[Dr Caleb]

STV. That's the way that the Alberta Tories party election works, and Steady Eddie got in because he was more people's second choice than any other candidate was everyone else's first choice. No one is realy happy, but everyone isn't too dissappointed.<br /> <br /> I think it is a great system.

[Rural]

In reviewing the submissions and themes from Consultation Meetings for Electorial reform in Ontario I note that STV seems to be a recurring preference and indeed was the recommended system for BC during their referendum.<br /> Even after reading much of the material regarding this system I do not fully understand how it would work in that, as I understand it, the electoral area would have to be 4 or 5 times as big as existing in order to have a “multi-member district”. I note that “once the <br /> number of seats per district drops below five, substantial reductions in proportionality occur”.<br /> <br /> It would seem that if my understanding of this system is correct that smaller, less populated districts would have to be grouped together with more urban areas in a geographically enormous area with the strong possibility that the wishes of those in the areas that are now considered rural ridings would be completely negated by the large number of urban voters. It would seem also possible that the representatives could all be physically located in said urban areas some great distance from some of those that they presume to represent.<br /> As an example in SW Ontario to combine just three ridings namely Bruce, Huron N, Simco would result in a riding covering an enormous area. Add Huron S and Wellington to get a five member riding and it can been seen that this is totally inpractacal.<br /> <br /> I am opposed to any system which substantially increases the size of a riding even though it may be then represented by multiple members as there is no guarantee that areas within that riding with large populations will not totally override the wishes of those with less.<br /> <br /> It is for the above reason that I support MMP (as clearly described at http://www.elections.org.nz/mmp.html and implemented in NZ.) as the best blend to increase proportionality whilst preserving local representation. <br /> <br /> I would be interested if someone can better explain how STV would actualy work in a practical way. Perhaps I have misundertood the system, the material I have read is far from definitive as to my above concerns regarding the total area represented. If we are talking about the electorial process within a political party, that is an entirely different matter!<br />

[Dr Caleb]

[QUOTE BY= Rural]<br /> I would be interested if someone can better explain how STV would actualy work in a practical way. Perhaps I have misundertood the system, the material I have read is far from definitive as to my above concerns regarding the total area represented. If we are talking about the electorial process within a political party, that is an entirely different matter!<br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Basically, you cast X number of votes, specifying your first, second (, third, fourth) choice of candidates from the eligible candidates.<br /> <br /> If no candidate gets a majority out of the #1 votes, then the #2 votes are tallied. If no one gets a majority our the the #2's then if there is a #3, those are tallied. If there is no majority at the end of the tallies, then all votes (1,2,3) are added up.<br /> <br /> Legislation would define what happens next, if from the total there is no majority winner, ie: the top 2 have a run off election, or both represent the riding.

[Rural]

Yes, I understand that part, but in order to have a slate of candidates to make it work for Federal or Provincial elections am I right in assuming that multiple ridings would have to be merged?

[rearguard]

[QUOTE BY= Rural]<br /> I am opposed to any system which substantially increases the size of a riding even though it may be then represented by multiple members as there is no guarantee that areas within that riding with large populations will not totally override the wishes of those with less.<br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> There are three things I disliked about the proposed STV system as it was present here in BC:<br /> <br /> 1) I disagree with Bigger ridings because it means less representation not more. Elected politicians will become disconnected from the people they are supposed to represent, and fewer people will know who their MP is. As it stands already, politicians are far too disconnected from the people.<br /> <br /> 2) I disagree with allowing multiple candidates from the same party to run in the same riding because it will give the corporate funded parties a huge advantage as they can saturate ridings with their bought and paid for politicians. Perhaps this item is more of a symptom of a serious problem which has to do with how politicians are being funded, so under a different funding scheme, this item can become a non issue.<br /> <br /> 3) The STV as was proposed was too complicated for most people to understand, therefore while people may be able to vote, they won't necessarily know what they are doing or understand and accept the final results.<br /> <br />

[Dr Caleb]

[QUOTE BY= Rural] Yes, I understand that part, but in order to have a slate of candidates to make it work for Federal or Provincial elections am I right in assuming that multiple ridings would have to be merged?[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> I think it would be prudent, that if the system were to allow the top 2 candidates to go to Ottawa/Provincial Legislature, then ethier the number of ridings would have to be halved, or the number of seats doubled. Just to maintain proportionality. If only 1 candidate is to go (runoff election) then they could stay the same number of ridings.

[whelan costen]

This is an interesting topic and I don't mean to stray, however I find it very difficult to take you seriously Dr C, when your little photo is causing me to laugh as it peaks at me through the corner of my eye. I have tried not to look at him, but there he is every time. I just had to comment <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/lol.gif' alt='Laughing Out Loud'>

[atlanticaparty]

Electors are smarter enough to understand STV. Simply rank your first, second, (third, fourth) preferences on a single ballot. That's it.<br /> <br /> There is no need for runoffs since ties cannot happen.<br /> <br /> Regarding constituency size. STV works best with at least two candidates per riding, three is better. Rather than merge ridings why not increase the size of the House accordingly?<br /> <br /> tap<br />

[Rural]

My brain just would not let this go last night so I will try and make clear(er) my thoughts and questions on this. It is important now, here in Ontario, because of the proposed referendum on this in October. We don’t know what the committee is going to come up with but I really hope the question is going to be clear and the proposed system clearly and thoroughly explained.<br /> One of the possibilities is STV but in researching it, it is clear that just saying STV is NOT sufficient to indicate how an ELECTORIAL STV would work. Much of the material I have read seems to indicate that MULTIPLE representatives would be elected (some say up to 5) from a large slate of candidates which may include multiple candidates from one or more partys. Reargards comments seem to reinforce this.<br /> You can see then where my concerns with this system comes from, I have no real problem with the actual voting METHOD (rating candidates in order of preference) although I would have great difficulty putting a mark against certain candidates and partys, one wonders if leaving some choices blank would constitute a spoiled vote. If STV was to be used simply as a means to vote a single candidate from the existing ridings that is one thing, but any system whereby multiple candidates are elected gives me nightmares.<br /> It is for this reason that I prefer MMP as recently adopted in NZ, simply put one has the choice of electing one candidate and one party separately. This is very attractive to me, how great to be able to elect the best local representative but separately elect the party to form government. The voting process is simple but some “adjustments” are made to fill out the governing partys numbers thus some ridings may land up with 2 representatives (unless the system calls them MPs at large!) and the numbers of MPs may increase depending upon how closely the party vote follows the popular vote. That bothers me a little, mostly regarding the costs involved and can we fit them in the house? <br /> MMP would seem to make the MP a little more independent of the party machine because he can truly say “I” was elected and is not there just because folk voted for his party. That I believe is a good thing. It also continues to ensure that you have a LOCAL representative and ensures to some extent that less populous areas are not overwhelmed by more urban areas when voting. It would probably result in more minority party and independent MPs being elected (a good thing IMO) and therefore more probably result in minority governments, this may bother some folk but I think that this is good once the old partys realize that they must cooperate more and be confrontational less.<br /> Sorry to go on about this but it is important, I would hope that if a few provinces manage to change to a more proportional system then the federal system may follow (its going to take a number of years) and it is the federal system that needs to be changed the worst. Finally can anyone point me towards what was presented to the BC electors, I would like to see what and how it was presented.<br /> <br /> Sorry Atlanticaparty it just aint that simple or that clear cut, as for increasing the numbers elected by 3 times or more you have got to be joking!<br />

[Dr Caleb]

[QUOTE BY= atlanticaparty]<br /> There is no need for runoffs since ties cannot happen.<br /> [/quote]<br /> <br /> So, what if no candidate achives a majority? (40%, 30% 30% for example) How would SVT be better than our current system?<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> Rather than merge ridings why not increase the size of the House accordingly?<br /> <br /> tap<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Why not chop the number ridings in half to save 50% of the wages and golden parachutes earned at the public trough?<br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= whelan costen] This is an interesting topic and I don't mean to stray, however I find it very difficult to take you seriously Dr C, when your little photo is causing me to laugh as it peaks at me through the corner of my eye.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> I'll change it tomorrow. You'll laugh harder. 'My geek' is also the same guy in the 'Labour' section icon <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'> Very photogenic!

[rearguard]

Rural wrote:<br /> "It is for the above reason that I support MMP (as clearly described at http://www.elections.org.nz/mmp.html and implemented in NZ.) as the best blend to increase proportionality whilst preserving local representation."<br /> <br /> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_member_proportional_representation#Voter_understanding">MMP may be difficult to understand and is open to abuse.</a> but so are all of the other PR systems I've seen proposed so far.<br /> <br /> Rural wrote:<br /> "I am opposed to any system which substantially increases the size of a riding even though it may be then represented by multiple members as there is no guarantee that areas within that riding with large populations will not totally override the wishes of those with less."<br /> <br /> I agree. Large areas cannot be represented by a few people, and some areas in a large riding will end up with more representation than others due to the way favoritism in politics works.<br /> <br /> atlanticaparty wrote:<br /> "Electors are smarter enough to understand STV."<br /> <br /> People may be smart enough to understand STV but that does not mean people will take the time to understand it. Like it or not, if your brain hurst enough during the process of trying to understand something that's perceived to be almost irrelevant (your tiny vote in a sea of votes is pretty darn close to irrelevant), then the understanding will stop cold and the TV set will be clicked on.<br /> <br /> atlanticaparty wrote:<br /> "Simply rank your first, second, (third, fourth) preferences on a single ballot. That's it."<br /> <br /> Yes that really was simple, but can you tell us how these votes get translated into elected MPs?<br /> <br /> Dr Caleb:<br /> "Why not chop the number ridings in half to save 50% of the wages and golden parachutes earned at the public trough?"<br /> <br /> My personal preference is that the ridings get chopped down to zero and we tar and feather all of those useless politicians that have been leaching off of the people for far too long. Without bought and paid for politicians to hide behind, the puppet masters will have to do their own dirty work exposed for everyone to see. <br />

[atlanticaparty]

This animation shows how STV works:<br /> http://citizensassembly.bc.ca/resources/flash/bc-stv-full.swf<br /> <br /> [QUOTE]So, what if no candidate achives a majority? (40%, 30% 30% for example) How would SVT be better than our current system?[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> To get elected you need to make it over the cutoff amount. <br /> STV does not waste votes, is fairer in representing the electorate's wishes and allows smaller parties and independents a chance. FPTP does none of this.

[Rural]

Thanks for that Atlantica, I was unable to view the flash presentation (slow dial up) but it did lead me to the BC Citizens Assembly site where I found this (in PDF). As I said before I have no problem with STV VOTING but the size of riding , number of representatives and how it is decided which and how many ridings are combined is a MAJOR problem for me. It says “An independent electoral boundaries commission would draw the new electoral districts after<br /> holding hearings in all parts of the province…..” so that means that BC folk were NOT informed of the ACTUAL new ridings BEFORE trying to decide if STV was for them. Without that information it is all just smoke and mirrors, there is NO possible way that I would vote for ANY revised voting system without knowing the WHOLE story! Please see my earlier post re the size of combined ridings, in this rural SW Ontario riding our MLA already represents an area where one can easily be over 1hr drive from his reasonably central office, if 3 were combined and all the candidates that were elected happened to be from one end of the area I simply cannot see how it could be described as any form of local representation. We simply CANNOT increase the size of RURAL ridings substantially and ensure good local representation.<br /> <br /> Ridings (from http://citizensassembly.bc.ca/resources ... tSheet.pdf)<br /> Under BC-STV, ridings are larger and each riding elects more than one MLA. This allows for<br /> proportional representation and gives independent candidates and those from smaller parties more<br /> chance of being elected.<br /> The Assembly’s BC-STV system would allow the size of ridings and the number of MLAs elected<br /> per riding to vary across the province to reflect local and regional conditions. In sparsely populated<br /> areas, districts could comprise as few as 2 or 3 MLAs and, in denser urban districts, as many as<br /> seven. For example, if five current ridings were combined, the new riding would elect five MLAs.<br /> In order to achieve proportionality, the Assembly favours larger ridings of 5-7 MLAs, where<br /> appropriate.<br /> Ridings with two MLAs, such as those anticipated in sparsely populated regions of northern BC,<br /> likely would be about the same size as current federal ridings which have only one MP.<br /> An independent electoral boundaries commission would draw the new electoral districts after<br /> holding hearings in all parts of the province and taking into account community interests.<br /> <br />

[Rural]

Maybe they did get to see the proposed new ridings. See http://www.bc-ebc.ca/ can anyone from BC confirm that that part of it was made clear?

[rearguard]

"so that means that BC folk were NOT informed of the ACTUAL new ridings BEFORE trying to decide if STV was for them"<br /> <br /> Good question rural, I can't recall for certain if the new ridings were shown before the voting took place. Now I wonder exactly what we were voting on. Hopefully someone can clear this mystery up.<br /> <br /> What I do remember, is becoming very concerned about the riding size and that fact that each party could present more than one candidate per riding, and it was clear to me that the corporate funded parties would have a field day saturating the new system with their bought and paid for politicians. From that point forward, the remaining details seemed unimportant to worry about.<br />