Comments on: In response to David Schreck on BC-STV http://www.murkyview.com/archives/2009/04/03/in-response-to-david-schreck-on-bc-stv/ Perspectives on Media, Climate, Energy, Politics... in Port Alberni, BC, Canada, the World Thu, 09 Jul 2009 06:51:03 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9 hourly 1 By: Murky View : In response to David Schreck on BC-STV « Fair Vote UBC http://www.murkyview.com/archives/2009/04/03/in-response-to-david-schreck-on-bc-stv/comment-page-1/#comment-113223 Murky View : In response to David Schreck on BC-STV « Fair Vote UBC Tue, 14 Apr 2009 21:29:18 +0000 http://www.murkyview.com/?p=1099#comment-113223 [...] View : In response to David Schreck on BC-STV April 14, 2009 — Mark Crowley Read this great rebuttle to David Schreck’s anti-BC-STV spiel.  Great post and discussion afterwards. Posted in BC, BC-STV, Canada, election, electoral [...] [...] View : In response to David Schreck on BC-STV April 14, 2009 — Mark Crowley Read this great rebuttle to David Schreck’s anti-BC-STV spiel.  Great post and discussion afterwards. Posted in BC, BC-STV, Canada, election, electoral [...]

]]> By: chrisale http://www.murkyview.com/archives/2009/04/03/in-response-to-david-schreck-on-bc-stv/comment-page-1/#comment-113177 chrisale Sun, 05 Apr 2009 04:02:46 +0000 http://www.murkyview.com/?p=1099#comment-113177 Thank you for that excellent comment Anna. I'm going to post your comment as a standalone post so that more people see it. Chris Thank you for that excellent comment Anna.

I’m going to post your comment as a standalone post so that more people see it.

Chris

]]> By: Anna Rankin http://www.murkyview.com/archives/2009/04/03/in-response-to-david-schreck-on-bc-stv/comment-page-1/#comment-113176 Anna Rankin Sun, 05 Apr 2009 03:55:10 +0000 http://www.murkyview.com/?p=1099#comment-113176 Re: David Shreck’s article: As a former member of the Citizen’s Assembly on Electoral Reform, I urge readers to do their own research on STV. Go to the referendum information office website for neutral information on our current system and the proposed system. The CA was comprised of ordinary citizens selected at random to review our current electoral system and compare it to alternatives used elsewhere in the world. The CA voted 146-7 to recommend changing our system to STV. Why? Because STV beats our current system on three key points: fairness, local representation and voter choice. It is not as simple to count, but it is not hard to count. Ireland has been doing it since 1922. Ease of counting was not one of the top criteria the CA deemed important in choosing an effective electoral system. We don’t pretend to believe that STV will fix all that ails us. But we are hopeful that the election outcomes under an STV system will produce a legislature that reflects how the electorate voted. That just seems fair. It will also provide very effective local representation. For example the Cariboo-Thompson riding would be an amalgamation of five ridings. So each voter would still have one vote, but would influence the election of five different MLAs. Your vote is like one dollar, a few cents spent on candidates you choose. After the election is over, you would have a choice of five different MLAs to take your concerns to. We manage fine with large ridings necessary in our federal system (with only one MP). Under STV, you would have similar size ridings but with a choice of MLAs competing with each other for your vote. It will be in their interest to address your concerns. Can you imagine going to the ballot box and actually having a choice of candidates from one party and/or selecting independents or a Green party member that might even have a chance of getting a seat? Under STV you can make much more nuanced choices. Maybe your loyalty isn’t completely with one party or the other. Instead of being forced into the black and white choices offered by our current system, you will be able to use your vote to make sophisticated choices. You can put your first and second preference down for the candidate from your favorite party, but you can also throw some support to minority parties or independent candidates. Or you can just put down a single preference. It’s up to you. Voters will elect 85 MLAs under either system and under both systems voters get one vote. So why does David Schreck infer that somehow under STV we will have less votes? Because he wants you to scare you into voting against STV. Please do not be fooled by the fear-mongering from ex-politicians. STV puts power squarely in the hands of voters. Anna Rankin, Quesnel Re: David Shreck’s article:
As a former member of the Citizen’s Assembly on Electoral Reform, I urge readers to do their own research on STV. Go to the referendum information office website for neutral information on our current system and the proposed system.
The CA was comprised of ordinary citizens selected at random to review our current electoral system and compare it to alternatives used elsewhere in the world. The CA voted 146-7 to recommend changing our system to STV. Why? Because STV beats our current system on three key points: fairness, local representation and voter choice. It is not as simple to count, but it is not hard to count. Ireland has been doing it since 1922. Ease of counting was not one of the top criteria the CA deemed important in choosing an effective electoral system.
We don’t pretend to believe that STV will fix all that ails us. But we are hopeful that the election outcomes under an STV system will produce a legislature that reflects how the electorate voted. That just seems fair.
It will also provide very effective local representation. For example the Cariboo-Thompson riding would be an amalgamation of five ridings. So each voter would still have one vote, but would influence the election of five different MLAs. Your vote is like one dollar, a few cents spent on candidates you choose. After the election is over, you would have a choice of five different MLAs to take your concerns to. We manage fine with large ridings necessary in our federal system (with only one MP). Under STV, you would have similar size ridings but with a choice of MLAs competing with each other for your vote. It will be in their interest to address your concerns.
Can you imagine going to the ballot box and actually having a choice of candidates from one party and/or selecting independents or a Green party member that might even have a chance of getting a seat? Under STV you can make much more nuanced choices. Maybe your loyalty isn’t completely with one party or the other. Instead of being forced into the black and white choices offered by our current system, you will be able to use your vote to make sophisticated choices. You can put your first and second preference down for the candidate from your favorite party, but you can also throw some support to minority parties or independent candidates. Or you can just put down a single preference. It’s up to you.
Voters will elect 85 MLAs under either system and under both systems voters get one vote. So why does David Schreck infer that somehow under STV we will have less votes? Because he wants you to scare you into voting against STV. Please do not be fooled by the fear-mongering from ex-politicians. STV puts power squarely in the hands of voters.
Anna Rankin, Quesnel

]]> By: Michael Nixon http://www.murkyview.com/archives/2009/04/03/in-response-to-david-schreck-on-bc-stv/comment-page-1/#comment-113165 Michael Nixon Sat, 04 Apr 2009 10:43:43 +0000 http://www.murkyview.com/?p=1099#comment-113165 Make sure you submit your response to the dead tree press; it's important to keep up the dialogue in that format, I think. Very interesting points. Make sure you submit your response to the dead tree press; it’s important to keep up the dialogue in that format, I think. Very interesting points.

]]> By: Skinny Dipper http://www.murkyview.com/archives/2009/04/03/in-response-to-david-schreck-on-bc-stv/comment-page-1/#comment-113161 Skinny Dipper Sat, 04 Apr 2009 09:36:07 +0000 http://www.murkyview.com/?p=1099#comment-113161 It's great that you are helping with the BC-STV campaign. We have people from all political stripes working on the campaign. We need to let the voters know that people like Schreck and Tieleman want to keep the antiquated FPTP voting system because they want full power for their own elite group. It’s great that you are helping with the BC-STV campaign. We have people from all political stripes working on the campaign. We need to let the voters know that people like Schreck and Tieleman want to keep the antiquated FPTP voting system because they want full power for their own elite group.

]]>