So This STV Thing... How's it Work?

My head hurts after viewing that....

I'm sorry but there are an number of equations involved in that, and I really don't understand it myself... Perhaps if I view it five more times. The surplus calculation is just strange... No voter could reasonable be able to calculate that by themselves if they wanted to audit the process.

Really, why not use either pure PR with a threshold (%votes = %seats with a minimum vote %) or MMP where some members are elected on a first-past-the-post and some are elected on PR. Yes there are lists in that system but it is easy to calculate, retains proportionality and also retains a single member representing your interests.

The multi-member constituencies scare me because they are a ripe source of bickering and partisan politics. Members are not required, as they are now, to serve all of their constituents fairly as there are other places you can go. I'm sorry but I don't trust our politicians to be cooperative in the inevitable minority parliaments.

Seriously? You honestly think that this is too complicated for someone to audit? There are only 2 formulas:

• Minimum number of votes to win
• Transfer value

No square roots or factoring, just addition and division: skills we learn in elementary school long before we're of voting age. I don't think that you can reasonably argue that the complexity is a barrier for participation or auditing.

As for how representative it is, STV is closer to local representation than MMP and also will allow for more independents as well. Consider that with a riding of 30,000 people, candidates will undoubtably concentrate on the populations that they can win. Rural sectors vs. urban ones, blue collar vs. white collar voters -- the electorate will have the opportunity to support any number of candidates in their riding based on the positions of the people running and not just the parties they run with.

Say for example that there are 10 people running in my riding: 3 Green, 3 Liberal, 3 NDP and 1 Independent. As a voter, I can choose to support the one independent who shares my values without wasting it and still go on to support other candidates for the Greens.

Under MMP, proportionality is managed by the party, which while it's still more representative than FPTP, really does take away from the local representation.

I suppose I shouldn't be bothered so much by your lack of support for STV as you can't vote here anyway, but I just don't understand how someone who knows as much about politics as you do can take such a position. STV's been around for more than a century and it's worked well for a lot of places. FPTP fosters unhealthy democratic systems so it has to go and STV is our only chance! Don't fight it 'cause it confuses you, learn about it and teach others so we can do better.

First, you assume everyone has some interest and education. I know that you prefer to say 'screw-you' to those who won't take an interest or the time to understand, but I don't think you can do that. It should be easily understood by the stupidest of people.

I've always had a love-hate relationship with forms of PR. Personally I'm not convinced that the pros outweigh the cons for me personally. I like majority governments, and big-tent parties, I don't like fractured politics and small parties.

OK, I was telling myself I shouldn't comment because my rambling must be getting annoying by now so I'll keep it short.

About stupid people:

My boss was telling me yesterday about the vote we (Aus) had back in the 70s (before I was born) when there was a "double dissolution" which means that the entire senate was replaced (rather than just half as is usual in our system. This was also before the adoption of "voting above the line" (wikipedia is your friend) so this meant that each voter had to number 54 (yes, fifty four) boxes in order to have their vote count. If they stuffed it up their vote wouldn't count (yes, yes, that's why they brought in the above the line thing) and remember that voting is compulsory down there. So everyone (not just the smart people, the really dumb people too) voted.

There was less than 3% informal votes.

That means that even the stupidest aussie bogans could manage it.

And as for auditing, if you can't understand the pretty simple math involved I doubt you're likely to want to go and do an audit on your own anyway. Bring a smart friend. :)

(Yes, that was my version of "short")

Ok, I just stumbled across this and it makes my arguments quite well: www.nostv.org

In particular I like this:
"In the proposed seven-MLA Capital Region, a candidate would be declared elected with just 12.5% of the vote, while in the Northeast, a two-MLA region, a candidate would be elected with 33.3% of the vote. That would give BC what amounts to two different voting systems, and that is not equal effective representation."

Basically this is saying that the system is designed to ensure that not everyone's vote is of equal weight. This is just plain wrong. Again, I'm not against a proportional system, but STV is not the answer.

P.S. It's nice to know that both sides got $500,000 to spend of public money. My only question is if they are restricted from fundraising or not. If not that's too bad, since in a referendum, both sides should be equal.

Nope, both sides can do their own fundraising. The "no" camp are using most of their money on the same commercial being run over and over again while the "yes" camp have been splitting up the money into a few areas: mostly pamphlets and the website though.

They're running their own commercial too, but they're doing some fundraising to get it out there. Feel free to donate :-)