To take part in discussions on talkSFU, please apply for membership (SFU email id required).
NDP or Liberal?
So who are you guys voting for in the upcoming Provincial election? I think the Liberals have done pretty good in BC from an economic perspective, but at the same time I believe it's time for a change. Living expenses are way out of whack with wages and only the NDP will shift things back to affordiblity. And I actually like Carol James as an NDP leader...Layton, not so much. Who are you guys voting for any opinions?
Comments
I think the most important issue is the STV referendum. I don't care who wins, I just want STV to pass so we won't have another PM that gets elected with only 37% of the vote.
Oh, can someone explain to me what the difference between First Past the Post and STV is?
STV is a system that minimizes wasted votes, it goes through multiple rounds and transfers votes based on preferences (if a candidate has no chance of winning his votes will be transfered based on each individuals next in line choice). so when you vote u vote on ur top choice, 2nd top choice, etc.
lol good ol cmpt275
The number of seats will also reflect the number of votes, and better represents which candidate people want.
The liberals aren't a fantastic option either. But, at least with them, businesses will remain in BC. Hence, it's easier to find a non-union competition friendly job in a business friendly environment.
So I guess I'll vote liberal and no to STV. I need accountability from my MPP's. STV doesn't offer that.
STV is good, because if you know how the current system works in actuality your MP's do little to nothing, and are not accountable as is.
as for the Liberals.. well i don't have much to say about them as their record speak for themselves.. they've utterly disappointed me in more ways than one although i don't hold any grudges against Campbell.. other than the carbon tax..cutting education funding AND raising the salaries of his ministers he's done an okay job so far but his performance seems to have leveled off.. so i'd say it's about time to demand for changes or have Campbell clean up his act..
in the end both NDP and Liberals have their flaws.. so if i have to vote.. it feels like i am to pick between the 2 evils (as there isn't a clear winner here) and hopefully i choose the lesser one.. if that's the case i'd rather not vote when i'm not set on either of them..
I'm going to have to consider my vote as benefitting me as a student and as a part of the labour force so that i can get the representative that will stand for my best interests on both occasions.
Oh and i think the STV system is complicated and useless so I'm gonna vote no on that. I mean what's the point of voting for a candidate if that candidate already wins by a landslide. All that means is that those extra votes get to put another less desirable candidate into power. Ah... NO thanks
What do you consider government? Representation of the people? First past the post is not a good system if you want real representation rather than a simple majority, which does not have to be 50%.
edit: if you think STV is complicated or you don't understand it, then don't vote no, just don't vote. all these people doing the anti-stv advertisements are funded by people / parties who benefit from first past the post and its surprising people don't see the bias.
writing the code for it is a bit more complicated =p
[youtube]UhccpzI4lbQ[/youtube]
Possible Alternatives can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system#Multiple-winner_methods
I do not like how one district will get shared by more than MPP. That is where accountability may become clouded. I stress the word may because none of us have ever seen a system in place like this before. I am fairly sure we will lose accountability. Although there isn't much accountability now, it will diminish further with STV. Buck passing within the district will become the norm since there is more than one rep. per district.
I'm not saying its perfect but I think its better than what we have now. Regional representation is a joke to be honest, and we all know it. Looking at Canada as a whole, look how little clout the west coast has compared to the east.-- I know this isn't a federal election, but realistically its the exact same problems.
Look at the polls right now, it looks like if the green party was not around the NDP might actually win the election. Instead, it will just be the liberals again, and the green party taking away from the NDP, and getting zero or little seats. At least with STV the green party wouldnt just be some distraction from the NDP.
ppl who believe in what the green party stands for get their vote stolen from them..what about ppl who dont pick a 2nd preference, back to square one?
The statement that Liberals are good for the economy is a partial truth at best. From what I've gathered, the Liberals are great for the owning minority and bad for the working majority. Frozen minimum wages aside, think about how the carbon tax works: everyone pays the same amount regardless of your income. Think about how the same amount ($75 or whatever it is) affects people with different income. Unless I've grossly misunderstood it, I think the carbon tax is just one of another ways to generate revenue at the expense of the poor. I'm also pretty sure that corporations do not pay this tax while they most likely contribute more greenhouse waste than us regular joes driving to and from work everyday. (feel free to lambaste me here, I'm going off of what I know)
Another point thats been brought to my attention with these election commercials is schools being sold off. I remember several teacher strikes and each time the government was more or less forced to concede. But their response is apparently to close schools and sell the property? That is easily the most irresponsible thing I can imagine. While the K-12 I enjoyed here in Canada were much better in terms of class sizes and such in comparison to before moving to Canada (Taiwan) and that having bigger class sizes may not be that detrimental in the long run, I really really despise the Campbell government for their decision to close schools and sell the property - whatever the reason may be.
Theres also the whole BC Rail bit, as well as their unwillingness to negotiate with BC Ambulance Paramedics...
Personal biases aside (ie. the fact that I cannot stand drunk drivers) I think the Liberals have done enough harm. Whether the NDP can do a better (or worse) job is debatable, but in this election I'm convinced to vote against the Liberals to put them out of power, and that seems to mean voting NDP.
I'm against STV because well, I am. I can't formulate a solid argument, but on randomuser's note about how from a Federal election standpoint that BC is relatively moot considering the election is usually decided by the time polls in Ontario are finished opening, at least BC still have MPs representing British Columbians on a federal level. However effective their voice may be, we still have someone in each of our constituency. If STV is passed, smaller communities in BC will not have any real representation in that their number of votes simply do not matter when mixed with a bigger riding in electing a MLA.
Meaningless post-midnight ramble
There are several elections where candidates win with something like 33-37% of the vote, so there is a city / riding where a majority of the population are not represented by someone they believe in.
How is STV any worse than this?
STV system will result in the smaller communities not being represented at all in that the MLA that is suppose to put forth their interests is more interested in the larger population base in another locale because he/she is more likely to be re-elected simply by pleasing that section alone (or in other words, the scattered votes in the tiny community is irrelevant)
I know that 33-37% is clearly not a majority and our current system is less than perfect, I think STV is not the best answer - or the better option for that matter
Regarding schools being sold off, this was done in jurisdictions where enrollments were stagnant or declining, which along with the allowance of larger class sizes, made it unnecessary to keep some of these schools around. Using tax dollars to fund these extra schools needlessly is much more irresponsible, in my opinion of course.
For me personally, if I was voting in a riding where I knew my candidate would lose, I would feel a lot better knowing that at least my vote counts for something instead of being thrown out.
I think first past the post is only appropriately used in two party systems where the winner is elected by a landslide, and even then I don't think its great.
The reality is, is that in canada it is a two party system despite it not appearing that way. You have random green party candidates taking votes away from other people handicapping one party and giving a boost to another.
By your own logic, if a MLA in first past the post system needs to get a majority of the votes, then why should they bother appealing to the minority in a small area? It's not important to them in the overall picture since they votes don't count. So they don't even need to feign interest in that small population.
In STV I think it encourages all parties to appeal to everyone, and make more compromises, since every vote counts.
The progressive income tax system also favours the rich (or the super rich rather) in that over a certain amount, they're all taxed the same (70k roughly?) However, I feel that is more a construct of capitalism and is more of a federal issue than a provincial one.
And I believe income tax was not lowered? It was merely a refund that gave everyone an early kickback and in the later years, we'll be paying it all back + more as a result of that carbon tax.
In any case, I think my point still stands that the Liberals favour the owners in the frozen wage + the carbon tax. Also, one more food for thought: in a time of economic downswing or depression or what have you, having a low minimum wage means the majority have less money to consume correct? Based off of this logic, how are we going to get out of this rut if the majority cannot afford to splurge beyond the necessities?
Although the counter argument could be that a higher minimum wage would encourage industries to move elsewhere and cause a rise in unemployment altogether...