The way I see it, if there is a riding people choose liberal or conservative, conservative wouldnt be their second choice if they voted liberal, because they don't believe in the one they didn't vote for. Thus they aren't represented at all, or at least accurately.
I agree in that a conservative's second choice would most likely not be liberal. But if you think about the notion of representation, it is not about whether the population is represented accurately, it is merely about representation.
randomuser;54813 said:
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 agree with this too, hence why I'm voting NDP and not any other party. I'm not voting for NDP because of their platform, but simply because I think they're most likely to win. Call it what you want (or disagree with my approach for that matter) but its my "strategy" sort to speak, to make my vote mean something.
randomuser;54813 said:
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.
See even in the two party system, its usually not a landslide anyways. Also, in the most extreme case of say, 50.1 vs 49.9% in extreme 2 party systems, is this not the same idea in that a very large proportion is not "accurately" represented? Also, what defines a majority? Is it 50.1 or is it something else?
Also, if you consider the US presidential examples where if I recall correctly, Bush was elected without 50% in his first term, theres clearly still problems. While I realize they use a different electoral college thing, I just wanted to bring up that even in cases of 2 candidates, the system still isn't perfect.
randomuser;54813 said:
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.
See, thats the thing. I don't think minorities are being cared for at all even in the current system. But the STV in a way, broadens those who fall under the "minority" umbrella sort to speak. Does that make any sense? Instead of getting rid of those "wasted" or "split" votes that handicaps one party and results in an inadvertent boost to the eventual party that forms government, we're just simply making the smaller communities unimportant and the bigger communities votes are worth more anyways at the end. If this was a math thing, I'd contend that instead of 1/3 x 1, we're just making it 1 x 1/3 (except far far far more convoluted and complicated) in that we're just fractioning our votes value at a different stage. Hope that makes some sense.. I didn't say the current system is perfect, I just really don't think STV is the right answer. I think I would compare changing first past the post to STV would be comparable to changing hockey nets to increase scoring. Its ridiculous. Change the rules, not the equipment. Post midnight babble for the win.
You say none of us have ever seen a system like this in place, but it is in place in other areas of the world.
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.
I should have been more clear:
None of us have seen this in practice in Canada. Can any of us safely say we follow elections in Malta or Ireland, the only two places on earth that use it.
I agree in that a conservative's second choice would most likely not be liberal. But if you think about the notion of representation, it is not about whether the population is represented accurately, it is merely about representation.
I would contest that very notion, and I think STV does too. Depending on how you define representation, all those whos votes who don't count in first past the post may or may not be represented-- minorities or not-- although I was using minority in the sense that they are those whos votes who did not get counted, rather than minority such as a handicapped person etc.
It is not that I think our current system is fine: it's not. STV just isn't the answer.
In the places its being used(really just two countries, three if you count austrialias variation) it hasn't been greatly successful in terms of the objectives the yay sayers say are going to happen. Malta hasn't elected a third party rep for years.
edit: used in some local elections for Scotland and New Zealand. Starting in 2009 it will be used in city elections for minneapolis, minnesota USA. Also, this distracts from my main point and that is that nobody has seen it in practice here in Canada. If anything, it should be done at the local level as a test first. Honestly, it won't get the 60% it needs this time around so I'm not too concerned.
Those are not the only schools that are sold off. From what I know, there is an older school around my area that got closed off because it was assessed as an earthquake risk. It was not replaced by any other school and the students were simply dispersed to other nearby schools.
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...
Actually the highest tax bracket starts at about 125k, but in any case I wouldn't call that "favouring the rich." Obviously consumption taxes don't dent their budget that much, but they are paying a considerably higher amount of their income (double the percentage sometimes). Income tax was lowered when the carbon tax came in (details here), the $100 "climate action" cheque was just a public relations bonus.
A minimum wage increase in a time of recession would not just cause some industries to think about relocation, but it would further strain the budgets of businesses who are already having trouble and are already laying off workers. Requiring them to pay higher labour costs would very likely lead to even more unemployment, which would probably have an even worse effect. Raising the minimum wage once the economy has recovered would be ok. An increase to $10 would be in line with inflation over the past 8 years. But raising it right now, as the NDP is suggesting, is not a wise idea.
^ But the minimum should have been raised long before now. This is just one of the examples of how the Liberals have failed And I'm trying to make sense of the link you sent, but so far, not too sure yet. I think its something like 63.7% of the tax cuts from the carbon tax surplus went to individuals (including 2 and 5% for 08 and 09 for the lowest two brackets) but 36.3% of the cuts goes to corporations and businesses? (415m/670m business tax cuts went to corporations, rest to small businesses) So the relevant piece of info not provided here is how much of those surplus from the carbon tax is generated by individuals and how much of it is generated by businesses.
I would contest that very notion, and I think STV does too. Depending on how you define representation, all those whos votes who don't count in first past the post may or may not be represented-- minorities or not-- although I was using minority in the sense that they are those whos votes who did not get counted, rather than minority such as a handicapped person etc.
But thats the thing, STV does not make things better in terms of representation. Instead of some ridings where 63% of the people are not accurately represented, at the end of the day they still have a MLA that they can call theirs, with that communities interest being the focus. With the STV, they won't have any representation. I think arguing on the definition of representation does not really demonstrate how STV is a superior system. While you're pointing to the "minority" of people in the first past the post system that their votes are not counted because there is a smaller majority that elected another candidate, I can just as easily say that is democracy and that majority wins (however small the majority is). That community IS represented even if those minority do not support the one who is chosen to represent them. Your point can also be made under the STV system. If I was to choose 4 candidates from my riding of 20 or whatever it may be, my 4 picks could all lose out and I would still not be represented under your description. I could also choose to not rank my votes (or vote all for the same candidate correct?) - and should that candidate not win, am I not represented again?
Justin look at the makeup of the australian senate, and you'll see there are third party reps. Look at the amount of women and maori in australia compared to Canada, which last time I knew both used the parliamentary system. At the end of the day there is really no system where everyone can be represented but I think this is the closest you get, and again, my beliefs are in line with that regional representation is a falsity, because not everyone within a single region has the same beliefs or wants or desires.
Danoobie they don't have an MLA they can call theirs, because that person does not represent their beliefs.
It all depends how you define representation at the end of the day.
My own definition of representation is more in line with STV, maybe yours is more in line with what we have now.
What can you actually say your MLA has done for you specifically if anything?
^ But the minimum should have been raised long before now. This is just one of the examples of how the Liberals have failed And I'm trying to make sense of the link you sent, but so far, not too sure yet. I think its something like 63.7% of the tax cuts from the carbon tax surplus went to individuals (including 2 and 5% for 08 and 09 for the lowest two brackets) but 36.3% of the cuts goes to corporations and businesses? (415m/670m business tax cuts went to corporations, rest to small businesses) So the relevant piece of info not provided here is how much of those surplus from the carbon tax is generated by individuals and how much of it is generated by businesses.
According to this page from the provincial site, 70% of the revenue comes from business and industry. If true, then in fact individuals are the ones being favoured.
Justin look at the makeup of the australian senate, and you'll see there are third party reps. Look at the amount of women and maori in australia compared to Canada, which last time I knew both used the parliamentary system. At the end of the day there is really no system where everyone can be represented but I think this is the closest you get, and again, my beliefs are in line with that regional representation is a falsity, because not everyone within a single region has the same beliefs or wants or desires.
Danoobie they don't have an MLA they can call theirs, because that person does not represent their beliefs.
It all depends how you define representation at the end of the day.
My own definition of representation is more in line with STV, maybe yours is more in line with what we have now.
What can you actually say your MLA has done for you specifically if anything?
I can't say my rep has done anything directly for me. He can, however, screw up royally and we would know who to blame. You cannot do that with STV.
According to this page from the provincial site, 70% of the revenue comes from business and industry. If true, then in fact individuals are the ones being favoured.
Assuming all figures are correct, then great. But theres still way too many issues that makes me want to vote the Liberals out of power.
Danoobie they don't have an MLA they can call theirs, because that person does not represent their beliefs.
It all depends how you define representation at the end of the day.
My own definition of representation is more in line with STV, maybe yours is more in line with what we have now.
What can you actually say your MLA has done for you specifically if anything?
I think from that stand point, no system can satisfy your notion of representation. Someone somewhere will always not be represented due to some extreme view. Keep in mind, we're in a system of democracy. Someone will inevitably be that minority who is not represented. Having the STV system does not change this. We can merge 4 ridings and choose 4 candidates. If the 4 ridings were traditionally 60% "landslide" strongholds of one party, then merging those 4 ridings does nothing for the 40% minority "other" parties.
I haven't had the need to approach my MLA for anything. But if say, the road construction out near my house has taken an unreal amount of time to complete and I need someone to complain for me, I do not care whether my MLA is affiliated with Liberals or Conservatives. I know my interests are looked after even if I live in a small community.
I'm leaning pretty heavily towards the Liberals or.. more accurately, away from the NDP.
The NDP is whiny. Literally every time I hear about them, they're complaining about something. Maybe it's because they're the opposition party. Maybe it's just in their nature. I don't know, and I don't care. A negative attitude won't win my vote.
The NDP has also historically been pro-union, and I hate unions.
I think from that stand point, no system can satisfy your notion of representation. Someone somewhere will always not be represented due to some extreme view. Keep in mind, we're in a system of democracy. Someone will inevitably be that minority who is not represented. Having the STV system does not change this. We can merge 4 ridings and choose 4 candidates. If the 4 ridings were traditionally 60% "landslide" strongholds of one party, then merging those 4 ridings does nothing for the 40% minority "other" parties.
I haven't had the need to approach my MLA for anything. But if say, the road construction out near my house has taken an unreal amount of time to complete and I need someone to complain for me, I do not care whether my MLA is affiliated with Liberals or Conservatives. I know my interests are looked after even if I live in a small community.
I would agree that no system can represent my notions. It seems like the best system is one of least harm then.
Do you really think your MLA could or would even look out for you if you did go for them, and that they could realistically accomplish much? For example, look at the tearing up of Granville Street, in the end big business won over the small business who went out of business or received lack luster compensation.
To me, STV gives greater representation on a whole, and I'm fine with that because I don't believe regional representation is necessarily important in practice rather than theory.
People say noone will be accountable in STV, but that really is just an extreme view. The proponents of STV really haven't done a good job of explaining accountability and maybe they should.
I'm leaning pretty heavily towards the Liberals or.. more accurately, away from the NDP.
The NDP is whiny. Literally every time I hear about them, they're complaining about something. Maybe it's because they're the opposition party. Maybe it's just in their nature. I don't know, and I don't care. A negative attitude won't win my vote.
The NDP has also historically been pro-union, and I hate unions.
Whats wrong with unions :angry: ? All of us SFU employees are unionzed.
Whats wrong with unions :angry: ? All of us SFU employees are unionzed.
This comment is bound to start a flame war, but here goes. :shade:
The concept of unions is fine. I mean they are there to protect and secure their members in terms of job security and family benifits. However, people abuse the rights they have within a union environment.
I usually notice that unionized employees are generally some of laziest people(on the job that is) that I have ever seen. Just look at some of translinks bus drivers, most are arrogant and could care less about the paying customers. There are a few good ones, but the majority of these a-holes wouldnt be able to hold a job in a competitive environment if their life depended on it. I can't even count the number of times a bus driver has sworn at me or others for no good reason(not that there is one in the first place). I have had a few grab me as well. This was due to my bus pass not being completely visible to them. A natural civilized solution would have been to ask me to present it better but no, I get grabbed.
And really the only thing to blame is their CBA, that allows them to do whatever they want and not worry about major consequences. Unlike the real world where they would get fired in a heartbeat.
I am genuinely sorry if this comment has insulted or offended anyone. However, I have had nothing but bad experiences with unions. People should learn to survive in a competitive world.
This comment is bound to start a flame war, but here goes. :shade:
The concept of unions is fine. I mean they are there to protect and secure their members in terms of job security and family benifits. However, people abuse the rights they have within a union environment.
I usually notice that unionized employees are generally some of laziest people(on the job that is) that I have ever seen. Just look at some of translinks bus drivers, most are arrogant and could care less about the paying customers. There are a few good ones, but the majority of these a-holes wouldnt be able to hold a job in a competitive environment if their life depended on it. I can't even count the number of times a bus driver has sworn at me or others for no good reason(not that there is one in the first place). I have had a few grab me as well. This was due to my bus pass not being completely visible to them. A natural civilized solution would have been to ask me to present it better but no, I get grabbed.
And really the only thing to blame is their CBA, that allows them to do whatever they want and not worry about major consequences. Unlike the real world where they would get fired in a heartbeat.
I am genuinely sorry if this comment has insulted or offended anyone. However, I have had nothing but bad experiences with unions. People should learn to survive in a competitive world.
Its a big step to complain about unionized workers as opposed to unions.
Theres a big difference between a bus driver and what I do, just because someone is in a union job doesnt mean they can be lazy. To make this statement shows complete ignorance on your guys part to the gammit of jobs that are unionized.
In a job like translink its obvious though, that your example is true, to some extent anyway. A bus driver once swore at me for getting on in front of some woman who wasnt even in line, or old, or handicapped, because she had one of those grocery carry along trolley things. I called in to complain and I'm sure my complaint never went past the person I reported it to, and they probably laughed after.
I think when youre in a unionized job, in the customer service industry you can abuse it, because basically you can never get fired based on customer complaints. A job like mine in admin if I piss the wrong person off, or dont do my job I'll get toasted. I have a workload that is solely mine, and the union just serves to help with my wages and benefits.
Unionized workers are not lazy and in fact, in some industries (heavy industry and manufacturing for example), they are some of the hardest working people out there. The Translink example isn't entirely representative of all unionized workers but just a testament to how relaxed and simple the job of driving a bus is to them.
Unionized workers are not lazy and in fact, in some industries (heavy industry and manufacturing for example), they are some of the hardest working people out there. The Translink example isn't entirely representative of all unionized workers but just a testament to how relaxed and simple the job of driving a bus is to them.
This is true and I am sure there are hard workers within unions(lots of them), but I am sure that the ratio of lazy asses to hard workers is higher in a union environment simply due to the protection afforded to everyone and not just the hard workers.
In a competitive environment, for example my work, everyone works hard and there might one or two lazy asses within the whole company. That same one or two won't last either. It's just a different feel I guess. You can feel it though.
I don't see any reason to hate unions when they fight for money for people, even the lazy ones, where else should the money go, to rich people who might move it out of the country? The only real valid anti-union argument is that they cost companies too much, and most of the time thats the company thats making billions of dollars a year in profit bitching.
Theres a lot of unionized jobs too where the employees get paid shit like grocery stores etc, so what, they cant get fired-- but theyre making 10.00 an hour or less?
Translink as an example doesnt prove your point well. Do you know how hard some of the bus drivers work? And how much shit they put up with? And that they often dont have scheduled breaks? I saw a homeless guy spit in a bus drivers face once because he wouldnt let him get on, they take a lot of abuse.
I think the ratio of lazy to non lazy unionized workers is not as high as you think it is. As mentioned by someone else, a lot of your skilled trades workers are unionized, and I think they outnumber the service industry unions by far.
I don't see any reason to hate unions when they fight for money for people, even the lazy ones, where else should the money go, to rich people who might move it out of the country? The only real valid anti-union argument is that they cost companies too much, and most of the time thats the company thats making billions of dollars a year in profit bitching.
Theres a lot of unionized jobs too where the employees get paid shit like grocery stores etc, so what, they cant get fired-- but theyre making 10.00 an hour or less?
Translink as an example doesnt prove your point well. Do you know how hard some of the bus drivers work? And how much shit they put up with? And that they often dont have scheduled breaks? I saw a homeless guy spit in a bus drivers face once because he wouldnt let him get on, they take a lot of abuse.
I think the ratio of lazy to non lazy unionized workers is not as high as you think it is. As mentioned by someone else, a lot of your skilled trades workers are unionized, and I think they outnumber the service industry unions by far.
I never said I hate unions and there is a place for them, however, there should be provisions in the contract that can prevent abusing the privileges provided by being a member of a union. At least better than the provisions in existence now.
Translink isn't the only example. I used to work for the richmond inn in banquets a few years back and man what a gong show. There were people working there that had been there 10-15 years(union of course) and they did jack all. They new they couldnt get fired and they would brag about this.
Menawhile, no matter how hard I worked or how well I did I couldnt get more hours because of seniority. What a load of garbage. If I am doing better than someone and working harder then I should get the hours not the other slacker.
That is another problem I have with unions. The opportunity for advancement is tied directly to seniority and not the best candidate.
I think its the service industry unions as a whole as to what soured your opinion of unions.
These provisions you talk about really are a case to case basis with whatever union too.
At my job in the university its nothing like an older job I had in the service industry that was unionzed, which was a bunch of garbage. Where my hours were limited, I worked harder than others who made more than me, etc.
I think its the service industry unions as a whole as to what soured your opinion of unions.
These provisions you talk about really are a case to case basis with whatever union too.
At my job in the university its nothing like an older job I had in the service industry that was unionzed, which was a bunch of garbage. Where my hours were limited, I worked harder than others who made more than me, etc.
Then you can understand what I am saying.
Perhaps you are correct in your assertion that this may only be limited to the service industry. Perhaps not. I honestly don't have the proof to assert it either way. However, in my experience, this is how it is within a union.
And either way, I will live without it. I am skilled enough to survive in a competitive free market.
I don't understand why you think union jobs are not as good as "free market" jobs, like you have some air of superiority.
So because I'm in a union job, which had nothng to do with me choosing the job, I'm taking the easy way out? I could be terminated and have my contract ended at any point if I'm not demonstrating my skills.
STV: An opposing view of the single transferable vote Click here to find out more! Email Print Letter to Editor Share others also read... Abbotsford News
* STV empowers voters * STV not an easy choice * Simplify the STV system * Vote for representation * A new voting system, how it works
Fraser Valley
* STV: An opposing view * STV - An opposing view * Current system working well * A new voting system: How it works * This election could change future elections
Text Published: May 01, 2009 5:00 PM Updated: May 01, 2009 5:51 PM
2 Comments
Changing how we vote for MLAs won’t change politics for the better and it might make it worse.
BC-STV is a version of the rarely used Single Transferable Vote, invented by a mathematician and lawyer in the 1850s.
BC-STV replaces local representation with regional representation on a huge scale. It would merge the 85 local constituencies used in the May 12 election into 20 giant constituencies which would each elect from two to seven MLAs, but voters would just get a single vote.
For example, the Capital Region would include Port Renfrew, Victoria and Galiano Island; with seven MLAs that’s the largest riding in terms of population but not largest in terms of geography.
North Island-South Coast, with four MLAs, would be as large as Ireland. It would include Bamfield, Port Alberni, Sechelt, Powell River and Port Hardy; that’s right – the Sunshine Coast gets merged with the northwest coast of Vancouver Island.
Cariboo-Thompson would be twice as large as Ireland. It would include everything from Quesnel to the U.S. border with Kamloops in between.
Large multiple-MLA ridings reduce accountability.
Proponents assert that there are no safe seats with STV, but the truth is the opposite.
Ireland, Malta and Tasmania are the only places that use STV to elect representatives to the lower house of their parliaments. In Tasmania’s last election, 23 incumbents sought re-election and every one of them won.
In Ireland and Malta 80 per cent or more of the incumbents are regularly re-elected. That’s a higher retention rate than anything B.C. has seen with our current voting system.
Ballots are marked with numbers, but the numbers are not separate votes; they are preferences which are used differently for different voters depending on how the count goes. STV elects candidates who get a minimum percentage (12.5 per cent to 33.3 per cent, increasing as the number to be elected decreases).
The counting system is so complex that it takes weeks to count the votes. It might be possible to computerize the complex count, but it is not so easy to design a computer system that is subject to verification and that allows recounts while protecting voter secrecy.
Ireland tried an experiment with machines in three of its 43 electoral areas in 2002 and since then the machines have been in storage.
Political parties would be more powerful with BC-STV because it is expensive to campaign in its giant electoral areas. Independents and small parties would find it difficult to raise the $300,000 or more that the large parties would spend in most electoral areas.
The party nomination process in multiple-MLA regions would further concentrate power in the hands of a few. Candidates seeking nominations would face big financial hurdles communicating with supporters in large regions.
In Ireland, the central party machines limit the number of candidates who are allowed to run on their behalf in any area, for example, in Dublin South, Fianna Fail ran only three candidates even though there were five positions (TDs) up for election. That is all part of how parties set election strategies in the complicated STV system.
Supporters of BC-STV say it works in Ireland, so it should work here, but they would also have you believe that all our political problems would be solved if we adopt it.
Check out politics in Ireland. They are in a crisis; they blame their prime minister for centralizing power and wrecking the economy and they are on the verge of a non-confidence vote. It’s politics as usual.
Changing the voting system doesn’t change politics. Don’t be taken in by BC-STV. It requires enormous electoral areas that make politicians even less accountable than they are now and makes political parties even more powerful.
David Schreck is secretary-treasurer of the No BC-STV Campaign Society. He was NDP MLA for North Vancouver Lonsdale from 1991-96.
Ultimately, unions hold a lot of power, especially in the public sector. The problem is the power that they use to get excessive raises are costly since ultimately, taxpayers are on the hook for the bulk of those costs. I don't mind them negotiating fair settlements to prevent any kind of exploitation but most unions take advantage of the power of the negotiating table.
The idea that the private sector works harder than the public is mostly true. Its not that people in the public sector are lazy but rather that people in the private sector face more pressure to be effective and efficient which draws from being in a competitive environment.
I voted liberal, and no STV. But I think this is the last time I will vote liberal. If the BC Conservatives can get their act together, they have my vote in 2013 or whenever the next election is.
Comments
Also, if you consider the US presidential examples where if I recall correctly, Bush was elected without 50% in his first term, theres clearly still problems. While I realize they use a different electoral college thing, I just wanted to bring up that even in cases of 2 candidates, the system still isn't perfect. See, thats the thing. I don't think minorities are being cared for at all even in the current system. But the STV in a way, broadens those who fall under the "minority" umbrella sort to speak. Does that make any sense? Instead of getting rid of those "wasted" or "split" votes that handicaps one party and results in an inadvertent boost to the eventual party that forms government, we're just simply making the smaller communities unimportant and the bigger communities votes are worth more anyways at the end.
If this was a math thing, I'd contend that instead of 1/3 x 1, we're just making it 1 x 1/3 (except far far far more convoluted and complicated) in that we're just fractioning our votes value at a different stage. Hope that makes some sense..
I didn't say the current system is perfect, I just really don't think STV is the right answer.
I think I would compare changing first past the post to STV would be comparable to changing hockey nets to increase scoring. Its ridiculous. Change the rules, not the equipment. Post midnight babble for the win.
None of us have seen this in practice in Canada. Can any of us safely say we follow elections in Malta or Ireland, the only two places on earth that use it.
It is a variation of STV. Malta and Ireland are the only two places on earth using the version of STV we are voting on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_voting_ticket
Second paragraph second sentence best describes Austrailias use in the link below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote
It is not that I think our current system is fine: it's not. STV just isn't the answer.
In the places its being used(really just two countries, three if you count austrialias variation) it hasn't been greatly successful in terms of the objectives the yay sayers say are going to happen. Malta hasn't elected a third party rep for years.
edit: used in some local elections for Scotland and New Zealand. Starting in 2009 it will be used in city elections for minneapolis, minnesota USA. Also, this distracts from my main point and that is that nobody has seen it in practice here in Canada. If anything, it should be done at the local level as a test first. Honestly, it won't get the 60% it needs this time around so I'm not too concerned.
A minimum wage increase in a time of recession would not just cause some industries to think about relocation, but it would further strain the budgets of businesses who are already having trouble and are already laying off workers. Requiring them to pay higher labour costs would very likely lead to even more unemployment, which would probably have an even worse effect. Raising the minimum wage once the economy has recovered would be ok. An increase to $10 would be in line with inflation over the past 8 years. But raising it right now, as the NDP is suggesting, is not a wise idea.
And I'm trying to make sense of the link you sent, but so far, not too sure yet. I think its something like 63.7% of the tax cuts from the carbon tax surplus went to individuals (including 2 and 5% for 08 and 09 for the lowest two brackets) but 36.3% of the cuts goes to corporations and businesses? (415m/670m business tax cuts went to corporations, rest to small businesses)
So the relevant piece of info not provided here is how much of those surplus from the carbon tax is generated by individuals and how much of it is generated by businesses.
I think arguing on the definition of representation does not really demonstrate how STV is a superior system. While you're pointing to the "minority" of people in the first past the post system that their votes are not counted because there is a smaller majority that elected another candidate, I can just as easily say that is democracy and that majority wins (however small the majority is). That community IS represented even if those minority do not support the one who is chosen to represent them.
Your point can also be made under the STV system. If I was to choose 4 candidates from my riding of 20 or whatever it may be, my 4 picks could all lose out and I would still not be represented under your description. I could also choose to not rank my votes (or vote all for the same candidate correct?) - and should that candidate not win, am I not represented again?
Danoobie they don't have an MLA they can call theirs, because that person does not represent their beliefs.
It all depends how you define representation at the end of the day.
My own definition of representation is more in line with STV, maybe yours is more in line with what we have now.
What can you actually say your MLA has done for you specifically if anything?
Phil
Keep in mind, we're in a system of democracy. Someone will inevitably be that minority who is not represented. Having the STV system does not change this. We can merge 4 ridings and choose 4 candidates. If the 4 ridings were traditionally 60% "landslide" strongholds of one party, then merging those 4 ridings does nothing for the 40% minority "other" parties.
I haven't had the need to approach my MLA for anything. But if say, the road construction out near my house has taken an unreal amount of time to complete and I need someone to complain for me, I do not care whether my MLA is affiliated with Liberals or Conservatives. I know my interests are looked after even if I live in a small community.
The NDP is whiny. Literally every time I hear about them, they're complaining about something.
Maybe it's because they're the opposition party. Maybe it's just in their nature. I don't know, and I don't care. A negative attitude won't win my vote.
The NDP has also historically been pro-union, and I hate unions.
Do you really think your MLA could or would even look out for you if you did go for them, and that they could realistically accomplish much? For example, look at the tearing up of Granville Street, in the end big business won over the small business who went out of business or received lack luster compensation.
To me, STV gives greater representation on a whole, and I'm fine with that because I don't believe regional representation is necessarily important in practice rather than theory.
People say noone will be accountable in STV, but that really is just an extreme view. The proponents of STV really haven't done a good job of explaining accountability and maybe they should.
The concept of unions is fine. I mean they are there to protect and secure their members in terms of job security and family benifits. However, people abuse the rights they have within a union environment.
I usually notice that unionized employees are generally some of laziest people(on the job that is) that I have ever seen. Just look at some of translinks bus drivers, most are arrogant and could care less about the paying customers. There are a few good ones, but the majority of these a-holes wouldnt be able to hold a job in a competitive environment if their life depended on it. I can't even count the number of times a bus driver has sworn at me or others for no good reason(not that there is one in the first place). I have had a few grab me as well. This was due to my bus pass not being completely visible to them. A natural civilized solution would have been to ask me to present it better but no, I get grabbed.
And really the only thing to blame is their CBA, that allows them to do whatever they want and not worry about major consequences. Unlike the real world where they would get fired in a heartbeat.
I am genuinely sorry if this comment has insulted or offended anyone. However, I have had nothing but bad experiences with unions. People should learn to survive in a competitive world.
Theres a big difference between a bus driver and what I do, just because someone is in a union job doesnt mean they can be lazy. To make this statement shows complete ignorance on your guys part to the gammit of jobs that are unionized.
In a job like translink its obvious though, that your example is true, to some extent anyway. A bus driver once swore at me for getting on in front of some woman who wasnt even in line, or old, or handicapped, because she had one of those grocery carry along trolley things. I called in to complain and I'm sure my complaint never went past the person I reported it to, and they probably laughed after.
I think when youre in a unionized job, in the customer service industry you can abuse it, because basically you can never get fired based on customer complaints. A job like mine in admin if I piss the wrong person off, or dont do my job I'll get toasted. I have a workload that is solely mine, and the union just serves to help with my wages and benefits.
In a competitive environment, for example my work, everyone works hard and there might one or two lazy asses within the whole company. That same one or two won't last either. It's just a different feel I guess. You can feel it though.
Theres a lot of unionized jobs too where the employees get paid shit like grocery stores etc, so what, they cant get fired-- but theyre making 10.00 an hour or less?
Translink as an example doesnt prove your point well. Do you know how hard some of the bus drivers work? And how much shit they put up with? And that they often dont have scheduled breaks? I saw a homeless guy spit in a bus drivers face once because he wouldnt let him get on, they take a lot of abuse.
I think the ratio of lazy to non lazy unionized workers is not as high as you think it is. As mentioned by someone else, a lot of your skilled trades workers are unionized, and I think they outnumber the service industry unions by far.
Translink isn't the only example. I used to work for the richmond inn in banquets a few years back and man what a gong show. There were people working there that had been there 10-15 years(union of course) and they did jack all. They new they couldnt get fired and they would brag about this.
Menawhile, no matter how hard I worked or how well I did I couldnt get more hours because of seniority. What a load of garbage. If I am doing better than someone and working harder then I should get the hours not the other slacker.
That is another problem I have with unions. The opportunity for advancement is tied directly to seniority and not the best candidate.
These provisions you talk about really are a case to case basis with whatever union too.
At my job in the university its nothing like an older job I had in the service industry that was unionzed, which was a bunch of garbage. Where my hours were limited, I worked harder than others who made more than me, etc.
Perhaps you are correct in your assertion that this may only be limited to the service industry. Perhaps not. I honestly don't have the proof to assert it either way. However, in my experience, this is how it is within a union.
And either way, I will live without it. I am skilled enough to survive in a competitive free market.
So because I'm in a union job, which had nothng to do with me choosing the job, I'm taking the easy way out? I could be terminated and have my contract ended at any point if I'm not demonstrating my skills.
The idea that the private sector works harder than the public is mostly true. Its not that people in the public sector are lazy but rather that people in the private sector face more pressure to be effective and efficient which draws from being in a competitive environment.