Voting procedure

[Machjo]

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..

What you say is valid only if people recognise that they are voting for a candidate and not a party. It's not fair to maek them vote for a candidate while making them think they're voting for a party. So if we keep first past the post, and we want to vote for a candidate and not a party, then it's time to crap the parties from the system and go non-partisan.

 

[JLM]

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..

That's the conclusion I've drawn.

 

[YukonJack]

Makes no difference what voting system we have, as long as the same old, tired deadwood stays in the race.

NO INCUMBENT should be eligible for a third term. No Senator should be able to serve more than 8 years. No Supreme Court Justice should legislate from the bench for more than 6 years.

Take a look at out Parliament today.

Can you name a single one that you would like to have in your house as a guest?

If these useless, past their best-before-date reptiles realize that their services expired at two terms and have the decency to remove themselves from the political scene our country will be much better off for it.

 

[JLM]

Makes no difference what voting system we have, as long as the same old, tired deadwood stays in the race.

NO INCUMBENT should be eligible for a third term. No Senator should be able to serve more than 8 years. No Supreme Court Justice should legislate from the bench for more than 6 years.

Take a look at out Parliament today.

Can you name a single one that you would like to have in your house as a guest?

If these useless, past their best-before-date reptiles realize that their services expired at two terms and have the decency to remove themselves from the political scene our country will be much better off for it.

Where do you get your morbid outlook on life from? You've obviously missed a lot of valuable lessons along the way - like THERE'S AN EXCEPTION TO EVERY RULE but then I guess you picked on the one A NEW BROOM SWEEPS CLEAN. I've told you a million times Y.J. politicians are corrupt by nature and Conservatives/Republicans are just as corrupt as Liberals/Democrats. Nixen was a good example and he didn't last 8 years.

 

[Francis2004]

What you say is valid only if people recognise that they are voting for a candidate and not a party. It's not fair to maek them vote for a candidate while making them think they're voting for a party. So if we keep first past the post, and we want to vote for a candidate and not a party, then it's time to crap the parties from the system and go non-partisan.

That's just the point.. We are suppoosed to be voting the "best representative" for our riding.. Not the party.. If you Transfer votes you will be electing parties..

 

[YukonJack]

JLM, rather than presenting your own argument opposing mine about term limits you resort to personal criticism. Let me assure you, my outlook on life is far from morbid.

Still awaiting to name the one MP, Senator or Supreme court Justice (all wearing labels indicating "best before" date) that you would welcome to your house as a guest. And show your kids as an example.

 

[VanIsle]

That's just the point.. We are suppoosed to be voting the "best representative" for our riding.. Not the party.. If you Transfer votes you will be electing parties..

I don't agree with you on this SirFrancis. I'll use my city as an example simply because I am a little more familiar with it than elsewhere. I am on a personal level, a person who usually votes the party. In a federal election in particular, if you don't vote the party, you may not get who you want for PM so in that instance, it is important to me to vote the party. Normally, I would do the same provincially speaking but the STV changes that. The fringe parties still won't matter in the end. You get to vote your choice(s). I am not NDP but - having said that, in my area, the NDP candidate is always clearly trying to get things done. He works on housing for the homeless, he works toward a means to an end in a sense for the 1st nations people and a few other things. In other words, he stands out amongst the others. I know that he is popular with many of the local population. I don't even know the local candidate for the Liberal Party and beyond that - I just don't care. For the very little that is spoken about the other parties, not enough people care for their votes to be transferred to the fringe parties and I believe the STV will bring an end to those parties. In the end we will still have the 3 main parties. The Green will stay because it's an option for the many that do not like the Libs or the NDP. If they get a leader in BC that in my opinion, has some thinking power, I could one day actually vote for them again. So what it comes down to (in real life and not what some of you are wishing it could change to like in Nunavut)is that you can vote your party if you choose to. Then your second choice you vote your candidate if he is not in the party you want because you are just likely shoring up the best candidate for your area. I think people are far more likely to vote for a candidate in the provincial election then they are in the federal. Young people in particular do vote what their parents vote and many women still vote what their husband votes. They all do that because it's just so much easier then reading about party policy and the running candidates. You have to get older to become interested in the news. Life is strange. The reason you have choices on the STV is for the popular candidates to be doing their thing. Why would anyone think for a moment that we will have this ridiculous number of people representing us. Go back to my other post and see how they will count the votes and how they will trickle down via popularity. FPTP does not give us the same options.
It says:
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.

 

[VanIsle]

People from other provinces need to pay attention to this vote. The STV is very popular in Ireland and they claim it works very well. So there is a good chance that if it passes in BC and it works well, the rest of the country could be voting on it in the not too distant future as well.

 

[Machjo]

Makes no difference what voting system we have, as long as the same old, tired deadwood stays in the race.

NO INCUMBENT should be eligible for a third term.

What if he's one of the few politicians of character? So we boot him out because he's been in too long? Maybe there's a reason he keeps getting voted in.

 

[Machjo]

Island Pacific, you say you vote for the party leader. What happens if your MP decides to cross the floor, as sometimes happens. If you'd voted party leader, you've just wasted your vote. If you vote candidate, your vote will stay with him no matter what.

Also, if we vote party, then why waste so much money. If we're going to vote party, then here's what we shoudl have done last election:

Send May, Harper, Layton and Dion to Parliament (only four politicians to pay salaries to), give them each a voting value according to the percentage of the population that voted for them, and that's it. Because if we all vote for the party leader anyway, might as well.

 

[Machjo]

That's just the point.. We are suppoosed to be voting the "best representative" for our riding.. Not the party.. If you Transfer votes you will be electing parties..

But those in favour of STV and other similatr ideas do have a point. If we have party names on the ballot, we mislead people into believeing that they're voting for the party already. So if we're going to keep party names on the ballot, then STV would be fairer than what we have now. And on that they do have a point, but then we'd be giving parties even more power than they have now. Bye bye locla respresentation, all voting ideology then.

Personally, I'd rather go the opposite direction though and get effin' party names off our friggin' ballots. Otherwise, what's the point of friggin' voting in such a misleading system that so many have fallen for already?

But honestly I would never vote party. The day candidate's names are taken off the ballot, I won't be voting anymore. STV does keep their names on the list, but that's just a step down from the list system.

 

[L Gilbert]

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.

I think the panel that developed it from a model from another country took 3 years to hash it out and consisted of people from quite a variety of lifestyles and careers.

 

[L Gilbert]

Can you name a single one that you would like to have in your house as a guest?

Actually yes. When the federal Liberals are in power they are fairly well known to be very generous with their friends. So I'd invite one over as many times as possible and let him/her know that I am a consultant for something or other. I would get lots of gov't grants or gov't contracts that way. lol

 

[L Gilbert]

I know I'd sure like to see a bill pass that says they can't vote themselves raises. I'd also like to see pensions corrected to something more along the lines of those pensions the rest of us have,

 

[YukonJack]

"What if he's one of the few politicians of character? So we boot him out because he's been in too long? Maybe there's a reason he keeps getting voted in."

If there was a law, well known to everyone, to keep worn-out tired nobodies out of public office, after two terms, there would be all kinds of candidates to fill the post.

Let us not forget: It takes two terms for MP's to get a gold-plated pension, the kind you and I could never even dream about. If two terms are good enough for that pension, it should be good enough for MP's to show a bit of self-respect and fade from public arena after two terms as MP's.

 

[VanIsle]

I know I'd sure like to see a bill pass that says they can't vote themselves raises. I'd also like to see pensions corrected to something more along the lines of those pensions the rest of us have,

Amen to that! If we actually lived in a democracy and they were truly working for us, then they should not be able to vote themselves a raise and their pensions should be non-existant. My husband received his first OAS cheque a couple of weeks ago. He already has his CPP and his gov't work pension. His gov't work pension was clawed back and the only extra he receives is $32.79 per month. I assume that politicians that were receiving a work pension, and CPP would get the full amount of their OAS and the full amount of their gov't work pension. In other words, the only change to hubby's monthly income when the OAS came into effect was +$32.79 a month. Makes you want to jump for joy doesn't it???????!8O

 

[Machjo]

"What if he's one of the few politicians of character? So we boot him out because he's been in too long? Maybe there's a reason he keeps getting voted in."

If there was a law, well known to everyone, to keep worn-out tired nobodies out of public office, after two terms, there would be all kinds of candidates to fill the post.

Let us not forget: It takes two terms for MP's to get a gold-plated pension, the kind you and I could never even dream about. If two terms are good enough for that pension, it should be good enough for MP's to show a bit of self-respect and fade from public arena after two terms as MP's.

I have a few problems with this:

1. Can you prove that a long-time politician is necessarily worse than a newbie?

2. Though fresh blood has its advantages, having a few experienced politicians in the house has its advantages too.

3. If the problem is the pensions, then scrap the pensions. Do you really want ot have us payr out even more pensions?

4. What about democracy? Let's say that MP has been doing a damn good job and his constituents love him. So we'll take away their right to vote for him?

 

[Francis2004]

But those in favour of STV and other similatr ideas do have a point. If we have party names on the ballot, we mislead people into believeing that they're voting for the party already. So if we're going to keep party names on the ballot, then STV would be fairer than what we have now. And on that they do have a point, but then we'd be giving parties even more power than they have now. Bye bye locla respresentation, all voting ideology then.

Personally, I'd rather go the opposite direction though and get effin' party names off our friggin' ballots. Otherwise, what's the point of friggin' voting in such a misleading system that so many have fallen for already?

But honestly I would never vote party. The day candidate's names are taken off the ballot, I won't be voting anymore. STV does keep their names on the list, but that's just a step down from the list system.

What your saying doesn't make sense in the example we had a few years ago where two Gordon Campbell ran in the same riding? How do you know which one you are voting for if they do not have party names attached to them yet legally they both have the same name and are entitled to run for elections ?

On the other hand you are not making the MP more accountable or representable to the poeple by opening up to STV. They would like you to believe that is the case but only the fringe parties that have little to offer want you to believe that. MP count will not increase and in fact your MP location could change making him less accessable to you.

As to new parties getting elected its up to them to bring new ideas to the table and has been proven to work. Liberals in BC were not a force in BC prior to 1991. The Reform Party of Canada came out of no where in 1987..

If you want to get elected you will find a way.

 

[Francis2004]

Actually yes. When the federal Liberals are in power they are fairly well known to be very generous with their friends. So I'd invite one over as many times as possible and let him/her know that I am a consultant for something or other. I would get lots of gov't grants or gov't contracts that way. lol

Funny as I have been a consultant for all 3 parties in my youth and Liberals never gave me any scecial favours.. I hate to tell you what I got from NDP and Conservatives :lol:

 

[Machjo]

What your saying doesn't make sense in the example we had a few years ago where two Gordon Campbell ran in the same riding? How do you know which one you are voting for if they do not have party names attached to them yet legally they both have the same name and are entitled to run for elections ?

If you want to get elected you will find a way.

As an honest candidate, my job would not be to 'find a way'. Heck, if I can manage to run for the Liberals or Conservatives, I already have tons of votes going my way olready even if i"m a complete moron. In fact, if anything, I might be more concerned about how my leader presentes himself in public than how I present myself.

So if my goal is just to 'find a way', then all I'd have to do is join the most popular party with the most charismatic leader and then put on a show of my own to win a few more votes, and that's that.

But what if I decided to run as an independent? Right away, I lose all the party votes. At that stage, I could rely only on my own personal character and luck. If I join the party, I might win a seat, but could not truly represent my riding as I must remain a member in good standing in the party. If I get kicked out of the party, I lose my riding's party votes. So I win, but not really.

So we need to go beyond candidates 'finding a way', and getting them to run on principle. I can't see the current party system doing that.