返回列表 發帖
Under BC-STV, there is no 配票.  This is not a system where you vote for a party, and the party chooses people to fill seats.  BC-STV, you vote for the candidate!  Your vote will only go to people you have put down a rank for, and not for anyone else.  The big win here is that the party now gives you more choices within the party, instead of one guy per party.  

I agree with BiscottiGelato, once we show that we can embrace change, that's the only way better changes will happen.  Think about the alternatives:  if we pass it, there will be a MANDATORY review of the new system after 3 elections, so in 12 years we can see if there will be a better system... if we fail it, then the politicians can say that we already have a vote twice and twice it failed, so no change will EVER happen, not for another 50 years!  So show that you are not too stupid to understand marking 1,2,3, and show that you are not happy with the status quo -- vote for change, YES WE CAN!

TOP

本帖最後由 rainbow-davie 於 2009-5-8 21:08 編輯

you don't even know what is 配票.   it is a strategic vot that organized outside of the voting station.

e.g. in simple case,  if I know that the first winner own need certain % of vote, the excess with go to next.  If I'm running the campaign for a party, which has 3 candidates for 5 availabe seat.  of course, I have to make sure I have at least 2 go in.  If all party supporters vote for one candidate, then too many excess to go to the next one, which is most likely be another party.  And possibly only get one man in.
In order to get at least 2 but possibly 3, I have to organize the party supporters to vote according to the calculation, regardless of the supporters view.  so, candidate one get certain vote, candidate two get certain vote..etc

and the problem is, candidates & party will put their energy & resource try to organize the supporters, teach them how to vote.  instead of trying to get vote from undecisive voters.. or trying to fight for votes.
It is because under this system, you won't get all seats anyway..  

In addition, the unfair & unbalance between 2seats & 7seats region still unsolve.

Also, STV has never been worked & proved to be success in a geographical region like BC.   which we have vast land, very diverse urban & rural population.

Making a change is always a way to express unsatisfication of current system.  Because everyone experience the current system & knows the problem.  But how about the new system?  is it all good or less evil?  

and with this system, is it easy to change the gov't if it is not doing good?  I did a research, it has no difference... There is a case in Ireland that a party run for the gov't for 69 years (in 80 years).  

I believe it is up to all individual to really look in STV and decide which one is more suitable for himself/herself.   And FUXKING.. there is no point you idiot say I'm too Stupid, you fool.

As i said, I don't care how it counts, I care how it ends up.. how it will affect the voter's decision.. YOU STUPID FOOL FXXKER


OH FUXKER. one more thing. under STV, you cannot punish a govn't by letting them less seat.  Because the seats usually reflects the fundamental die-heart supporters + the party organization skill.   If the gov't is doing badly, we cannot punish them like 10  years to NDP.   bad candidates will never gone.

TOP

Let say you are a high school student, now, you have a representaive of each class in the student union. Union say, now lets have a grade representative instead of class representative. So in each grade, there will be five representatives. In your grade, you have your class rep. After the change, the grade rep all came from other classes, your's have no one elected. How will you feel?

TOP

hmnn... after hearing all your debate, I think STV is good...
我好惹火。。。

TOP

I just got this in the mail:

SEVEN REASONS TO VOTE AGAINST THE STV
Donald Bird, North Vancouver, May 4, 2009


On May 12th, the voters in the province of British Columbia will be asked if they would like to change the way they elect their provincial government.  They will be offered two choices: to remain with the current system or to adopt a system based on a single transferrable vote, commonly called the STV.  While people may not like the existing system, the STV will be much worse for the province.  Do not confuse a dislike for the current system with a preference for the STV.

1 More Minority Governments – The STV is a form of proportional representation which attempts to ensure that the percentage of MLAs elected from each party matches the percentage of the total popular vote received by that party.  Therefore it will be harder for any one party to elect more than half of the MLAs.  The effect of this is that more minority governments will be produced, making it harder to govern the province.  Minority governments will also lead to more frequent elections and the formation of unusual coalitions as we have seen in recent federal politics.
2 Less Popular Parties Holding the Balance of Power – Minority governments will need to build coalitions among different parties to get the support of a majority of MLAs in order to form government and to pass legislation.  With proportional representation, we are more likely to see parties with only a small percent of the vote, like the Marijuana Party, win seats.  Concessions will need to be made to these small parties to get important legislation passed.  Will we have to stop enforcing federal drug laws in order to get a provincial budget passed?  We may see a lot more “pork” in British Columbia, similar to what happens in the United States, where one small group can require that the rest of the province give them what they want in order for the legislature to do its job.
3 Ridings Too Large – The ridings in rural British Columbia will be very large, making it even harder for the MLAs to connect with their constituents.
4 Unequal Treatment– The number of MLAs elected from each of the new 20 ridings will not be the same.  Some ridings will have two MLAs and others will have seven MLAs and all the others will be somewhere in between.  With the proportionality of the STV, the ridings with two MLAs are very likely to elect MLAs from only the two most popular parties, currently the BC Liberal Party and the NDP.  There is very little chance in those ridings of electing MLAs from any other party.  However, in ridings with more MLAs there is a much greater chance of electing MLAs from other parties.  This is consistent with the proportional nature of the STV; however, not all ridings are treated equally.  Those in ridings with a larger number of MLAs will have a greater chance of electing MLAs from parties who traditionally receive a smaller percentage of the vote, like the Marijuana Party.  That may be good or bad, depending on your perspective, but it is not equal treatment for all voters in the Province.  All citizens of British Columbia have a right to equal treatment, especially in electing a government.
This unequal treatment, combined with the balance of power, will result in those ridings with a larger number of MLAs being more likely to elect the MLAs who will hold the balance of power.  Ridings with only two or three MLAs will almost certainly elect only MLAs from the two largest parties, but ridings with five, six or seven MLAs are much more likely to elect MLAs from other parties.  So if you really want your vote to count, and you want to elect MLAs that will hold the balance of power, you are out of luck in if you are in Fort Nelson or Dawson Creek – Victoria is the place to be!
5 Different results in By-Elections – The unequal treatment continues in by-elections.  The procedure for voting and counting the ballots in a by-election is the same as a general election, but usually one MLA is to be elected.  Therefore it is extremely likely that the MLA will be from one of the most popular parties in BC, currently the BC Liberal Party and the NDP.  It is much less likely in a by-election than in a general election that winner of the election will be from a party that traditionally receives a smaller percentage of the vote.  So if an MLA from a party that received a small percentage of the votes resigns, it is very unlikely that they will be replaced by a member of their own party.
6 Complicated Counting System – The STV system is a very complicated, very hard to understand and very hard to explain.  Any system for electing a government in a free and democratic society should be understood by all voters.  Do you know if it is better for a party’s supporters to mark the same person as their number one choice or to split their number one choice among each of their party’s candidates in a particular riding?  To find the answer takes some work.  Should it?  
7 Who won? – Sometimes no one will win - the STV does not fill all of the seats in the legislature in all circumstance.  This is because there is no rule to adjust the “Quota” required in the event that there are not sufficient votes remaining to elect all MLAs in a riding after the “Exhausted Ballots” are removed.  The result is that in certain circumstances, not enough MLAs will be elected to fill all the seats.  An extreme example would be if not all the MLAs are elected on the first count and no one marks a second or subsequent choice.  There is a rule dealing with the situation where all but one of the candidates to be elected have been elected, but it does not deal with the situation where more than one of the candidates to be elected have not been elected.  Not only is the STV flawed, it is so complex that even those who created the system do not understand it well enough to know that it does not always work.
Clearly the STV is not the way to go, even for those who do not like the current system.

DONALD BIRD

BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP
我好惹火。。。

TOP

again... I feel their reasons are very weak... all the reasons are for their own interest, not for us.

that's why I would stay with my original vote: "yes"

To answer sheep: I would say, no one from my class? I don't care, as long as other classes' reps are good.
我好惹火。。。

TOP

本帖最後由 rainbow-davie 於 2009-5-11 11:00 編輯
again... I feel their reasons are very weak... all the reasons are for their own interest, not for us.

that's why I would stay with my original vote: "yes"

To answer sheep: I would say, no one from  ...
Littleprince 發表於 2009-5-11 10:18


But the fundamental reason is to have a rep for your community.  To have a guy who can take the responsibility.  Otherwise, why don't we just have a popular vote for the entire province.  And the party just distribute the seats accordingly?

and after reading the articles & all the debates & after nights of thinking, I am very firm to say NO to STV.  

only s_____d  people will believe in it.

TOP

我都很明白﹐有些時候當別人不認同自己看法﹐有些人都會覺得自己的確比別人聰明優秀﹐所以選 A 不選 B﹐可是這並不是智慧的做法呢。

所謂集思廣益嘛﹐若果你說的是真理﹐何用投票呢﹖何用 DEBATE 呢﹖ 學前面的朋友所說﹐沒有完美的制度﹐只有較不 EVIL 的而已。
我好惹火。。。

TOP

One of the drawback is that it seems so complicated so some people do not bother
to vote at all; only some well-organized electors  would vote for the names assigned,
it would end up less democratic

TOP

One of the drawback is that it seems so complicated so some people do not bother
to vote at all; only some well-organized electors  would vote for the names assigned,
it would end up less democratic
somewhereintime 發表於 2009-5-11 13:37


exactly.. especially Canadian.    I'm Canadian too.

TOP

返回列表