Board logo

標題: STV Yes or No [打印本頁]
作者: sheep    時間: 2009-5-7 08:39     標題: STV Yes or No

本帖最後由 sheep 於 2009-5-7 09:42 編輯

I'll vote NO
作者: somewhereintime    時間: 2009-5-7 08:43

May I ask why? Mr. Sheep.
I haven't decide yet
作者: sheep    時間: 2009-5-7 08:53

Go to nostv.org and you will know.
作者: daimo    時間: 2009-5-7 09:16

good idea in theory but hard to be implemented and understood by mass population
作者: fibbi    時間: 2009-5-7 09:29

Is that the new voting /counting system?
I vote No for sure!
作者: AAC    時間: 2009-5-7 10:15

真係無時間去了解 STV or NO-STV，可能都係棄權。
我都會投豉油黨，但又好討厭呢個省長，幸好我唔係在他的選區，否則就腦交戰。
可能我心中的理想是：豉油黨執政，但更換省長，或者他選不上。
作者: 布小熊    時間: 2009-5-7 10:15

Some info for STV from Richmond Review:
http://www.bclocalnews.com/richm ... /news/44499842.html

What is STV?
Published: May 07, 2009 1:00 AM
•Constituencies are larger and have more than one member each. B.C. would have 20 constituencies, but the legislature would remain at 85 seats.

•Under STV, Richmond voters would vote together with Delta voters to choose their five MLAs.

•On election day, voters rank their candidates in order of preference (1, 2, 3 instead of “X”), and are able to mark as many or few preferences on their ballots.

•The total number of voters is counted, which is then divided by the number of seats in the constituency, plus one. That amount is the number of votes a candidate needs to win a seat.

•In Richmond, what’s needed to win a seat is approximately one-fifth of the total vote. If not enough candidates garner enough votes, surplus votes of candidates elected or dropped off the ballot are redistributed.


STV: The pros and the cons
http://www.bclocalnews.com/richm ... /news/44500017.html
作者: fibbi    時間: 2009-5-7 10:28

I did try to understand the logic behind the new system. I believe I understand, however, I can't really see the benefit of it. I still trust the old school way, simple, straight forward. I vote for the best one I like, that's it! The most count got the seat.
作者: MSN04    時間: 2009-5-7 10:32

http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/flash/bc-stv-full
作者: starstar    時間: 2009-5-7 10:54

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 are good and not just saying "the other candidate is bad, so you must choose me".  The candidates are ranked even among other candidates of their own party, so I guess they would be more accountable when they get elected.
作者: real-mccoy    時間: 2009-5-7 10:57

I did try to understand the logic behind the new system. I believe I understand, however, I can't really see the benefit of it. I still trust the old school way, simple, straight forward. I vote for t ...
fibbi 發表於 2009-5-7 11:28


And how is that different from marking a "1" on your vote?  I don't think it's mandatory for the voter to rank all candidates.

"Voters can rank every candidate in their constituency if they want to, but the rankings are just instructions on how the single vote gets counted."
作者: daimo    時間: 2009-5-7 10:59

i don't know about anyone else .. but I have trouble keeping track of the candidate's names.. a couple of them and rank them?

i'll probably end up picking the party instead.
作者: rainbow-davie    時間: 2009-5-7 12:26

is it same as (or very similar to) HK system?
作者: BiscottiGelato    時間: 2009-5-7 16:22

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 the popular vote but with 90% of the seats. First past the post is ridiculous and it does not give a result that reflects people's choice. I am not saying STV is the best system but first past the post is one of the worst. STV is definately the lesser of the two evils here.

On the other hand, the argument where STV vote count is 'too complicated' is not even an argument. There are so many things in this world that your very life depends on that are ridiculously complicated. That's not a reason to not use them. You use whatever's better, not whatever you understand better. One'd have to give up almost every aspect of life if complexity is the devil that we want to avoid like a plague.
作者: ravemother    時間: 2009-5-7 16:49

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 7-5-2009 16:22


good say
作者: Guy    時間: 2009-5-7 20:22

STV is a total waste of time and money for going back and forth to see who is won and who is not. ( i know they might use computers but if there is chance of an appeal and count by person)

the old system.. is one count... compare the numbers and done
作者: CWong    時間: 2009-5-7 20:33

本帖最後由 CWong 於 2009-5-7 20:37 編輯

NO!
作者: rtfwong    時間: 2009-5-8 02:21

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 century, when only rich man can vote!  I'd say it is about time for a change.  

For the people that says "You should vote for the current system unless you understand EVERYTHING about BC-STV".  Well, explain to me how each electron moves in your computer before posting a reply.  What is important here is that the system is easy for the voters to use.  All the voters have to do is to put down 1,2,3, etc. for people they like.   We have been doing this since grade 1!  You don't have to rank them all, you can rank just 1 person if you like.  The system tries its best to give you one of your top choices, so more people gets a representative they wanted.  Right now, if about half your neighbors disagree with you, you and the other half of your neighbors "loses" and gets nobody for the next four years!  Government is not a GAME, it is about hearing what voters have to say.  STV gives voters back their say.  It is a voting system chosen by the voters, for the voters.  I'd say YES for sure.
作者: rtfwong    時間: 2009-5-8 02:25

i don't know about anyone else .. but I have trouble keeping track of the candidate's names.. a couple of them and rank them?

i'll probably end up picking the party instead.
daimo 發表於 2009-5-7 11:59


...and you can with STV.  The parties will be listed clearly, so you can simply go 1,2,3,4 for everyone in your favorite party.  What's even better, if you KNOW that Mr.Dumbass from your preferred party is a dumb ass, then you can vote for everyone EXCEPT Mr.Dumbass from your party.  BC-STV helps keep dumbasses out of our government!
作者: yuusaku    時間: 2009-5-8 08:19

YES
作者: Littleprince    時間: 2009-5-8 08:45

NO!
CWong 發表於 2009-5-7 21:33

can you explain???
作者: Littleprince    時間: 2009-5-8 08:49

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.
作者: sheep    時間: 2009-5-8 09:05

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.
作者: rainbow-davie    時間: 2009-5-8 09:48

本帖最後由 rainbow-davie 於 2009-5-8 10:56 編輯
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.
作者: rainbow-davie    時間: 2009-5-8 09:54

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.
作者: Littleprince    時間: 2009-5-8 10:32

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...
作者: rainbow-davie    時間: 2009-5-8 10:47

本帖最後由 rainbow-davie 於 2009-5-8 11:50 編輯

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.
作者: BiscottiGelato    時間: 2009-5-8 11:56

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.
作者: rainbow-davie    時間: 2009-5-8 12:22

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.
作者: rainbow-davie    時間: 2009-5-8 12:27

本帖最後由 rainbow-davie 於 2009-5-8 13:46 編輯

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.
作者: rtfwong    時間: 2009-5-8 19:16

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!
作者: rainbow-davie    時間: 2009-5-8 20:06

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.
作者: sheep    時間: 2009-5-11 08:41

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?
作者: Littleprince    時間: 2009-5-11 09:16

hmnn... after hearing all your debate, I think STV is good...
作者: Littleprince    時間: 2009-5-11 09:16

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
作者: Littleprince    時間: 2009-5-11 09:18

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.
作者: rainbow-davie    時間: 2009-5-11 09:57

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.
作者: Littleprince    時間: 2009-5-11 10:48

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。
作者: somewhereintime    時間: 2009-5-11 12:37

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
作者: rainbow-davie    時間: 2009-5-11 12:42

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.
作者: sheep    時間: 2009-5-11 13:28

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?
作者: Littleprince    時間: 2009-5-11 14:27

本帖最後由 Littleprince 於 2009-5-11 15:31 編輯
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
作者: Littleprince    時間: 2009-5-11 14:33

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?
作者: sheep    時間: 2009-5-11 14:55

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.
作者: rainbow-davie    時間: 2009-5-11 15:02

本帖最後由 rainbow-davie 於 2009-5-11 16:04 編輯
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)
作者: somewhereintime    時間: 2009-5-11 15:18

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.
作者: Littleprince    時間: 2009-5-11 15:21

thanks rainbow for your information and

somewhereintime, your point is valid too....
作者: somewhereintime    時間: 2009-5-11 15:32

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.
作者: Lik    時間: 2009-5-11 21:31

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
作者: sheep    時間: 2009-5-11 21:44

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.
作者: Littleprince    時間: 2009-5-12 10:21

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 be ...
somewhereintime 發表於 2009-5-11 16:32

thanks
作者: tofush    時間: 2009-5-12 12:02

I am totally against it. It's too complicated to be a voting system. And when procedure is complicated, errors will occur. I like out original system, one person one vote. Clear, accurate, and precise.
作者: ACC-HE    時間: 2009-5-12 14:50

under STV system, if u don't wanna get your vote to be 'transferred', just vote '1' and not put any other number in... is this Correct!?
作者: mcs889    時間: 2009-5-12 15:12

actully, whats the diff???
作者: ACC-HE    時間: 2009-5-12 15:51

under STV system, if u don't wanna get your vote to be 'transferred', just vote '1' and not put any other number in... is this Correct!?
ACC-HE 發表於 2009-5-12 15:50

To answer my own question:
http://www.understandingstv.ca/learn.html
What happens if I only list one or two candidates?
When the last candidate that you numbered has been elected or dropped from the race, the "unused portion" of your ballot is set aside and not given to any other candidate.
作者: 老友四號    時間: 2009-5-12 16:34

本帖最後由 老友四號 於 2009-5-12 17:36 編輯
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.
sheep 發表於 2009-5-11 15:55

我哋Ｅ家係選四年一任嘅省長至喎，乜講到好似同佢做人世咁嘅？

老夫 認為作為 BC省民係好悲哀嘅！点解！？因為我哋要係 『冇誠信』 同 『更冇誠信』

之間作出决擇，否則只有乾脆唔投票！嗚呼！

唔記得講 老夫 係極之贊成可轉移單票制。



歡迎光臨 溫哥華老友記討論區 (http://loyaukee.com/forum/) Powered by Discuz! 7.2