วิธีเล่น บาคาร่า pantip_วิเคาระห์บอล_แจกเครดิตฟรี sbobet ไม่ต้องฝาก

88 posts / 0 new
Last post
Wilf Day

remind wrote:
I think I totally get it now.

No problem. In my experience the easiest way to follow how STV works is an actual example. It's no coincidence that the only places to adopt STV in recent decades -- Northern Ireland (which had lost it back in the 1920s), Scottish local councils, and New Zealand regional councils plus some local councils --?all had watched it working next door or across the water, in Ireland and in Tasmania plus other Australian examples. If BC-STV fails to get adopted, it's because you don't have a nearby example anymore. Maybe the pro-BC-STV campaign should be talking examples about how it used to work in Calgary and Edmonton, and still works in Cambridge Massachusetts. But it wouldn't help much; BC voters just aren't familiar with it.

If you want to give me a sample district to discuss -- perhaps your own -- I'll give you an example of what BC-STV would have done in that district in 2005, and an example of a similar Irish district's recent elections.?

RANGER

Brian White wrote:

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.

?

?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0504/1224245892907.html

?

?

It should be noted Mary White was the first woman to be elected ever in the district of Carlow -Kilkenny 1st ever! in 2007, I know someone can let us know how many tried and failed. Mr. White?

remind remind's picture

Wilf, I would like to see how the Capital region,? along with how a rural riding like? PG? would play out. However, again I stress, that slotting minimum candidates, will not give accurate depictions, and will thus be rejected by me as valid analysis. There will be huge slates if only for the first election. As the first STV election would set the stage for incumbent's wins.?

RANGER

Remind is correct, just guessing,?B.C. has 45 or so registered parties?? everyone and their family pet will be on that ballot wanting a piece of action, totally wasting their time, mind you,?but still wanting a piece non the less.?

remind remind's picture

RANGER wrote:
Brian White wrote:
Remind, Ireland is not trying to get rid of stv.?? Lies are lies

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0504/1224245892907.html

?

It should be noted Mary White was the first woman to be elected ever in the district of Carlow -Kilkenny 1st ever! in 2007, I know someone can let us know how many tried and failed. Mr. White?

Thaks for this Ranger, I knew I had read repoorts in the past about this, but did not have any current links to support my apparently valid contention, so it seems I am not the liar here.

Quote:
THE CURRENT crisis in Ireland is one of a long list of political failures over decades, though undoubtedly the most serious..The general population..is beginning to rebel at the low standards of public services, and is staggered at the incompetence and uncertainty...

..Stephen Collins writing in this paper said that one of the conclusions which can be drawn from our sorry plight is the need for radical reform of the political system. He is not alone in that opinion.

We have in Ireland an electoral system, multi-seat proportional representation, which almost ensures that a broad range of the best brains and achievers in the country will never see the inside of Leinster House, much less the Cabinet room. At the same time, we have too many Dáil members.

The electoral system imposes a lifestyle on politicians which is directly inimical to good government and is a considerable deterrent to potential participants.

The skills required to massage a constituency seven days and nights a week have nothing to do with running a small European country with an open economy.

Ministers have to spend 20 to 30 hours a week attending local functions, holding clinics, going to funerals – they’ll lose their seats if they don’t.

Is it any wonder that Dáil deputies had to be paid to chair or convene committees – that work distracts from the string-pulling for constituents which is what they’re doing in those Dáil offices.

...Despite computers and secretaries, the work hasn’t changed down the years. Side by side with the massive local work-load of TDs in nursing their constituents is a weak and almost powerless local government structure. While this faulty system – too many TDs doing unnecessary work, and tired distracted Ministers – goes on, we pay our politicians – unbelievably – more than most others in the world.

Our electoral system is almost unique. Most modern democracies of western Europe have some variant of a list system, combined with proportionality.

...Looking at the Scandinavian countries, well-governed stable societies, some features stand out. Swedish ministers are required to live in Stockholm, devote themselves to their government work, but in return are placed at the top of their party list at the next election.

...There have been calls before now for change in Ireland...Party leaders – Garret FitzGerald, Albert Reynolds, Charles Haughey, Des O’Malley, Mary Harney, as well as Noel Dempsey and Micheal D Higgins – are all on record as criticising multi-seat PR as practised in Ireland, and/or calling for radical changes.

A proposal for change appeared in the 1987 Fine Gael election manifesto. Many articles have appeared in this newspaper and serious journals. Alas, most media attention has been confined to the “silly season”. This is no longer a silly season issue. We must face the unpalatable fact that this political system is a luxury we can no longer afford.

Skinny Dipper

"Ministers have to spend 20 to 30 hours a week attending local functions, holding clinics, going to funerals – they’ll lose their seats if they don’t.

Is it any wonder that Dáil deputies had to be paid to chair or convene committees – that work distracts from the string-pulling for constituents which is what they’re doing in those Dáil offices."

?

In Toronto, municipal politicians are elected once every four years.? Most of them get re-elected because they attend different community functions almost every day.? These politicians are elected by First-Past-the-Post.

remind remind's picture

Point?

They are also not running a country, nor province, and it takes much less effort to politic in the area in which you live, as opposed to driving/flying across huge distances. Which is why I bel;ieve STV will damage the ability of rural peoples to have a voice. They will be shoring up their votes continuously in the urban vote rich areas.

Plus I must say, how are our cities politicians doing? Seems to me there are huge issues that need to be addressed and are not. When politics becomes all about staying in as an incumbent and less about actual work for the the betterment of people, then people are in trouble in any system.

?

Brian White

What is your point ranger? ??That things are getting better in Carlow ?Kilkenny?

Or Lets use anolomys as proof?

I am sorry but yours is a pretty stupid line of arguement. ?Have you looked in Canada for any male only ridings?

?Probably lots of them.??Last euro?election I?voted in was about 15 years ago.

I gave my?first preference to a green woman and she got?elected in leinster.

?

RANGER wrote:

Brian White wrote:

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.

?

?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0504/1224245892907.html

?

?

It should be noted Mary White was the first woman to be elected ever in the district of Carlow -Kilkenny 1st ever! in 2007, I know someone can let us know how many tried and failed. Mr. White?

RANGER

Gee sorry Brian I was just saying how good that was that they finally elected a woman so I guess the system really is good for women after all, at this rate they'll be catching up to Canada in no time!

Wilf Day

remind wrote:
...There have been calls before now for change in Ireland...Party leaders – Garret FitzGerald, Albert Reynolds, Charles Haughey, Des O’Malley, Mary Harney, as well as Noel Dempsey and Micheal D Higgins – are all on record as criticising multi-seat PR as practised in Ireland, and/or calling for radical changes.

A proposal for change appeared in the 1987 Fine Gael election manifesto. Many articles have appeared in this newspaper and serious journals. Alas, most media attention has been confined to the “silly season”.

That Fine Gael manifesto was 22 years ago, as was Garret Fitzgerald who was Fine Gael Prime Minister at that time. Unfortunately, Fine Gael heavily lost the 1987 election, and Garret promptly resigned. Four Fine Gael leaders since then don't make your list of those who want to change the system. Other than Micheal D Higgins, a Labour Party elder statesman, the others on that list are Fianna Fail leaders or their allies. Fianna Fail has always wanted to switch to FPTP which would favour them as the largest party, but few others agree. Anyway that article was about changing to a different system. From time to time Irish commentators have dreamed of a system which would free MPs and Ministers from the demands of serving their constituents. Since few voters would agree, nothing happens.

Brian White

Well, there was Mary Harney, who led the juniour party in government for about 10 years. ??Any female party leaders in Canada been in government for that long? ?

You pick one riding to support your arguement.

?Have you any clue at all about sampling?

And here in sweet Canada, ?some lowlife called Stronach a dog and got away with it.???I seem to remember a bunch of babblers ?nodding their left wing male heads in approval.

By the way, all the mickey mouse alternative media papers here have calls in favour of stv. ?common ground, island tides, etc.

?Big strong man? media is mostly against.

If you do a headcount of babblers in favour and against STV,??who is on your side of the female persuasion?

Remind perhaps? Who else????Michelle, Nanci, and a couple of female??CA people are on the yes?side.

Maybe you are being a bit patronising trying to protect canadian women from themselves?

Who is more likely to?vote for stv, men or women.??Answer women. (Least it was last time round).

So you with your little supercharged no vote are actually bashing the women down.

Well done.??Maybe Harper will hire you after this.

RANGER wrote:

Gee sorry Brian I was just saying how good that was that they finally elected a woman so I guess the system really is good for women after all, at this rate they'll be catching up to Canada in no time!

remind remind's picture

Thanks wilf, interesting and I have much to think about, still.

Wilf Day

remind wrote:
Wilf, I would like to see how the Capital region,? along with how a rural riding like? PG? would play out. However, again I stress, that slotting minimum candidates, will not give accurate depictions, and will thus be rejected by me as valid analysis. There will be huge slates if only for the first election. As the first STV election would set the stage for incumbent's wins.

Fair enough. In the first BC-STV election I can imagine the Liberals and NDP running the maximum number.

I've done the complete results in the Capital Region, all 14 counts. However, my Babble screen crashes when I try to paste it in.

So I'll just tell you the outcome I got: Carole James, Ida Chong, Maurine Karagianis, Murray Robert Coell, Susan Mary Brice, Jane Sterk, and Charlie Beresford.

North Central is easy: Two Liberals (John Rustad, Shirley Bond) and one NDP (Deborah Poff).

Policywonk

RANGER wrote:

Remind is correct, just guessing,?B.C. has 45 or so registered parties?? everyone and their family pet will be on that ballot wanting a piece of action, totally wasting their time, mind you,?but still wanting a piece non the less.?

Since only a few parties will run more than one candidate in each riding and there will be fewer ridings, there will likely be far fewer candidates overall. I doubt there are 45 registered parties (and even fewer that run in more than a few ridings), and?I suspect that under STV there would be fewer parties?as a number of them might merge in order to give themselves a better chance of making the quota. There may then be more than three parties with a change of winning at least one seat.

remind remind's picture

There are 26 resgistered parties in BC. And numerous Independants

The first ballot will be huge, subsequent ballots most likely not.

Brian White

They write party affiliation beside party name.? So I am not sure what the problem is.?

Municipal elections here in victoria are harder because they invent names for the "partys" and you have something like 7 votes.?

That means that the largest minorithy "slate" wins everything.?

In STV you have just one vote so party slates do not have such massive power.? In the first STV election,? the candidate numbers may approach those of a municipal election but party affiliation WILL be incicated so just ignore those that you are unfamiliar with.

Brian

Wilf Day

Brian White wrote:
They write party affiliation beside party name.

In Ireland, yes. BC-STV goes one step further: they group the party's candidates together, as is done in Tasmania, making it much easier to vote by party.

?

Wilf Day

remind wrote:
Wilf, I would like to see how the Capital region,? along with how a rural riding like? PG? would play out.

I promised to refer you to Irish election results for comparable districts. Unfortunately Ireland has no seven-seaters in its parliament. (It has some municipal councils where seven councillors are elected by PR-STV with no wards, but that's not what I promised you.) By the way, when Ireland first set up their parliament, the one thing everyone agreed on was STV -- the British (to give the Protestant minority a voice), and the radical Irish (because all British and Irish radicals were electoral reformers and STV was the system they were promoting -- though they failed to get Britain to adopt it.) So the only question was the District Magnitude (small districts are less favourable to minority parties). And their first 1923?model was excellent: one nine-seater, three eight-seaters, five seven-seaters, nine five-seaters, four four-seaters, six three-seaters. Of the 147 MPs, almost half were from seven-seaters or larger. As time went on, conservative governments shrank the District Magnitude.

A comparable five-seater: Cork South-Central.

As you can see, the two main parties each ran three and elected two. Everyone else ran one; and Labour and the Greens knew they were competing for the one left-wing seat. On the first count, incumbent 69-year-old Fianna Fail John Dennehy (who had?edged out Kathy Sinnott by six votes in 2002)?was in seventh spot, thanks to 32-year-old local Fianna Fail councillor Michael McGrath who had topped the polls in three local elections and now stood second in his first run for parliament. (A classic case of a candidate running one time too many -- John Dennehy's 20 years in parliament were enough, voters said.) Incumbent Green Dan Boyle, first elected to parliament in 2002 thanks in part to transfers from Labour, stood eighth?although his vote share declined only slightly, but a new Labour candidate (and Cork city councillor) gained and moved up to fifth spot. Centrist Fine Gael had done poorly in 2002, losing one of their two seats when Deidre Clune (first elected in 1997) lost her seat. This time they regained their second seat, and Deidre Clune stood fourth on the first count. As you can see here, by the sixth and final count Deidre Clune had moved up to third?when those who had voted for the third Fine Gael candidate preferred her to the FG?incumbent Simon Covenay. The Labour man had dropped to sixth after the Fianna Fail transfers, but overtook the third Fianna Fail man on the final count thanks to transfers from Green's Dan Boyle. (As a minor point, note that the Sinn Fein transfers had no impact: they slightly preferred old John Dennehy and the Green's Dan Boyle, but not by enough to save either.)?

For a three-seater like Prince George, see Tipperary North. As you would expect in a more rural area, local loyalties are big. Michael Lowry, aged 55, had been one of their MPs for 20 years. He had been a Fine Gael MP for three terms when Fine Gael kicked him out. Local voters didn't care and kept re-electing him as an independent. This time he stood first with votes to spare. In third spot was Fianna Fail's Maire Hoctor; she had first been elected in 2002 after serving on county council. Ahead of her in second spot was her fellow Fianna Fail incumbent Michael Smith, aged 68, first elected in 1969. In fourth spot was local councillor and Fine Gael hopeful Noel Coonan. Fifth was Labour's Kathleen O'Meara. This is not a Labour area, but as you will see, Labour voters decided the outcome. Kathleen O'Meara had run for parliament twice before, never elected, and had stood ninth of nine elected to her local council back in 1999. An interesting count. Michael Lowry's surplus transfers changed nothing, nor did any other transfers until?the final count when lots of Labour voters made Noel Coonan their?second choice,?vaulting him into office, and also gave Maire Hoctor enough second preferences to push her above her fellow FF incumbent into third place, electing her while Michael Smith lost his seat. This made sense. Labour and Fine Gael had been coalition government partners in?1994-97 and previously, and were running on a?agreed coalition platform this time. And some?women who voted for Kathleen O'Meara made the only other woman on the ballot their second choice. Michael Smith, like John Dennehy, had run one time too many.

Brian White

Thank you, wilf.

So that makes it much easier than in Ireland. ?(Ireland has candidates listed alphabetically). ?Most people are going to rank the people in their party, plus a few people locally plus ?a few people they respect. ????(In my opinion). ??Even if you just rank the people in your favorite party, it means your party cannot any longer just foist someone on you. ?And which of the party candidates does best is really good feedback for the party itself.

So it raises the calibre of candidates generally. (In my view).

Wilf Day wrote:

Brian White wrote:
They write party affiliation beside party name.

In Ireland, yes. BC-STV goes one step further: they group the party's candidates together, as is done in Tasmania, making it much easier to vote by party.

?

Wilf Day

Tieleman's friend David Schreck has reached a new low in dishonesty:

Quote:
Perhaps they should have asked the Irish whether they think STV is fair. . . There are calls for electoral reform in Ireland where even the website for the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, in announcing that Ireland's experiment with electronic voting is abandoned, goes on to say: "...there is still a considerable need for electoral reform" . . .

?

So go to that site, and you will see:

Quote:

The Minister added that, while the electronic voting project has now been brought to a conclusion, there is still a considerable need for electoral reform which can best be pursued by bringing forward proposals to establish an Independent Electoral Commission in Ireland. . .

?

The Agreed Programme for Government contains a commitment to the establishment of an independent Electoral Commission which will take responsibility for electoral administration and oversight, implement modern and efficient electoral practices, revise constituency boundaries, take charge of compiling a new national rolling electoral register, take over the functions of the Standards in Public Office Commission relating to election spending, and examine the issue of financing the political system.

But no mention of changing the voting system.

ReeferMadness

RANGER wrote:

Remind is correct, just guessing,?B.C. has 45 or so registered parties?? everyone and their family pet will be on that ballot wanting a piece of action, totally wasting their time, mind you,?but still wanting a piece non the less.?

By just guessing I take it you mean you're just pulling stuff out of your ass like normal.? If you can't even be bothered to research a readily accessible fact like there are 32 registered parties, how much credibility do you think you have?

But of the 32 parties, how many are running candidates.? Well, here is the list and I count 15 parties but a lot of them are running only a couple of candidates.? Plus independents.

So, how many candidates should we expect on a ballot?? Well, if you check out trystv and look at the capital region (which would be the largest electoral district), you'll see there are 24 names - 7 each of Liberal, Green and NDP; 1 WCC. 1 Refed and 1 independent.

Does that mean those of us in the CRD would be looking at 24 names?? Probably not.? Unless the parties want to waste money and dilute their votes, you'd likely be looking at something like (at a maximum) 5 NDP, 4 Liberal, and 3 Green candidates.? Add in the other 3 and you have a total of 15. Group the candidates by party and the ballot is manageable.? And that's for the largest district in BC.? Might there be larger ballots as more parties and/or independents realize they at last have a chance?? Perhaps.? But the people who claim you're going to see 40 names on a ballot are out to lunch.

?

?

ReeferMadness

It looks more like procedural changes.? It certainly doesn't appear that it's part of the mandate to change the system.

In fairness to Mr. Schreck, perhaps he didn't really intend to deliberately mislead people.? Maybe he was so excited he found a way to discredit STV that he didn't read the whole page.? Or maybe he's just not too bright.

remind remind's picture

The list i found had 26 registered parties,? and that is a lot, but now it appears as if there are 32,? as such, it brings us even closer to have 40+ candidates running, especially in the larger seat ridings.

And I see you carefully admit that, while pretending you are not.

?

remind remind's picture

Wilf Day wrote:
Tieleman's friend David Schreck has reached a new low in dishonesty:

Quote:
Perhaps they should have asked the Irish whether they think STV is fair. . . There are calls for electoral reform in Ireland where even the website for the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, in announcing that Ireland's experiment with electronic voting is abandoned, goes on to say: "...there is still a considerable need for electoral reform" . . .

So go to that site, and you will see:

Quote:

The Minister added that, while the electronic voting project has now been brought to a conclusion, there is still a considerable need for electoral reform which can best be pursued by bringing forward proposals to establish an Independent Electoral Commission in Ireland. . .

The Agreed Programme for Government contains a commitment to the establishment of an independent Electoral Commission which will take responsibility for electoral administration and oversight, implement modern and efficient electoral practices, revise constituency boundaries, take charge of compiling a new national rolling electoral register, take over the functions of the Standards in Public Office Commission relating to election spending, and examine the issue of financing the political system.

But no mention of changing the voting system.

Oh wilf, you are making me sad here, I would say that implimenting modern and efficient electoral practices is talking of changing the electoral system, and I see they are getting rid of the notion of computeized voting which is being suggested in BC for STV.

The vote yes crowd here has been busy stating the Irish are all happy with their STV, when such is not the case.

Now I understand why Pilion was just over there speaking at the Universioty of Ulster.

RANGER

ReeferMadness wrote:

RANGER wrote:

Remind is correct, just guessing,?B.C. has 45 or so registered parties?? everyone and their family pet will be on that ballot wanting a piece of action, totally wasting their time, mind you,?but still wanting a piece non the less.?

By just guessing I take it you mean you're just pulling stuff out of your ass like normal.? If you can't even be bothered to research a readily accessible fact like there are 32 registered parties, how much credibility do you think you have?

But of the 32 parties, how many are running candidates.? Well, here is the list and I count 15 parties but a lot of them are running only a couple of candidates.? Plus independents.

So, how many candidates should we expect on a ballot?? Well, if you check out trystv and look at the capital region (which would be the largest electoral district), you'll see there are 24 names - 7 each of Liberal, Green and NDP; 1 WCC. 1 Refed and 1 independent.

Does that mean those of us in the CRD would be looking at 24 names?? Probably not.? Unless the parties want to waste money and dilute their votes, you'd likely be looking at something like (at a maximum) 5 NDP, 4 Liberal, and 3 Green candidates.? Add in the other 3 and you have a total of 15. Group the candidates by party and the ballot is manageable.? And that's for the largest district in BC.? Might there be larger ballots as more parties and/or independents realize they at last have a chance?? Perhaps.? But the people who claim you're going to see 40 names on a ballot are out to lunch.

?

?

?

?

Wow! you can say "Probably not" and claim this is a fact?, I pulled that number from a conversation with someone very high on the food chain at elections B.C. a couple of months ago, so no, I didn't research that point because I thought it was moot, the last time I did check there was more than 30 and I know it fluctuates, the parties you mentioned are "only running" as you put it under FPTP, as I said expect many more and the family dog under a BCSTV election, ballots in Australia can have up to 50- 60 candidates on it, no, not making that up, but you can get mad at me as if somehow I created that mess too.

Doug Woodard

RANGER wrote:

Wow! you can say "Probably not" and claim this is a fact?, I pulled that number from a conversation with someone very high on the food chain at elections B.C. a couple of months ago, so no, I didn't research that point because I thought it was moot, the last time I did check there was more than 30 and I know it fluctuates, the parties you mentioned are "only running" as you put it under FPTP, as I said expect many more and the family dog under a BCSTV election, ballots in Australia can have up to 50- 60 candidates on it, no, not making that up, but you can get mad at me as if somehow I created that mess too.

?

At http://www.ec.gov.au? one can see that in the 2007 election in Austrlia, in Senate contests under PR-STV, in?New South Wales?there were 79 candidates for 6 seats, and in Queensland 65 candidates, again for 6 seats.

However, in Australian Senate elections voters have to rank every last candidate for their vote to be counted. They have the option of selecting a party and accepting its ranking of all candidates. Most of them outside Tasmania accept that option.

Candidates are grouped by party on the ballot. I expect that most voters are mainly interested in the major parties that get elected, and are not unduly confused by the listing of multiple candidates for Family First, What Women Want, the Citizens Electoral Council, the Non-Custodial Parents Party, The Fishing Party, The Australian Shooters Party, and The Australian Fishing and Lifestyle Party, etc., etc.

The ballot in Tasmania, where most voters prefer to rank their own candidates, carried a more realistic 28 candidates for 6? Senate seats.

BC-STV proposes that voters will be able to rank as many or as few candidates as they want, and candidates will be grouped by party. Since voters in BC will probably party-hop at least as freely as those in Ireland and parties will be subject to the same mild?pressure to limit their candidates, ballots in BC will likely resemble those in Ireland where in the 2007 general election the ballots in 3-seat ridings carried from 7 to 11 candidates, in 4-seat ridings 8 to 14 candidates, and in 5-seat ridings 10 to 16 candidates. Six parties elected candidates in Ireland, several independents were elected, and several more parties ran.

If you ignore the blood-curdling political fantasies of Tieleman and Schreck, you will save yourself a lot of adrenalin, and you won't miss anything important.

?

?

?

?

?

remind remind's picture

A more realistic 28 candidate slate, LOL. Yep, even a low amount such as that will really get people involved in voting, not so much me thinks.

?

Policywonk

Grouped by party. I see in a 7 seater maybe 15 candidates from 3 parties and maybe half a dozen more from other parties and independents. No different from many at large municipal elections.

scott scott's picture

For those still undecided, this website is informative without bells and whistles and hoopla.

http://www.understandingstv.ca/

?

RANGER

http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2004/guide/senatevotingsystem.htm
Voting Options

Many people view the Senate ballot paper as a daunting challenge. After all, in NSW at this election it will be around a metre long and consist of 78 candidates distributed across 30 columns. This is in fact small compared to past ballot papers in the NSW Legislative Council. At the 2003 state election, the Legislative Council ballot paper, while shorter with only 15 columns, contained 284 candidates. In 1999, problems with electoral laws saw the ballot paper spread across three rows, consist of 81 columns and 264 candidates and cover a ballot paper one metre by 700mm.

ReeferMadness

RANGER wrote:

Wow! you can say "Probably not" and claim this is a fact?

Ranger, I'm going to type this slowly so that you might get it.? When I said "probably not", I wasn't claiming anything as a fact.? If you're a careful reader, there are two ways you might recognize that.

The first is the word "probably".? Do you often use the word "probably" when stating a fact?

The second is that I was talking about a hypothetical occurrence in the future.? I often use the words possibly and probably to describe future hypothetical events because I don't know for sure what's going to happen in the future.

As Vice President of the Spin Factory, I thought you should understand this for future reference.

Quote:
I pulled that number from a conversation with someone very high on the food chain at elections B.C. a couple of months ago, so no, I didn't research that point because I thought it was moot, the last time I did check there was more than 30 and I know it fluctuates, the parties you mentioned are "only running" as you put it under FPTP, as I said expect many more and the family dog under a BCSTV election, ballots in Australia can have up to 50- 60 candidates on it, no, not making that up, but you can get mad at me as if somehow I created that mess too.

I don't know what number you mean but by now, I don't have a lot of faith in the noSTV team.? Maybe you can do better than something you heard from someone on a food chain.? Seems to me it was not long ago that somebody was misrepresenting Andrew Petter and he had to step in himself to correct the record.? Was that you?

The number of registered parties is not moot and it was very easy to find; but the number that is more important is how many of those are actually running candidates.? And many of the ones that are running candidates are running only 1 or 2.? I understand facts aren't all that important at the spin factory but maybe you could make an allowance for us.

WRT Australia, that's interesting but hardly definitive.? What logical reason do you have to believe that the total number of CRD candidates go up by 150% because of STV?

?

Assembly Talker

Exactly!

?

Are there any stats that show how many parties ran how many candidates in our last election in 2005??

From there you would have some solid stats to debate by. ?I don't remember seeing 26 or 32 candidates on my last FPTP ballot???

I would suggest that common sense needs to enter this debate. ?If we are going to say that the number of candidates is going to increase by large numbers, then maybe this idea should be supported by some forecasts of where these candidates are going to come from. ?

Again, you must project BC-STV against the reality of what could or would happen in BC. ?Everyone has their own crystal ball, but if you are going to make a solid case, you need to paint your prognostication with some convincing facts to support. ?

?

AT

?

remind remind's picture

he did!

Assembly Talker

He did?

Wilf Day

I can see how the first STV election might have more candidates than later ones. But I have no access to the first Irish STV election.

However, Scotland?held its first municipal STV elections in 2007. Glasgow has always been the hotbed of radicals of every stripe, in the past usually frustrated by Labour's faux-majority sweeps. They should have all let loose in 2007.

Let's look at the number in their four-seater wards:

Linn 11

Greater Pollok 9

Craigton 10

Govan 11

Southside Central 9

Anderston 9

Hillhead 10

Partick West 9

Garscadden 10

Drumchapel 10

Maryhill 8

Canal 11

East Centre 13 (hmm, 12 counts)

Shettleston 11

Baillieston 11

North East 10

Not as many as I expected.

?

Assembly Talker

Wilf,

?

Again you add the facts needed to bring fear and myth to its knees. ?

Great job, I have really enjoyed the debates where you have contributed.

?

AT

Wilf Day

Assembly Talker wrote:
Again you add the facts needed to bring fear and myth to its knees. ?

Great job, I have really enjoyed the debates where you have contributed.

Fans like this encourage me to add more on that first Scottish STV election.

Disregarding the outlier case, the largest are five districts with 11 candidates each. Who were they?

Labour 3, in each case. (You expected 4, to give voters more choice? In the Glasgow context that would have looked arrogant: Labour expecting to sweep all the seats again.)

Scottish National Party 1 (in four wards, but in Baillieston they ran two and elected two.)

Liberal Democrats 1

Greens 1

Conservatives 1

Tommy Sheridan's Solidarity Party 1

Scottish Socialist Party 1

A conservative splinter "Scottish Unionist Proudly Scottish Proudly British"?1

Other (an independent in three wards, a British National Party in one, and once a second SNP.) 1?

In Baillieston the SNP had 1.66 quotas on the first count, and Labour had 2.30 on the first count, so on the ninth count the SNP's second?edged Labour's third by 0.10 of a quota. With 0.88 of a quota exhausted by then, transfers were less of a factor than you'd expect. The Conservative ran sixth, but 73% of his voters had no second preference. Tommy Sheridan's man ran seventh, but his voters scattered 54% exhausted, 20% Labour, 19% SNP, and even 6% Conservative. Eighth was the Lib Dem woman but her votes also scattered 41% exhausted, 25% Labour,?15% Conservative, 12% SNP, and 7% for Sheridan's man.?

Pages