sheep

frankly speaking, I won't let anyone I don't know to represent my interest, even someone say he is good.
BTW, all sheep are gentle, Littleprince please give me all your money and let me invest them for you. I promise you will have a good return. Will you give me your money?

Littleprince

frankly speaking, I won't let anyone I don't know to represent my interest, even someone say he is good.
BTW, all sheep are gentle, Littleprince please give me all your money and let me invest them fo ...
sheep 發表於 2009-5-11 14:28

frankly speaking, I don't know our present 省長 or whatever, you mean I shouldn't even vote?

但呢個係我作為公民的權利窩

你想我比D錢你管﹖ 得。。。。比個 PROPOSAL 黎看看﹐再給我看看你以前有甚麼成績先喇

Littleprince

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

too complicated... does it mean we cannot be educated to understand it at all?

sheep

too complicated... does it mean we cannot be educated to understand it at all?
Littleprince 發表於 2009-5-11 15:33

so that is why you should know someone better before you rely on him.
BTW, you did not vote for the 省長 that's why now you have so many complain about him.

rainbow-davie

too complicated... does it mean we cannot be educated to understand it at all?
Littleprince 發表於 2009-5-11 15:33

well.. My opinion is that the problem is not about the complication of the method.

The problem is the reason behind it, the outcome and the effect.  
The reason is simple:  make everyone happy because you will have all kinds of representatives in the riding.  It seems to be more democratic.  

However, for a government, what is the priotiy?  to make everyone feels happy because there is someone he/she likes in the government? or to make the government be responsible & works efficiently regardless there are some voters not happy becoz he/she doesn't like the representative?

That's the question we have to ask ourselves.  

The problem of current system is obvious (because we are running it now).  However, the problem of the STV is hidden, like the fineprint.  

There are couple questions I want the supporter of STV to think about:
1) How can you judge STV is more fairness if there are ridings with less seat (e.g. higher & harder winning %), and some ridings with more seat (e.g. lower & easier winning %) ?
2) If one is re-sign, how to fill up the vacancy in a fair way? re-election?
3) What is the best way to ensure all representatives take responsibility? e.g. if there are huge political issues, are they all going to re-sign?
4) In rural area, how to resolve the problem of representative coming from remote community?  Considering that under STV, there are only 20 ridings.
5) Do you accept your party 'order' you to vote in the voting order they provide, regarding you like it or not?  how can you judge that it is more democratic?
6) Under STV, it most likely will result in either minority governmetn or a long-ruling government, because the fundamental supporters of all parties are stable, and undecisive voters are effectiveless under this system, do you accept the difficult we will fact in the future to allow switching ruling party?

As I said, I agree current system has its own problem. But the solution is not introduce another problematic system but to reform the way separating voting MLAs (reflecting voters' view in each riding) and premier (reflecting the popular vote in the Province)

somewhereintime

too complicated... does it mean we cannot be educated to understand it at all?
Littleprince 發表於 2009-5-11 14:33

I could be patience and willing to be educated, but how about my parents at their
80's? and those who live in senior home, new immigrants without high education etc,  who would protect their constituency right? I think they would prefer a simple vote to represent their voice.

Littleprince

thanks rainbow for your information and

somewhereintime, your point is valid too....

somewhereintime

47# Littleprince

I just have a feeling that the NDPers would take the opportunity to
organize their enormous manpower from unions and well-tuned
election machine to overwhelm the election. I've been here long enough
to observe the election in action, all the dirty tricks. However, I love Canada
and it is my home.

Lik

Not sure how I missed this thread...

In any case, I'm against this version of the STV vote. In principal, it is a better system than our current single member plurality system. In the proposed execution, however, there are a number of flaws that makes the proposed implementation unacceptable.

The #1 biggest flaw is the enlarged / merged constituencies. The very goal STV strives to achieve is equality in representation. However, the larger constituencies will make it extremely difficult for smaller parties to come up with enough funding to campaign in the larger constituencies. Most (all?) of us live in the city, so we aren't really affected by this aspect very much. But BC covers quite a vast geographic region. Those constituencies in the interior and in Northern BC will be most severely hurt by the enlarged constituencies. Parties that are less well-funded will find it difficult to campaign in the significantly larger geographic regions. Additionally, local / regional candidates that enjoy strong support in one region may not be all that well known in a different region, thereby destroying the lack of representation issue that STV is trying to fix in the first place.

The complicated STV system makes it difficult for citizens to strategically delegate their votes, and that has already been talked about here.

-Lik

sheep

Those who promote STV are just want to satisfy their ego.
Hey, we are chosen to conduct the study and come up to this suggestion.
No way it will be defeated twice.
Lets get real, you'll be regret to anticipate the change. Just like the change in the City council of Vancouver.