Quote: Originally Posted by JLM
You hear a lot about this "S.T.V." vs. "First past the post". Is the S.T.V. all it's cracked up to be? Is it going to ensure more fairness at the ballot box? Under the old system isn't it equally fair for all parties running? Are not these situations where a small percentage of the electorate gets a bigger percentage of the seats, just an anomaly that can favour all parties equally? Is the "S.T.V." going to be void of such anomalies? Will the "S.T.V. result in a lower turnout at the polls? Let's hear some INFORMED opinions.
Last time I checked the election results, it took over 70,000 votes for one NDP member to be elected and something like 45,000 for a CP or L member to be elected. The BQ members typically had the least, maybe 30,000? This is all from memory, but you can easily check the exact numbers at Elections Canada. So our system doesn't treat the parties the same at all: it takes less votes for certain parties to have members of parliament.
Yet, each of these members has the same say in Parliament. The way our system works, unless you are voting for the party which everyone else votes for your vote counts as roughly half a vote. It doesn't eliminate fringe views at all, but can strengthen them if they are highly localized. For a national government, at least, first past the post is not quite right.