Secondly, the complex STV vote-count system simply could not be explained in less than 10 minutes. The proponents for STV argued you can easily rank your choices 1, 2, 3.
But the math involved showed you would have no idea what happened to your vote—because there are far more mathematical combinations possible than there are lottery pick possibilities! It became obvious to many voters that STV would increase, not decrease, the power of political parties.
The huge STV ridings would mean a need to reach far more voters in a ,person STV riding than in a single-member riding of about 50, people, making candidates even more dependent on political parties to get their names and message out. And claims that smaller third parties and independents could be more easily elected under STV were shot down by the cold hard facts of politics in Malta.
In that STV country, Maltese voters have failed to elect a single third-party candidate since the s and no independent since the s. For those who support true proportional representation like that under the mixed-member proportional system, the STV lock-in would have likely meant no chance of adopting a better system. In the end, the weight of negative arguments against STV became overwhelming for a strong majority of voters, and its 58 percent support in evaporated into just 39 percent on May He is a political commentator, columnist, and owner of West Star Communications.
His blog is at billtieleman. Most of us know that in "third world countries, like Canada", elections are opperated and governed by the American government. How else would 'democracy' prevail'! That's why Canadians don't get the political change they deserve. Be it here in B. Our elections are not in the 'Peoples best interests' but predetermined and calculated in the "best interests of America".
It also doesn't help the pro STV campaign that so many hard core right wingers favour it. When you have the likes of Gordon Campbell, ex BC Reformer Bruce Hallsor and Reform Party strategist Rick Anderson either advocating for STV or giving their blessing for it then that yucky sensation you feel is your skin crawling off looking for a place to escape being slimed by association.
And every single thing Tieleman said can be countered by a pro STV expert. I particularily enjoyed Dennis Pilon eating Shreck for lunch on this issue.
No it failed for the same reason, the NDP lost. The apathetic voter with the brain and concentration of a nat. You see them driving every day. Of course if Greenies had thrown their support behind it in it would be in now. Another example of how irresponsible and dangerous Greenie politicians are even to themselves.
As a result of Bill 39, the EBC turned the Cariboo-Thompson into a five seat district stretching from the border to Quesnel and turned the Kootenay's into a four seater. The early decision to remove 3 seats from rural areas, led to a public perception that STV would do the same. They were, and are, pro-MMP. Therefore, much of their energy was lost to the electoral reform movement because, unlike in New Zealand, the most important choices were not given to citizens at large.
Most electoral reformers who I know are adamantly in favour of some type of MMP. STV was seen as a last-minute electoral gamble that was foisted on British Columbians by a northern cabal in the Citizen's Assembly. Indeed, many criticisms of STV, such as how STV proportionality is actually measured compared to a list system, were never addressed.
I tried, but all I got were answers to different questions. And, frankly, many of the STV supporters came across as sunny-eyed fanatics who would not tolerate dissent. It's hard to debate with glass-one-third full types. Almost everything Bill says about STV is a half truth or is otherwise misleading. I don't have space to debunk all of it so let me just point out 2 blatant false statements:. Bill says "the further you were from Victoria, the more votes you needed to send an MLA there.
The ballots are then counted in a way that allows the candidates with the highest response to be elected. There has been much debate about how well the new system would work and what sort of results it would produce. Some critics of BC-STV say it is too complicated for people to understand how their ballot will be counted, and therefore it may make the voting process confusing.
Others say the BC-STV system is unproven in real-life situations, and other countries with similar systems have had trouble with the results. On the other hand, critics of the current "first past the post" system say it does not reflect the real wishes of voters. For example, candidates often win their seat with 40 per cent or fewer of the votes, simply because they have more votes than any of the other candidates.
That means situations arise in which 60 per cent of the people, the majority of voters, did not support the candidate who won the seat. British Columbia B.
Parties nominate two candidates. One seat would by awarded to the candidate with the most votes in the electoral district and the second seat would be allocated based on proportional province-wide votes. Mixed member proportional representation MMPR : This system combines single-member electoral districts elected under first past the post with proportional seats allocated on a regional or provincial level. Voters would cast two votes.
In the second vote, they choose from a regional list of names presented by each party. Rural-urban proportional representation: This combines the single transferable vote system in urban and semi-urban areas and mixed member proportional representation in urban areas. Single transferable vote, or STV, was turned down by B. Join our Newsletter. Home Local News Why B. Share on Facebook.
A total of 1. This has been shared 0 times 0. Email Sign Up.
0コメント