tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31099203.post7847000607290070149..comments2023-07-23T04:50:58.496-04:00Comments on All Politics Is Local: BC-STV: It Depends Where You LiveAaron Ginsberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10586651764906428965noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31099203.post-21333841980839306992009-04-06T19:27:00.000-04:002009-04-06T19:27:00.000-04:00Wayne Smith - They are other forms of proportional...Wayne Smith - They are other forms of proportional representation that are easier to understand i.e. MMP. Besides first past the post in my view is a very good system. It means stability which means government can make the tough decisions without having to cut some backroom deal with another party and then once their term is up voters will judge. It means better local representation and in a province as large as BC, this matters especially in rural areas. It keeps fringe parties (i.e. the far left and far right) out of the legislature whereas in most European countries you have communist parties and fascist parties with representation in parliament as well as single issue parties. Instead a successful party must appeal to a wide variety of voters and take positions on several issues. In addition, this idea that some votes are wasted is nonsense. Every vote is counted even if your candidate doesn't get elected and the reality is you cannot ever please everyone. If one is concerned about vote splitting, I would suggest adopting IRV like Australia has which at least ensures every candidate is supported by the majority of their constituents.Monkey Loves to Fighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05122291567543761919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31099203.post-91981761605476784622009-04-05T04:10:00.000-04:002009-04-05T04:10:00.000-04:00"My opposition to STV is it is too complicated for..."My opposition to STV is it is too complicated for your average voter."<BR/><BR/>The argument here appears to be that BC voters are too stupid to deal with a fair voting system, so therefore they must stick with an unfair one.<BR/><BR/>I'm afraid this argument is too complicated for me to follow.Wayne Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08080912916559741326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31099203.post-30424512054889596552009-04-04T22:53:00.000-04:002009-04-04T22:53:00.000-04:00It is true in the North they will be less proporti...It is true in the North they will be less proportional, although I think another problem you could get is how many candidates a party decides to run. For both the BC Liberals and BC NDP, they might only run one candidate or two in areas they are weak in as this would greatly increase their chances of getting a seat there rather than running a full slate. For example, Richmond has three seats and all are safely BC Liberals. However, if the NDP ran only one candidate, they could conceivably win one seat there.<BR/><BR/>My opposition to STV is it is too complicated for your average voter. A voter should know how their vote will be counted and its effect.Monkey Loves to Fighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05122291567543761919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31099203.post-85685317444794821612009-03-25T14:24:00.000-04:002009-03-25T14:24:00.000-04:00Hi Aaron!What you illustrate is actually the flexi...Hi Aaron!<BR/><BR/>What you illustrate is actually the flexibility of the BC-STV system. True, the ridings in the North of the province will have less MLA's and have less "proportionality" than Victoria for example. This decision came from the Electoral Boundaries Commission (http://www.bc-ebc.ca/). After listening to the people of BC, they realized that in the North of the province, people didn't like the idea of huge ridings. Therefore they made the ridings "smaller" in the North.<BR/><BR/>And in case the Commission was wrong, not a big problem. BC-STV can be adapted and the ridings could be merged together in the future if it's what the people want.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31099203.post-87462932751667779452009-03-25T11:30:00.000-04:002009-03-25T11:30:00.000-04:00Well yes, proportionality is limited when you elec...Well yes, proportionality is limited when you elect only two or three candidates in a riding. But not as much as when you elect only one!<BR/><BR/>There is no perfect voting system, but whatever its shortcomings, any proportional voting system is vastly better than what we have now.Wayne Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08080912916559741326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31099203.post-31896385823844408102009-03-24T16:11:00.000-04:002009-03-24T16:11:00.000-04:00Sorry, 3 seat in ireland.Sorry, 3 seat in ireland.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31099203.post-45613502462668314472009-03-24T16:10:00.000-04:002009-03-24T16:10:00.000-04:00Matt is exactly right, there is no accountability ...Matt is exactly right, there is no accountability in the North. Peace river has always voted to the right of the spectrum.<BR/><BR/>What you miss though is the power of an independent in the North.<BR/><BR/>When vote splitting is gone, look for some popular independents to come in on the right and offer real competition to these areas. This is what we see in Ireland in their rural 2 seat riding. Also, unless the major parties consent to run only one candidate each, their will be internal competition.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31099203.post-40571039589241763112009-03-24T09:53:00.000-04:002009-03-24T09:53:00.000-04:00Under our current Winner Take All system, the "pro...Under our current Winner Take All system, the "problem" you identify actually happens in the vast majority of ridings already, not just those in the north. In the BC-STV map, officials decided that ensuring practical local representation in a district not too large trumped the need to ensure more proportional results. Based on BC's geography, this was inevitable. So while a district with 7 members is going to see those elected roughly in proportion to first vote intentions, those in more remote areas will see less proportional results, but still have more than one MLA to turn to. <BR/><BR/>Under the current system, most ridings are considered one-party strongholds and thus opposing parties rarely put in much effort. In Peace River areas of BC for example, the NDP need not even try, based on voting history. In east Vancouver, the Liberals might as well not try. Of the 85 ridings up for grabs under the current system, only about 30-40 are truly in contention and they decide who governs the province. Voters in the other ridings might as well not show up. <BR/><BR/>Under BC-STV, while the results in some larger, fewer-member districts may not be much more proportional, overall the results across the province will be much more so. And that is a vast improvement over the current system which almost never produces a legislature that reflects how voters actually voted.Matt Guerinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06307050875070980292noreply@blogger.com