Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
bill_barilko

Single Transferable Vote

Recommended Posts

Unfortuneately you don't understand the situation. A person from outside the riding came in banged the drums and in a very short period of time, got a solid following. If the net is wider, it could well give him the extra votes, as there are people who share that mindset, but their votes have never been able to be brought into a heavy concentration.

You have suggested, not me, that it is easier for independants to get elected, and whereas it is very unlikely for McHale to overthrow Dianne Finley, a PR system could give him a larger platform.

I don't want to see that person sitting in the HOC.

As for the Media, they created McHale. Gave him alot of publicity. And yes they knew exactly what he was about. Media didn't only start to notice him, they haven't found the "ingore" button yet.

He has been on Local Television, radios and newpapers and it was this publicity that led to his parachuting into the riding.

But, thanks for downplaying what could happen in a PR system.

Quite Frankly he could get elected in a FPTP system with a minority of the vote. But he would have to do alot more then beat the Green Party, or nip at the heels of the NDP. He would actually have to beat the machines of the LPC and CPC.

I don't know who McHale is - maybe he's only scary to you. Democracy is founded on the belief that people are capable of governing themselves. Representative democracy is based on the belief that people are capable of selecting competent representatives. Do you have such contempt for people that you don't believe they can do this?

Do you think the major parties are here to save us from the ravages of democracy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know who McHale is - maybe he's only scary to you. Democracy is founded on the belief that people are capable of governing themselves. Representative democracy is based on the belief that people are capable of selecting competent representatives. Do you have such contempt for people that you don't believe they can do this?

Do you think the major parties are here to save us from the ravages of democracy?

McHale is just a citizen who was appalled at what he saw as a one-sided approach to the problems in Caledonia. He perceived that McGuinty was merely appeasing the natives to keep down the threat of violence while effectively tossing the townsfolk to the 'wolves' as it were. He saw incidents where the OPP would turn a blind eye to native protester actions while coming down hard on non-natives.

Naturally, that brands him a racist to the native protesters and many others who support them. The fact that McHale won an incredible number of votes for an independent who showed up out of the blue clearly shows that there is a great deal of support for him within the townsfolk. Many would say that he is the ONLY one who has supported them!

This issue keeps getting confused by nitpicking native land claims while ignoring their protest tactics. Quite possibly, before the protest began the majority of townspeople had sympathy for the natives. Unfortunately, the natives choose tactics that affected the townspeople rather than the politicians, in effect using them as cannon fodder. Basically, they punched the townsfolk in the face and then said "Don't get mad at me! The government made us do it!"

Not a way to win friends and influence people.

I don't know McHale personally and so have no idea if he's a racist. Hard to tell, when the definition of a racist seems to be anyone who disagrees with the native protest tactics.

One thing is obvious. The number of votes he received shows that a very large number of townspeople agree with him!

If the natives had of chosen to direct their tactics directly against the OPP, Queens Park or driven their ATV's through McGuinty's back yard instead of those in Caledonia McHale would have remained a nobody.

Sorry to drift the thread, but it would indeed have been interesting to see what would have happened to his support under a different voting system.

Edited by Wild Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Naturally, that brands him a racist to the native protesters and many others who support them. The fact that McHale won an incredible number of votes for an independent who showed up out of the blue clearly shows that there is a great deal of support for him within the townsfolk. Many would say that he is the ONLY one who has supported them............

Sorry to drift the thread, but it would indeed have been interesting to see what would have happened to his support under a different voting system.

It's ok Wild Bill. You weren't really drifting, but actually filling in some missing pieces. And those points are valid.

It would be interesting to see what would happen under a different voting system. Would this be enough to entice you into a PR system over an FPTP system?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reefer,

Well, more knowledgeable voters would be a good thing.

I agree that Democracy requires people to get involved; it requires people to get involved, not for the system to kowtow to laziness and indifference.

A good system would encourage broad levels of involvement. Our system, combined with the autocratic nature of the parties, concentrates power in the hands of a few.

I don't understand how electing a legislature that better represents the people is kowtowing to laziness and indifference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
McHale is just a citizen who was appalled at what he saw as a one-sided approach to the problems in Caledonia. He perceived that McGuinty was merely appeasing the natives to keep down the threat of violence while effectively tossing the townsfolk to the 'wolves' as it were. He saw incidents where the OPP would turn a blind eye to native protester actions while coming down hard on non-natives.

Naturally, that brands him a racist to the native protesters and many others who support them. The fact that McHale won an incredible number of votes for an independent who showed up out of the blue clearly shows that there is a great deal of support for him within the townsfolk. Many would say that he is the ONLY one who has supported them!

This issue keeps getting confused by nitpicking native land claims while ignoring their protest tactics. Quite possibly, before the protest began the majority of townspeople had sympathy for the natives. Unfortunately, the natives choose tactics that affected the townspeople rather than the politicians, in effect using them as cannon fodder. Basically, they punched the townsfolk in the face and then said "Don't get mad at me! The government made us do it!"

Not a way to win friends and influence people.

I don't know McHale personally and so have no idea if he's a racist. Hard to tell, when the definition of a racist seems to be anyone who disagrees with the native protest tactics.

One thing is obvious. The number of votes he received shows that a very large number of townspeople agree with him!

If the natives had of chosen to direct their tactics directly against the OPP, Queens Park or driven their ATV's through McGuinty's back yard instead of those in Caledonia McHale would have remained a nobody.

Sorry to drift the thread, but it would indeed have been interesting to see what would have happened to his support under a different voting system.

On the contrary, this is a very helpful post. It seems like McHale is a lot less scary than a whole bunch that have been elected under FPTP already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It also assumes non-participation is a bad thing.

I prefer to look at it as a positive type of self-selection, whereby those who are interested in participating in democracy make the effort to do so. Bringing democracy to everyone might be a noble cause, but it would be better if people weren't so lazy, that they would bring themselves to democracy.

I wonder how mandatory voter registerstation coupled with a basic issues comphenesion test before you're actually allowed to vote would work? I can't think of anything that would provoke a person to educate themselves before going to vote than the prospect they might be turned downed in front of everybody. You'd still have the opportunity to weed out the truely stupid or cynical factor while doing something positive about the low turnout.

In the meantime Michael, you know I've been actively involved in democratic processes in my region for years am I someone that you consider to be lazy or indifferent? That said, I have no intention of voting for a party this provincial election although I will be voting for STV.

If the damn government could just do things honestly and transparently I could care less if it was a FPTP or even a monarchy. Just make the freaking thing honest. Or is integrity even stupider to ask for than democracy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A good system would encourage broad levels of involvement. Our system, combined with the autocratic nature of the parties, concentrates power in the hands of a few.

I don't understand how electing a legislature that better represents the people is kowtowing to laziness and indifference.

I actually think its the other way around. Voters will have to think a lot more about who they're going to vote for and why. I think most of the people who prefer the present system are afraid they'll have to rub more than two brain cells together for a change. Look at how much credibilty the status quo retains when people are reminded how scary all the complexity and confusion they'll be faced with in a ballot box will be under a PR system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder how mandatory voter registerstation coupled with a basic issues comphenesion test before you're actually allowed to vote would work? I can't think of anything that would provoke a person to educate themselves before going to vote than the prospect they might be turned downed in front of everybody. You'd still have the opportunity to weed out the truely stupid or cynical factor while doing something positive about the low turnout.

In the meantime Michael, you know I've been actively involved in democratic processes in my region for years am I someone that you consider to be lazy or indifferent? That said, I have no intention of voting for a party this provincial election although I will be voting for STV.

If the damn government could just do things honestly and transparently I could care less if it was a FPTP or even a monarchy. Just make the freaking thing honest. Or is integrity even stupider to ask for than democracy?

Not of their own accord. That's why democracy is supposed to have checks and balances built in, but ours have been destroyed and our democracy has been perverted.

Obviously we need to change the system to shake them up and remind them they work for us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not of their own accord. That's why democracy is supposed to have checks and balances built in, but ours have been destroyed and our democracy has been perverted.

Obviously we need to change the system to shake them up and remind them they work for us.

Yep, it sure must have been a lot simpler in the olden times when everyone believed there really was a god who's vengeful omniscient gaze would keep the high and mighty living in fear of eternal damnation. <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, everyone following this should be aware what sort of debater Madmax is.

He went over to the rabble.ca forum on STV and accused me of supporting the election of Max McHale.

Check out this stunning bit of blatant dishonesty:

Reefermadness position is that McHale should be allowed to get representation and STV makes this happen. I disagree with Reefermadness. To suggest that a seat up for the likes of McHale is for the betterment of democracy, I find the exercise deeply troubling.
Edited by ReeferMadness

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He went over to the rabble.ca forum on STV and accused me of supporting the election of Max McHale.
Sounds accurate to me.

You said this:

I don't know who McHale is - maybe he's only scary to you. Democracy is founded on the belief that people are capable of governing themselves. Representative democracy is based on the belief that people are capable of selecting competent representatives. Do you have such contempt for people that you don't believe they can do this?
And this:
On the contrary, this is a very helpful post. It seems like McHale is a lot less scary than a whole bunch that have been elected under FPTP already.
I don't see that there is any way to interpret your words to mean anything other than 1) you support the election of people like McHale 2) you see STV as a way to encourage this outcome. Edited by Riverwind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sounds accurate to me.

You said this:

And this:

I don't see that there is any way to interpret your words to mean anything other than 1) you support the election of people like McHale 2) you see STV as a way to encourage this outcome.

Riverwind, it really sounds like you're being deliberately obtuse but I'll give you the benefit of a doubt.

I already said a couple of times I don't know who McHale is so it's ridiculous for you or anyone else to suggest I support his election. I only said he sounded less scary than some other people who have been elected over the years based on the limited information provided here. I did cite a report saying that in Ireland, STV elects more independents but it didn't say the independents were "like McHale".

In summary:

Nothing I've said indicates the support of the election of McHale or any other individual candidate.

There is nothing to suggest that STV will increase the odds of McHale being elected.

I do, however, believe that voters are able to decide for themselves who should represent them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nothing I've said indicates the support of the election of McHale or any other individual candidate.

There is nothing to suggest that STV will increase the odds of McHale being elected.

You accussed Madmax of misrepresenting your words. I feel what Maxmax said is a reasonable interpretation of the words I quoted. You could go all lawyerly but the best way forward is to simply make it clear that you never intended to convey that meaning even if some people took it that way. Edited by Riverwind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You accussed Madmax of misrepresenting your words. I feel what Maxmax said is a reasonable interpretation of the words I quoted. You could go all lawyerly but the best way forward is to simply make it clear that you never intended to convey that meaning even if some people took it that way.

I'm not "going all lawyerly". Read what I said not what you'd like me to have said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And as long as we're on the topic of misinformation and fearmongering, the no campaign is doing a poll with questions that allow no way for respondents to express a favorable opinion of STV.

the poll - which reportedly asked respondents if they would be more or less likely to vote for STV if they knew:

* "only two small countries in the world used it"

* "you would be less likely to have women representatives"

* "MLAs would have less accountability

* "small towns would have less representative(s)"

* "the politicians would have less power overall"

* "there would actually be less proportional representative"

From The Public Eye

If you're fighting a referendum and have nothing good to say about your position, I suppose all you can do is a hatchet job on the opposing position.

The poll has been attacked as a "push poll". In fairness to the no campaign, it might be just a way of test-marketing some attack-messages. BTW, these points are all refutes by actual experience with STV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whatever we use ReeferMadness said it best A good system should ensure that all points of view with substantial support in the populace are represented in government.

Sorry, I have to disagree. I would prefer leadership and not representation of all points of view but I would prefer a mandate that is quite limited and therefore not as influential or intrusive in my life making all points of view, which are mostly irrelevent to me, remain irrelevant. Government, in my view, should not be about social engineering. Societies and cultures must be free to evolve and as long as criminality is minimalized (the correct mandate of government), it will and it will be stable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, I have to disagree. I would prefer leadership and not representation of all points of view but I would prefer a mandate that is quite limited and therefore not as influential or intrusive in my life making all points of view, which are mostly irrelevent to me, remain irrelevant. Government, in my view, should not be about social engineering. Societies and cultures must be free to evolve and as long as criminality is minimalized (the correct mandate of government), it will and it will be stable.

Interesting. Would you consider yourself a Libertarian, Pliny? Or perhaps an anarchist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, I have to disagree. I would prefer leadership and not representation of all points of view but I would prefer a mandate that is quite limited and therefore not as influential or intrusive in my life making all points of view, which are mostly irrelevent to me, remain irrelevant. Government, in my view, should not be about social engineering. Societies and cultures must be free to evolve and as long as criminality is minimalized (the correct mandate of government), it will and it will be stable.

Sounds good in theory. Are there any examples of such a society existing anywhere?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sounds good in theory. Are there any examples of such a society existing anywhere?

I think it's problematic, even in theory. Even if you accept that the only legitimate role of government is to minimize criminality (and we could have an entire discussion on that point), how do you define criminality without a broad consensus?

I'm pretty sure you'd get a different picture of criminality from a group of retired conservative Christians in Alberta than, say, a union local in BC. Democratic legitimacy demands consensus and consensus requires broad representation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it's problematic, even in theory. Even if you accept that the only legitimate role of government is to minimize criminality (and we could have an entire discussion on that point), how do you define criminality without a broad consensus?

I'm pretty sure you'd get a different picture of criminality from a group of retired conservative Christians in Alberta than, say, a union local in BC. Democratic legitimacy demands consensus and consensus requires broad representation.

I hear you. So much of what the government touches turns to shit however that its hard to have any faith even in the idea of government anymore. The same thing applies, it sounds good in theory but...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sounds good in theory. Are there any examples of such a society existing anywhere?

The US under old hickory - Andrew Jackson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting. Would you consider yourself a Libertarian, Pliny? Or perhaps an anarchist?

Libertarian leanings. Not an anarchist. A minarchist and anarcho-capitalist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, this subject is raising it's head again and will be on the ballot of the upcoming election.

It is still not desirable. I listened to the Professor of political science who heads the prime push for it (Dennis something or other)and he isn't convincing. The debate was on CKNW.

THe problem is still the same. If I want to start a political party called the Save the Woodland Creatures Party I can.

And I can possibly get elected with a transferable vote. Why the heck should a Save the Woodland Creatures Party be a political party? And how will they represent the interests of anyone else? While I agree we do need to consider all views, all views are not necessarily rationally thought out to the benefit of the province as a whole. We can have the Bicyclists of BC party and they will not consider any expenditure for highways for automobiles since they disapprove of the lifestyle. They do not consider that most of the food, staples and commodities arrive here on transport or that a certain standard of living above communal shelters is preferable to most people.

I what I am saying is that a special interest political party, will encourage political policy from the narrow viewpoint of their special interest.

As with all socialist agendas, this one is no different, they try and wiggle in at every opportunity even though they have been rejected before. They believe that it is just a matter of people's ignorance about their agenda that is the reason for their failure. It might be that, but if the people did know the full ramifications of it they wouldn't vote for it anyway. The way to get the agenda passed is to tell people just enough about it so it looks attractive and objections can be obfuscated, when in fact it is another nail in the coffin of freedom and liberty and we are already close to having the lid entirely nailed down.

Edited by Pliny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hope you voted in the MLW straw poll for BC STV .... No Side leading 3 to 2, still early.

This poll is worthless. Five people - what's your margin of statistical error - 97%? :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...