vote is also an interesting aspect of the Australian system. Also, not being allowed to not fill out your ballot, or advocate for such, and having your non-vote not counted is another interesting aspect of it.
In some parts of the old southern states, black people needed to recite all of the words of the U.S. constitution before they could vote, a ridiculously improbable task for most literate people. Sometimes hangman's nooses deterred them after walking many miles to voting stations. Central American countries in "the backyard" pulled similar tricks on peasants at election time. Sometimes an election would happen on spur of the moment so as to make rigging easier. I think people should get the hell out and vote. And it should be easier to register for voting in this information age of technology and high speed communications.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
CCBC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3696
|
posted 17 October 2008 01:04 PM
quote: Originally posted by DrConway: STV has been called a preferential balloting system, though I know it has some differences.
It is very different. This cheesed me off last referendum -- people saying stuff like "Well, New Zealand has STV." or "Germany has a PR system and STV is PR so BC-STV is just like in Germany!" Stunned Wind, you know better.Australia has upper and lower house elections federally and in its states. Some of these myriad elections use a form of STV. Two (Tasmania lower house, Victoria upper house) have enough similarity to BC-STV to bear comparison. These have been discussed here before. Try here for info.
From: Nelson, BC | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
CCBC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3696
|
posted 17 October 2008 07:28 PM
quote: Originally posted by Brian White: New Zealand does have stv for some local and health board elections and I believe stv is slowly getting more popular and spreading there.
Yes. They use the Meek system of STV which failed utterly its first time out. This last election was not so bad but I still don't see the idea "spreading". If more localities opt into STV (they have the option, except for health boards ) then you will be proved correct. quote: A really big advantage of stv is that it is candidate centric. MMP would not work for electing a health board because there are no partys but stv works very well and brings in more minoritys and young people.
That was the idea of the bureaucrtats who pressed STV on Maori-populated areas. With STV they would elect more of their own people. This worked about as well as any elite solution imposed on aboriginals, i.e., not at all. Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that New Zealand STV, like that of Malta or the Aussie Senate, has such little relation to BC-STV that it shouldn't be part of the debate. And, since each of these examples has been the kind of disaster no one would want as an electoral system, I have to wonder why STV proponents would bring them up.[ 17 October 2008: Message edited by: CCBC ] [ 17 October 2008: Message edited by: CCBC ]
From: Nelson, BC | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276
|
posted 17 October 2008 08:35 PM
quote: Originally posted by CCBC: New Zealand STV, like that of Malta or the Aussie Senate, has such little relation to BC-STV that it shouldn't be part of the debate.
The best examples of STV for BC purposes are Tasmania (which has used it longer than anyplace in the world), Ireland (second longest), Northern Ireland (where it's almost the only thing Unionists and Nationalists can agree on), and the recent municipal elections in Scotland (which are fully party-line). Scotland is a useful case study in how a first STV election can work. A few kinks, but frankly much better than I had expected. quote: Originally posted by Brian White: New Zealand does have stv for some local and health board elections and I believe stv is slowly getting more popular and spreading there.
Correct. Waitakere City Council is the latest to move to it. quote: Originally posted by Brian White: All stv needs is rules on riding size, how many to elect per riding and procedeures for counting the votes.
And those rules are vital. I like Northern Ireland's six-seaters much better than any three-seater model. I would even say they work so differently that one should speak of STV-6 or STV-3. (No one actually does, though.) quote: Originally posted by kropotkin1951: A 5 to 7 member STV system for our urban and suburban areas would be my preferred system. Our large rural ridings are hard to fit into a STV system but they are even difficult to serve because of mandatory population size regulations.
If you use three-seaters in rural areas, you elect two Tories and one Liberal. No one else need apply. For this, I should lose my local MP?STV needs enough MLAs that the districts are small enough. If you want more democracy, don't expect to shrink the legislature. quote: Originally posted by kropotkin1951: I would be alright with a MMPR system if the threshold was at least 5% and the electors got to rank the party list put forward by the party they voted for.With any system the devil is in the details.
And in the map.That's why this coming referendum is a new ball game. Last time the No forces raised fears as to what the map would look like, while the Yes forces campaigned with a couple of sample maps -- which unfortunately were quite different from each other. This time the Boundaries Commission has produced a defensible map after public hearings.
From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Loretta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 222
|
posted 17 October 2008 09:04 PM
I would totally vote in favour of MMP, or perhaps another model of PR. Barring a "Road to Damascus" experience, I will not be voting YES in any referendum that proposes BC STV. I get the basic premise but am not persuaded on a number of issues such as the idea that it can produce more equity, or the transferring system (any election that needs a computer to calculate and count ballots is suspect, especially given the fiascos that have occurred elsewhere) and rural representation. In spite of asking for an explanation of how others got to the place where they believe these issues are dealt with fairly and appropriately with BC-STV, I still cannot get there. I have read the info and watched the little videos that explain it (I get how the voting works, btw), I just don't see the positives that others who are such advocates place in such a system. And, to be blunt, if we vote in such a change and it doesn't work in practice the way that many seem to think it does in theory, do you honestly believe that the public will vote again to change the model or will a failure create more distrust in the electoral process? [ 17 October 2008: Message edited by: Loretta ]
From: The West Kootenays of BC | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276
|
posted 17 October 2008 09:28 PM
quote: Originally posted by Loretta: In spite of asking for an explanation of how others got to the place where they believe these issues are dealt with fairly and appropriately with BC-STV, I still cannot get there. I have read the info and watched the little videos that explain it (I get how the voting works, btw), I just don't see the positives that others who are such advocates place in such a system.And, to be blunt, if we vote in such a change and it doesn't work in practice the way that many seem to think it does in theory, do you honestly believe that the public will vote again to change the model or will a failure create more distrust in the electoral process?
It's not necessary to talk of how it works in theory. It works in practice in Ireland and Northern Ireland.And the Tasmanian ballot that the BC Citizens' Assembly decided to use is a clear improvement on the ballot used in Northern Ireland and Ireland. What issues are you not seeing as positives? I'd be happy to help. quote: Originally posted by Loretta: I would totally vote in favour of MMP, or perhaps another model of PR.
I am totally in favour of MMP too. Not the closed-list version chosen by the Ontario Citizens' Assembly, but the open-list model proposed by the Law Commission of Canada.I don't know what other model of PR you might be thinking. The only other one is pure-list, no local MLAs, which is clearly less suitable for Canada's geography than MMP, and has no possible advantages over STV. It works in Belgium, which of course is tiny compared with BC. You're a bit late. The time to discuss MMP versus STV was during the Citizens' Asssembly hearings in 2004. Carole James made a presentation for the NDP in support of proportional representation, and refusing to take sides on which model. The Citizens' Assembly designed an excellent MMP model and an excellent STV model, and then voted to choose between them. That was the job they were assigned to do on behalf of BC Citizens. They did it very conscientiously. If you want proportional representation, vote for BC-STV. If you want to add more MLAs in future, and make the District Magnitude larger, which I think would be a good idea, you can't do that without first having STV in place. It's really a separate issue. Adding more MPPs was one of the things that helped defeat MMP in Ontario. Keep it simple, is my advice.
From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Loretta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 222
|
posted 17 October 2008 10:41 PM
Thanks, Wilf Day, for your reply. quote: It's not necessary to talk of how it works in theory. It works in practice in Ireland and Northern Ireland.
My understanding of BC-STV was that it was different than other STV systems elsewhere. Is it similar enough to other jurisdictions that the outcomes here can be predicted based on the outcomes there? I know you probably think so, being a proponent, but I would like to see something that compares and contrasts STV to MMP and FPTP critically from a source that's trustworthy. I don't see the CA as that source, for a few reasons. One is that is was appointed by the BC Liberals, whose interest in this issue is questionable. Also, Mr. Campbell et al have been less than above board in any number of areas, including the outcome of a recent conversation on health. Lack of trust here isn't unwarranted.
quote: You're a bit late. The time to discuss MMP versus STV was during the Citizens' Asssembly hearings in 2004.
I've been following this all along and participated as I was able. Convince me. I'm quite politically interested and involved, more so than most, so while I don't get the lingo that is used in threads devoted to this subject, I am able to understand. If you can't find a way to put it forward in such a way as to either convince me or at least get me to the point where I understand how others might consider it advantageous (and would agree to disagree), then I believe that it's not likely that those who aren't involved politically will concede its merits at the ballot box. I also wish to say that I appreciate your respectful approach and response, unlike some others who repeatedly bash those who don't understand or who don't agree with them. Thanks. [ 17 October 2008: Message edited by: Loretta ]
From: The West Kootenays of BC | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RANGER
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7667
|
posted 17 October 2008 11:56 PM
quote: Originally posted by Loretta: And, to be blunt, if we vote in such a change and it doesn't work in practice the way that many seem to think it does in theory, do you honestly believe that the public will vote again to change the model or will a failure create more distrust in the electoral process?[ 17 October 2008: Message edited by: Loretta ]
A concern I've had from the get go, if or when STV proved a disaster the chances for a system that made sense would be nill,Wilf is incorrect that you "have to" increase existing seat totals to implement a proportional system or that STV is the only way to start "incrementally" also the system in Tazmania has some very signifigant differences than the one served up for B.C.ers but of course he knows this.
From: sunshine coast | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490
|
posted 18 October 2008 12:46 AM
Incidentally, BC had some dual-member constituencies under first-past-the-post as well.So it is incorrect to try and raise concers by using scare tactics with boundaries. That having been said I would feel more comfortable with STV if it was on the basis of simgle-member districts.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|