Bc Will Have Second Referendum On Stv

[Bizud]

http://www.gov.bc.ca/bvprd/bc/home.do?acti...NAV_ID_province

 

British Columbians will choose between a Single Transferable Vote system and the current first-past-the-post system in a second, more informed vote on electoral reform in November 2008, and whichever system prevails will be the one used in the next provincial election on May 12, 2009.

 

 

Edited September 14, 2005 by Bizud

[Cherry Poppin' Daddy]

Allow me, Matt.

 

THIS WON"T WORK!!!!

[ecnarf]

Couldn't they have just used STV the first time around to compensate for the second referendum?

[Matt]

Actually I am not opposed to this vote, I am opposed to the system, but not the vote because my main criticism of the vote was that many voters I talked to about it voted for the STV representation system un-informed of what it was about. However, The idea of voting between two proportional representational systems that Bizud suggested is ridiculous, it should be between our current representation system and one other new representation system idea.

[TheKwas]

Yeah, people like Matt should really be more informed about such things before voting on them.

[Matt]

Actually I was blatantly referring to how many people who voted for STV were un-informed. Yes, I am well aware you were being sarcastic, but sarcasm does not work when something is obviously stated.

[Bizud]

Voters ought to have a choice as to what system to go for. There was a lot of talk about democracy and how the citizens' assembly having so much authority was such a great thing, but that just isn't democracy. It might have given real power to average British Columbians, but it's not democratic.

 

I see no reason why we couldn't choose between multiple systems. That's what they did in New Zealand. Let us choose which model we want to switch to. I'll bet dollars to donuts that we end up switching to it within 20 years anyway (PEI will almost certainly do it later this year, with Quebec soon to follow and the federal government already having basically made up its mind to move in that direction).

Edited September 15, 2005 by Bizud

[C-Bacon]

Hopefully this results in some sort of eventual voting reform in Ontario. And of course, on the national level

[Matt]

But maybe people don't want to change and they ought to have that option.

[Bizud]

But maybe people don't want to change and they ought to have that option.

So give them that option too, obviously. Give us two referendums, one on whether we want to change to a proportional system or not, and then if that passes, give us the choice between STV or MMP. Or else give us the choice of all three options, but for crap's sake don't ignore the fact that pre-assembly report MMP was the clear preference.

[crazycanuck]

It would make a lot more sense to offer multiple choices. If only given the choice between first past the post and STV, and you support changing the system, but are against STV, how the hell do you vote? That being said, if the government is just going to keep introducing referendums until we agree to STV, why don't the just introduce legislation and get it over with?

[Matt]

It's common practice to have 60 percent of the bar a referendum vote has to pass to become practice though in B.C., so it would be a bit more difficult to reach that goal.

[Bizud]

I don't see how that's common practice. Name another referendum the 60% quota was used for.

[Matt]

It's been used in plenty of B.C. referendums, I even read in a book written by the first curator of the Vancouver Aquarium that when they wanted to expand a bit more there had to be a referendum where about 60 percent had to be approved because they were expanding in a park.

[Bizud]

That's not a province-wide referendum. Name one of those. We didn't need 60% for the province-wide referendum on the Charlottetown accord. 60% is an absurd standard.

[Matt]

60 percent is not an absurd standard, this is a life changing thing, so I think having some safe guards in place are good to ensure that more than a majority have to want to have it.

[Bizud]

I wouldn't say "life-changing," but I don't think choices should be biased towards the status quo.

[Matt]

This is life changing, the government does dictate some parts of your life, like health care, as well as other aspects, so I think it's a good idea to have more than a majority voting in favour of it.

[Bizud]

Odd then that you support a voting system that allowed, in 1996, 36% of the votes to carry 100% of the power.

[Matt]

That's fine because proportional representation will mean nothing will ever be accomplished so actually the current systems represents people's needs.

[ecnarf]

Okay, let me get this straight:

 

36% of people = 100% of decisions made = better than 36% of people not getting all the say

 

Anyways.

[Bizud]

That's fine because proportional representation will mean nothing will ever be accomplished so actually the current systems represents people's needs.

Matt, can you please prove that nothing gets done in Ireland, Germany, New Zealand, or Norway?

[Matt]

Nothing does get done, you haven't proved otherwise in the billion other pages of debate in this forum.

[Bizud]

Ah, but you made the assertion. You claimed that nothing gets done in countries that use PR, so you have to substantiate that claim. Go on, tell us how nothing ever gets done in, for example, Norway, which is repeatedly described as the best country in the world to live in by the UN and the Human Development Index and is ranked 9th in the world in terms of economic competitiveness. And has zero debt.

[ecnarf]

And is the world's third richest country.