Our logo is bigger now

What next for electoral reform after tuesday when stv gets beaten?

28 posts / 0 new

Log in or register to post comments

Sat, 2009-05-09 21:42

#1

Brian White

What next for electoral reform after tuesday when stv gets beaten?

They did a great social engineering job with the referendum.
It was never about electoral reform.

It was all about tricking people into believing that a 40% minority veto was ok.

Anyway , mission acomplished! The powers that be have one more layer of protection from public interference. Campbells 60% supermajority (in reality exactly the same as issueing 1.5 votes to supporters of the status quo) has now been legitimized in the eyes of the canadian public by 2 referenda here and one in ontario and one in PEI.

So it is the defacto new referendum rule for the country.

Electoral reform by citizens assembly and referendum is now totally and absolutely dead.

The only likely possibility now is one of the provincial NDP groups (Not in BC because the NDP is not into reform here) offering to impliment electoral reform as part of their platform for their election to power.

Is any provincial NDP party ready to make that move?

If STV gets more than 50% in this referendum, and the NDP does badly, there is a small posibility of a coup in the provincial ndp by reform minded people. (People willing to impliment electoral reform rather than talk about it ) unlikely but possible.

Brian White

Tue, 2009-05-12 10:26

#2

robbie_dee

If STV fails to crack 50%, electoral reform will effectively be dead. Only in BC was there ever more than 50% support for it; in every other province that has voted, a substantial majority has supported retaining the existing system. First past the post is a crappy way of running an election in a multiparty system, but it seems to be what the public wants. We are going to have to learn to live with it. I'm sorry all those citizens' assembly folks wasted their time.

Tue, 2009-05-12 10:43

#3

remind

remind's picture

Brian is fabricating about that 1.5 vote ratio, I see, as well as other things.

And I go back to the fact that STV got 57% last time, when people knew nothing about it, now that they know something about it, the additional 3% should not have been hard to acheive, unless of course now that people actually know about it, they reject it as viable.

Tue, 2009-05-12 10:53

#4

Stockholm

I have a simple solution. We neded to stop ever having a referendum where people are asked to choose between the status quo and a specific model of proportional representation such as STV or MMP. Invariably, the campaigns degenerates into everyone picking apart the new model - as opposed to discussing why the current system is flawed.

What i would like to see would be a referendum that had a question like "Should Canada's electoral system be reformed to include some measure of proportionality?" Yes or No.

Get people to vote yes to the principle of electoral reform and then once that is out of the way, the status quo has been rejected and then maybe the next referendum after that can be one where the choices are: STV or MMP.

Tue, 2009-05-12 16:30

#5

thorin_bane

Stock that's exactly what s needed but It won't be tabled as the result is a forgone conclusion(though some people don't believe in democracy and would likely vote against it anyway for their parties sake)

Tue, 2009-05-12 19:34

#6

Wilf Day

robbie_dee wrote:
in every other province that has voted, a substantial majority has supported retaining the existing system. First past the post is a crappy way of running an election in a multiparty system, but it seems to be what the public wants.

Except in Quebec where every party says they are in favour of PR -- next year. Their Estates-General voted 90% for PR, and public opinion polls are similar. It's a social consensus, so no one has seriously suggested a referendum. But they have had big problems with model design ever since the Liberals tried to impose a highest-threshold-in-the-civilized-world MMP model. But the Liberals still need PR, because the electoral map gives the PQ a big bonus due to all the wasted Liberal votes in their safe seats. And they have solved their design problems by giving the job to the Director-General of Elections who has gently pointed them in the direction they knew they had to go in. I predict the Liberals will implement MMP in time for the 2012 election. Even if BC-STV passes. Few Quebecois care what BC does or know anything about STV.

Tue, 2009-05-12 20:08

#7

Policywonk

remind wrote:

Brian is fabricating about that 1.5 vote ratio, I see, as well as other things.

And I go back to the fact that STV got 57% last time, when people knew nothing about it, now that they know something about it, the additional 3% should not have been hard to acheive, unless of course now that people actually know about it, they reject it as viable.

Or that people have been fed more misinformation about it. The 1.5 vote ratio is not a fabrication, but there is a question of whether fundamental change needs more than a 50% plus 1 majority (as many organization's by-laws require). I suspect that if STV passes, some of its supporters will defend the 60% threshold just as strongly as they condemn it now.

Tue, 2009-05-12 20:42

#8

Policywonk

Wilf Day wrote:

robbie_dee wrote:
in every other province that has voted, a substantial majority has supported retaining the existing system. First past the post is a crappy way of running an election in a multiparty system, but it seems to be what the public wants.

Except in Quebec where every party says they are in favour of PR -- next year. Their Estates-General voted 90% for PR, and public opinion polls are similar. It's a social consensus, so no one has seriously suggested a referendum. But they have had big problems with model design ever since the Liberals tried to impose a highest-threshold-in-the-civilized-world MMP model. But the Liberals still need PR, because the electoral map gives the PQ a big bonus due to all the wasted Liberal votes in their safe seats. And they have solved their design problems by giving the job to the Director-General of Elections who has gently pointed them in the direction they knew they had to go in. I predict the Liberals will implement MMP in time for the 2012 election. Even if BC-STV passes. Few Quebecois care what BC does or know anything about STV.

All it will take in Quebec is a little political will, but I'll believe it when I see it. Even if STV fails in BC, a successful implementation in Quebec would be an example of PR for the rest of the country.

Tue, 2009-05-12 20:53

#9

Skinny Dipper

The referendum ain't over until American Idol starts.

Tue, 2009-05-12 21:08

Brian White

Policywonk wrote:

remind wrote:

Brian is fabricating about that 1.5 vote ratio, I see, as well as other things.

And I go back to the fact that STV got 57% last time, when people knew nothing about it, now that they know something about it, the additional 3% should not have been hard to acheive, unless of course now that people actually know about it, they reject it as viable.

Or that people have been fed more misinformation about it. The 1.5 vote ratio is not a fabrication, but there is a question of whether fundamental change needs more than a 50% plus 1 majority (as many organization's by-laws require). I suspect that if STV passes, some of its supporters will defend the 60% threshold just as strongly as they condemn it now.

I will never defend a 60% threshold in a referendum. STV is not a fundimental change. and even if it was, any "bylaw" condems citizens who want change to a devalued vote. So it is antidemocratic.

I am sorry that remind does not get the math. If 40 votes for fptp are equal to 60 votes for stv, anyone with basic math gets how badly we have been cheated.

I vote for fptp equals 1.5 votes for stv.

Thats totally outragous and totally against democratic principles.

Would Campbell have got away with it if instead of the "60% threshold" he had proposed 1.5 votes for everybody who votes no?

Of course not! But he tricked you and you and you, and Joy Mcphail, Carole James and most of the media in this country colluded with him.

It is fucken awful. If you do not understand, get your kid to go through the math with you. Any math teacher will come to the same collusion as I did.

Tue, 2009-05-12 21:39

remind

remind's picture

At the very most you could claim that all no to STV votes after 50% are worth more than yes to STV votes, but until the 50% threshold is reached all votes are equal. Moreover, if STV gets less than 50%, all votes are still equal.

So your 1.5 is a little over the top, at best.

Again, if people wanted STV, the 3% short fall from the last referendum, should not have been a problem for yes to STV.

Tue, 2009-05-12 21:51

Wilf Day

remind wrote:
So your 1.5 is a little over the top, at best.

Not really. Making 40% plus 1 outweigh 60% minus one means that the 40% have a weight of 1.5. That is, 40% times 1.5 = 60%.

The Ontario NDP spoke long and hard against the 60% threshold for the Ontario referendum. In fact our 60% was a bit of a surprise. The legislature committee which recommended the ground rules for the process did NOT suggest a 60% threshold. It contained three excellent Ontario Liberal women MPPs who seemed to be quite open to electoral reform. The debate within the caucus and cabinet must have been interesting, because it took a long time. The Ontario CA were already all selected when McGuinty announced the 60% threshold. A nasty surprise for the 103 citizens.

Tue, 2009-05-12 23:03

Policywonk

Brian White wrote:

Policywonk wrote:

remind wrote:

Brian is fabricating about that 1.5 vote ratio, I see, as well as other things.

And I go back to the fact that STV got 57% last time, when people knew nothing about it, now that they know something about it, the additional 3% should not have been hard to acheive, unless of course now that people actually know about it, they reject it as viable.

Or that people have been fed more misinformation about it. The 1.5 vote ratio is not a fabrication, but there is a question of whether fundamental change needs more than a 50% plus 1 majority (as many organization's by-laws require). I suspect that if STV passes, some of its supporters will defend the 60% threshold just as strongly as they condemn it now.

I will never defend a 60% threshold in a referendum. STV is not a fundimental change. and even if it was, any "bylaw" condems citizens who want change to a devalued vote. So it is antidemocratic.

I am sorry that remind does not get the math.  If 40 votes for fptp are equal to 60 votes for stv, anyone with basic math gets how badly we have been cheated.

I vote for fptp equals 1.5 votes for stv.

Thats totally outragous and totally against democratic principles.

Would Campbell have got away with it if instead of the "60% threshold" he had proposed 1.5 votes for everybody who votes no?

Of course not! But he tricked you and you and you, and Joy Mcphail, Carole James and most of the media in this country colluded with him.

It is fucken awful.  If you do not understand, get your kid to go through the math with you. Any math teacher will come to the same collusion as I did.

As it happens, I agree with you that the 60% threshold is unfair, but I expect that if it passes those who want to change it back will also consider the threshold unfair and may have or acquire the power to do something about it. Whether or not STV is a fundamental change is a matter of opinion. I think you mean conclusion, but there was probably some collusion involved.

Tue, 2009-05-12 23:17

Debater

It's hard to know whether a 60% threshold is unfair - perhaps it is the right way to go. There is a reason why certain types of votes, amendments to the Constitution etc. require more than just a 50% +1 simple majority. When decisions of major magnitude are made which change something like the Constitution or the voting system, it makes sense not to make them based on a small margin.

If the writers of the Canadian Constitution had been smart, they would have made it a requirement that a province wanting to separate from Canada get more than just 50%+1 to make a decision of that magnitude. For example, the U.S. Constitution wisely requires a two-thirds majority to remove a President of the United States from office.

Wed, 2009-05-13 00:15

no1important

It actually looks like it is going to win..

Wed, 2009-05-13 00:41

remind

remind's picture

lol

Wed, 2009-05-13 00:55

Stanley10

BC

Liberals 48

NDP 37

STV 40%

UGH

Wed, 2009-05-13 01:33

melovesproles

Yeah, I remember thinking the result of the last Ontario election was depressing but BC was not to be outdone.

Wed, 2009-05-13 08:38

robbie_dee

Stanley10 wrote:

STV 40%

UGH

That kind of takes the wind out of those "60% is an unfair threshhold" complaints, doesn't it.

Wed, 2009-05-13 11:43

remind

remind's picture

yep!

Wed, 2009-05-13 12:19

madmax

I was concerned that STV wasn't getting the support it had from a few years ago. Just asking questions about it created alot of belligerent accusations from some polarized people. I didn't expect the complete collapse of STV, but it is finished. There would have been a real credible argument if it had been above 50% two elections in a row.

This time people voted for FPTP and met a 60% threshold.

Who'd a thunk it.

Wed, 2009-05-13 12:59

Policywonk

madmax wrote:

I was concerned that STV wasn't getting the support it had from a few years ago. Just asking questions about it created alot of belligerent accusations from some polarized people. I didn't expect the complete collapse of STV, but it is finished. There would have been a real credible argument if it had been above 50% two elections in a row.

This time people voted for FPTP and met a 60% threshold.

Who'd a thunk it.

Who'd a thunk FPTP would be more popular than either the Liberals or the NDP?

Wed, 2009-05-13 20:26

Brian White

NO, it doesn't. No NEW electoral system EVER got close to 60% in a referendum anywhere in the world.

There is a saying in Holland "what the farmer does not know, the farmer does not eat". The english phrase "boerish behaviour" comes from it.

Basically the dutch saying means "Ignorant people do not like new things".

The no campaign was focused on keeping the bc public ignorant.

It worked because they were allowed to lie.

robbie_dee wrote:

Stanley10 wrote:

STV 40%

UGH

That kind of takes the wind out of those "60% is an unfair threshhold" complaints, doesn't it.

Wed, 2009-05-13 21:25

Skinny Dipper

I won't be voting in anymore FPTP elections provincially and federally.

Wed, 2009-05-13 21:40

Brian White

It is easy to know. Why should change be so hard? Has nobody figured out that without change we die out? New thinking is always bad thinking in your view of the world. Steady state forever.

If you have a 60% threshold, each vote for status quo is worth 1.5 votes for change. It says, new ideas are for morons, so lets put the voters in straight jackets just in case they get a thought.

What is really wise about the US constitution? They cannot change anything no matter how much it is needed because some idiot over a hundred years ago wanted to be GOD and write his words in stone. So you want to use a 60% threshold on Quebec, eh?

Thats really dangerous because that IS important and people will die if you try to cheat them out of their votes. I am totally serious about that.

Is this 60% stinker just a ploy to put down Quebec? Probably.

One thing for sure, the people there can count so it is not going to work.

Debater wrote:

It's hard to know whether a 60% threshold is unfair - perhaps it is the right way to go. There is a reason why certain types of votes, amendments to the Constitution etc. require more than just a 50% +1 simple majority. When decisions of major magnitude are made which change something like the Constitution or the voting system, it makes sense not to make them based on a small margin.

If the writers of the Canadian Constitution had been smart, they would have made it a requirement that a province wanting to separate from Canada get more than just 50%+1 to make a decision of that magnitude. For example, the U.S. Constitution wisely requires a two-thirds majority to remove a President of the United States from office.

Wed, 2009-05-13 21:46

Brian White

Remind, 40 votes for fptp = 60 votes for stv. Right? That was the supermajority rule in essence. Correct?

You devide both sides by 40 and you have 1 vote for fptp= 1.5 votes for stv.

You need to go back to school and take math . The wrongness in the stuff above in in the concept, not the math. Why the hell should some voters get such preferential treatment? They should not.

remind wrote:

Brian is fabricating about that 1.5 vote ratio, I see, as well as other things.

And I go back to the fact that STV got 57% last time, when people knew nothing about it, now that they know something about it, the additional 3% should not have been hard to acheive, unless of course now that people actually know about it, they reject it as viable.

Wed, 2009-05-13 22:10

remind

remind's picture

No STV got 40 votes worth 1 vote each, FPTP got 60 votes worth 1 vote each. And no one got preferential treatment.

Why did you come to Canada btw?

Thu, 2009-05-14 22:09

Brian White

Hi, Remind, the previous time stv got 58 against 42. but stv still lost. Can you explain the math of that one to me?

Did you vote for fptp because it is anti immigrant btw?

I did mention that stv was thrown out in the USA because it was letting too many blacks get elected (about 50 years ago before they even had civil rights). Perhaps that influenced people? Stv would have elected more natives and chineese. Perhaps good ole racism and protectin the white man came into play?

Probably. Dont want any of those greens gettin elekted eider. Yes seriee, screw minoritys. Rightly dond matter if de are black green chineese or imigrints. Thats the thing with people. The ndp and bc lib partys are full of political racists. Stv is a proportional system that makes no distinctions at all. It can be fair to political minoritys and racial ones all in one go.

remind wrote:

No STV got 40 votes worth 1 vote each, FPTP got 60 votes worth 1 vote each. And no one got preferential treatment.

Why did you come to Canada btw?