BC-STV: "Fair Results"

[amrite]

More confusing than a maze, and it's undemocratic.

[CMPFMS]

FPTP was designed and intended for a two party system.

[jibbi4one]

If you like secret backroom deals on big machine party governance FPTP is for you!

If you want choice in who you want to represent you, vote in BC-STV!

[JonathanSwifty]

Province being divided in equal by population constituencies with ability to send 1 representative each sounds fair to me.

[RatelDajer]

Really? Why would you expect 20,000 people who happen to live in the same geographic area to be able to agree on one person to represent all their views?

[JonathanSwifty]

They shouldn't necessary agree, the majority gets to pick representative. That's how representative democracy works.

[vorshlumpf]

Majority = 50% + 1. FPTP rarely gives majorities of any kind.

I'd rather promote cooperation and compromise than force my views on someone.

[RatelDajer]

exactly, 50% would be great if we could get it. You can govern in Canada with 40-45 no problem. But why even settle for 50% If I can get my first or second choice plus have some say over several lesser candidates then more than 50% of my voice is being heard. Its hard to imagine a system that lets voters do that but thats what BC-STV is. Thats why we can't let this chance pass, this isn't the system politicians would give us if they chose it.

[JonathanSwifty]

More accurate definition of majority in Canadian politics would be:

The amount by which the greater number of votes cast, as in an election exceeds the total number of remaining votes.- thefreedictionary

We enjoy multiple party system where in our elections(in most of the Canada) three parties or more can be elected. Of course that wouldn't be a concern if we had 2 party system ala US, then your definition of majority would apply beautifully. But US system sucks and I'm not messing with ours.

[vorshlumpf]

You may want to re-read that definition, JS. Or, if that doesn't work, go further down the page of thefreedictionary and read the equivalent definition that says: "2. (in an election) the number of votes or seats by which the strongest party or candidate beats the combined opposition or the runner-up"

Note the word "combined". So, no, a government does not have a majority when they have less than a majority (less than 50% + 1) of the votes.

[vorshlumpf]

No matter how many times you say it, it doesn't make sense for a party to govern with a majority of the power when they don't have a majority of the votes.

You don't need to mess with our system, JS - it's already messed up enough as it is. We need to dump it and get one that makes sense.

[Toastbastard]

Nicely produced video. Message resonates more with viewers than any anti-STV ad I've seen.

[23Prospero37]

Sorry, but I'm voting no. Your new system will result in more minority governments clogging the

already poor system of governance. Besides we don't really want to go to a US style political system

[Mordechai4]

uh, the US uses the system we have now (first past the post) and not STV. So your criticism is completely misplaced.

[captainosmoteria]

Right on! Not to mention that following EVERY election the party seat distribution in the legislature is horribly skewed and last election 49% of all ballots cast held no bearing on the final outcome.

[mmicheal]

yah BC STV! VOTE YES!