Voting procedure

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
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.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.

Thanks, L.Gilbert, as I suspected I think we are better off the way it is. No sense changing things just for the sake of change. So a party with a minority of votes gets representation, so what we would wind up with is 15 fringe parties each getting a seat or two each- what a dogs breakfast that would be. The S.T.V. would just encourage the fringes to throw their hat in the ring. I suppose having one or two seats Rhinocerus might not be too bad of an idea though.
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
192
63
Nakusp, BC
Good mornin' JLM.

STV would more than likely produce a constant of minority governments. That would avoid dictatorships like the Campbell dynasty. Having a dozen or so parties would force politicians to work together to get things done. It would promote governance by consensus. It would break down the party policy strangle hold that we have now. Personally, I think STV is too watered down. I prefer the inuite form of governance where all seats are held by independents.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
Good mornin' JLM.

STV would more than likely produce a constant of minority governments. That would avoid dictatorships like the Campbell dynasty. Having a dozen or so parties would force politicians to work together to get things done. It would promote governance by consensus. It would break down the party policy strangle hold that we have now. Personally, I think STV is too watered down. I prefer the inuite form of governance where all seats are held by independents.

Morning Cliff- I'm sure which ever system we have the bastards will work it to their best advantage. I'm at the age where if I'm going to vote I want it simple (in keeping with simple minded people I'm voting for) You should take a run down to Winlaw and hog tie Old Corky and bring him back to political life, sure would be a huge improvement over the BAnshee (the hon. Carole James):lol::lol:
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
Thanks, L.Gilbert, as I suspected I think we are better off the way it is. No sense changing things just for the sake of change. So a party with a minority of votes gets representation, so what we would wind up with is 15 fringe parties each getting a seat or two each- what a dogs breakfast that would be. The S.T.V. would just encourage the fringes to throw their hat in the ring. I suppose having one or two seats Rhinocerus might not be too bad of an idea though.
It isn't necessarily true that we WOULD end up with a plethora of fringies. It might turn out to be a slow acting gov't but I don't think the other 14 fringies would allow the 1 fringie to implement something really stupid.
At the moment, we get stupid from either Dippers or Glibs and no-one can do anything about it except squawk.
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
192
63
Nakusp, BC
JLM,

Dorky is a great human being but he does this Jekyll and Hyde number when he is in politics. I think he saw the writing on the wall and bailed when the gettin' was good. I think he is a little too down home for all the slick shysters in Victoria.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
Corky is a definite opportunist. Regardless of whether his agenda will do anything good or not, if he can gain, he will implement it. He's a pol; not always good, not always bad, but likes power and attention.

Okay, sounds like Corky is not the boy to lead the N.D.P. - probably too long in the tooth now anyway (as most of the old horse loggers are)
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
lmao Corky is only in his 50s I think. Concerning his "horse-logging"; he tried it for a while and decided it wasn't paying so he got a gov't grant or two with which he bought machinery to log with. lol
He also promised Nelson they'd get a brand new horsespittle when the Dippers got in. I think the old one got new paint.
 

Francis2004

Subjective Poster
Nov 18, 2008
2,846
34
48
Lower Mainland, BC

Yes thanks Les..

I agree that after reading these articles I believe we would end up with more of a mess then equal representation.. I do believe that either way it is fair, but in one manner ( STV ) it would spread out more votes and indeed give fringe parties the ability to elect members. This might sound great but if it is at a cost of not depending on one riding but rather a spread of votes it becomes an issue as we will be funding members of Parliament of these parties that should not have been elected..

In the One Vote situation everyone is still on the same equal footing and must still win the "riding". It is the overall picture that peeves off the fringe parties in this equation. But in all it is not fair to transfer votes from a base of one membership to another to elect a member just for the sake of saying "equal representation".

Let them get elected on their own merit and not depend on transfered votes..
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
Then there will only ever be two parties heard in legislature, even though others may have good plans/ideas. And we'll also be relegated to listening to the constant bickering between the two.
I know I am not the only one tired of the same two batches of idiots screwing with people's lives and the province. I may just decide to quit voting and shed myself of being concerned with it. I've heard quite a few people say they've quit voting already.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
Then there will only ever be two parties heard in legislature, even though others may have good plans/ideas. And we'll also be relegated to listening to the constant bickering between the two.
I know I am not the only one tired of the same two batches of idiots screwing with people's lives and the province. I may just decide to quit voting and shed myself of being concerned with it. I've heard quite a few people say they've quit voting already.

It's the voters' fault if we wind up with the two worst and stupidest parties dominating the legislature, when people start paying attention and voting right, one of the fringe parties will overtake one or both of the mainstream parties. Then there is the problem of the fringe parties attracting anyone with a lot of talent, because there's not a lot of money being head honcho of a fringe party, so the trick is to attract someone with talent, patience and the ability to go hungry for the short haul (maybe 8 or 12 years) :lol::lol:
 

VanIsle

Always thinking
Nov 12, 2008
7,046
43
48
This is what I received in the mail explaining the STV. -------

STV is an electoral system that produces largely proportional results, which means that the number of seats a political party wins is close to its share of the overall popular vote. Under this system, the total number of MLA's in the prov. would not change. They would be elected in 20 multi-member electoral dist. between two and seven MLA's per district. Voters would vote by ranking preferences for as many candidates as they wish to support (1,2,3 etc.)
To be elected, a candidate must reach a certain number of votes called the electoral quota.
All voters' first preferences are counted, with further rounds of counting used to transfer voters second, third,etc preferences from candidates who are elected with a surplus of votes, OR who are dropped from the ballot because they have received the fewest votes, to candidates who are still on the ballot. The counting process continues until all the seats in the district have been filled.

The short explanation:
BC-STV is regarded as a system that:

1. Lets voters make a number of choices on the ballot at elections

2. Produces largely proportional results

3. Is more likely to produce minority or coalition governments

4. Maintains a link between multiple MLAs and voters in larger constituencies.
 
Last edited:

VanIsle

Always thinking
Nov 12, 2008
7,046
43
48
Personally, I like minority governments be it federal or provincial. Minority gov'ts are much more accountable as they have less control. I will vote for the STV even if I don't vote for anything or anyone else that day. Seems to me that this way of voting makes many politicians more accountable.
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
192
63
Nakusp, BC
Personally, I like minority governments be it federal or provincial. Minority gov'ts are much more accountable as they have less control. I will vote for the STV even if I don't vote for anything or anyone else that day. Seems to me that this way of voting makes many politicians more accountable.

I'm wichou on dat one. The present system is too unbalanced. I like the idea of a lot of fringe parties having a say in parliament. For a minority government to stay in office they will have to consider ideas that are now outside their box. Perhaps we will see some progress instead of the stagnation we have been getting.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
Personally, I like minority governments be it federal or provincial. Minority gov'ts are much more accountable as they have less control. I will vote for the STV even if I don't vote for anything or anyone else that day. Seems to me that this way of voting makes many politicians more accountable.

I've been giving it a lot of thought and I guess that's one thing where you are I may differ as I want to keep the process as simple as possible adn be clear where my vote has actually gone. While there are many advantages to S.T.V. you have to be aware that with that system you could have about 15 parties all with a seat or two in the house. I suppose on the other hand it could dissuade a lot of the fringe parties as I doubt that the head honcho of say the Rhinocerus party really wants to end up sitting in the legislature. I'm not convinced that the S.T.V. has been thoroughly thought out ahead of time. It will be interesting to see how it all goes down.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
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.

First off, First past the post is fair only if all candidates can play on an equal footing, without misleading people. Right now, if you look at your federal ballot, you'll notice that the party name appears under the candidate name. This risks misleadin some people into thinking that they're voting for the party, not the candidate. And then when we consider that a great many Canadians vote party as a matter of family tradition (don't laugh, I've met enough of them),then this clearly puts a candidate with a famous brand under his name at a great advantage over an independent candidate. The independent can be a high quality candidate, and the candidate with the famous brand under his name can be a complete moron. Yet, if they like that moron's leader, they might vote for him anyway. Is that fair to the independent candidate?

The only way for first past the post to be fair is to switch to a non-partisan democracy as has been done in the NWT and Nunavut.

If we continue with partisan democracy, however, then we must recognize that people are voting party already anyway, so to be fair, that should be recognized in the voting process. STV is a mixed system in that it also allows for independents to run,while still allowing people who vote party to do that too.

There is also a pure proportional system which is a list system. In such a system, independents cannot run. On your ballot you have no personal names, only a list of all Canadian federal parties. You vote explicitely for party, not candidate. All the votes nationwide are added up, and that determines how many candidates per party in paliament, chosen by the parties.

Personally, I lean in favour of a non-partisan first past the post system. If it's going to be partisan, however, then I'd lean STV as it still allows independents to run democratically.

The list system is the worst option in my opinion as it gives parties total power over the candidate. You think parties are powerful now? Just wait for thelist system to come into place.

But I believe that the best way to preserve the FPTP system for those who support it is in fact to switch to a non-partisan system as it eliminates the current legitimate criticism against it, which is that it's not fair when we're voting candidate and yet the ballot gives the false impression that we're voting party.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Good mornin' JLM.

STV would more than likely produce a constant of minority governments. That would avoid dictatorships like the Campbell dynasty. Having a dozen or so parties would force politicians to work together to get things done. It would promote governance by consensus. It would break down the party policy strangle hold that we have now. Personally, I think STV is too watered down. I prefer the inuite form of governance where all seats are held by independents.

I'm with you. I'd rather go the non-partisan route than going pro-rep. I will acknowledge though that the pro-rep camp does have a legitimate argument when they say that fptp isn't fair when it misleads people into thinking they're voting party by including party names under candidate names when they're not in fact voting party, but candidate. That is a legitimate argument on their part. But then here's the other problem: it's in the parties' best interests to entrench the party system thgough pro-rep because it keeps the independent candidates out and gives parties even more power than they have now.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Morning Cliff- I'm sure which ever system we have the bastards will work it to their best advantage. I'm at the age where if I'm going to vote I want it simple (in keeping with simple minded people I'm voting for) You should take a run down to Winlaw and hog tie Old Corky and bring him back to political life, sure would be a huge improvement over the BAnshee (the hon. Carole James):lol::lol:

In that case you'd love the non-partisan system. It's first past the post like it is now, except that there are no parties. You have to get t know your candidate. When you get to the ballot box and you look at your ballot, all you see is the name of the candidates, no party names. The PM would be chosen not by his party but by the House through an open vote. There is no more party caucus but a caucus of the House. And MPs are free to create new co-alitions for every issues, thus eliminating the possibility of a party having full control.

The only difficult part with the non-partisan system is that because there is no party name on the ballot, you actually have to get to know your candidate, but this puts independent candidates on an equal footing with party members since no one knows who's with which party. As a result, a member of a famous party who's an idiot still won't stand a chance against an independent who's got brains.