never actually lived though what the NDP did... but seeing how they are spending even more money that the liberals and us tax payers having to pay up to fix the debt
im going to vote for liberals

Well deserved, Bingogate, fastcats, casinogate. All of that doesn't include policies like fair wage where on all Government projects contractors were forced to pay union wages which meant paying guys over $20 an hour to sweep up. It really wasn't that big of a deal to contractors except the paper work but the end result was the cost of building things like schools and hospitals was way higher then it needed to be and the only person that suffered was the tax payer.

I loathe the NDP, I'd vote green before voting NDP but I'd burn my vote before voting green. The Liberals are far from perfect but like said above the lesser of two evils.

STV. Single Transferrable Vote.

It's like this: Right now, whoever wins in each electoral division thingie wins period. So if across the entire province, every NDP person won with 50% + 1 vote, the NDP would completely control the legislature.

With STV, your districts are larger, and you pick a first, second, and third choice. If your first choice (NDP) will not be in the top three then your vote is transferred to your second choice (Liberal) and if they won't win, your third (Independant).

This is the difference between "first past the post" (50%+1 wins) vs "proportional representation" (percentage of votes = % of seats).

for once I agree with an RS thread on politics.

the NDP during a recession? that would be like throwing gasoline on a bonfire.

fuck the ndp.

4 in this thread's poll voted NDP


:D

Wow!

Having just moved here I'm not familiar with the BC NDP, just the Ontario NDP (aka Rae days).

This is a stunning example of why public companies should not do R&D. Fast ferries are a great idea, as long as they are equally quick to load and don't create more noise/wake... seems like the developers ignored this in typical public over-sight that a private company would've never condoned.

For one, NDP will literally give money to the homeless just because it is the humane thing to do. For that reason alone I'll not vote NDP, EVER

I've a true conservative and even I won't agree with this.

We pay taxes to pay for certain social programs, and likely those with money will be paying for services used by those without. It is humane to help out your fellow citizens.

What I don't agree with is how. The bleeding heart lefties made it impossible to keep the mentally ill institutionalized. I would prefer my tax dollars go towards providing the mentally ill (who make up a large portion of the homeless) proper care in a facility, even if it is against their choice, its for the best of society. Giving them money to roam the streets as prey for drug dealers and slumlords is not for the best of society, even if it is their free will.

For the rest of the lazy worthless homeless, they need some help to get back on their feet, yet if they are unwilling, then cut their support off, society doesn't need them.

FPTP doesn't require a majority, only a plurality.

FPTP - our current system - is very unfair. It delivers disproportionate results because winners only need to win the most number of votes. That doesn't necessarily mean a majority (greater than 50%).

In 2005, MLAs won with anywhere from 68% of riding to just 37% of the riding. How an MLA with just 37% support can represent a riding is beyond me.

At the provincial level, the combined riding results mean a party can win 40% of the popular support but gain 60% of the power in Victoria. In 2001, 58% of popular support became 97% power in Victoria. 42% of voters were represented by just 3% of MLAs.

STV is better. STV is a form of proportional representation. The % power in Victoria is much closer to % voter support in the province.

You will be allow to rank candidates - 1,2,3,etc. and you can rank and many or as few as you want. Within one party, across parties, it doesn't matter.

If your 1st choice gets more votes than they need, a portion of your vote can be transferred to your 2nd choice. If your 1st choice doesn't get elected, your whole vote can be transferred to your 2nd choice. So it goes until everyone is elected or your vote is used up.

Riding are made larger and multiple MLAs will be elected in each region. The number of MLAs doesn't change. Chances are you will have an MLA in your region that you voted for.

This system has been recommended by the Citizens Assembly. 160 regular people that spent a year learning about different voting systems and picked BC-STV as the way BC should elect our MLAs.

If you want fair election results and better representation, vote YES ON BC-STV MAY 12th

www.stv.ca

Former BC LIBERAL endorses BC STV:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhccpzI4lbQ

STV explained - with Gummy Bears:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=887sGavI9kY

STV will just confuse the shit out of people.

i get it ..but all the transfering at the end and shit i see the gov screwing that up totally..i know somewhere down the line they're just gonna be like ok we need everyone to re-vote because we thought there was a bigger surpus but there wasn't blah blah ppl cheating and shit..so just keep it the way it is

oh and ndp sux

Ditto. Screw the NDP.

This assumes a few things:

1. People will not vote along party lines, checking all candidates from one party and none from the others
2. People will be informed on what their local representative will actually do for them and vote for the best candidate, not the party policies.
3. Each candidate will campaign on issues for their district, and not hold the party line.
4. Candidates will honour their commitments to their district when deciding on issues, and not hold the party line as the parties encourage.
5. Parties will work together to accomplish goals. I doubt this, its a 2 party system with too much hatred. This system works much better in multi-party systems in Europe where parties have much more experience working together since a majority, or even a strong minority is rarely achieved.

I don't see any of these happening.

What the STV doesn't advertize is that 100/X % is needed to elect OR most of remaining votes.

Thus if there are 10 MLAs to be elected in a riding, each needs 10% of the vote to win. Lets say 50 candidates are running (one of each Liberal, NDP, Green, Conservative, Communist) so 5 candidates get the full 10% needed, then the remaining 5 are decided by transferring or throwing away votes for the lowest vote total candidates.

Its the "throw away" votes that matter in this case, lets say the Communist party gets the lowest votes, yet none of the Communist voters voted for other candidates of other parties. These votes get thrown away. Lets say the Conservative and Green parties did the same, so their votes are thrown away too. Now we have a handful of NDP and Liberal candidates that have < 10% of the vote, were obviously low on voters ranking, that got elected.

How does this end up being more "fair" than the current system? That's right, its just a mirror image of the current system if people vote along party lines.

So now we can have a system like the Vancouver city council, where all candidates could in theory be from the same district and regional representation is lost.

No thanks.

Without a doubt, if voters are INFORMED then this system is great.

The problem is it took 1 year to inform these random participants before they could make the STV work. Good luck informing the masses.

Well, NDP does say that they'll axe Gordie's Carbon Tax. We'll see about that.

This pretty much sums up my exact feelings, although I would add everytime I see Carole James I have an urge to find a 16 wheeler and run over her face with one.

Re-voting? You really think that would happen? Ballots are ballots. You do a recount, not a re-vote. Elections BC does the count, not the government.

It's actually a pretty simple method of counting and transferring votes. STV has been used for almost 100 years. We'd probably use computers to do it here in BC, but you can do it by hand as well. There would still be a paper ballot - none of those Florida style screw-ups.

I'd like to think people are smart enough to grasp STV. We would have 4 years to educate people. At most, people have to know that they could rank their candidates, 1-2-3. It's easy. Even a single X or check-mark is valid - if you want to vote for just one candidate.

www.trystv.ca

Its not about educating people on STV, its about educating them on each candidate so they can appropriately rank them.

Can you tell me about what each candidate in your district stands for? More than just the party lines, what each candidate brings to the table. If you're going to quote party lines, then voters will use STV to vote along party lines, leading to a lot of "throw away" votes, the exact problem STV is supposed to fix.

Go to www.trystv.ca and you will see that people definitely vote with a preference within a party and across party lines. We don't have co-operation right now because our system doesn't require it.

If a person only picks a single candidate with STV then they have decided it's OK for their vote to be wasted if their candidate isn't elected. It was their choice.

Right now, if 40% pick PARTY A, 30% B, 30% C - 70% (minus 1) of the votes are wasted.

In theory they could be, but there would be too much vote splitting. They'd have to branch out. If all the candidates from one party run in one area, they'd lose seats. It's to their advance to spread out to be more competitive.

We'll have 4 years.

Right now all a candidate has to do to get elected is tow the party line.

In my district I've got a diverse slate of candidates. A long-time Liberal, a former local-mayor NDP, a well-educated Green, and then all the no name new-comers.

Under STV, candidates can't just follow party lines anymore. They have to connect with voters to be picked over other fellow-party members.

So even if people stick to party lines, we at least get the best people from the party, and not someone you've never heard of - but you vote for them because they are your only choice in your riding.

I don't see how that shows it.

Here's an example, lets assue everyone votes along party lines:

My my area, Vancouver West, the Green candidate Kettlewell had 5.5% of the vote after the first round. Here are the other Green candidates:

Violini 3.4%
Shaw 2.2%
Read 2.0%
Kronstien 1.9%
Toriel 1.4%
==
9.9%

Add that to Kettlewell's 5.5% and its > 14.3% so he's elected and the system works for proportional representation.

YET Kettlewell had the 7th highest vote total after the first round, so more people thought one of the other candidates, MGinn, would have done a better job. Yet McGinn loses cause most of the NDP votes are transferred to Hansen and Lehan to get them elected.

So what we end up is a very complex system that only solves one thing: proportional representation.

---

I want to see a breakdown of which parties each voter votes for.
Did voters vote along party lines?

STV will not release this info, cause they know its true. [/QUOTE]

Not exactly, and voters don't have to connect with them.

If I'm more interested in towing the party line as a voter, I'll just check all the Liberal candidates. This guarantees my vote will use used to get a Liberal candidate towing the line into a seat.

Now that would be dumb as an educated voter, yet most voters are sheep, so I can really see this happening.

Oh I agree. Most people will just go 1-2-3-4 for Liberal/NDP/Green. But there's preferences within those choices and with the quota system, a single candidate can't eat up 60% of the vote when they only needed 25% to get elected.

The result would be that the best candidates from each party are elected, 80-90% of us are represented in our riding, and the power in Victoria much more accurately represents voter support.

Sounds good to me.