Single non-transferable vote?

[bill barilko]

STV is what we almost got in BC. .....

No-the vote wasn't even close the STV dorks got sent back into the wilderness where they belong-of course they're still pissing and moaning about it.

The laugher was all the No side had to do was put the Youtube video from the Yes side on their website!

It was total gobbledygook I mean a bunch of idiotic jargon like you never heard it made No Sense Whatsoever.

As a friend of mine said-"If I can't understand it I can't vote for it".

Glad to see that back of those STV idiots-some here might be alive in the distant future when they make another push to promote their fantasy world but not me.

 

[L Gilbert]

FPTP sucks the sweat off dead goats. It is antiquated and little about it is fair. It should be in a museum in the "Follies of Mankind" section.
The winner-takes-all sort of system like FPTP is basically a schoolyard bully in that the biggest can screw the rest. Having multiple party + independent seats allows for as much of the population's concerns to be considered as possible. Otherwise we end up with schmucks like Glen Cluck in BC, Bob Rae in Ontario, etc.

Voting system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No-the vote wasn't even close the STV dorks got sent back into the wilderness where they belong-of course they're still pissing and moaning about it.

The laugher was all the No side had to do was put the Youtube video from the Yes side on their website!

It was total gobbledygook I mean a bunch of idiotic jargon like you never heard it made No Sense Whatsoever.

As a friend of mine said-"If I can't understand it I can't vote for it".

Glad to see that back of those STV idiots-some here might be alive in the distant future when they make another push to promote their fantasy world but not me.

It only didn't make sense to those who didn't have the brain capacity to understand it and people too frightened by fear of the unknown. Basically chickens and dummies.

BC-STV is a proposed voting system recommended by the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform for use in British Columbia, and belongs to the Single Transferable Vote family of voting systems. BC-STV was supported by a majority (57.7%[1]) of the voters in a referendum held in 2005 but the government had legislated that it would not be bound by any vote lower than 60% in favour.

Wikipedia

 

[Machjo]

FPTP sucks the sweat off dead goats. It is antiquated and little about it is fair. It should be in a museum in the "Follies of Mankind" section.
The winner-takes-all sort of system like FPTP is basically a schoolyard bully in that the biggest can screw the rest. Having multiple party + independent seats allows for as much of the population's concerns to be considered as possible. Otherwise we end up with schmucks like Glen Cluck in BC, Bob Rae in Ontario, etc.

Voting system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FPTP is a bad system only within the context of a partisan system of government. Remove the parties from the ballot, and FPTP and Plurality-at-Large (i.e. bloc voting) are the best systems since they allow the people to vote in the best candidates to represent them.

FPTP and block voting fail only within a partisan context, in which case then some form of party-list voting would be preferable.

So the way I see it, the best way to fix the problem is to remove party names from the ballot and just stick to either FPTP or bloc voting, LV a distant second to that, STV a distant third, party-list voting a distant fourth.

And if we insist on keeping party names on the ballots, then and only then would I agree that a party list would be preferable to any of the above, whereby party names are in fact the only ones on the ballot, with FPTP with party names appearing on the ballot being among the worst possible options since it essentially amounts to false advertising by giving the impression you're voting for the party when in fact you're voting for the candidate.

Or another way of looking at it is that when yo have both candidate and party names on the ballot, it essentially amounts to false advertising, since in principle you're voting for one or the other but not both. So if we are in fact voting for candidate (as is the case with FPTP, Bloc Voting, LV, SNTV, and STV), then let's be honest about it and remove party names. And if we insist on keepin party names on the ballots, then let's go to a party list system and remove candidates' names from the ballots and just leave party names there since they we woud in fact be voting party.

Either way, let's scrap the false advertising on ballots for a free, fair, and democratic election.

 

[AnnaG]

No-the vote wasn't even close the STV dorks got sent back into the wilderness where they belong-of course they're still pissing and moaning about it.

The laugher was all the No side had to do was put the Youtube video from the Yes side on their website!

It was total gobbledygook I mean a bunch of idiotic jargon like you never heard it made No Sense Whatsoever.

As a friend of mine said-"If I can't understand it I can't vote for it".

Glad to see that back of those STV idiots-some here might be alive in the distant future when they make another push to promote their fantasy world but not me.​

roflmao You couldn't understand it: "it made no sense whatsoever", "'"If I can't understand it I can't vote for it'", etc.and you call me an idiot? That's freakin hilarious.

Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.
Euripides
​

 

[Machjo]

Also Gilbert, while STV is easy for the voter to understand, for the counters it is much more work and so at greater risk of miscounting or error. Yo want a system that's easy not only for the voter, but for the counters too.

On that front, FPTP and Plurality at Large are among the easiest on both counts, though admittedly neither is representative in a partisan system.

Otherwise party list would be next easiest since all you do is check off your party. In the end, STV is among the more difficult ones in terms of complexity, thus increasing the risk of error.

Personally, I think I prefer Plurality-at-Large voting in spite of all its flaws. But again, it's fair only if you remove party names from the ballot, just like FPTP.

 

[L Gilbert]

FPTP is a bad system only within the context of a partisan system of government. Remove the parties from the ballot, and FPTP and Plurality-at-Large (i.e. bloc voting) are the best systems since they allow the people to vote in the best candidates to represent them.

FPTP and block voting fail only within a partisan context, in which case then some form of party-list voting would be preferable.

So the way I see it, the best way to fix the problem is to remove party names from the ballot and just stick to either FPTP or bloc voting, LV a distant second to that, STV a distant third, party-list voting a distant fourth.

And if we insist on keeping party names on the ballots, then and only then would I agree that a party list would be preferable to any of the above, whereby party names are in fact the only ones on the ballot, with FPTP with party names appearing on the ballot being among the worst possible options since it essentially amounts to false advertising by giving the impression you're voting for the party when in fact you're voting for the candidate.

Or another way of looking at it is that when yo have both candidate and party names on the ballot, it essentially amounts to false advertising, since in principle you're voting for one or the other but not both. So if we are in fact voting for candidate (as is the case with FPTP, Bloc Voting, LV, SNTV, and STV), then let's be honest about it and remove party names. And if we insist on keepin party names on the ballots, then let's go to a party list system and remove candidates' names from the ballots and just leave party names there since they we woud in fact be voting party.

Either way, let's scrap the false advertising on ballots for a free, fair, and democratic election.

Personally, I am not very choosy about which system we have as long as it isn't FPTP or some such moronic system. What I would like to see is parties go the way of the dodobird. No partisan crap involved at all.

 

[Machjo]

Personally, I am not very choosy about which system we have as long as it isn't FPTP or some such moronic system. What I would like to see is parties go the way of the dodobird. No partisan crap involved at all.

I agree I'd love to see parties disappear too. But quite honestly, once you remove parties from the equation, Bloc voting is probably the best system, with FPTP a close second in line.

Obviously a party list would be useless if there are no parties to vote for. It certainly would be funny to see a party list ballot with not a blot of ink on it.:lol:

As for STV, it would be my last choice among the systems that could work without parties, and let's not forget that it was invented in an attempt to compromise with proportional representation, which by definition has value only within a party system.

I don't see why you'd be so opposed to Plurality at Large voting without parties. What proportionality would you be looking for in a Parliament full of independents?

 

[L Gilbert]

I agree I'd love to see parties disappear too. But quite honestly, once you remove parties from the equation, Bloc voting is probably the best system, with FPTP a close second in line.

Obviously a party list would be useless if there are no parties to vote for. It certainly would be funny to see a party list ballot with not a blot of ink on it.:lol:

As for STV, it would be my last choice among the systems that could work without parties, and let's not forget that it was invented in an attempt to compromise with proportional representation, which by definition has value only within a party system.

I don't see why you'd be so opposed to Plurality at Large voting without parties. What proportionality would you be looking for in a Parliament full of independents?

I'm not. As I said, I don't care what system we have as long as it isn't what we have now.
Given my druthers, I would much rather see no parties at all.
I didn not say I want to see a no party system with no FPTP. That is why I separated the two preferences.
See? It's either no parties, or no FPTP.

 

[Machjo]

I'm not. As I said, I don't care what system we have as long as it isn't what we have now.
Given my druthers, I would much rather see no parties at all.
I didn not say I want to see a no party system with no FPTP. That is why I separated the two preferences.
See? It's either no parties, or no FPTP.

Got it. Thanks.

And within that context, I agree that Plurality at Large is the worst system in a partisan democracy with FPTP a close second.

It's ironic how the worst systems within a partisan systems are the best systems in a non-partisan system.:lol:

 

[bill barilko]

.....You couldn't understand it: "it made no sense whatsoever", "'"If I can't understand it I can't vote for it'", etc.and you call me an idiot? That's freakin hilarious...

OK, OK I understand now-it's 'all my fault'.

The defeat of the bucktoothed geeks who dreamed up that sh!tshow wasn't their fault it was mine.

Makes perfect sense.

Yup-especially in your fantasy world. :lol:

Funny thing-I researched other jurisdictions where STV was implemented-starts of innovation and success like Northern Ireland the violence racked dump/hellhole and Malta the wise-it didn't really make them any different at all.

And of course let's not forget all those Health Boards in New Zealand that use it man they know how to invent new ways to waste taxpayer money.

 

[Machjo]

Another idea I cold see would be a Plurality-at-Large open ballot. For example, if a riding has three seats to win, then the ballot would be a blank sheet of paper with three blank lines on it. You write down the names of the three people residing in your community who have voting rights themselves, and the three names that appear most frequently get the seats.

Some might think this would lead to chaos as some people would vote for any friend or relative. My guess is though that the majority would vote for well-known and well-respected members of the community.

Some might criticize this on the grounds that the winners might not want the seats in the first place, but we could look at it like jury duty. If the public want him, then it's his duty to serve unless he has good reason to turn it down. Thi would remove many egomaniacs from power too.

 

[AnnaG]

OK, OK I understand now-it's 'all my fault'.

The defeat of the bucktoothed geeks who dreamed up that sh!tshow wasn't their fault it was mine.

Makes perfect sense.

Yup-especially in your fantasy world. :lol:

Like I pointed out; basically what you are saying is, "I don't understand it so you are dumb". "Whatta maroon" - B Bunny.

Funny thing-I researched other jurisdictions where STV was implemented-starts of innovation and success like Northern Ireland the violence racked dump/hellhole and Malta the wise-it didn't really make them any different at all.

Then show the research. I could say I researched it and found places where it performed wonders for the country.

And of course let's not forget all those Health Boards in New Zealand that use it man they know how to invent new ways to waste taxpayer money.

You mean like they do here? lmao

So all you can do is call me dumb and claim you did some research? You can't refute anything I said using some actual evidence? You're a joke.