STV is not good for Bill Tieleman

Brian White wrote:

Remind, Ireland is not trying to get rid of stv.  

Mary Robinson.

One of the most famous political women in the world came through Irish STV to beat the old boys network.

She was non party (not even a member of any party when she ran for president)  and supported abortion and still beat the old boys. 

At the UN it took the usa veto on her nomination to kill her career there  and to get rid of her so presumably she was a danger to US interests

Please quit with the nonsense while you are ahead. Lies are lies and you should have the decency to retract the 30% one at very least.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0504/1224245892907.html

It should be noted Mary White was the first woman to be elected ever in the district of Carlow -Kilkenny 1st ever! in 2007, I know someone can let us know how many tried and failed. Mr. White?

Remind is correct, just guessing, B.C. has 45 or so registered parties?  everyone and their family pet will be on that ballot wanting a piece of action, totally wasting their time, mind you, but still wanting a piece non the less. 

"Ministers have to spend 20 to 30 hours a week attending local functions, holding clinics, going to funerals – they’ll lose their seats if they don’t.

Is it any wonder that Dáil deputies had to be paid to chair or convene committees – that work distracts from the string-pulling for constituents which is what they’re doing in those Dáil offices."

In Toronto, municipal politicians are elected once every four years.  Most of them get re-elected because they attend different community functions almost every day.  These politicians are elected by First-Past-the-Post.

What is your point ranger?   That things are getting better in Carlow  Kilkenny?

Or Lets use anolomys as proof?

I am sorry but yours is a pretty stupid line of arguement.  Have you looked in Canada for any male only ridings?

 Probably lots of them.  Last euro election I voted in was about 15 years ago.

I gave my first preference to a green woman and she got elected in leinster.

RANGER wrote:

Brian White wrote:

Remind, Ireland is not trying to get rid of stv.

Mary Robinson.

One of the most famous political women in the world came through Irish STV to beat the old boys network.

She was non party (not even a member of any party when she ran for president)  and supported abortion and still beat the old boys.

At the UN it took the usa veto on her nomination to kill her career there  and to get rid of her so presumably she was a danger to US interests

Please quit with the nonsense while you are ahead. Lies are lies and you should have the decency to retract the 30% one at very least.

 

 

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0504/1224245892907.html

 

 

It should be noted Mary White was the first woman to be elected ever in the district of Carlow -Kilkenny 1st ever! in 2007, I know someone can let us know how many tried and failed. Mr. White?

remind wrote:

...There have been calls before now for change in Ireland...Party leaders – Garret FitzGerald, Albert Reynolds, Charles Haughey, Des O’Malley, Mary Harney, as well as Noel Dempsey and Micheal D Higgins – are all on record as criticising multi-seat PR as practised in Ireland, and/or calling for radical changes.

A proposal for change appeared in the 1987 Fine Gael election manifesto. Many articles have appeared in this newspaper and serious journals. Alas, most media attention has been confined to the “silly season”.

That Fine Gael manifesto was 22 years ago, as was Garret Fitzgerald who was Fine Gael Prime Minister at that time. Unfortunately, Fine Gael heavily lost the 1987 election, and Garret promptly resigned. Four Fine Gael leaders since then don't make your list of those who want to change the system. Other than Micheal D Higgins, a Labour Party elder statesman, the others on that list are Fianna Fail leaders or their allies. Fianna Fail has always wanted to switch to FPTP which would favour them as the largest party, but few others agree. Anyway that article was about changing to a different system. From time to time Irish commentators have dreamed of a system which would free MPs and Ministers from the demands of serving their constituents. Since few voters would agree, nothing happens.

Thanks wilf, interesting and I have much to think about, still.

RANGER wrote:

Remind is correct, just guessing, B.C. has 45 or so registered parties?  everyone and their family pet will be on that ballot wanting a piece of action, totally wasting their time, mind you, but still wanting a piece non the less. 

Since only a few parties will run more than one candidate in each riding and there will be fewer ridings, there will likely be far fewer candidates overall. I doubt there are 45 registered parties (and even fewer that run in more than a few ridings), and I suspect that under STV there would be fewer parties as a number of them might merge in order to give themselves a better chance of making the quota. There may then be more than three parties with a change of winning at least one seat.

They write party affiliation beside party name.  So I am not sure what the problem is. 

Municipal elections here in victoria are harder because they invent names for the "partys" and you have something like 7 votes. 

That means that the largest minorithy "slate" wins everything. 

In STV you have just one vote so party slates do not have such massive power.  In the first STV election,  the candidate numbers may approach those of a municipal election but party affiliation WILL be incicated so just ignore those that you are unfamiliar with.

Brian

remind wrote:

Wilf, I would like to see how the Capital region,  along with how a rural riding like  PG  would play out.

I promised to refer you to Irish election results for comparable districts. Unfortunately Ireland has no seven-seaters in its parliament. (It has some municipal councils where seven councillors are elected by PR-STV with no wards, but that's not what I promised you.) By the way, when Ireland first set up their parliament, the one thing everyone agreed on was STV -- the British (to give the Protestant minority a voice), and the radical Irish (because all British and Irish radicals were electoral reformers and STV was the system they were promoting -- though they failed to get Britain to adopt it.) So the only question was the District Magnitude (small districts are less favourable to minority parties). And their first 1923 model was excellent: one nine-seater, three eight-seaters, five seven-seaters, nine five-seaters, four four-seaters, six three-seaters. Of the 147 MPs, almost half were from seven-seaters or larger. As time went on, conservative governments shrank the District Magnitude.

A comparable five-seater: Cork South-Central.

As you can see, the two main parties each ran three and elected two. Everyone else ran one; and Labour and the Greens knew they were competing for the one left-wing seat. On the first count, incumbent 69-year-old Fianna Fail John Dennehy (who had edged out Kathy Sinnott by six votes in 2002) was in seventh spot, thanks to 32-year-old local Fianna Fail councillor Michael McGrath who had topped the polls in three local elections and now stood second in his first run for parliament. (A classic case of a candidate running one time too many -- John Dennehy's 20 years in parliament were enough, voters said.) Incumbent Green Dan Boyle, first elected to parliament in 2002 thanks in part to transfers from Labour, stood eighth although his vote share declined only slightly, but a new Labour candidate (and Cork city councillor) gained and moved up to fifth spot. Centrist Fine Gael had done poorly in 2002, losing one of their two seats when Deidre Clune (first elected in 1997) lost her seat. This time they regained their second seat, and Deidre Clune stood fourth on the first count. As you can see here, by the sixth and final count Deidre Clune had moved up to third when those who had voted for the third Fine Gael candidate preferred her to the FG incumbent Simon Covenay. The Labour man had dropped to sixth after the Fianna Fail transfers, but overtook the third Fianna Fail man on the final count thanks to transfers from Green's Dan Boyle. (As a minor point, note that the Sinn Fein transfers had no impact: they slightly preferred old John Dennehy and the Green's Dan Boyle, but not by enough to save either.) 

For a three-seater like Prince George, see Tipperary North. As you would expect in a more rural area, local loyalties are big. Michael Lowry, aged 55, had been one of their MPs for 20 years. He had been a Fine Gael MP for three terms when Fine Gael kicked him out. Local voters didn't care and kept re-electing him as an independent. This time he stood first with votes to spare. In third spot was Fianna Fail's Maire Hoctor; she had first been elected in 2002 after serving on county council. Ahead of her in second spot was her fellow Fianna Fail incumbent Michael Smith, aged 68, first elected in 1969. In fourth spot was local councillor and Fine Gael hopeful Noel Coonan. Fifth was Labour's Kathleen O'Meara. This is not a Labour area, but as you will see, Labour voters decided the outcome. Kathleen O'Meara had run for parliament twice before, never elected, and had stood ninth of nine elected to her local council back in 1999. An interesting count. Michael Lowry's surplus transfers changed nothing, nor did any other transfers until the final count when lots of Labour voters made Noel Coonan their second choice, vaulting him into office, and also gave Maire Hoctor enough second preferences to push her above her fellow FF incumbent into third place, electing her while Michael Smith lost his seat. This made sense. Labour and Fine Gael had been coalition government partners in 1994-97 and previously, and were running on a agreed coalition platform this time. And some women who voted for Kathleen O'Meara made the only other woman on the ballot their second choice. Michael Smith, like John Dennehy, had run one time too many.

Tieleman's friend David Schreck has reached a new low in dishonesty:

Quote:

Perhaps they should have asked the Irish whether they think STV is fair. . . There are calls for electoral reform in Ireland where even the website for the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, in announcing that Ireland's experiment with electronic voting is abandoned, goes on to say: "...there is still a considerable need for electoral reform" . . .

So go to that site, and you will see:

Quote:

The Minister added that, while the electronic voting project has now been brought to a conclusion, there is still a considerable need for electoral reform which can best be pursued by bringing forward proposals to establish an Independent Electoral Commission in Ireland. . .

 

The Agreed Programme for Government contains a commitment to the establishment of an independent Electoral Commission which will take responsibility for electoral administration and oversight, implement modern and efficient electoral practices, revise constituency boundaries, take charge of compiling a new national rolling electoral register, take over the functions of the Standards in Public Office Commission relating to election spending, and examine the issue of financing the political system.

But no mention of changing the voting system.

Wilf Day wrote:

Tieleman's friend David Schreck has reached a new low in dishonesty:

Quote:

Perhaps they should have asked the Irish whether they think STV is fair. . . There are calls for electoral reform in Ireland where even the website for the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, in announcing that Ireland's experiment with electronic voting is abandoned, goes on to say: "...there is still a considerable need for electoral reform" . . .

So go to that site, and you will see:

Quote:

The Minister added that, while the electronic voting project has now been brought to a conclusion, there is still a considerable need for electoral reform which can best be pursued by bringing forward proposals to establish an Independent Electoral Commission in Ireland. . .

The Agreed Programme for Government contains a commitment to the establishment of an independent Electoral Commission which will take responsibility for electoral administration and oversight, implement modern and efficient electoral practices, revise constituency boundaries, take charge of compiling a new national rolling electoral register, take over the functions of the Standards in Public Office Commission relating to election spending, and examine the issue of financing the political system.

But no mention of changing the voting system.

Oh wilf, you are making me sad here, I would say that implimenting modern and efficient electoral practices is talking of changing the electoral system, and I see they are getting rid of the notion of computeized voting which is being suggested in BC for STV.

The vote yes crowd here has been busy stating the Irish are all happy with their STV, when such is not the case.

Now I understand why Pilion was just over there speaking at the Universioty of Ulster.

RANGER wrote:

Wow! you can say "Probably not" and claim this is a fact?, I pulled that number from a conversation with someone very high on the food chain at elections B.C. a couple of months ago, so no, I didn't research that point because I thought it was moot, the last time I did check there was more than 30 and I know it fluctuates, the parties you mentioned are "only running" as you put it under FPTP, as I said expect many more and the family dog under a BCSTV election, ballots in Australia can have up to 50- 60 candidates on it, no, not making that up, but you can get mad at me as if somehow I created that mess too.

At http://www.ec.gov.au  one can see that in the 2007 election in Austrlia, in Senate contests under PR-STV, in New South Wales there were 79 candidates for 6 seats, and in Queensland 65 candidates, again for 6 seats.

However, in Australian Senate elections voters have to rank every last candidate for their vote to be counted. They have the option of selecting a party and accepting its ranking of all candidates. Most of them outside Tasmania accept that option.

Candidates are grouped by party on the ballot. I expect that most voters are mainly interested in the major parties that get elected, and are not unduly confused by the listing of multiple candidates for Family First, What Women Want, the Citizens Electoral Council, the Non-Custodial Parents Party, The Fishing Party, The Australian Shooters Party, and The Australian Fishing and Lifestyle Party, etc., etc.

The ballot in Tasmania, where most voters prefer to rank their own candidates, carried a more realistic 28 candidates for 6  Senate seats.

BC-STV proposes that voters will be able to rank as many or as few candidates as they want, and candidates will be grouped by party. Since voters in BC will probably party-hop at least as freely as those in Ireland and parties will be subject to the same mild pressure to limit their candidates, ballots in BC will likely resemble those in Ireland where in the 2007 general election the ballots in 3-seat ridings carried from 7 to 11 candidates, in 4-seat ridings 8 to 14 candidates, and in 5-seat ridings 10 to 16 candidates. Six parties elected candidates in Ireland, several independents were elected, and several more parties ran.

If you ignore the blood-curdling political fantasies of Tieleman and Schreck, you will save yourself a lot of adrenalin, and you won't miss anything important.

Grouped by party. I see in a 7 seater maybe 15 candidates from 3 parties and maybe half a dozen more from other parties and independents. No different from many at large municipal elections.

http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2004/guide/senatevotingsystem.htm
Voting Options

Many people view the Senate ballot paper as a daunting challenge. After all, in NSW at this election it will be around a metre long and consist of 78 candidates distributed across 30 columns. This is in fact small compared to past ballot papers in the NSW Legislative Council. At the 2003 state election, the Legislative Council ballot paper, while shorter with only 15 columns, contained 284 candidates. In 1999, problems with electoral laws saw the ballot paper spread across three rows, consist of 81 columns and 264 candidates and cover a ballot paper one metre by 700mm.

Exactly!

Are there any stats that show how many parties ran how many candidates in our last election in 2005? 

From there you would have some solid stats to debate by.  I don't remember seeing 26 or 32 candidates on my last FPTP ballot???

I would suggest that common sense needs to enter this debate.  If we are going to say that the number of candidates is going to increase by large numbers, then maybe this idea should be supported by some forecasts of where these candidates are going to come from.  

Again, you must project BC-STV against the reality of what could or would happen in BC.  Everyone has their own crystal ball, but if you are going to make a solid case, you need to paint your prognostication with some convincing facts to support.  

AT

He did?

Wilf,

Again you add the facts needed to bring fear and myth to its knees.  

Great job, I have really enjoyed the debates where you have contributed.

AT