Littleprince

NO!
CWong 發表於 2009-5-7 21:33

can you explain???

Littleprince

First of all, our current voting system is NOT fine.  If everything was running smooth, why did the government ask the voters if they wanted change?  The current system originates from the 12th centur ...
rtfwong 發表於 2009-5-8 03:21

well-said!

after reading some ads from both sides, I decided to vote "yes" as well... the anti-stv's reasons are all weak to me, sounds like they support for their own benefit (does it sound the same to you?) .. I don't know much about the concept of stv, I have no time to read all the details but their ad drives me to vote against them.

sheep

If you watch the viedo of STV then you will noticed that your vote will somehow go to the one that you didn't like or rank last. Since the unused votes are spread among them, the one you dislike will probably wins. That do not represent you either.
The other thing is small communities will lost their representatives.

rainbow-davie

Yes for sure.
I am tired of listening to all those negative commercials by the 2 parties putting down the other party.  
At least with STV, the candidates will have to promote themselves on why they a ...
starstar 發表於 2009-5-7 11:54

not really.. I think it will result in something like HK.. all parties are trying to work out the math making sure more candidates get in.. and will result in 配票.  And for people who like the party but not candidate, because of 配票, they will vote for someone they don't like but in the party.

The main concern I have is not about the system itself, is not about the idea and how to count the vote.  It is how people play within the new game rules.  Be honest, I'm sure 配票 will happen and that's what I don't like.  The party just tries to put a lot of their afford in re-distributing the votes for the last seat.

Why the last seat?   It is because for all parties in a communities, they have their foundamental supporters.  Those supporters will not change their vote anyway.  They don't even have to please the undecisive voters.  They only have to organizer their supporters and make sure the votes will let 2 or 3 canadidates win, doesn't matter is the 1st place winner or the 5th place winner.  (if total 5 seats).   Even they gain undecisive votes, usually they won't get more people in.

Also, I afraid it will cause more internal conflicts in all parties.  Why?  Before one area only one candidate for one party.   But now, more candidates of one party in an area.  Then, who will be the major one to promote?   All candidates will try to fight for that place.  No candidate want to be the 2nd or 3rd guy in the party's candidates list.

In my opinion, STV may bring in a stable gov't in terms of seat distribution.  however, in terms of quality, I don't think so. and in terms of initiate candidates to promote instead of fighting, I don't think so too. it will cause even more conflicts.

I oppose that.   

Oh by the way, one key point is... Canadian is simple minded.   Introducting this complicated game rule just too much for Canadian.. (including me. lol )

It is a BIG NONO for me.

rainbow-davie

The current first past the post system have tremendous flaws tho. Just look at the last provincial election. Green party have almost 10% of the popular vote, with 0 seats, while Liberal have ~46% of t ...
BiscottiGelato 發表於 2009-5-7 17:22

if that's the case, why don't we just  all vote for the party we like..
then up to the party to select the MLAs.
e.g. if Liberals, have 46% popular vote, they only get 46% seat.
and if Green party has 10%, then they has 10% seat.  

---
To correct your statement... under the current system, we are voting for the representative of MLA in our area.  We want our MLA represent our community.  so, that's why there will be a difference between popular vote  & #of seat.  

If you say that's unfair, then think about if it is fair for people in a community.

Littleprince

if that's the case, why don't we just  all vote for the party we like..
then up to the party to select the MLAs.
e.g. if Liberals, have 46% popular vote, they only get 46% seat.
and if Green party h ...
rainbow-davie 發表於 2009-5-8 10:54

you have your point...

rainbow-davie

I think what we should do are
1) compulsory voting
2) Separate the voting for MLA and voting for Premier
    votinig for MLA -> keep the same system.
    voting for Premier -> popular vote

compulsory voting  - why?  it is our obligation & responsbility for everyone to select a government.  If one doesn't cast the vote, that means he/she is not responsible for selecting the MLA & the government.. It also affects the result of the election. Thus he/she should lost all of his/her rights. (go to Jail la.).

Separate the voting for MLA and voting for Premier - Why?  MLA is the representative of a area.  There should be one representative (instead of many in STV case).  Why? because if there are many representatives that means no one is the representative and they will just "Sei" Wok to others in big issue.  that's human nature.  

Voting for Priemier using Popular vote because Primier is the leader of the province. He/She should get recognized by all BC voters.  Thus, Pimier doesn't have to be from the leader of the majority.  

Also, that will not reduce the efficency of the gov't.

BiscottiGelato

I think what we should do are
1) compulsory voting
2) Separate the voting for MLA and voting for Premier
    votinig for MLA -> keep the same system.
    voting for Premier -> popular vote

compulsor ...
rainbow-davie 發表於 2009-5-8 10:47

I have never argued that STV is the best thing. It is also flawed to hell if you ask me. BUT the referrendum is asking which of the 2 (STV or first past the post) is of the lesser evil, and there's no 3rd or any other alternate choices. Given the choices, I'll say first past the post is an ancient evil and it's time we move to something better.

Besides, all systems have it's own flaw and weakness. It's about which flaws are more tolerable than others. If you ask me, the current system is whacked and that's enough reason to go with the other.

rainbow-davie

yes.. so I say the lesser evil is the current system.

New system is ideal, but I don't agree it will be pratical.

One simple question,  let say if Richmond & Delta merge together.  Under the new system, if all elected MLAs are based in Richmond, then, what can the Delta resident going to do?  Who can really represent them?
or even simple question, if there are 5 elected MLAs, and who will actually represent you?  

If there is something bad happen, who should take the responsibility?  all 5 of them? the most voted one? or what?

As I say, multiple representative means no one is going to take difficult job.. no one take responsibility.    Can STV resolve this? I can see STV taking away responsibility from MLA.  that's no good for us.

Also, in STV, candidate do not have to please or do anythign to undecivise voter because what they have to do is to 配票 carefully in order to win.

And for voters, what we will end up is, to listen, focus on & follow how to 配票 in order for the party we like to wni.

There won't be more discussion about their political view .. worse than now.

I oppose STV not because of its counting system, it is the consequence of it.

rainbow-davie

Also, another thing is.  Under STV, let say we have 5 MLAs for Richmond-Delta, one Die.
Then what to do witht he vacancy? Are we going to vote for only that seat?  or all 5 seats be voted again?


and what about if there are only fewer canadidates running for a district?  (in whatever reason)


and in some districts, there will be 2MLAs and some with at most 7 MLAs.. ie. different districts have different % of vote for elected.. that's not  only unfair.. but also, it means if I want to get elect, it would be easier to get elected in a 7MLAs district than the 2 MLAs district.


I suggest everyone to read carefully about pros & cons about STV:
www.stv.ca
www.nostv.org
and go to Wiki & google, search for STV and understand the system.

and then think about whether it works for BC, and works for you..  Then cast the vote for that.