Log in

No account? Create an account
chuck the stuckist

May 12 2009, BC-STV Referendum Addendum Day ~ Proceed With Caution!

Become Informed Before Your Referendum ~ "The Time Has Come", the Walrus said.
Alternative Government – "You can place your trust and power in the hands of fools, or you can leave it in the hands of fools... Either way, you're a fool." – Luke 4:8_07
The Greatest For Change Seems to Be Proportional Regional Representation
Example of proportional representation, not including regional consideration in places STV is now in use.

Fair is Fair
Seats Vs Votes - Single Transferable Votes

The Single-Transferable Vote (STV) is an alternative to the First Past The Post electoral system currently in use in Canada and every province, as well as in the United Kingdom and United States. It is also sometimes called the Single Member Plurality system.
• First Past The Post is used by the most people - about 45%- in the world living in democracies, in about 67 countries.
• STV is used in just two countries nationally: Ireland and Malta, representing about one 10th of 1% of the world population. It is also used in the jurisdictions of Northern Ireland, as well as the Australian senate and in some Australian states, such as Tasmania.
• Other countries use a variety of electoral systems, with List Proportional Representation and the Two Round System being the next most popular after First Past The Post.

Are there any other options other than keeping FPTP or voting for STV? Can we adopt other electoral systems? ~ Comparing MMP & STV
The only choice on the referendum question is to either keep our current FPTP system or to adopt an STV electoral system. Considering other systems after the referendum will be up to voters and the government they elect. The only alternative considered, MMP was discounted by members of STV committee, stressed by deadline, closing discussion for comparison, unless by happenstance MMP was chosen, when it was decided, it would be further revisited.

Short version of what's wrong with STV? Why should I vote no?
STV is complicated, confusing, prone to errors and delay, it reduces local accountability, increases the size of ridings, allows MLAs to avoid direct accountability for their decisions, increases party control and allows special interests to dominate party nominations.

Will STV increase or reduce local representation and accountability?
There will be less local representation and accountability because STV will mean much larger constituencies and MLAs will be representing far more people over a wider geographic area. Under First Past The Post, smaller constituencies with only one MLA mean that elected representative must be available and accountable to the constituency, not just the part of it with more voters. In large rural constituencies that contain a major town, it's possible that all MLAs elected will come from that town because that's where the most voters are, reducing accountability for other parts of the constituency. In city constituencies like Vancouver, the majority of MLAs may come from one part of the city. In Vancouver municipal elections the west side of the city has elected the vast majority of city councilors because west side residents vote in higher numbers than east side residents.

A Day in Ireland's Dail - For those who think STV makes a difference

STV supporters say local representation is very good in Ireland under STV. What's the difference with BC?
BC and Ireland are quite different geographically, with BC many times larger. However Ireland's population is very close to BC's 4 million people and they have 166 representatives in their parliament, called the Dail, while in BC we will have just 85 MLAs in our Legislature. That means tiny Ireland has double the number of elected representatives as huge BC for roughly the same number of people. Inevitably with huge ridings and few MLAs parts of BC would likely lose local representation. In some areas it is possible that no local candidate would be elected as an MLA, removing local representation completely.

A Day in Ireland's Dail (for those who think STV makes a difference)

Does STV give proportional results? That is, if a party gets 10% of the popular vote in B.C. would it win 10% of the seats?
No. STV supporters say it is more proportional than FPTP but there is no guarantee that seats won will correspond with popular vote. Proportional representation electoral systems such as List PR are designed to ensure such proportionality, not STV. If a party got 10% of the vote under STV it would be unlikely to win a seat in any constituency in BC. Look again at the example of a constituency of 100,000 voters electing three members: the number of votes needed to win is 25,001, which means that a party would need at least 25% support to win one seat of the three.

Are MLAs elected with equal levels of support under STV?
No! Proponents say because STV it is more proportional "overall" if is a fairer system. But a candidate in a two-member riding in northern BC can get elected with 33.3% public support while a Capital Region candidate can get elected with just 12.5% of the votes cast. This means some MLAs have had to win far more support than others to be elected to the BC Legislature.

Does STV mean an end to so-called "wasted votes"?
If no vote were to be "wasted"; that would mean every voter's candidate of choice would have to win election -- it's not possible or sensible. Elections are to select which candidate in each constituency has the most support and then which parties across the province have enough support from elected members to form a government. STV supporters say that by ranking your choice of candidates, the odds are one of your choices will win a seat. But that's a little like saying if you bet on every horse in a horserace, one of your picks will be a winner. And because of the complicated transfer system, you will never know were your vote actually went in electing the MLAs for your constituency. Under First Past The Post, your vote goes to one candidate and is counted clearly. Regardless of your choice, that's not a wasted vote.

Backroom deals and politics?
No. It is a mistake to think an electoral system will change the nature of politics and politicians. Under STV, if no party has a majority there will have to be deals to form a minority government supported by several parties. What STV does mean is that potentially a party with just a few MLAs who may represent a very minority view will have the balance of power and can dictate policies in the backroom to the other parties who want to form a government. And understand that in STV there will be deals around nominating candidates in the multi-member constituencies that STV requires.

What are the referendum requirements for STV to pass?
To adopt an STV electoral system requires 60% of all valid votes in the May 12, 2009 election to vote in favour, plus the referendum requires that 60% of all 85 constituencies in BC to vote in favour of STV by a simple majority. That is, overall 60% of all BC voters must vote yes to STV and voters in at least 51 of BC's 85 constituencies must vote in favour of STV by 50% plus 1 vote.

* What happens if the STV referendum fails? Will that mean an end to any electoral system change?
Not necessarily. It is up to the new government to decide what to do if STV is rejected by the voters. Both the NDP and the Green Party have positions in favour of some form of proportional representation.

What is the Single-Transferable Vote (STV) proposed by the Citizens Assembly as BC's new electoral system?

STV ? No Thank You !!!
The 265-page STV technical report, was also deceitful, but elaborated more on the proposal. In an STV system, voters put a numerical ranking beside the names of candidates on the ballot. Voters can rank one or as many as they chose. Under the system proposed for B.C., there would be 20 ridings (there are currently 85) in which anywhere from two to seven MLAs have seats. The “DROOP quota” would be implemented, which is a formula for calculating the number of votes required by a candidate for election. The Weighted Inclusive Gregory Method (WIGM) would be used to distribute surplus votes from candidates who have more than the minimum number of votes needed to be elected.
Not down for the count - By Hannah Sutherland - Peace Arch News Published: February 12, 2009
STV ? No Thank You !!! Education Association

Have a Look at What the Yay-sayers Say ~ STV a Form of Change
But What Kind of Change and at What Price? Is STV a "pay-forward" form of politics? That would mean that people running for parliament would need to pay their own way. Q=Would a popular candidate such as Ron Paul, who represents change from the status quo, stand a chance to get elected under such a system?
Fact: With BC-STV, each candidate will still need moderate community support (roughly 20,000 votes within a district of 100,000) to be elected -- these voters deserve representation... An independent may need to campaign harder in a 5-seat riding than in a 1-seat riding -- but she would also have a chance of winning. Q=Is this a level playing field?

BC-STV improves competition by allowing voters to switch their vote to another candidate from their party or a smaller party. The presence of viable alternatives creates greater incentives for accountability. Q=How does one go about switching their vote?

If your first-choice candidate is not elected, your vote isn't lost, but can be ‘transferred’ to another candidate you like. Most voters get a representative they voted for. Q=So, how does that work?

Fact: Your vote can only be transferred to candidates you chose on your ballot. Elections officials publish results showing the order in which candidates got elected. Typically, most of your vote went to the elected candidate you placed highest on your ballot. If that person earned more votes than they needed to be elected, you'll be able to see how much of your vote was transferred to your next preference. Q=So, voters with access to the internet can see where their votes have been spent?
STV.ca ~ Frequently Asked Myths and Misconceptions

Consider the Case Against STV ~ What the Nay-sayers, Nay!
IF STV is as wonderful as STV proponents proclaim, then why does “no one” want it?
IF STV is as wonderful as STV proponents proclaim then, why can it not be just thrown out there in all its splendor for all to admire, rather than being promoted on the basis of deceptions, blatant untruths, omissions and concealments?
IF STV is even half as wonderful as STV proponents proclaim, then why do they not advance logical rebuttals to STV criticisms, instead of wholesale personal condemnation of the critics?
Repeal and Rejection of STV Treatise - No STV

More on the STV debate - Burnaby Now Published: Saturday, October 04, 2008

Does STV Promote Peace? ~ Take the Case of Ireland
STV has been in use in the Republic of Ireland in the south for over 80 years. Despite its use, one party, Fianna Fáil, has formed the government in all but 19 years since 1932. From 1932 to 1989 it formed a majority government after all but 5 elections. Since 1989 it has been the major party in 7 coalition governments, failing to form government only from 1994-97. It is currently government in coalition with the 6 Greens and 2 Progressive Democrats. While in Northern Ireland, government was under British rule and decisions were made with a bit more violence until self-government. May 8, 2007 - Self-government returned to Northern Ireland, as two once-implacable foes took the pledge of office, laughing merrily for the cameras side by side. The Rev Ian Paisley, the head of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), who once talked blithely of killing any IRA man who approached a Protestant home, swore to uphold the rule of law as first minister. Martin McGuinness, Sinn Fein's chief negotiator and once one of the IRA's finest, swore in as deputy first minister.

Canadians recently reacted strongly against the idea of a coalition government (under the present system) ~ On the Federal Level, Harper moves to avoid political showdown

"Prime Minister Stephen Harper makes a statement regarding the opposition's plan to form a coalition government, in front of the House of Commons on Friday" (Tom Hanson/Canadian Press)
"Canadians appear to want another election as a best option to the chaos" (Steve Jalsevac/LifesiteNews)
Harper moves to avoid political showdown
Polls Indicate Frightened Canadian Public Turning Against Coalition Takeover Bid

BC STV Eliminates Geographical Polarization ~ Dan Grice, Organizer for BC-STV Referendum Explains Balanced Regional Representation
If you look at B.C. coloured by political party, you will see huge chunks of the province are red and huge chunks of the province are orange. The red areas of the province are represented by a member of the government and the orange areas are represented by a member of the opposition.

2005 Election Result
BC STV Eliminates Geographical Polarization

How DROOP Makes Your Vote Worthless ~ Where More is Less?
Inequality is inherent in BC-STV. The Northeast (Peace River) would get two MLAs while the Capital Region would get seven; some voters would see their vote dead-ended, not electing anyone and not transferred, while others would see their vote help elect more than one MLA. What's fair about that?
Strategic Thoughts - STV Makes Your Vote Worth Less

In a nuts-hell, STV hasn't been proven to do many of the things its proponents claim -- like increase the ability of third parties and independents to get elected, and it is not truly proportional in guaranteeing that each party will get the number of seats in the Legislature equivalent to the percentage of votes they received. But, it is a vote for change, and possibly a move forward from stagnant over-bias government.

BC-STV more choice for voters ~ Pro-choice is No-choice!
For Those Who Think STV is a 500-channel Cable-vision TV Pizza Delivery

Global Polarization and the Greenhouse Meltdown 2006 – A Bipartisan Agreement
Alternative Government – "You can place your trust and power in the hands of fools, or you can leave it in the hands of fools... Either way, you're a fool." – Luke 4:8_07

Polarization – That political illusion of opposing duality, which occurs in democratic voting systems, but plays similarly between parties on public fears through bipartisan action.

In a two-party system (such as in the United States or Australia), bipartisan refers to any bill, act, resolution, or any other action of a political body in which both of the major political parties are in agreement. Often, compromises are called bipartisan if they reconcile the desires of both parties from an original version of legislation or other proposal. Failure to attain bipartisan support in such a system can easily lead to gridlock, often angering each other and their constituencies.

We are a Country of Sheep, asleep... – We are a country of counting sheep...

“Sleep 'til you're hungry, sleep 'til you're poor...” – Luke 4:9-07


EDS Election Data Services – How E-Voting Threatens Democracy

Can we trust man-made machines subject to human error to give us the answers?
In 2002, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act, or HAVA, which allocated $3.9 billion in matching federal funds to help states upgrade to new e-voting systems. Touted as the answer to the hanging chads in Florida that marred the 2000 presidential election, e-voting machines have been lauded by their makers as faster, more accurate and easier to use than punch-card and lever machines. But election glitches involving the systems paint a different picture, depicting machines that sometimes fail to boot up, fail to record votes or even record them for the wrong candidates. Computer scientists say the machines are also easy to hack.
"Once you've figured out the convoluted formulas for transfering of votes to Jeb Bush, then you must decide what your conscience dictates, ie. does this choice for masque democracy serve your immediate needs?" – Luke4:8-07
Brave New World

In Georgia, Perdue won with only 51 percent of the vote. Diebold Election Systems supplied the touch-screen voting machines that Georgia voters used statewide. A former Diebold employee, however, alleged that the company had installed uncertified patches on the machines before the election, thus marring the integrity of the election results. Diebold denies it installed uncertified patches in Georgia, but the company has admitted installing uncertified software on its machines in 17 California counties.
EDS Election Data Services – How E-Voting Threatens Democracy (6 page article on US corruption at the polls)

The Sheeple Have Spoken ~ "Tha-a-a-a-t's Baa-a-a-a-d Government!"
What do Bernie Mac and Bernie Madoff have in common?


go to Sheep... PART I - More Political Ports

Sheep Asleep – PART I - Bi-partisan Politics in Canada
Being Heard, Not Herd In Canada

Sheep Asleep – PART II - Media – It's an Inside Job
More Side Issues – Driven to Distractions

Sheep Asleep – PART III - The Voters Rule
The Voting System in Canada – "Voting on a pipedream only best applies to the oil industry." - Luke 4:8-07

*Note: Anyone having questions about STV can phone the Bureau for Monotheistic Government directly at 1 800 662-2800/ In BC Lowermainland, call 604 775-2800