Single Transferable Vote: May 17th
There’s more than one decision to make at election time this year for British Columbians.
Talking last night about the upcoming provincial election, and mentioned the fact that there’s a referendum question that voters will be asked to answer at the same time.
Should British Columbia change to the BC-STV electoral system as recommended by the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform?
Asked to explain, I was incredibly inarticulate about the whole thing, able to maybe stutter a few words about the general gist of it but unable to articulate anything in detail. After a quick read of this page about STV, I might be able to do better.
Monday 25 Apr 2005 | 24601 | SlantyNet - General
what’s going on? are the bc liberals going down?
Seems unlikely, but more comment as the campaign progresses.
Already the internal strife has entered our household… Amazing how different are lives are that we would different candidates for differnent reasons, and yet still be under the same roof and ultimatly have the same decisions to make. I even admitted if I was in her position I would definently support her party… that left her a little stumped for a reply.
On a side note, during the last federal election the Globe and Mail online had a great summary section for candidates etc. Being provincial they don’t have the same summary this time, has anyone seen something similar?
While it was better than 24601’s mumblings in the back of the car, I still don’t really follow the STV thing… there isn’t really an explination of how the 2nd and 3rd rankings are used.. “If a voter’s first-choice candidate is not elected, chances are that the voter’s second preference would contribute to electing a candidate.” What do they mean “chances are”?
This is a better example of how it works….
Dont blame me, I voted for Bush.
The flash version helps to see how the 2nd and 3rd choice rankings get redistributed (espeically with that Tony Parsons look-alike explaining things). I’m just wondering how three candidates from three (potentially) different parties would successfully represent one riding.
Are you saying that your particular member represents your riding right now? When was the last time he/she voted against the party line? At least with the new system you might have a larger chance to elect someone from a party that represents your views.
And the possibility of some proportional representation would be good too — I find it ridiculous that a party can receive nearly 50% of the total votes cast but have nowhere near 50% of the seats. The last two provincial governments would probably have been more responsive if they had a stronger opposition to hold them to task. At least, that’s the hope.
Actually, here’s the popular vote from the 1996 election and the popular vote from the 2001 election. In both cases, the first past the post system “stole” seats from a party which otherwise might have received some representation.
Just to be Devil’s Advocate, if you look at the history of voting this system would likely doom us to a sucession of Minority goverments (if the green’s or another party can get a foothold…)
Just to argue against the Devil’s Advocate, “doom” seems like a relatively strong word. There would be the typical alliances, etc, that are typical of a minority government, but hopefully the end result would be a more responsive government.
You’re right, our current Federal minority is working quite well.
If that was intended to criticize the current state of affairs, I don’t think the criticism is warranted. I think the findings of the Gomery comission would be a distraction in Parliament whether or not the Liberals had a majority. The precarious balance of power has forced them to make some concessions to make the budget palatable to all parties.
A minority government makes trying to push through big changes very difficult. A major overhaul of anything would be impossible if the government was formed of a coalition of the Liberals, Marijauna party, Rhino party, and Natural Law party.
watching the goings-on in parliament is pretty fun, i have to say. a minority is not a bad thing really. beats what the republicans are doing quite successfully right now, which is installing a totalitarian regime in the three branches + courts under the guise of a democracy. wouldn’t mind seeing the liberals go down and watch stephen harper try to wrangle together some kind of coalition. bloc is with him only to bring down the liberals. i’d give him six months, tops.
BRING BACK THE RHINO’S!!!
I don’t think that its a bad thing that pushing through big changes is difficult. If the public wants big changes, they probably would have voted in a more clear majority. ie: 2001 BC election would have been a clear majority still, but the NDP would have a larger voice (more than 2 seats!!) — but the government’s mandate would still be quite clear.
I’m not sure provincially, but I think every minority government we’ve had federally ended after a short-term to a non-confidence vote.
I think you’re correct — minority governments have traditionally fallen rather quickly — but I don’t believe that the fact that STV _may_ lead to more minority governments is an argument against it.
well it will be interesting to have third and fourth parties enter the fray. the whole cycle of ndp - liberal/socred scandals is getting a little boring. i wanna see a green party scandal. illicit photos involving a spotted owl, or some such thing.
I think minority gov’ts fall right now because one of the parties believes that if the gov’t falls they’ll be re-elected with a majority. If you make it harder for them to acheive that majority they will have less incentive to force an election.
so, how is harper being perceived then? opportunist or saviour?
It’s tough to say, depends on your camp I’d say. And how vicious you are. My feeling is that a lot of his comments have been far from what I would expect from a perfectly level statesman.
Honestly. He used a little baby voice to mock Martin, saying something like: “‘I’ve been wandering the halls of Parliament since I was a little kid. Please let me keep my job.’”
And if I’m not mistaken, he’s described the the NDP/Liberal alliance as a “deal with the devil”. I thought compromise was how politics should be done. Link
he also referred to the ndp-liberal negotiations as a “backroom deal,” which is funny, because it was headline on every paper, and layton and martin were talking about it on a radio call-in show. a new use of the word “backroom” that makes harper sound like a tool.