politics · rants
Some other arguments I’ve tallied since my last post on this issue.
In large rural constituencies, it is possible that most or all elected MLAs may come from a major town within that riding. Why? Because most of the voters would come from the same town. The same could apply to city constituencies like in Vancouver, where west side residents are more likely to vote than eastsiders, for example. Thus, electing city councilors from their locale. (This is the same argument of ‘western alienation’ that Western Canada has been clamouring for years!)
Since the bf and his family are Irish, they argued in favour of STV because they believe it works. So, here are some facts: STV is notably used in just two countries nationally: Ireland and Malta. It is also used in the jurisdictions of Northern Ireland, as well as the Australian state, Tasmania.
First of all, Ireland, Malta, Tasmania?? Who? What? Where? Huh? Whereas the FPTP is used here in Canada, the US, the UK, and 64 other democratic countries. (I don’t think I’m ever invited to another family dinner.)
Back to Ireland. Ireland is the size of… A lake, an island by our geographic standards? But similar to BC, Ireland has 4 million people. Nonetheless, there are 166 representatives in their parliament compared to our 85 MLAs in our legislature. That’s nearly double the number of elected representatives! Which brings to another issue–albeit a damn important one! If BC also requires additional MLAs under the STV, guess who pays their salaries! Even better, if they serve for more than 6 years, they will be eligible to collect their pensions. Some will just pick up a fat severance check if they don’t make it that far. More MLAs (means) more bureaucracy (which translates to more) taxpayers’ $$$!
I truly disagree when people make comments like “well your vote was completely wasted”. And clearly that is the basis in which this STV propaganda is founded on. The illusion of “wasted votes”. If you believe in your candidate, you should never “throw” away your vote to someone more likely to win. Even knowing that your candidate/party won’t win, your vote is indicator of your support, and by that, yes, your vote does count! Political parties should earn their seats in riding through the traditional system of earning the support and votes of the people who elect them. That means you get out there shaking hands and kissing babies!
Another propagandist argument about how the votes are really counted is actually missing the point! The Hockey Analogy is a good one to explain how the winning party gets to form government: http://www.nostv.org/team.html.
Voter’s apathy exists because many people prefer to relinquish decisions to those better informed than they. And it’s better that way! Last thing we want are people blindly taking a random and uninformed stab at an election. Or a “bandwagon” voter who just follows the popular platform. If voters are already having difficulty electing a single member, how will the ranking system pan out? This is not my idea, but I think it’s a good one. Why not add a final choice of “none of the above”? If a majority of voters voted for “none of the above”, I guess no one wins. Great idea!
I'm in there!
May 14, 2009 • #Australia, #BC, #BC-STV, #Canada, #consituencies, #fptp, #hockey analogy, #Ireland, #Malta, #MLA, #no stv, #politician pensions, #ridings, #single transferable vote, #Tasmania, #UK, #US, #vancouver, #voter's apathy