rainbow-davie

is it same as (or very similar to) HK system?

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.

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.

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.

rainbow-davie

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.

rainbow-davie

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.

rainbow-davie

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.

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)