i am. mainly because i object to replacing a flawed system with another flawed system. MMP is what i have always pushed for and will continue to do so. after STV got voted down the last time, we should have been given the choice this time to vote for MMP.
When there was no vote splitting and there was a coalition of Liberals, Greens and the Bloc the argument that kept on being passed around (that a coalition government should take control) was that if you add up all the popularity of the coalition by seats or popular vote then it is greater than the conservatives. While that addition is true the coalition was not part of what Canadians were voting for.
If Canadians were to have voted on Harper vs. Dion (and the non vote splitting coalition) Harper would have won by a landslide. At the peak of the coalition popularity Harper was at 67% which is more than Trudeau had. (Globe) I don't say this because I want to argue politics over Harper, Dion or Iggy. Just that the way things worked out, was the way how things should have worked out (Minority Conservative
( ... )
It's different from the plain as day system we have... I got 10 votes and you got 12. You win. Everyone can see that.
The States only has two parties, so they have no reason to change. I'm comfortable with our voting system, even if we are the only ones. It pushes us to a two (or three) party system. I think we need that, being so diverse a country, multicultural and all.
OK, well, whatever wikipedia says, here's how the STV being proposed in BC works:
1)You'll be presented with a ballot that has all candidates in your riding on it.
2) You are asked to mark your first, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th choice. (BTW, if this is too complicated for you, or you feel strongly about one party/candidate, you can only mark one choice)
Then it works basically like a leadership race for a political party.
Count all the "first choice" votes. If no candidate has 50%+1, then drop the person who finished last, start counting 2nd choices.
Wikipedia might have all kinds of stuff that looks very complicated and confusing, but it's actually pretty simple.
Oh, and, if this whole business of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, choices confuses you, you could always just mark one party/candidate as your first and only choice.
Comments 38
Reply
(Apparently there's a math theorem that says that this is unavoidable.)
Surely you don't prefer a system where a party with 37% of the vote gets 65% of the seats over STV?
Reply
Also, if we had STV (which would likely shift power away from party discipline) further electoral reform down the road would be a whole lot easier.
Reply
If Canadians were to have voted on Harper vs. Dion (and the non vote splitting coalition) Harper would have won by a landslide. At the peak of the coalition popularity Harper was at 67% which is more than Trudeau had. (Globe) I don't say this because I want to argue politics over Harper, Dion or Iggy. Just that the way things worked out, was the way how things should have worked out (Minority Conservative ( ... )
Reply
I don't think much of the argument that democracy has to be "efficient", which is what you seem to be arguing above.
But let me say this - do you know how many OECD countries DO NOT have some form of proportional representation?
Canada and the USA.
"Should we expect our citizens to add and divide numbers so they can vote?"
Um, how exactly do you think that STV works?
Reply
Aside: To be efficient we would randomly sample a thousand people and ask them to vote.
Here: check it out: Here is how you count:: Wiki
and more on the differing counting methods: Wiki
It's different from the plain as day system we have... I got 10 votes and you got 12. You win. Everyone can see that.
The States only has two parties, so they have no reason to change. I'm comfortable with our voting system, even if we are the only ones. It pushes us to a two (or three) party system. I think we need that, being so diverse a country, multicultural and all.
Reply
1)You'll be presented with a ballot that has all candidates in your riding on it.
2) You are asked to mark your first, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th choice.
(BTW, if this is too complicated for you, or you feel strongly about one party/candidate, you can only mark one choice)
Then it works basically like a leadership race for a political party.
Count all the "first choice" votes. If no candidate has 50%+1, then drop the person who finished last, start counting 2nd choices.
Wikipedia might have all kinds of stuff that looks very complicated and confusing, but it's actually pretty simple.
Oh, and, if this whole business of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, choices confuses you, you could always just mark one party/candidate as your first and only choice.
Reply
Leave a comment