empire777 pantip_จี คลับ สล็อต_แทงบอล

88 posts / 0 new
Last post
ReeferMadness
STV is not good for Bill Tieleman

Bill Tieleman's latest effort to undermine STV is curious indeed.? Is he going after STV?? Does he have something against Dave Meslin?? Or maybe he's trying to tap into our sense of western alienation.? Mr. Tieleman refers to Ontario 5 times, implying that those uppity Central Canadians should stay out of our referendum.? Enough of the niceties - on to the arguments.

Bill Tieleman says "it does not allow voters to determine what fraction of their vote is to be allocated to each preference, meaning you will never know exactly where your vote went.? Well,? peope who voted Green in the last few elections know exactly where their votes went - nowhere.? People who voted for people who weren't elected know where their votes went as well.

Frankly, Bill, I don't care what they do with my vote as long as we see more representative government.? David Schreck warns that they'll chop my vote into fractions.? For all I care, they can puree it and serve it back to me in a cocktail.? I know enough about STV to understand how it works.? Literally dozens of political scientists, the people who spend their lives studying this stuff, have endorsed BC-STV.? I have confidence in Elections BC to implement it and am sure the parties will ensure counting is done properly.? So, that is not an issue.

Mr. Tieleman takes Dave Meslin to task for saying that "the notion that STV will result in fewer women being elected" is ridiculous.? Wisely sidestepping the argument, Tieleman cites Andrea Reimer and Anne Edwards who claim that STV will be bad for women.? He concludes "I guess Meslin figures he knows more than two experienced British Columbian women politicians whose credentials are impeccable."

Maybe the answer is that Mr. Meslin is aware that Tricia Marwick, a member of the Scottish Parliament with first hand experience with STV said "of course STV is good for women".? Maybe he's looked at the impressive list of endorsements on the stv.ca website and seen that it includes 4 NDP MP's (3 of them women), several dozen local politicians (many of them women), Judy Rebick, Naomi Klein, Maude Barlow, Jane Sterk, Ontario NDP leader Andrea Horwath and many, many other prominent women.? So, Mr Tieleman, I would suggest that either you are extremely poorly informed on this point or you are making a disingenuous argument.

Next, Bill Tielman asks rhetorically whether the Ontarians would accept this system in Toronto.? It's ironic you bring this up because STV was used successfully over several decades in two dozen American cities where it was credited with taking "power away from party leaders and give more of it to voters."? Those party insiders who lost power plotted to get rid of it by undermining it and were successful when the "wrong kinds of people" (ethnic minorities and the occasional socialist) were elected.

Finally, Bill Tieleman claims that STV "obviously reduces local representation".? Maybe this is only obvious to him.? This report, produced for the Scottish Parliament found that "STV appears effective at maintaining linkages between politicians and local communities and indeed it is often criticised for fostering too localistic a political culture."

So, Bill, now that I've addressed your concerns, I'm sure you will want to meet with the NDP brain trust that is opposing STV and explain to them that you were wrong.? Many of us are used to thinking of the NDP as the party that always takes the principled stand.? We can't understand why you would oppose this progressive system.? Stop the madness before it's too late.

Jacob Two-Two

I know what you mean. Tieleman has been beating this horse since STV popped up and his arguments just keep getting weaker. It's hard for me to believe that he actually buys the nonsense he's writing. Is there some other motive that he's not sharing with us? What STV does is maximise voter choice, and it is my favourite voting system for exactly that reason. Could it be that some feel that this is a negative? That voters should have their choices strictly limited by such politicos as Tieleman himself? I can't fathom it, myself.

Wilf Day

It's not as though Tieleman actually believes this stuff about STV being bad for women. It's Ireland's national political culture that's bad for women. But he knows STV also elected women as 38 percent of Ireland's Euro MPs.

Dublin's City Council, elected on party labels by STV, has 29 percent women. (The London Assembly elected by MMP has 32 percent women.) And the Legislative Assembly of the Australian Capital Territory, elected by STV, is 41 percent women.

No, these are just debating points, not real reasons.

Perhaps his real reason is that winning an NDP nomination in a strong NDP seat is no longer the key to the old boys' paradise. You actually have to compete with other NDP candidates. Even with women.

A new young woman might actually beat one of Bill's old friends.

Unless he can convince enough voters that competition is bad for women. That was indeed the conventional wisdom in Europe in the 1950s, and 60s, and -- until Sweden changed to an open-list system and found it actually HELPED women. Turns out voters in Sweden, like voters in Canada, want to elect more women. Why not let them??

ReeferMadness

I've given the matter some thought an my conclusion is that there are a lot of 'true believers' that simply aren't democrats anymore.? They've seen too many of the 'wrong type' of governments elected and have come to the conclusion that people are generally ignorant, unintelligent, immoral, apathetic or some combination of all four.? They believe they are saving the peopel from themselves.? The power brokers know best and a patina of democracy will suffice to keep people content.? I have a certain level of sympathy for their lack of faith in people because there are an awful lot of uninformed, apathetic people out there.? Fundamentally, though, I believe that democracy cannot be a spectator sport.? If it is, it will wither away.?

I should qualify all of this by saying I don't know Bill Tieleman so I'm not applying this characterization to him personally.? Rather, this is an impression I'm getting from reading stuff by and talking to a lot of different people.? His actions do seem to fit the profile, though.

I firmly believe that STV is right for BC.? We're an independent-minded lot and the ability to vote past and through parties meshes well with an independent view.

I really, believe, though, that if BC-STV goes down, it could jeopardize PR movements across Canada for some time to come.? And that would be tragic.? PR is very important to democracy in BC but I think that Canada needs PR to survive.? FPTP accentuates regionalism and favours region-centric parties.? The Bloc Quebecois gets way more seats than it would under PR.? How long will it be until another province-centred party appears, maybe in Alberta?? If that happened BC probably wouldn't be far behind.

?

Wilf Day

ReeferMadness wrote:
Bill Tieleman's latest effort to undermine STV is curious indeed.? Is he going after STV?? Does he have something against Dave Meslin??

Yes, because Meslin got through to Libby Davies, and Tieleman didn't.
Quote:
Mez has heroically sent me messages, info, and encouragement (thanks Mez!).
. . . People say to me - this is the best chance we have to get democratic electoral reform through, now and not in the distant future, especially as the last referendum was so close. This is a good point. Like many, I want change - progressive change - and I want to see the cynicism that people feel about politics and the political process change too. Not that STV will answer all that - it won't. But maybe it's a first step to affirm change brought forward by citizens, not political parties.

So here I am, in answer to all the questions about my position - I can't duck it any longer. I'm voting YES to STV. I'm a bit of a reluctant comer to it and I've got my issues about it. But I've come to the conclusion that it's the right thing to do, at least for my one vote!

Skinny Dipper

About a week ago, I went to the www.trystv.ca website.? Even though a random sample of people have not taken the STV style poll on the BC election, I counted the number of men and women that would be elected.? At that time, I determined that about 31% of the winning candidates would be women.? In the BC legislative assembly at dissolution, about 22 percent of the MLAs were women.? I do think that if BC-STV achieves the 60% hurdle, in the first couple of elections at least 30% of the winning candidates will be women.

On to Bill Tieleman and David Schreck, two BC NDP honchos:

If I were living in BC, I would not be voting for the NDP this time.? I'd rather vote for the Greens or BC Liberals.? In theory,?Tieleman and Shreck?are running the First Past the Post campaign independently of the NDP organization.? Unfortunately, the party leadership has not taken sides in the referendum debate.? If the BC-STV fails to reach the 60 percent threshold and if the NDP forms a majority government, I can see Messrs Tieleman and Schreck being invited to work with Carole James.

I have always thought that the NDP represented average Canadians.? With Tieleman and Schreck campaigning for First Past the Post, and with the BC NDP not taking a stand in favour of BC STV, I know that the NDP want to represent their own elite interests.

First Past the Post is for the party honchos;

BC-STV is for the people of British Columbia.

ReeferMadness

Skinny Dipper wrote:

First Past the Post is for the party honchos;

BC-STV is for the people of British Columbia.

Absolutely.

Quote:

If the BC-STV fails to reach the 60 percent threshold and if the NDP forms a majority government, I can see Messrs Tieleman and Schreck being invited to work with Carole James.

Now you're scaring me.Surprised

Naci_Sey Naci_Sey's picture

ReeferMadness, please check your PMs.

Skinny Dipper

ReeferMadness wrote:

Skinny Dipper wrote:

Quote:

Quote:

If BC-STV fails to reach the 60 percent threshold and if the NDP forms a majority government, I can see Messrs Tieleman and Schreck being invited to work with Carole James.

Now you're scaring me.Surprised

If you live in BC, I won't suggest how you should vote in the election.? I won't scare you into voting for a party not to your liking.? I am not the type of person that would automatically vote for a party because it fits an ideological profile that may be close to mine.? Every party and candidate has to earn my vote in any election.? The NDP--federally and provincially--is no exception.

Casper the Friendly Ghost says, "Boo!"

Wilf Day

Skinny Dipper wrote:
With Tieleman and Schreck campaigning for First Past the Post, and with the BC NDP not taking a stand in favour of BC STV, I know that the NDP want to represent their own elite interests.

A leap too far. A non-sequitur.

A great many active BC?New Democrats are working in the Vote For BC-STV campaign.

"Some" people in the BC NDP want to represent their own elite interests. Some Liberals are also opposed to BC-STV. In fact, in the 2005 referendum surveys showed that BC-STV had, as you would expect, more support among NDP voters than among Liberal voters. I expect the same will be true this time. Actually I hope I'm wrong. We need more Liberal voter support than we got last time.

remind remind's picture

Oh yes, let's vote for BC Liberals advice,? and pretend to be progressive, and pretend you are not telling people how to vote..

Baron Visi

Tieleman writes that STV "breaks each single vote into fractions.

This is simply wrong. Many votes are never transferred, and stay with their top preference, intact.

He is also wrong to assert that individual voters cannot track their votes through the count. The count is deterministic and it is perfectly possible to track how an individual vote transfers.

remind remind's picture

And why would some votes stay intact while others fractionalize?

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

remind wrote:

And why would some votes stay intact while others fractionalize?

When a candidate gets more votes than required to get elected, the excess votes transfer to the voters next preferences. However, to ensure that every vote for said candidate is treated equally, what transfers is a fraction of each vote, so we don't get a situation where some votes transfer (ie. count twice), and some votes don't (also would be impossible to fairly determine which votes would transfer, and which would not). So if say Jenny Kwan gets 10% more votes on the first ballot than the number required to win, 10% of every first place vote for Jenny Kwan transfers to the voters next preference (rather than having 10% of votes transfer in their entirety, and 90% not transfer at all).

remind remind's picture

Thanks left turn, and am? voting No to STV on May 12th for a variety of reasons.

Wilf Day

The weird thing about this discussion is that it should be the Greens, not New Democrats,?complaining that MMP would have been better for them than the current?BC-STV map. The average District Magnitude of the present map is 4.25. As Michael Gallagher's book about Ireland's 2007 election?notes, Fianna Fail got 46.7% of the seats on 41.6% of the votes, while the second party Fine Gael got 30.9% of the seats on 27.3% of the votes, and Labour also got a bonus while all others (including the Greens) got fewer seats than their vote share.

Quote:
The (Fianna Fail) party remains overrepresented by the electoral system due mainly to the small average number of TDs per constituency (only four, which is very low by the standards of
proportional representation systems internationally)

So BC-STV will actually be better for the NDP than MMP would have been. But at the cost of opening up nearly-safe NDP seats to competition, which Tieleman cannot abide. As Gallagher's book notes:
Quote:
Under PR-STV, candidates, especially in the two major parties, are in competition with their running mates as well as with candidates from other parties, and some of the most intense battles take place within the party fold. From the party's point of view, this competition can be beneficial; it gives each candidate an incentive to bring in as many votes as he/she can, both by active campaigning and by his/her work between elections, and thus contributes to maximising the party's overall vote total. At the same time, the party must try to ensure that intra-party competition does not get out of hand and disrupt its cohesion, leading to splits or the creation of bitterly opposed factions. In addition, candidates sense that concentrating their fire on a running mate rather than on the opposition does not impress the voters and, moreover, is likely to be looked askance upon by the party leadership and central organisation and may thus be costly when promotional opportunities (minister, frontbench spokesperson, parliamentary committee chair) arise. Consequently, parties try to maintain a public facade of unity, knowing that the media will prick up their ears if the fur starts flying in fights between its candidates.

?An interesting comment here on "safe seats" about a Green MP unexpectedly defeated:
Quote:
Its defeat came in Cork SC, where Dan Boyle, who had been seen as a likely minister if the party entered government, lost to Labour in one of the biggest surprises of the election. Because Boyle was seen as a virtual certainty to be re-elected, his campaign could not credibly send out the message that every vote was crucial. Irish politicians seeking election react to being described as 'safe' in the same way as Count Dracula reacts to garlic, and while their horror at the word sometimes seems to border on superstition, Boyle's defeat is a reminder that it is by no means irrational.

Baron Visi wrote:

Tieleman writes that STV "breaks each single vote into fractions.
This is simply wrong. Many votes are never transferred, and stay with their top preference, intact.

I'd say most votes stay with their top preference. I haven't found any analysis, but let's take a Dublin four-seater, Dublin South East.
It elected one Fianna Fail man, one Fine Gael woman, one Labour man, and one Green Party man.
On the first count the four winners had 23,232 votes out of 33,842 cast. The loser on the final count was incumbent Progressive Democrat Michael McDowell; he had 4,450 first preferences, making 27,682 voters who were still with their first choice on the final count, 82% of the total.
Of the other 6,160, only 801 ballots had exhausted, mostly Fianna Fail voters annoyed by criticism from their Progressive Democrat coalition partner; their failure to transfer to him saw him defeated by the Green Party. Another 1,710 had transferred to the Green man, 1,641 to the PD man (too few to save him), 1,225 to Labour, 614 to Fine Gael, and 169 to Fianna Fail.
The only fractional transfers in the whole count were from the winning Fianna Fail man who reached quota on the second count with 351 votes more than he needed. The BC-STV transfer rules would transfer his surplus by transferring all his votes at 5.2% transfer value.

Wilf Day

remind wrote:
Thanks left turn, and am? voting No to STV on May 12th for a variety of reasons.

And you have every right to do so, but I still don't understand why.

?

ReeferMadness

Wilf Day wrote:

The weird thing about this discussion is that it should be the Greens, not New Democrats,?complaining that MMP would have been better for them than the current?BC-STV map. The average District Magnitude of the present map is 4.25. As Michael Gallagher's book about Ireland's 2007 election?notes, Fianna Fail got 46.7% of the seats on 41.6% of the votes, while the second party Fine Gael got 30.9% of the seats on 27.3% of the votes, and Labour also got a bonus while all others (including the Greens) got fewer seats than their vote share.

Wilf, I think you're overanalyzing.

Party leaders, strategists and other senior insiders tend to what gets them the most power.? Party members, on the other hand, are more likely to take a more principled position.? The insiders prefer MMP because it keeps the power with the party and keeps it out of the hands of pesky voters.

There are senior BC NDP insiders who like FPTP because it occasionally gets them a majority government. This explains why the NDP membership endorsed proportional representation but it shows up nowhere on the website and isn't part of their platform.? So, Carole James ignores electoral reform for years and suddenly, when it looks like STV might win, starts talking about MMP.?

In terms of the Green Party, I understand that both Adrianne Carr and Jane Sterk strongly preferred MMP over STV.? I also believe that last time, the Green Party stayed neutral, same as the two big parties.

I would say that the Green Party has come to the realization that a half loaf is better than none.? STV in 2013 is better than maybe getting MMP is 2021.

Or maybe Sterk is listening to her constituency. Or maybe she's taking a principled stand.

remind remind's picture

Wilf:

?1. Like I said before, STV pits party member against party member, not just against other party's members. In BC, politics is a blood sport, I do not see it getting women more involved in politics, I see it being a mechanism to get women less involved, as a matter of cfact.

2. Ireland wants their STV gone, why would we adopt it? Especially considering the old boy's net work it sustains in Ireland, which would happen here in a NY minute.

3. Huge numbers of candidates running for each electoral district in BC making electional processes impossible, and thus discouraging voters from voting even more.

4.? Huge electoral districts, bigger than we already have, which means even less representation in rural areas and more domination from urban areas.

5.? Having to use computer voting, as there is no way hand counting will work given the amount of candidates there will be. This is a negative push away factor for several reasons.

6.? Having 2-5? elected MLA's fighting with each other in any given electoral district, and being concerned with only how they? will keep being a representative, over the other 4, is not my idea of representation for the masses. Too much room for dirty tricks, and less for actual riding work.

7. Have 5 representatives from 1 party, as will be the case in some riding, is not my idea of fair representation. And it will happen of that there is no doubt.

8. Not? going to go for the stupidity? that is embodied? in the acknowlegement that STV is perhaps not workable here in BC, but we can change it later to something else, thinking. It to me it is fools rushing in, plus a huge waste of tax payer's money.

9. Plus a few more personal biases that have been created because of the blind and/or short sighted supporters of it here, not meaning you Wilf either. But,? I figure if they think it is a good thing, then I need to run from it as fast as possible, and advise as many people as possible to vote NO too.

?

?

Wilf Day

remind wrote:
1. Like I said before, STV pits party member against party member, not just against other party's members. In BC, politics is a blood sport, I do not see it getting women more involved in politics, I see it being a mechanism to get women less involved, as a matter of fact.

The NDP has done it with FPTP -- 50% women candidates, well done?-- provided 50% are elected. Usually male incumbents have better chances. With BC-STV, if four candidates are nominated in a district, two men and two women, will all the male incumbents win? I don't know. When you pit female party member against male party member, will women tend to win? The reason I think so is because 90% of Canadian voters want to see more women elected. But maybe BC is different? And then we come to the Liberals, with only 29% women candidates. If they nominate four in a district, will it be only one woman and three men? Maybe sometimes. But the women may do better than the men. If the male vote is split three ways and more women vote for the woman, she will survive the early counts while some of the men are eliminated. That's the tactic to win in STV: manage to get others to drop first. Yes, you're right, more competition might be bad for women if the Liberals run big name males and sports stars while their women candidates are unknowns. If BC Liberal voters fall for that, they will not elect as many women as the NDP does. Well, that's the case today anyway.

remind wrote:
2. Ireland wants their STV gone, why would we adopt it? Especially considering the old boy's net work it sustains in Ireland, which would happen here in a NY minute.

What makes you say Ireland wants to get rid of STV? I have seen no evidence of that. In their last referendum, when the largest party tried for obvious reasons to scrap it, voters voted to keep it. Currently STV hurts Sinn Fein, but they have not advocated scrapping it, nor changing to a more proportional system.

remind wrote:
3. Huge numbers of candidates running for each electoral district in BC making electional processes impossible, and thus discouraging voters from voting even more.

The Citizens Assembly decided to make it easy for lazy voters to vote, by using the Tasmanian ballot rather than the Irish ballot. In Ireland all candidates are listed alphabetically. In Tasmania they are grouped by party. If someone doesn't care to rank 14 candidates, they can just go 1, 2, 3, 4 on their party's candidates. But a lot of people who don't bother to cast wasted votes now will turn out to vote -- for the NDP in West Vancouver and the Okanagan, for the Greens and Marijuana Party and progressive independents everywhere, and likely a strong majority of these new progressive voters will give a second preference to an NDP candidate. Even in East Vancouver in the safest NDP seats where some NDP voters see no need to get off their butts and vote, they will have a reason to vote, when every vote counts.

remind wrote:
4.? Huge electoral districts, bigger than we already have, which means even less representation in rural areas and more domination from urban areas.

You may call them huge, but they look okay to me. If you look at how large federal ridings are, and then imagine how much larger they will be if we adopt MMP federally, they will be the same size as a BC-STV four-seater.

remind wrote:
5.? Having to use computer voting, as there is no way hand counting will work given the amount of candidates there will be. This is a negative push away factor for several reasons.

The ballots can be re-counted by hand, if Elections BC uses computer tabulation to get a winner on election night.

remind wrote:
6.? Having 2-5?elected MLA's fighting with each other in any given electoral district, and being concerned with only how they? will keep being a representative, over the other 4, is not my idea of representation for the masses. Too much room for dirty tricks, and less for actual riding work.

You would really rather have only a Liberal MLA to do riding work in your riding? One of the great virtues of MMP as used in Scotland is that every voter has a day-to-day choice: go to your local member or one of your seven regional members, presumably one from the party you voted for, likely a woman member if you wish. If you have two NDP MLAs from your district, will they fight to represent you? In the Lower Mainland I expect they will share an office and you can see whichever you want. In other areas they may each take on half of the district, but you could still see the MLA serving the other part of the district if you prefer.

remind wrote:
7. Have 5 representatives from 1 party, as will be the case in some riding, is not my idea of fair representation. And it will happen of that there is no doubt.

No, it will certainly not happen. There is no five-seat district in BC where one party could win 84% of the vote. Or do you mean five Liberals from the six-seater in West Vancouver? But that would take 72% of the vote. Based on the 2005 votes in West Vancouver the result would be three Liberals, two NDP and one Green. I'm not guessing, I have a spreadsheet.

ReeferMadness

Correct me if I'm wrong, Wilf but I recall someone (maybe you) saying that many regions that are currently represented by only one party will now be represented by 2 or even 3.? For example, the 2 northeastern ridings almost always return 2 Liberals under the current system but under STV would likely return 1 Liberal, 1 NDP.? Right?

Wilf Day

ReeferMadness wrote:
I recall someone (maybe you) saying that many regions that are currently represented by only one party will now be represented by 2 or even 3.? For example, the 2 northeastern ridings almost always return 2 Liberals under the current system but under STV would likely return 1 Liberal, 1 NDP.? Right?

Right. Other examples, all based on voters voting the same as they did in 2005, and putting those votes into the new districts based on the 2005 boundaries, which isn't precisely right but the best I can do:

Fraser Valley East, was solidly Liberal, would likely have been 3 Lib, 2 NDP.

North Shore - Sea to Sky, was four Liberals, would have been 2 Lib, 1 NDP, 1 Green

Okanagan - Shuswap, was solidly Liberal, would have been (unless more than 45% of the Green vote goes Liberal) 2 Lib, 2 NDP.

Okanagan - Boundary, was solidly Liberal, would have been 2 Lib, 1 NDP.

North Central (Prince George) was 3 Lib, would have been 2 Lib, 1 NDP.?

Conversely, to be fair, the Capital District went 5 NDP and 2 Lib, but would have gone 3 NDP, 3 Lib, 1 Green.

?

vorshlumpf

I have yet to hear an argument against BC-STV that is sound. When campaigning on the street, I'll meet some normal folks opposed to it (and are willing to talk to me further) and it always turns out that they actually don't fully understand it. The No campaign is frequently dishing out lies and distortions, doing their best to keep the public misinformed. It is dispicable, because they are doing the public a disservice, and they are doing it with our tax dollars. It is truly unfortunate that people like Tieleman and Schreck can continue spouting blatant lies without any repercussions.

The Yes campaign uses stats, figures, and historical precedence to support our stance. The No side uses scare-mongering and appeals to emotion, with a few cherry-picked stats that distort the whole picture. No matter what happens in this referendum, these party hacks have forever shown their lack of integrity and I hope this shadow follows them to the end of their days.

?? - Niilo

ReeferMadness

Well Niilo, in fairness, it's hard to blame the no side for playing to their strengths.? They have a crappy product in the form of FPTP.? STV is great but not well understood.? Thanks to the government and NDP, they were given a huge headstart in the form of only needing 40% to win.? That means they don't have to sell anybody on anything, just spread fear, uncertainty and doubt.?

So, when you factor everything in, you sort of have to figure that a bunch of political insiders are probably going to run a smear campaign.? And if the unvarnished truth is inconvenient, that needn't be an obstacle.

?

Yell

Skinny Dipper

Throughout the referendum campaign, Tieleman and Schreck have only attacked BC-STV.? They say nothing good about their antiquated First-Past-the-Post voting system.? I would hate to see these two bigwigs working in the premier's office if Carole James becomes premier.? Maybe that's one reason why they love First-Past-the-Post.? With it, these future backroom boys will exercise more power than the local MLAs who are supposed to represent their constituents.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Wilf Day wrote:
You would really rather have only a Liberal MLA to do riding work in your riding? One of the great virtues of MMP as used in Scotland is that every voter has a day-to-day choice: go to your local member or one of your seven regional members, presumably one from the party you voted for, likely a woman member if you wish. If you have two NDP MLAs from your district, will they fight to represent you? In the Lower Mainland I expect they will share an office and you can see whichever you want. In other areas they may each take on half of the district, but you could still see the MLA serving the other part of the district if you prefer.

I have to say, living in Scotland, this characteristic of the electoral system is a treat. When I had questions about the recycling program in my riding, I emailed each of my MSPs, each of whom returned a variety of results--including a Green Party regional MSP with a personal response. I was spoilt for choice for which member I wanted to approach depending on my personal politics. The idea is that they will fight for you, the consituent, not against each other. I've had a positive experience every time I've tried to contact an MSP here: completely unlike my experience in Canada when an MP or MPP has virtually no reason to respond to a person with marginal concerns, especially when that member might be a party bigwig.

remind remind's picture

Wilf, sorry, but your response lacked any affirmative push for STV as far as I am concerned.

Ireland apparently has had a history of stuffed ballot boxes and electoral fraud with STV. Hence the push to get rid of STV, that was defeated by MLA's and not the people and apparently there were problems with that vote too.

Scotland has MMP, not STV, so your words in that respect mean nothing to me by way of support for STV, moreover, what about the 100+k worth of spoiled ballots in the first Scottish election?

Absolutely NO computerized voting in BC, or indeed Canada, I don't care if they "can" be hand counted or not.

And I still see STV as elminating women from politics, just as it has in Ireland.

And I am not willing to go from 85 ridings to 20, with urban centres dominating the votes and even less accountability will happen, the MLA's can sluff it off on another and play the blame game all damn day. Rural communities will be excluded from consideration more than they are now.

Respectfully, your? extremely hypothetical positives mean nothing in context of real? BC people and elections.

?

?

?

Skinny Dipper

I don't know if women were eliminated from politics when STV was introduced in Ireland.? I don't think the Irish?became Xenaphobic because they?switched to?STV.? Does anyone have the stats on women's participation before and after the introduction of STV?

vorshlumpf

Here is a page that has some stats on women and politics in Ireland.
http://www.db-decision.de/CoRe/Ireland.htm
It would be hard to say how STV affected women's ability to be elected in 1929, because the public will to support women for political office at that time was very low (world-wide).

I am reading a great book ("The Politics of Voting" by Dennis Pilon) that looks at women's representation under various systems. Of note, the percentage of women elected in Ireland has been increasing since 1968 (the data in the book doesn't go earlier). In 1968, Ireland had about 2% women elected. Also of note, Canada is particularly high in comparison to the US and the UK (according to stats for the range of 1975 to 2005) - two other countries using FPTP. There seems to be a lot of public will in our country to finally give political equality to women.

However, before we get too cocky, Canada is ranked at 51st in the world (http://www.cbc.ca/news/interactives/map-world-womenpolitics/). The majority of countries that are beating us out are not using plurality (SMP / FPTP). They are using some form of proportional representation.

Australia also appears to have significant public will to elect women (even more than Canada). And, under STV (e.g., Australian Senate), they experience, in general, a much higher rate of electing women than their equivalant plurality elections.

Finally, it is convenient to point out Malta at 9% elected women, but what about India at 8%? India uses FPTP. Every system has its highs and lows. It's hard to take a single country across the world and apply its example to us, but if you look at the highs and lows world-wide, we have:

- FPTP: 8% (India) to 32% (South Australia)
- STV: 9% (Malta) to 41% (Australia)
- MMP: 6% (Albania) to 50% (Wales)
- Party List PR: 6% (Algeria) to high 40's (Sweden, Rwanda)

- Niilo

Skinny Dipper

Thanks Vorshlumpf for the info on the representation of women.

A story that I will tell again is about when I went into a bank in Spain in 1991.? All of the bank tellers were men whereas in Canada, most were women.? I asked someone why all of the Spanish bank tellers were men.? "Men handle the money."? It was a chavinistic statement but fitting for a macho culture that was present in Spain at the time.? I also learned that men who wore shorts on a hot evening were considered "gay."? Straight men in Spain did not wear shorts at night-time.? I don't know if they do now.? Luckily, I was a tourist who was with a bunch of other young tourists wearing shorts.? Therefore, we didn't get beaten up or called names.

Different cultures will have an effect on the results of elections.? Places like Ireland and Malta may elect a lower percentage of women than Australia which uses a form of STV in its Senate elections.

Back to STV:? Any voting system will have a range of percentage of women who get elected.? Based on the results that Vorshlumpf listed above, STV seems to have wider range with a higher upper level of women's participation.? If British Columbians support BC-STV by over 60%, women will probably represent at least 30% of the legislative assembly just after the first BC-STV election.? They were at 22% when the legislature was dissolved.

remind remind's picture

So those Irish stats show even though there is a requirement for women within the party nomination, men are getting elected not women. A 15% increase since sufferage is not an increase to speak of.

Do not know how you can 30% would be women skinnydipper.

Policywonk

remind wrote:

Wilf, sorry, but your response lacked any affirmative push for STV as far as I am concerned.

Ireland apparently has had a history of stuffed ballot boxes and electoral fraud with STV. Hence the push to get rid of STV, that was defeated by MLA's and not the people and apparently there were problems with that vote too.

Scotland has MMP, not STV, so your words in that respect mean nothing to me by way of support for STV, moreover, what about the 100+k worth of spoiled ballots in the first Scottish election?

Absolutely NO computerized voting in BC, or indeed Canada, I don't care if they "can" be hand counted or not.

And I still see STV as elminating women from politics, just as it has in Ireland.

And I am not willing to go from 85 ridings to 20, with urban centres dominating the votes and even less accountability will happen, the MLA's can sluff it off on another and play the blame game all damn day. Rural communities will be excluded from consideration more than they are now.

Respectfully, your? extremely hypothetical positives mean nothing in context of real? BC people and elections.

His positives seem to me to be far less hypothetical than your negatives. I think electronic voting is OK as long as there is a verifiable paper trail, but I have seen hand-counted at-large situations with municipal elections where there were 20 odd candidates on the ballot. Granted, they only had to be counted once, but I hardly see the potential number of candidates being a problem. Fringe parties (and in this context the Greens may or may not be a fringe party; probably not if they are able to run 82 candidates in FPTP) are unlikely to run in all ridings or run more than a couple of candidates in a particular riding. And there would be fewer candidates running overall across the province depending on what strategies each party used (how many candidates to run in each riding). Please explain why going from 85 ridings to 20 changes the urban/rural balance when the proportion of urban/rural seats doesn't change (if you think it does please explain how).

Scotland has both MMP and STV. It uses STV for local elections, like a number of other places.

Skinny Dipper

I have mentioned on one of the boards that based on the www.trystv.ca results, about 30% of the winners would be women.? I know the poll is not scientific.? I do think that the people of BC will vote for women so long as women are interested in running.? As a member of Fair Vote Canada, I get to vote for members of the Fair Vote Canada national council.? Each year, I generally find that the percentage of women who get elected are close to the percentage of women who run as candidates for the national council.

If future BC-STV riding associations have nomination meetings using STV to select their candidates, I think that the percentage of women who get nominated will be similar to to the percentage of women who chose to run.? That's if a political party has no reserved positions for women.? Also in some urban ridings, with people trying to get nominated, they will try to sell memberships.? Under STV nomination meetings, there could be a diverse range of men and women from different ethnic backgrounds.? This is healthy for democracy.? Also, based on my experience in using STV ballots in Fair Vote Canada national council elections, I find myself being more open to candidates who are different from me because of gender, ethnicity, religion, race, ideology, and region.? The quality of the candidate matters more than the superficial characteristics.? STV lets me focus on the quality of candidates.

melovesproles

Quote:
I've given the matter some thought an my conclusion is that there are a lot of 'true believers' that simply aren't democrats anymore.? They've seen too many of the 'wrong type' of governments elected and have come to the conclusion that people are generally ignorant, unintelligent, immoral, apathetic or some combination of all four.? They believe they are saving the peopel from themselves.? The power brokers know best and a patina of democracy will suffice to keep people content.? I have a certain level of sympathy for their lack of faith in people because there are an awful lot of uninformed, apathetic people out there.? Fundamentally, though, I believe that democracy cannot be a spectator sport.? If it is, it will wither away.

I agree with that.? I can also empathize with the low opinion of democracy we see from a lot of these FPTP supporters but I think you are right that it is a self-defeating strategy.? They end up taking ridicuous positions like blaming people for voting for the Greens and splitting the vote while crusading against electoral reform which would directly address this problem.

This referendum has been an eye-opener for me on what Social Democratic actually means in the BC context.

Fidel

How?much money?did the anti-FairVote disinformation campaign spend this time?

Wilf Day

remind wrote:
Scotland has MMP, not STV, so your words in that respect mean nothing to me by way of support for STV.

Your complaint was about BC-STV "having 2-5?elected MLA's fighting with each other in any given electoral district, and being concerned with only how they?will keep being a representative, over the other 4." I was pointing out that regional MMP has the same effect. Indeed BC-STV and regional open-list MMP have a lot in common with each other.

remind wrote:
what about the 100+k worth of spoiled ballots in the first Scottish election?

I take it you mean the last Scottish election, which was their third MMP election, but the first with the MMP ballot redesigned, and the first STV municipal election, and a simultaneous election for both the Scottish Parliament and municipal elections with a new ballot for each election. No wonder they had a lot of spoiled ballots.
remind wrote:
Ireland apparently has had a history of stuffed ballot boxes and electoral fraud with STV. Hence the push to get rid of STV, that was defeated by MLA's and not the people and apparently there were problems with that vote too.

Links, please? I don't recognize anything matching what I've read.
remind wrote:
Absolutely NO computerized voting in BC, or indeed Canada, I don't care if they "can" be hand counted or not.

You're going to be a bit lonely there. My town uses paper ballots that are machine-readable, you mark the ballot and feed it in to the ballot box, the ballots are in a stack inside the box ready for a hand count if needed, but the ballot box counts the votes as they are fed in. The totals from each box still have to be added by hand or by adding machine. No one is afraid of fraud.
remind wrote:
And I still see STV as eliminating women from politics, just as it has in Ireland. And I am not willing to go from 85 ridings to 20, with urban centres dominating the votes and even less accountability will happen, the MLA's can sluff it off on another and play the blame game all damn day. Rural communities will be excluded from consideration more than they are now.

These are your real objections.
On women, the competition resulting from an open-list model like STV or open-list MMP or open-list pure-list PR can be bad for women. Richard Matlock preached that gospel for years, based on a Norwegian municipal election by open-list in which a male backlash against women candidates cost women seats. Many developing countries rightly saw themselves in that study, and adopted closed-list systems with quotas for women. I just don't see BC voters as being that anti-woman.

?

As for urban centres dominating larger districts, that's why I don't want federal STV in Ontario; I can see a three-seater district in which one candidate from each party would win, and they'd all be from Peterborough. But I don't see where in BC this is likely except maybe in Prince George if the Green Party support rose to the 25% level.

?

But if you want every vote?to count, so every NDP voter has an NDP MLA to go to, which is basic to any PR model much as MMP as well as STV, then you have several?MLAs representing the same area.?So I really don't see the point of that objection.

Skinny Dipper wrote:
STV lets me focus on the quality of candidates.

Careful of that argument. That's a justification for most of the winning candidates on the list being Toronto males. That's what killed MMP in Ontario.

BC-STV guarantees regional representation with the 20 districts, and the number of MLAs per district are small enough that women won't get lost in the crowd.

vorshlumpf

Wilf Day wrote:

As for urban centres dominating larger districts, that's why I don't want federal STV in Ontario; I can see a three-seater district in which one candidate from each party would win, and they'd all be from Peterborough. But I don't see where in BC this is likely except maybe in Prince George if the Green Party support rose to the 25% level.

I've had this conversation with people before. The way STV works (at least, as it's set up in BC) is that every current riding will still have the power to elect 1 MLA within their amalgamated ridings. The reason for this is that the population in each is about equal. For example, Okanagan-Boundary, a BC-STV riding, will be a combination of one mainly-rural riding (Boundary-Similkameen), one small city (Penticton), and half a city (Kelowna-Westside). A friend who lives in a small town in the rural riding was concerned that all three MLA's would come from Kelowna. However, thanks to the threshold each candidate must reach to be elected, each of those areas, or sub-ridings, has the power to elect one MLA. So, if local representation truly is the top priority for voters (which it isn't, but that's another discussion), a candidate of some sort will be elected in each of those sub-ridings. In order for more than 1 MLA to be based in Kelowna-Westside, voters from the other two areas would have to help them get elected. And, if that's what the voters choose, than that doesn't seem so bad (assuming they had other options - which I think is a safe assumption).

I guess my knowledge of Federal ridings isn't as great. I think there exists some significant differences in population totals between some ridings, correct? If so, then a Federal STV electoral system would need to address these differences.

- Niilo

Skinny Dipper

In 1992, 68.3% of British Columbians opposed the Charlottetown Accord which the?the elites and backroom boys?of Canada wanted Canadians to support.

In 2009, elite backroom boys, Tieleman and Schreck, want British Columbians to oppose a voting system that was supported by average BCers at a Citizens' Assembly on electoral reform.

Oppose the antiquated First-Past-the-Post voting system; support BC-STV (Single Transferable Vote).

Doug Woodard

remind wrote:

3. Huge numbers of candidates running for each electoral district in BC making electional processes impossible, and thus discouraging voters from voting even more.

?

?

I took the trouble to calculate the average number of candidates per seat in the Irish general election of 2007. It is 2.85.

Is BC going to be wildly different?

Malta does have slightly more candidates per seat than Ireland. They also have one of the world's highest turnout rates of around 94%, without compulsory voting.

The facts are reassuring. That's why Tieleman and Schreck stay so far away from them.

?

?

Doug Woodard

remind wrote:

7. Have 5 representatives from 1 party, as will be the case in some riding, is not my idea of fair representation. And it will happen of that there is no doubt.

?

Presumably you know of some group of 5 adjacent BC single-seat provincial ridings in which 80+% of the votes have been cast for one party. Please tell us about it.

Brian White

Remind, I will put my responses in brackets below your points.

Wilf:

?1. Like I said before, STV pits party member against party member, not just against other party's members. In BC, politics is a blood sport, I do not see it getting women more involved in politics, I see it being a mechanism to get women less involved, as a matter of cfact.

(It does not "pit" anyone against anyone. You get your transfers from second and 3rd preferences. And transfers is what gets you elected. The pitbulls do not get transfers and do not get elected)

2. Ireland wants their STV gone, why would we adopt it? Especially considering the old boy's net work it sustains in Ireland, which would happen here in a NY minute. (Ireland does not want its STV gone. (Someone made that one up!? There are old boys networks everywhere, have you heard of Kinsella and bc rail? A former cabinet minister from the governing party went to Jaol for corruption in ireland a couple of years back. Does that happen here? I think another guy from the govening party went to prison too. Here, political office seems to confer immunity)

3. Huge numbers of candidates running for each electoral district in BC making electional processes impossible, and thus discouraging voters from voting even more. (Ireland has exactly the same population as BC but something like 100,000 more voters vote!? So we seem to manage with the long ballots. which are not that long, by the way)

4.? Huge electoral districts, bigger than we already have, which means even less representation in rural areas and more domination from urban areas. (actually no, it means more competition so your mla will tour the area more and work hard for his voters so that they do not switch to another rep from his party next time. You will generally have a lib and a ndp mla among your reps so you will have one of your colour to go to and you will have one in government to go to too, a lot more choice, actually. )

5.? Having to use computer voting, as there is no way hand counting will work given the amount of candidates there will be. This is a negative push away factor for several reasons. (Ireland uses hand counting, since the 1920's)

6.? Having 2-5? elected MLA's fighting with each other in any given electoral district, and being concerned with only how they? will keep being a representative, over the other 4, is not my idea of representation for the masses. Too much room for dirty tricks, and less for actual riding work. (not really, their best way to keep being a rep is to do good work for their voters. Remember nettelton who stood up to campbell?? Or Korky evans who voted for stv last time?? It is not necessarly the end of the road if you cross your leader? in irish politics. More ideas get expressed within partys and independents often get elected if they are dumped unfairly from the party ticket)

7. Have 5 representatives from 1 party, as will be the case in some riding, is not my idea of fair representation. And it will happen of that there is no doubt.

(That is totally? untrue. You would have to have more than 85% support for one party on first preferences and PERFECT transfering of preferences on the following preferences. Every voter would have to be mailed a list of who to vote for first and how to vote the preferences? and follow it perfectly! and you would ALSO have to have 5 candidates for 5 seats. Anyway, in the real world they are only going to put up 3 or 4? candidates from any one party for 5 seats.

The horror that you discribe did happen in campbells first term under fptp. Remember?)

8. Not? going to go for the stupidity? that is embodied? in the acknowlegement that STV is perhaps not workable here in BC, but we can change it later to something else, thinking. It to me it is fools rushing in, plus a huge waste of tax payer's money. (In ireland they use it for euro elections. I think there are about 4 ridings about 13 seats and 4 million people.? Thats pretty big ridings!

9. Plus a few more personal biases that have been created because of the blind and/or short sighted supporters of it here, not meaning you Wilf either. But,? I figure if they think it is a good thing, then I need to run from it as fast as possible, and advise as many people as possible to vote NO too.

(An interesting way to make a decision, cutting off your nose, etc,? They tell me it is hurtful to self in the long term)

?

?

a lonely worker

Not sure if this is somewhere else, but Tieleman is now the President of the No STV campaign:

"Bill Tieleman, president of the No STV campaign, said Friday that he thinks the latest poll results show the more people learn about BC-STV, the more they dislike it.

He added that this referendum, people can see the actual larger riding boundaries – BC-STV would reduced the current 85 single-member ridings to 20 multi-member ridings, ranging from two to seven MLAs to be elected in each constituency.

“I think people now have an opportunity to see how this will work,” he said of the proposed new system."

?

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/polls+show+rejected/1577960/story.html

remind remind's picture

Doug Woodard wrote:
remind wrote:

7. Have 5 representatives from 1 party, as will be the case in some riding, is not my idea of fair representation. And it will happen of that there is no doubt.

Presumably you know of some group of 5 adjacent BC single-seat provincial ridings in which 80+% of the votes have been cast for one party. Please tell us about it.

It won't take 80%, it will only take 30% or so of the people in a riding voting for the exact same people as their first, second, third and fourth choices, of any given party.

remind remind's picture

Brian White wrote:
1.? STV pits party member against party member, (It does not "pit" anyone against anyone. You get your transfers from second and 3rd preferences. And transfers is what gets you elected. The pitbulls do not get transfers and do not get elected)

What do you mean the pitbulls do not get transfers?

Quote:
2. Ireland wants their STV gone, why would we adopt it? Especially considering the old boy's net work it sustains in Ireland, which would happen here in a NY minute. (Ireland does not want its STV gone)

Oh so they just want "electoral reform" then.

Quote:
3. Huge numbers of candidates running for each electoral district (Ireland has exactly the same population as BC but something like 100,000 more voters vote!? So we seem to manage with the long ballots. which are not that long, by the way)

I have already clarified that I believe there will be upwards to 40 candidates running? per each super riding that have been proposed to have 5-7 spots.

Quote:
4.? Huge electoral districts means even less representation in rural areas and more domination from urban areas. (actually no, it means more competition so your mla will tour the area more and work hard for his voters so that they do not switch to another rep from his party next time. You will generally have a lib and a ndp mla among your reps so you will have one of your colour to go to and you will have one in government to go to too, a lot more choice, actually. )

Nonsense, what province do you live in again? Certainly can't be BC. The MLA's will stay in the area, read urban settings, where the majority of votes are that will dictate who wins and who keeps on keeping on. They will? compete for talking slots at Rotary and CoC, and such like, gatherings in the urban centres every wary. Moreover, you just supported my point (see bold) that it will pitt party member against party member, thereby creating more adversarial politics and less women participating.

Quote:
5.? Having to use computer voting, as there is no way hand counting will work given the amount of candidates there will be. This is a negative push away factor for several reasons. (Ireland uses hand counting, since the 1920's)

That is not what is propossed with our STV, it is computer voting with hand count possibility if needed.

Quote:
6.? Having 2-5? elected MLA's fighting with each other in any given electoral district is not my idea of representation for the masses. Too much room for dirty tricks, and less for actual riding work. (not really, their best way to keep being a rep is to do good work for their voters. Remember nettelton who stood up to campbell?? Or Korky evans who voted for stv last time?? It is not necessarly the end of the road if you cross your leader? in irish politics. More ideas get expressed within partys and independents often get elected if they are dumped unfairly from the party ticket)

You just argued against yourself and supported my point, as far as I am concerned. More ideas do not get expressed in Irish politics, or there would be women's voices being heard.

Quote:
7. Have 5 representatives from 1 party, as will be the case in some riding, is not my idea of fair representation. And it will happen of that there is no doubt.

(That is totally? untrue. You would have to have more than 85% support for one party on first preferences and PERFECT transfering of preferences on the following preferences. Every voter would have to be mailed a list of who to vote for first and how to vote the preferences? and follow it perfectly! and you would ALSO have to have 5 candidates for 5 seats. Anyway, in the real world they are only going to put up 3 or 4? candidates from any one party for 5 seats.

Funny, now you claim 85% whereas woodward above claimed 80%. While I understand it would only need 30-35% of the riding to vote for the exact same names for top spots.

Quote:
The horror that you discribe did happen in campbells first term under fptp. Remember?)

yep, so why change and spend all that money if the results would be the same?

Quote:
8. Not? going to go for the stupidity? that is embodied? in the acknowlegement that STV is perhaps not workable here in BC, but we can change it later to something else, thinking. It to me it is fools rushing in, plus a huge waste of tax payer's money. (In ireland they use it for euro elections. I think there are about 4 ridings about 13 seats and 4 million people.? Thats pretty big ridings!

Ya, and how is the EU? representation working out?

Quote:
9. Plus a few more personal biases that have been created because of the blind and/or short sighted supporters of it here, not meaning you Wilf either. But,? I figure if they think it is a good thing, then I need to run from it as fast as possible, and advise as many people as possible to vote NO too.

(An interesting way to make a decision, cutting off your nose, etc,? They tell me it is hurtful to self in the long term)

Now Brian, if you believed that stuff about cutting one's nose off, you would not be voting Green Party this election now would you?

When you see people who are foolish in respect to most all they post, stridently supporting STV, it does not give it good credentials to support, there is even less incentive when they and others make partisan reasons for supporting.

Brian White

No!? you either do not understand or willfully misrepresent the system.?? I lived under stv. Your example is hopelessly incorrect and cannot happen in stv.

remind wrote:

Doug Woodard wrote:
remind wrote:

7. Have 5 representatives from 1 party, as will be the case in some riding, is not my idea of fair representation. And it will happen of that there is no doubt.

Presumably you know of some group of 5 adjacent BC single-seat provincial ridings in which 80+% of the votes have been cast for one party. Please tell us about it.

It won't take 80%, it will only take 30% or so of the people in a riding voting for the exact same people as their first, second, third and fourth choices, of any given party.

Brian White

Remind, Ireland is not trying to get rid of stv.??

Mary Robinson.

One of the most famous political women in the world came through Irish STV to beat the old boys network.

She was non party (not even a member of any party when she ran for president)? and supported abortion and still beat the old boys.?

At the UN it took the usa veto on her nomination to kill her career there? and to get rid of her so presumably she was a danger to US interests

Please quit with the nonsense while you are ahead. Lies are lies and you should have the decency to retract the 30% one at very least.

Wilf Day

remind wrote:

Doug Woodard wrote:
remind wrote:

7. Have 5 representatives from 1 party, as will be the case in some riding, is not my idea of fair representation. And it will happen of that there is no doubt.

Presumably you know of some group of 5 adjacent BC single-seat provincial ridings in which 80+% of the votes have been cast for one party. Please tell us about it.

It won't take 80%, it will only take 30% or so of the people in a riding voting for the exact same people as their first, second, third and fourth choices, of any given party.

Not so. You're not getting it, sorry.
In a five-seater riding, the quota is 16.7% of the vote. If 33% of the people in a riding voted for the exact same people as their first, second, third and fourth choices, of any given party, their first and second choices would each win a seat. Two out of the five.
remind wrote:
I have already clarified that I believe there will be upwards to 40 candidates running? per each super riding that have been proposed to have 5-7 spots.

I don't know what that belief is based on. In a five-seater I would normally expect 4 Libs, 4 NDP, 1 or 2 Green, 1 Conservative, several independents, and let's assume 1 DRBC, 1 Marijuana, 1 Work Less, 1 Libertarian, 1 Communist, 1 Sex, and a couple more oddballs. That's 22. More than you ever find in Ireland, but okay, BC is more fun. But how would you ever see 40?
Quote:
how is the EU? representation working out?

From Ireland there are 13 MEPs (eight men, five women). Four from Dublin, three men and one woman: one each from Labour, Fianna Fail (conservative nationalist), Fine Gael (centre-right, sits with the Christian Democrats), and Sinn Fein (sits with the far left).
From East two women and one man: Two Fine Gael, one Fianna Fail.
From South two men and one woman: One Fianna Fail, one Fine Gael, and Kathy Sinnott.
From North West two men and one woman: One Fianna Fail, one Fine Gael, and Marian Harkin.
Remarkable STV results
In East, Fine Gael's nominating convention decided to nominate both incumbent Avril Doyle and a newcomer Mairead McGuinness. She was a well-known journalist, broadcaster and commentator, with a very successful, Ear to the Ground television series focused on local, national and European policies and how they were likely to affect daily lives of consumers throughout the country. Running two women for what was assumed to be a single Fine Gael seat was controversial. Remarkably they stood first and second on the first count, and both survived to the final count with the help of transfers from Green Party candidate Mary White and various others.
In South independent Kathy Sinnott is unique to Ireland: a strong disability rights campaigner who is also an anti-abortion social conservative and a Eurosceptic. She had run for parliament as an independent in Cork, missing election by 6 votes. For the European parliament she stood third on the first count, surviving to the final count with the help of transfers from Sinn Fein voters and smaller numbers from Labour and the Greens.
In North West Marian Harkin is an independent Liberal who sits with the Liberals in the European Parliament. A former teacher, she had been active in seeking development for the West and had become chair of the Council for the West. She was elected as an independent to the Irish Parliament in 2002, and then switched to the European Parliament. She headed the poll on the first count, but with only 15.8% of the vote. She took over a seat from an independent woman who ended up in fifth spot, so that the largest part of her voters transferred to Marian, as did many Labour voters and others.

remind remind's picture

Perhaps I misunderstand it then, as is see it only taking 30-35% of any given riding to vote exactly the same names for the the top 4 choices they want.

Are you denying Ireland has been asking for electoral reform?

One woman making "it" can happen under any political system, and one making it only in Ireland's STV does not make it a resounding testimony.

?

ETA cross posted with wilf will read his description.

remind remind's picture

Wilf Day wrote:
Not so. You're not getting it, sorry. In a five-seater riding, the quota is 16.7% of the vote. If 33% of the people in a riding voted for the exact same people as their first, second, third and fourth choices, of any given party, their first and second choices would each win a seat. Two out of the five.

Okay, then let's back up to the 16.7%,? this would? mean that? if 16.7% of riding voted for exactly the same top 4,? then 2 spots would go to the top 2 choices. And their 3 and 4th choices would go no where? But if we had another 16.7% that voted for the 2nd and 3rd exact same choices of the first 16.7%, but as their first and second choices, we would still have the same 4 spots filled by 1 party. Then the same would occur for the 5th spot, a mixture of? a portion of the other 16.7%'s voters determining the top 4 spots could have in their top spots, the fifth candidate, and they would only need? 8.32 % from others voting for their 5th chosen candidate. So to me this means they only need to have 40-50% of the riding to get the top 5 spots, which is closer to my estimate of 35%, than those of 80-85%.

remind wrote:
I have already clarified that I believe there will be upwards to 40 candidates running? per each super riding that have been proposed to have 5-7 spots.

Quote:
I don't know what that belief is based on. In a five-seater I would normally expect 4 Libs, 4 NDP, 1 or 2 Green, 1 Conservative, several independents, and let's assume 1 DRBC, 1 Marijuana, 1 Work Less, 1 Libertarian, 1 Communist, 1 Sex, and a couple more oddballs. That's 22. More than you ever find in Ireland, but okay, BC is more fun. But how would you ever see 40?

In a 5-7 seater in BC, there will be minimum 5 Liberals, 5 NDP, 5 GP, 2-3 Cons, several independants, perhaps as many as each small town/city in the riding, in fact it could be upwards to 12, or so and maybe more, then we have the finge parties.

As I have stated here prior, I have run All Candidates Forums with 12 candidates running for 1 spot, when they were really up for splitting the vote and getting the BC Liberals in, if you times that by 4 more spots and you get 50 plus running, I was being conservative with my 40 candidates running estimate. This is BC politics we are talking about afterall.
Moreover, there are currently 25 registered parties in BC, by just adding 4 more Libs, 4 more NDP and 2 GP and a extra Con, you get 36 potentially running in a STV riding, excluding the Independants.

In the 7 seat super region of the Captial District, mark my words there would be 5-7 Libs, 5-7 NDP, and 5-7 GP running, for a base line of about 20, then you can add 15- 20 fringe party candidates and then independants from each community. Easily 40 running, if not more. It will be "super" campaigns for the "super" ridings.

Funny, I was just at the the BCSTV Vote yes site, I see Berman, is obliquely endorsing/advertising on it. 'nuff said, still voting NO.

Thanks for the Irish EU information was interesting. But really what I meant how was it working for Ireland overall.

?

Wilf Day

remind wrote:
let's back up to the 16.7%,? this would? mean that? if 16.7% of riding voted for exactly the same top 4,? then 2 spots would go to the top 2 choices.

No, 16.7% of voters can only elect one MLA. That's the quota for a five-seater: the candidate is elected when he or she reaches quota. Their top choice would be elected. Their second, third and fourth choices would go no where.

Here's an easy way to explain the quota: in a single-seater with a preferential ballot it obviously takes 50% plus one to win. In a two-seater it takes 33.33% plus one. In a three-seater it takes 25% plus one.?In a four-seater it takes 20% plus one. In a five-seater it takes 16.67% plus one. In a six-seater it takes 14.29% (one-seventh) plus one. In a seven-seater it takes 12.5% plus one.

remind wrote:
But if we had another 16.7% that voted for the 2nd and 3rd exact same choices of the first 16.7%, but as their first and second choices, we would still have the same 4 spots filled by 1 party.

No, their first choice would be elected, which your example assumes was the second choice of your first 16.7%.

remind wrote:
In a 5-7 seater in BC, there will be minimum 5 Liberals, 5 NDP, 5 GP . . .
There is no reason for the Greens to run five, and they would not. The Irish Greens almost never run more than one. In BC maybe two, one man and one woman.

remind remind's picture

Actually I read your latest post wilf, in the other STV thread, I think I totally get it now.? Back to waivering again, I guess

Pages