BC-STV: "Fair Results"
Top Comments
All Comments (16)
-
More confusing than a maze, and it's undemocratic.
-
FPTP was designed and intended for a two party system.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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?
Majority = 50% + 1. FPTP rarely gives majorities of any kind.
I'd rather promote cooperation and compromise than force my views on someone.
vorshlumpf 2 years ago 13
yah BC STV! VOTE YES!
mmicheal 2 years ago 13