Electoral Change Up for Debate

Wednesday, May 06, 2009 03:59 AM

Prince George, B.C.- The Single transferable vote system is up for debate over the lunch hour today. Both sides of the issue will state their case before the members of the Prince George Chamber of Commerce.

The B.C. - Single Transferable Vote (BC-STV) is a system that would replace the existing election process of electing the person with the majority of votes which is called the “first past the post” system.

Those who oppose the Single Transferable Vote (STV) put forth these arguments:

Our current First-Past-the-Post electoral system is easy to understand - the candidate with the most votes wins and represents one single riding. The party that wins the most ridings forms government.
the Single Transferable Vote would create giant ridings of up to 7 Members of the Legislative Assembly representing over 300,000 people - losing local accountability and responsibility of MLAs to voters.
BC-STV’s complicated voting system means your single vote will be “fractionalized” and distributed so that you may never know how it was counted.
BC-STV would replace our current 85 constituencies with just 20 large areas electing 2 to 7 MLAs each. That replaces local representation with regional representation by a group of MLAs, who would be hard to hold accountable for their actions.

Those who support the B.C. Single Transferable Vote put forth these arguments:

Fair election results; Parties will win the portion of seats in the legislature that they actually earn.
More effective representation; Greater voter choice leads to more competitive local contests and an end to “safe” regions for just one party.
Accountability to communities When nearly all voters help elect someone then government and politicians must truly serve the people.
More responsive legislatures A more representative legislature means policy-making will better reflect the values and priorities of British Columbians.
Greater stability Consensus-based, enduring legislation creates a better investment, business and labour climate.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Wednesday, May 06, 2009 03:59 AM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: nechakogal on May 6 2009 10:30 AM

Let May 12 be the day we take a stand for democracy and vote for electoral reform. We were so close last election to making every vote count. 160 of us chose it (see the citizens assembly link below) and 58 percent of us voted for it last election. Get out and vote for BC-STV! We need 60 percent of voters and ridings. There is a lot of misinformation out there about it - so get your facts from these links about how it works:

http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/public

http://www2.canada.com/langleyadvance/news/letters/story.html?id=87fcc76e-b2ed-4fd3-9137-291886535822

Posted by: nechakogal on May 6 2009 10:34 AM

Just one more thing, take BC-STV for a test drive:

wwwtrystv.ca

Posted by: swingline on May 6 2009 10:56 AM

also check out

www.nostv.org

Posted by: Free Enterprise on May 6 2009 3:29 PM

SAY NO to BC-STV!
We would give way more power to the big cities and loss alot of representation for smaller cities like Prince George.

Posted by: Don Wilkins on May 6 2009 6:38 PM

What concerns me is the likelihood of minority governments. That will mean that any party or groups of parties would form coalitions with other parties. To do this smaller parties will need to be offered some incentives which means fraction parties will have more power than was voted to them.

Other countries that have STV do not have good things to say about it.

Posted by: nechakogal on May 6 2009 10:04 PM

Give Farley Mowat what he wants for his birthday.

http://stv.ca/farley

Posted by: nechakogal on May 6 2009 10:12 PM

What concerns me about the 1st past the post system is that a party receiving less than 40 percent of the vote can be elected a majority disenfranchising the other 60 percent of people who cast a ballot. Of course, this doesn't include those people wh have already given up and stopped going to the polls at all based on their belief that the system doesn't represent them anyway. You have to ask yourself why anyone would support this kind of system, certainly not anyone who believed that democracy should offer everyone a voice. The Single Transferable Vote offers the highest potential that a voter will have someone they voted for elected to government. Need I say more.

Posted by: Loki on May 7 2009 9:12 AM

what concerns me about the this std thing is the greater potential for corruption in the system.
At least with the current system, one vote is one vote. With stv, one vote is fractured and it becomes impossible track any errors.

Try this: every voter votes a 1 for their favorite party and it ends up a tie between the two historically major parties. Also every voter happens so select say the BC refederation party as a 2.
It is my understanding that with stv, it would be the refederation party that ends up in power with a Liberal/NDP opposition.

Am I understanding the principle?

Posted by: Wayne Smith on May 7 2009 10:40 AM

It is our current, single-party, phony-majority governments that foster arrogance and corruption, or haven't you noticed?

There is no accountability under the current system. Most of us live in safe ridings, and already know who will be elected in our riding on Tuesday, before the votes are even cast.

The current system is not competitive, and the outcome does not reflect the way we voted.

BC-STV will give voters the power to hold politicians and political parties accountable, by giving every voter a vote that actually makes a difference.

Vote for BC-STV on May 12!

Posted by: Wayne Smith on May 7 2009 10:47 AM

"BC-STV�s complicated voting system means your single vote will be �fractionalized� and distributed so that you may never know how it was counted."

This is just gibberish, intentionally designed to frighten and confuse you.

Under BC-STV, your vote counts for your first preference until that candidate is either elected or eliminated. Then the unused portion of your vote is transferred to your next preference. And so on. Every vote counts, and every vote counts fully, as nearly as mathematically possible.