Look, if it wasn't weird and complicated, it wouldn't be BC politics. We're the people who elected a dude named Amor De Cosmos as Premier. :P
Not to mention continually voting in a party that liked to bend the province over a table and make it their bitch. You guys really have a masochistic streak in your selection of political leaders and policy. Not that I have any room to talk, considering where I live now. However I lived through the NDP heyday in B.C. and it's the reason I was so apprehensive about voting for them the first time I did federally. The federal NDP seemed less batshit insane then their B.C. couterparts, but in this recent election their more left-leaning streak is starting to show.
Really we're in a four horse race where one horse is ugly, one is gimped, one is blind, and one is just running in circles. Place your bets.
You know, I really hate the fact this election is going to cost us hundreds of millions of dollars and is likely to change precisely jack and shit in the power balance in parliament.
Also, Conservative MP's statements about fixed election dates, back when they were told to say they were a good thing. So, who's full of shit now?
This is generally the result when you have 4 mediocre party leaders combined with years of a major corruption scandal whittling down people's faith in our MPs as well as booming economic ties. So long as the latter continues and the government of the day doesn't fuck things up, the general population couldn't be bothered to be interested in Canadian politics.
Exactly, so whats the point ? I mean, the odds of the Conservatives getting a majority don't look good, so I don't see why they have a hard on for an election.
They're hoping the in-and-out scandal will blow over between now and the first day of the next Parliament, whenever the fuck that is.
I should pipe in that I, like several other people have said, am hoping for a minority government. Liberal or Conservative, I guess I'd perfer Liberal but honestly I doubt I would notice any difference between them.
I think the system should be set up in a way that makes minority governments the norm. Several nations, such as Germany and Israel, have systems like this. Basically they have a bunch of small parties. None of them alone can win the election. So when people cast their votes, it forces the parties to bargain and collaborate with each other, even though they may have (radically) different policies. It generally prevents a single group from taking power and doing bad things with it, since they're always accountable. And it keeps politics generally more civilized and less polarized. Parties aren't going to get very ugly in condemning each other if there is a chance they'll have to work together in the future.
This is the system I want Canada to go to as well, first past the post voting systems don't work for countries with several strong federal parties, all to often the winning party/candidate does not get the popular vote. I would love to see us move toward a proportional representational system that is used in places like Sweden. However, if that referendum in Ontario is any indication Canadians do not want to move that way.
I think you're misunderstanding the result of that referendum. From the people I talked to on the "no" side, they weren't opposing it out of satisfaction with the current system, but rather because of what they perceived as several blatant, major flaws in the proposed system. In short, they wanted change, but the one that was proposed was too bad to change for.
It was bad in that someone who didn't take math past the ninth grade might have trouble understanding how it works, but that's pretty much it -- it was vastly superior to the FPTP system in many ways and would have resulted in a legislature that far more closely reflects the breakdown in the political leanings of British Columbians. One projection even had the Marijuana Party occupying a seat.
But seriously, it took me about 5 minutes of independent work to predict how a vote in my riding for 1)NDP 2)Green 3)Marijuana might work out under an STV system.
I had no idea that Canada had a President, I just thought they had a guy who did whatever America told him.
No, you're thinking of the UK.
BC-STV isn't that weird. I don't quite understand it but apparently they do it that way in Australia.
I think it's like... you vote for dudes, numbering your preference. If one guy gets in, the votes get recounted to see who the next guy is who gets in, until all spaces are filled. Instead of one dude being elected per district, you have multiple dudes being elected in a larger district (with the same ratio of representatives per people).
I should pipe in that I, like several other people have said, am hoping for a minority government. Liberal or Conservative, I guess I'd perfer Liberal but honestly I doubt I would notice any difference between them.
I think the system should be set up in a way that makes minority governments the norm. Several nations, such as Germany and Israel, have systems like this. Basically they have a bunch of small parties. None of them alone can win the election. So when people cast their votes, it forces the parties to bargain and collaborate with each other, even though they may have (radically) different policies. It generally prevents a single group from taking power and doing bad things with it, since they're always accountable. And it keeps politics generally more civilized and less polarized. Parties aren't going to get very ugly in condemning each other if there is a chance they'll have to work together in the future.
This is the system I want Canada to go to as well, first past the post voting systems don't work for countries with several strong federal parties, all to often the winning party/candidate does not get the popular vote. I would love to see us move toward a proportional representational system that is used in places like Sweden. However, if that referendum in Ontario is any indication Canadians do not want to move that way.
I think you're misunderstanding the result of that referendum. From the people I talked to on the "no" side, they weren't opposing it out of satisfaction with the current system, but rather because of what they perceived as several blatant, major flaws in the proposed system. In short, they wanted change, but the one that was proposed was too bad to change for.
It was bad in that someone who didn't take math past the ninth grade might have trouble understanding how it works, but that's pretty much it -- it was vastly superior to the FPTP system in many ways and would have resulted in a legislature that far more closely reflects the breakdown in the political leanings of British Columbians. One projection even had the Marijuana Party occupying a seat.
But seriously, it took me about 5 minutes of independent work to predict how a vote in my riding for 1)NDP 2)Green 3)Marijuana might work out under an STV system.
That STV voting system is/was retarded. Splitting up the winners votes amont the losers WTF? I know if I voted for a specific candidate to win, and they did, I sure as fuck wouldnt want one of the other assholes to be getting a seat off of my vote.
The only other system I like besides the First Past the Post is the Runoff voting, where you pick first, second and third choices. Whoever comes in last, all their votes then switch to their second preference. Repeat 3 times.
I had no idea that Canada had a President, I just thought they had a guy who did whatever America told him.
No, you're thinking of the UK.
BC-STV isn't that weird. I don't quite understand it but apparently they do it that way in Australia.
I think it's like... you vote for dudes, numbering your preference. If one guy gets in, the votes get recounted to see who the next guy is who gets in, until all spaces are filled. Instead of one dude being elected per district, you have multiple dudes being elected in a larger district (with the same ratio of representatives per people).
That makes a bit more sense, I suppose they should have included party affiliation in their little video, since they never really explained how it was that the vote runoff was working.
Hmmm... the Conservatives have announced $60 million in new funding in the last couple of days. You smell that? Thar be an election on the horizon! Colour me shocked... :rolleyes:
BC-STV isn't that weird. I don't quite understand it but apparently they do it that way in Australia.
I think it's like... you vote for dudes, numbering your preference. If one guy gets in, the votes get recounted to see who the next guy is who gets in, until all spaces are filled. Instead of one dude being elected per district, you have multiple dudes being elected in a larger district (with the same ratio of representatives per people).
It's similar to the process used in some Australian elections, particularly the Tasmanian Legislative Assembly election.
Basically, all you need to know is that you get to number the candidates according to your preference. There are multiple seats per district, and each candidate has to reach a quota based on that to be elected. So, if there are four seats in your district, then each candidate requires 25% of the vote to be elected.
Your vote really only counts once, but you get to assign a preference to as many candidates as you want.
This has two advantages:
1. Since there are now multiple candidates per district, your vote still counts if your preferred candidate reaches their quota. So, you can safely vote for a popular candidate without worrying that your vote will be wasted. If they reach their quota, then the second preferences will be taken into account (using the "Gregory method").
2. You can vote for a less-popular party without wasting your vote. Let's say that a candidate is standing for the small "Improve Public Transport" party, and you want to vote for him. With a winner-takes-all voting system, this would be a total waste of time... he doesn't stand a chance. However, with a STV system, you can vote for him as number one, then put your other choices after that. If enough people do the same, then he might actually be elected, but in any case, you can send a signal via your vote for him (the first-preferences are usually reported along with the results).
Basically, it is a way of ensuring that a vote is never needlessly wasted. No matter who you vote for, your vote will make a difference (providing you number enough boxes). Minor party candidates are no longer a waste of time, and with five seats per district, they actually have a chance of reaching the quota.
I should pipe in that I, like several other people have said, am hoping for a minority government. Liberal or Conservative, I guess I'd perfer Liberal but honestly I doubt I would notice any difference between them.
I think the system should be set up in a way that makes minority governments the norm. Several nations, such as Germany and Israel, have systems like this. Basically they have a bunch of small parties. None of them alone can win the election. So when people cast their votes, it forces the parties to bargain and collaborate with each other, even though they may have (radically) different policies. It generally prevents a single group from taking power and doing bad things with it, since they're always accountable. And it keeps politics generally more civilized and less polarized. Parties aren't going to get very ugly in condemning each other if there is a chance they'll have to work together in the future.
This is the system I want Canada to go to as well, first past the post voting systems don't work for countries with several strong federal parties, all to often the winning party/candidate does not get the popular vote. I would love to see us move toward a proportional representational system that is used in places like Sweden. However, if that referendum in Ontario is any indication Canadians do not want to move that way.
The problem with this system is that it gives smaller parties outsize representation in the national government, so that the Quebec secessionists, greens, and the NDP gain more power, along with whatever fringe groups get organized under this system once people realize that they can get their voices heard with fewer votes than before.
Huh, that's exactly what I like about that system. The big parties are just monolithic forces with the sole purpose of insuring their own survival. If you had a slew of smaller parties mixed in, you'd get the monoliths still playing the major role, but you'd really get a good idea of what Canadians actually want from the smaller grassroots parties. Sure you'd get the nut job parties in there as well, but hey, this is supposedly a democracy we're talking about here. More people having a voice is definitely a good thing.
No, you get fringe weirdos dictating major policy because they use it as a bargaining chip against getting useful stuff passed.
shryke on
0
Options
SerpentSometimes Vancouver, BC, sometimes Brisbane, QLDRegistered Userregular
Ha, I can even provide animated explanations: Click
That's really, really fucked up.
It makes a ton of math/logical sense.
I voted against it. I only saw two flaws but they were pretty big:
1. Another persons vote could be worth more than yours if you don't pick a 2nd/3rd/4th choice; and
2. Voting systems are not supposed to be complicated.
Ha, I can even provide animated explanations: Click
That's really, really fucked up.
It makes a ton of math/logical sense.
I voted against it. I only saw two flaws but they were pretty big:
1. Another persons vote could be worth more than yours if you don't pick a 2nd/3rd/4th choice; and
2. Voting systems are not supposed to be complicated.
Well, STV isn't complicated at all. You just number your preferences.
That STV voting system is/was retarded. Splitting up the winners votes amont the losers WTF? I know if I voted for a specific candidate to win, and they did, I sure as fuck wouldnt want one of the other assholes to be getting a seat off of my vote.
That's not how it works.
Azio on
0
Options
physi_marcPositron TrackerIn a nutshellRegistered Userregular
See, this I don't get either. Dion is good for the conservatives. I guess the short term destabilization of the Liberals would be good for the Cons, but its probably better just to leave Dion in place instead of risking the Liberals finding someone the nation might actually care about to lead them.
I'm guessing the Conservatives are only looking at the short term benefits of a Liberal leadership race, i.e. a couple of months of the Liberals being completely useless as the official opposition (that is, assuming the conservatives get another minority). After all, no political party ever thinks further than the current elections and mandate... well, at least, it doesn't show if they do.
physi_marc on
Switch Friend Code: 3102-5341-0358
Nintendo Network ID: PhysiMarc
1. Another persons vote could be worth more than yours if you don't pick a 2nd/3rd/4th choice
Well, use preferences then. If you don't want to, then that's your choice. In a winner-takes-all system, your vote is worthless if you don't vote for one of the "major" candidates. That's a bigger problem.
2. Voting systems are not supposed to be complicated.
The counting is a bit more complicated, but the actual process of voting is pretty simple. Just number the candidates according to your order of preference. We've been using STV here in Australia since 1907 and haven't had any major issues with voter confusion.
Marlor on
Mario Kart Wii: 1332-8060-5236 (Aaron)
0
Options
SerpentSometimes Vancouver, BC, sometimes Brisbane, QLDRegistered Userregular
1. Another persons vote could be worth more than yours if you don't pick a 2nd/3rd/4th choice
Well, use preferences then. If you don't want to, then that's your choice. In a winner-takes-all system, your vote is worthless if you don't vote for one of the "major" candidates. That's a bigger problem.
2. Voting systems are not supposed to be complicated.
The counting is a bit more complicated, but the actual process of voting is pretty simple. Just number the candidates according to your order of preference. We've been using STV here in Australia since 1907 and haven't had any major issues with voter confusion.
I think you're missing the point that not everyone would understand the system, and understand the consequences of not voting for all your preferences.
I think you're missing the point that not everyone would understand the system, and understand the consequences of not voting for all your preferences.
How so? We understand it fine here in Australia (although preferences are mandatory in most elections here).
People aren't as stupid as we often like to think.
I just think the BSSTV system is silly. Also, it wouldn't work on a national level (tripling the size of the House of Commons doesn't strike me as a good idea). Keep one candidate by riding, and use the normal STV: redistribute the votes of the lowest candidate to the others (with 1 vote = 1 vote, no weighting) until one candidate has 50%.
No, seriously, if there's even the slightest chance for a Liberal MP to emerge in Alberta, it'll be in Edmonton. I just don't want to see this place vote blanket Conservative again.
I just think the BSSTV system is silly. Also, it wouldn't work on a national level (tripling the size of the House of Commons doesn't strike me as a good idea). Keep one candidate by riding, and use the normal STV: redistribute the votes of the lowest candidate to the others (with 1 vote = 1 vote, no weighting) until one candidate has 50%.
Any form of STV is better than winner-takes-all. The reasoning behind merging districts seems to be related to the present difficulty in assigning boundaries in an equitable and sensible manner in BC... so I guess that's the reason they chose the system.
We actually use a mix of simple single-member STV and multi-member STV here in Australia.
The upper houses of parliament (at both the state and federal level) are generally elected via a system similar to BC-STV. In Victoria, there are eight districts for the state. In NSW, the whole state is treated as a single district (a proportional representation system). At a federal level, each state is a district.
In the lower houses of parliament here, a plain STV system is generally used with one member elected for each district.
Both systems work well enough, but I think the multi-member/proportional-representation approach works better for a house of review (e.g. the Senate), rather than a lower house... but there are specific reasons why BC chose to use a multi-member system, so it makes sense there (as long as the merged districts don't end up too big).
No, seriously, if there's even the slightest chance for a Liberal MP to emerge in Alberta, it'll be in Edmonton. I just don't want to see this place vote blanket Conservative again.
I'd agree with you there, but I doubt we'll have another Landslide Annie. It'll have to be a decently strong win either way.
The Green party said Wednesday it's ready to go to court if a consortium of television networks doesn't include party leader Elizabeth May in leaders' debates which will air nationally in advance of the expected October federal election.
The party is giving the consortium "the chance to do the right thing" by including the Greens in the debate, former party leader Jim Harris said at a news conference Wednesday.
"For the sake of democracy, she has to be included," he said. "Electors have a right to know where the Green party stands."
If their demand is rejected, the Greens will lodge a complaint with Canada's broadcasting regulator, the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, he said. If that fails, the Greens will ask for a judicial review as a last resort.
Harris's remarks come as the federal Conservatives are seeking to block May from the debates, citing a deal struck by May and Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion where they agreed not to run candidates against each other in their respective ridings.
"You can't have one leader onstage that has already endorsed the candidacy of another and signed an electoral co-operation agreement," Harper spokesman Dimitri Soudas said.
"When it comes to the debate, they can have May or they can have Dion," he said. "But they can't have both."
It has been a normal practice in the past for political parties to occasionally not run candidates against rival parties' leaders.
Greens must meet criteria
Traditionally, the consortium of Canada's largest English and French television networks — CBC/Radio-Canada, CTV, Global Television and TVA — has decided which party leaders would participate in the debates.
In the December 2005 debates that preceded the 2006 election, Harris — then leader of the Green party — was excluded because his party had no seats in the House of Commons.
Representation in the House of Commons is an "indisputable" criterion for inclusion in the national debate, said the CBC ombudsman in a 2006 report responding to Green party complaints.
The decision to include a party in the debates also must take into account the party's performance at the polls and its ability to field candidates across all 308 Canadian ridings, said the report.
May told the CBC's Don Newman in an interview Tuesday that her party has a "legal right" to be included in the debate after former Independent MP Blair Wilson joined the party last week.
When questioned about the legitimacy of Wilson's seat as a Green, given he was elected as a Liberal, May countered that the Bloc Québécois was included in the national debates prior to 1993 federal election, despite none of the candidates being elected as Bloc members.
Then party leader Lucien Bouchard and other Quebec Tory members deserted the Conservatives to form the Bloc. Current Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe was also voted into the Commons as an independent, May said.
"Let's be clear that I still see there to be no objection to our inclusion of debates under any of the criteria the consortium previously outlined," May said.
"We know that 77 per cent of Canadians in two different polls support my participation in the debates."
The Greens garnered 4.5 per cent of the vote in the 2006 federal election while a national poll released Monday by The Globe and Mail-CTV News shows the Greens polling at nine per cent.
The Bloc Québécois, which is represented in the debates, polled at eight per cent.
May said she is in talks with the consortium over her inclusion in the debates, but could not comment further.
I agree that the Greens should be in the debates with the combination of an adequate vote percentage and having a seat in parliament. I just wish it had been another party.
Wasn't that the Ontario Green Party calling for a ban on hand guns? Hand guns obviously don't include all firearms, plus it was a provincial arm of the party.
For fuck sakes. I just typed a 6 paragraph post and my browser decided to spontaniously refresh, killing it.
point form:
-Dion needs to go if the liberals ever want a significant vote east of ontario(need a leader who actually speaks fluent english)
-The green shift policy is a joke
-I am not a liberal supporter, but I recognize that the country needs a strong liberal party for a strong country, that is why dion has to go.
-I like Jack Layton most of the time, but the NDP do not operate on a realistic platform.
-the NDP will remain a party with enough seats to be relavent, but will never challange the liberals or conservatives.
-The Green party should be allowed into the debates, but the party remains irrelavent.
the Bloc will have enough seats to be relavent, but again are a useless party. The only thing they do is split the vote between themselves and the liberals, which is actually an advantage for harper. That's why he's cooperated with the bloc on occasion.
-Harper will get another minority, the liberals will get another year of un-stability in which harper will end up with a pseudo majority because the liberals won't vote them down during that time. We'll end up with a spring 2011 election and maybe then we'll get a majority.
Wasn't that the Ontario Green Party calling for a ban on hand guns? Hand guns obviously don't include all firearms, plus it was a provincial arm of the party.
Last time I checked the platform of the green party involved a total ban of firearms. Made me stop voting for them quickly.
Personally, I'm not even sure if I will bother to vote. Just like in the last provincial election there are no candidates I support... Oh well, we will see. I may vote conservative because they have done a fairly decent job with the country so far.
Wasn't that the Ontario Green Party calling for a ban on hand guns? Hand guns obviously don't include all firearms, plus it was a provincial arm of the party.
Last time I checked the platform of the green party involved a total ban of firearms. Made me stop voting for them quickly.
Go to section 9C of Part 4 of their official policy.
Green Solutions
Green Party MPs will:
Eliminate use of handguns, automatic and semi-automatic weapons for personal use by means of careful review and consultation, enhancement of gun registry and development of other programs to control gun use and ownership.
Consult especially with holders of collections to ensure guns are rendered non-functional to eliminate usefulness to thieves.
Streamline the gun registry in consultation with hunter organizations, First Nations and sportsmen. Ensure the registration system is fair for all users.
Support the elimination of registration fees for firearms designed specifically for hunting.
Strengthen measures to combat gun smuggling and the possession of banned weapons.
Ban handguns and combat weapons including semi-automatic rifles and assault rifles.
There is no discussion of a total ban of firearms.
I Am Not A Bear on
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
Wasn't that the Ontario Green Party calling for a ban on hand guns? Hand guns obviously don't include all firearms, plus it was a provincial arm of the party.
Last time I checked the platform of the green party involved a total ban of firearms. Made me stop voting for them quickly.
Go to section 9C of Part 4 of their official policy.
Green Solutions
Green Party MPs will:
Eliminate use of handguns, automatic and semi-automatic weapons for personal use by means of careful review and consultation, enhancement of gun registry and development of other programs to control gun use and ownership.
Consult especially with holders of collections to ensure guns are rendered non-functional to eliminate usefulness to thieves.
Streamline the gun registry in consultation with hunter organizations, First Nations and sportsmen. Ensure the registration system is fair for all users.
Support the elimination of registration fees for firearms designed specifically for hunting.
Strengthen measures to combat gun smuggling and the possession of banned weapons.
Ban handguns and combat weapons including semi-automatic rifles and assault rifles.
There is no discussion of a total ban of firearms.
Still, it makes no sense to ban the lawful use of firearms. The people who tend to register their firearms and follow the laws tend not to be the ones breaking the laws. Effectively you are banning a sport because of paranoia, the same as banning baseball bats because criminals use them to assault people.
What is the justification for banning handguns and semi-automatics? Automatics are a prohibited class anyways, so banning them is pointless as they are more or less banned already save for use by those grandfathered or in the gun smithing profession.
I would also like to point out that I could go buy a .50 BMG Steyr rifle under this plan (a bolt action rifle!) and do considerably more damage if I wanted than I would be capable of doing with a .223 assault rifle. I am kind of derailing the thread with this, but as I said earlier, I will not be voting for them, even a partial ban on firearms being used legally and safely is ridiculous and said party will not receive any sort of support from myself.
Still, it makes no sense to ban the lawful use of firearms. The people who tend to register their firearms and follow the laws tend not to be the ones breaking the laws. Effectively you are banning a sport because of paranoia, the same as banning baseball bats because criminals use them to assault people.
This is not the United States. Canadians do not have a right to own firearms. I don't know why you think trotting out the usual American neo-liberal arguments against gun control is going to have any relevancy in a Canadian context.
Azio on
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Wasn't that the Ontario Green Party calling for a ban on hand guns? Hand guns obviously don't include all firearms, plus it was a provincial arm of the party.
Last time I checked the platform of the green party involved a total ban of firearms. Made me stop voting for them quickly.
Go to section 9C of Part 4 of their official policy.
Green Solutions
Green Party MPs will:
Eliminate use of handguns, automatic and semi-automatic weapons for personal use by means of careful review and consultation, enhancement of gun registry and development of other programs to control gun use and ownership.
Consult especially with holders of collections to ensure guns are rendered non-functional to eliminate usefulness to thieves.
Streamline the gun registry in consultation with hunter organizations, First Nations and sportsmen. Ensure the registration system is fair for all users.
Support the elimination of registration fees for firearms designed specifically for hunting.
Strengthen measures to combat gun smuggling and the possession of banned weapons.
Ban handguns and combat weapons including semi-automatic rifles and assault rifles.
There is no discussion of a total ban of firearms.
WTF? You see that .22 in my sig? That awesome one that is no more dangerous than the .22 repeater that I also own? The one that isn't nearly as dangerous as the 7mm Rem Mag bolt action that I have? They want to ban that why?
And they want to replace income tax with a consumption tax? (I think I heard someone say that, but I couldn't find any taxing info on their website)
Well, fuck, there's no one to vote for this election. Christ.
Still, it makes no sense to ban the lawful use of firearms. The people who tend to register their firearms and follow the laws tend not to be the ones breaking the laws. Effectively you are banning a sport because of paranoia, the same as banning baseball bats because criminals use them to assault people.
This is not the United States. Canadians do not have a right to own firearms. I don't know why you think trotting out the usual American neo-liberal arguments against gun control is going to have any relevancy in a Canadian context.
I never claimed we have a right to guns. My argument is that banning guns from lawful use is irrelevant. The people who register their guns (the ones that would be banned effectively), the same people who are following all the laws are the ones being punished by this. Criminals will still use guns, they do not care if you make them more illegal, they are already breaking the law by unlawfully possessing them.
And as far as relevancy. I shoot at a competitive level in 300m full bore and 50m small bore competitions sponsored by the Swiss government. There are a very large number of people in Canada who shoot competitively, it is an Olympic sport and we are in no way causing intentional harm to others. Yet due to other peoples paranoia regarding firearms we face the potential of having an enjoyable and safe hobby taken away from us. This is why it is relevant.
You think their would be no provisions made for competitive shooting in the event of new legislation limiting the ownership of guns?
So someone like me who's been shooting for 21 years, has never been involved in an injury caused by firearms (Or even witnessed one for that matter) and follows the law as it is, but isn't competitive, is fucked? Why should my property be taken away from me?
I personally think that handguns should be illegal. I have no problems with properly registered rifles, 99% of all gun crime is committed by handguns. It's pretty hard to sneak a rifle into a crowded room, much harder than a handgun.
Posts
Not to mention continually voting in a party that liked to bend the province over a table and make it their bitch. You guys really have a masochistic streak in your selection of political leaders and policy. Not that I have any room to talk, considering where I live now. However I lived through the NDP heyday in B.C. and it's the reason I was so apprehensive about voting for them the first time I did federally. The federal NDP seemed less batshit insane then their B.C. couterparts, but in this recent election their more left-leaning streak is starting to show.
Really we're in a four horse race where one horse is ugly, one is gimped, one is blind, and one is just running in circles. Place your bets.
I never finish anyth
Actually, we have a Queen, not a President.
But seriously, it took me about 5 minutes of independent work to predict how a vote in my riding for 1)NDP 2)Green 3)Marijuana might work out under an STV system.
No, you're thinking of the UK.
BC-STV isn't that weird. I don't quite understand it but apparently they do it that way in Australia.
I think it's like... you vote for dudes, numbering your preference. If one guy gets in, the votes get recounted to see who the next guy is who gets in, until all spaces are filled. Instead of one dude being elected per district, you have multiple dudes being elected in a larger district (with the same ratio of representatives per people).
That STV voting system is/was retarded. Splitting up the winners votes amont the losers WTF? I know if I voted for a specific candidate to win, and they did, I sure as fuck wouldnt want one of the other assholes to be getting a seat off of my vote.
The only other system I like besides the First Past the Post is the Runoff voting, where you pick first, second and third choices. Whoever comes in last, all their votes then switch to their second preference. Repeat 3 times.
MWO: Adamski
That makes a bit more sense, I suppose they should have included party affiliation in their little video, since they never really explained how it was that the vote runoff was working.
MWO: Adamski
It's similar to the process used in some Australian elections, particularly the Tasmanian Legislative Assembly election.
Basically, all you need to know is that you get to number the candidates according to your preference. There are multiple seats per district, and each candidate has to reach a quota based on that to be elected. So, if there are four seats in your district, then each candidate requires 25% of the vote to be elected.
Your vote really only counts once, but you get to assign a preference to as many candidates as you want.
This has two advantages:
1. Since there are now multiple candidates per district, your vote still counts if your preferred candidate reaches their quota. So, you can safely vote for a popular candidate without worrying that your vote will be wasted. If they reach their quota, then the second preferences will be taken into account (using the "Gregory method").
2. You can vote for a less-popular party without wasting your vote. Let's say that a candidate is standing for the small "Improve Public Transport" party, and you want to vote for him. With a winner-takes-all voting system, this would be a total waste of time... he doesn't stand a chance. However, with a STV system, you can vote for him as number one, then put your other choices after that. If enough people do the same, then he might actually be elected, but in any case, you can send a signal via your vote for him (the first-preferences are usually reported along with the results).
Basically, it is a way of ensuring that a vote is never needlessly wasted. No matter who you vote for, your vote will make a difference (providing you number enough boxes). Minor party candidates are no longer a waste of time, and with five seats per district, they actually have a chance of reaching the quota.
No, you get fringe weirdos dictating major policy because they use it as a bargaining chip against getting useful stuff passed.
It makes a ton of math/logical sense.
I voted against it. I only saw two flaws but they were pretty big:
1. Another persons vote could be worth more than yours if you don't pick a 2nd/3rd/4th choice; and
2. Voting systems are not supposed to be complicated.
Well, STV isn't complicated at all. You just number your preferences.
I'm guessing the Conservatives are only looking at the short term benefits of a Liberal leadership race, i.e. a couple of months of the Liberals being completely useless as the official opposition (that is, assuming the conservatives get another minority). After all, no political party ever thinks further than the current elections and mandate... well, at least, it doesn't show if they do.
Nintendo Network ID: PhysiMarc
Well, use preferences then. If you don't want to, then that's your choice. In a winner-takes-all system, your vote is worthless if you don't vote for one of the "major" candidates. That's a bigger problem.
The counting is a bit more complicated, but the actual process of voting is pretty simple. Just number the candidates according to your order of preference. We've been using STV here in Australia since 1907 and haven't had any major issues with voter confusion.
I think you're missing the point that not everyone would understand the system, and understand the consequences of not voting for all your preferences.
How so? We understand it fine here in Australia (although preferences are mandatory in most elections here).
People aren't as stupid as we often like to think.
The murder rate. Ba-dum-tish!
No, seriously, if there's even the slightest chance for a Liberal MP to emerge in Alberta, it'll be in Edmonton. I just don't want to see this place vote blanket Conservative again.
Any form of STV is better than winner-takes-all. The reasoning behind merging districts seems to be related to the present difficulty in assigning boundaries in an equitable and sensible manner in BC... so I guess that's the reason they chose the system.
We actually use a mix of simple single-member STV and multi-member STV here in Australia.
The upper houses of parliament (at both the state and federal level) are generally elected via a system similar to BC-STV. In Victoria, there are eight districts for the state. In NSW, the whole state is treated as a single district (a proportional representation system). At a federal level, each state is a district.
In the lower houses of parliament here, a plain STV system is generally used with one member elected for each district.
Both systems work well enough, but I think the multi-member/proportional-representation approach works better for a house of review (e.g. the Senate), rather than a lower house... but there are specific reasons why BC chose to use a multi-member system, so it makes sense there (as long as the merged districts don't end up too big).
I'd agree with you there, but I doubt we'll have another Landslide Annie. It'll have to be a decently strong win either way.
I never finish anyth
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/09/03/greens-legal.html
point form:
-Dion needs to go if the liberals ever want a significant vote east of ontario(need a leader who actually speaks fluent english)
-The green shift policy is a joke
-I am not a liberal supporter, but I recognize that the country needs a strong liberal party for a strong country, that is why dion has to go.
-I like Jack Layton most of the time, but the NDP do not operate on a realistic platform.
-the NDP will remain a party with enough seats to be relavent, but will never challange the liberals or conservatives.
-The Green party should be allowed into the debates, but the party remains irrelavent.
the Bloc will have enough seats to be relavent, but again are a useless party. The only thing they do is split the vote between themselves and the liberals, which is actually an advantage for harper. That's why he's cooperated with the bloc on occasion.
-Harper will get another minority, the liberals will get another year of un-stability in which harper will end up with a pseudo majority because the liberals won't vote them down during that time. We'll end up with a spring 2011 election and maybe then we'll get a majority.
Last time I checked the platform of the green party involved a total ban of firearms. Made me stop voting for them quickly.
Personally, I'm not even sure if I will bother to vote. Just like in the last provincial election there are no candidates I support... Oh well, we will see. I may vote conservative because they have done a fairly decent job with the country so far.
That's not true.http://www.greenparty.ca/en/policy/visiongreen/partfour#_Toc180047648
Go to section 9C of Part 4 of their official policy.
There is no discussion of a total ban of firearms.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Maybe they feel if they have more bullet points it'll make them relevant in an election.
Still, it makes no sense to ban the lawful use of firearms. The people who tend to register their firearms and follow the laws tend not to be the ones breaking the laws. Effectively you are banning a sport because of paranoia, the same as banning baseball bats because criminals use them to assault people.
What is the justification for banning handguns and semi-automatics? Automatics are a prohibited class anyways, so banning them is pointless as they are more or less banned already save for use by those grandfathered or in the gun smithing profession.
I would also like to point out that I could go buy a .50 BMG Steyr rifle under this plan (a bolt action rifle!) and do considerably more damage if I wanted than I would be capable of doing with a .223 assault rifle. I am kind of derailing the thread with this, but as I said earlier, I will not be voting for them, even a partial ban on firearms being used legally and safely is ridiculous and said party will not receive any sort of support from myself.
WTF? You see that .22 in my sig? That awesome one that is no more dangerous than the .22 repeater that I also own? The one that isn't nearly as dangerous as the 7mm Rem Mag bolt action that I have? They want to ban that why?
And they want to replace income tax with a consumption tax? (I think I heard someone say that, but I couldn't find any taxing info on their website)
Well, fuck, there's no one to vote for this election. Christ.
I never claimed we have a right to guns. My argument is that banning guns from lawful use is irrelevant. The people who register their guns (the ones that would be banned effectively), the same people who are following all the laws are the ones being punished by this. Criminals will still use guns, they do not care if you make them more illegal, they are already breaking the law by unlawfully possessing them.
And as far as relevancy. I shoot at a competitive level in 300m full bore and 50m small bore competitions sponsored by the Swiss government. There are a very large number of people in Canada who shoot competitively, it is an Olympic sport and we are in no way causing intentional harm to others. Yet due to other peoples paranoia regarding firearms we face the potential of having an enjoyable and safe hobby taken away from us. This is why it is relevant.
So someone like me who's been shooting for 21 years, has never been involved in an injury caused by firearms (Or even witnessed one for that matter) and follows the law as it is, but isn't competitive, is fucked? Why should my property be taken away from me?