THE #1 ISSUE IN THE UPCOMING ELECTION
Gordon Scott
I'll tell you what it is...
And ask yourself why not even 1 of the major parties is even whispering
about it.
What is it that all the major parties fear so much, that not even a
whisper is made of it?
What could bring down any of these partys in the future, and return the
power back to the people? What virtually guarantees free votes and not
towing the party line?
STV is what... The Single Transferable Vote Referendum on this elections
ballot.
This issue is so scary to the major parties they won't even mention it.
Why would any of these parties fear putting democracy back in the hands
of the electorate?
They love the status quo, where they have all the power and you get
shafted.
VOTE YES for the STV and make politicians accountable to the public that
elects them.
This is your 1 and only chance so don't screw it up.
Even if you dont vote for a candidate vote for STV
AC
I've seen it mentioned in my local paper, and I've also seen political
commentators talking about it, but the politicians seem to be treating the
whole debate like the bubonic plague. I know at least one big union
representative in my community has come out against it, predicting all sorts
of dire consequences (as if two elections in a row with heavily distorted
legislatures weren't dire consequences of the existing system).
If there's been a poll on STV support in BC, I haven't heard it. It's as if
good chunk of the establishment, irregardless of ideology, simply want it
all to go away. To my mind, this is a much more important vote than which
batch of twits gets power.
ro...@telus.net
>On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 09:34:35 GMT,
>Gordon Scott <gord...@NOSPAMshaw.ca> wrote:
>>
>> Even if you dont vote for a candidate vote for STV
Agreed.
>It's as if
>good chunk of the establishment, irregardless of ideology, simply want it
>all to go away. To my mind, this is a much more important vote than which
>batch of twits gets power.
Also agreed. STV may not be the best possible system, but compared to
the ridiculous, undemocratic results we had in the last _two_
elections, it has to be far better than FPTP.
-- Roy L
AC
I sadly through away my old 1997 Scientific American which had an entire
section dedicated to electoral reform, in the light of the 1996 Presidential
election's poor turnout.
There are no perfect systems. No system is ever going to be able to read
absolutely the will of the people. But some systems are better than others.
First past the post can at least be partially blamed in North America for
voters staying away from the polls, since the feeling seems to be there that
voters aren't going to get their issues on the table anyways. Particularly
since political parties in the Western world have all pretty much abandoned
any meaningful ideological distinctions in their rush to the centre, the
apathy just grows.
I do have some problems with STV as formulated by the committee, in that I
think the ridings should have equal numbers of representatives, and if that
means cutting large areas like Vancouver into limited parcels with three
MLAs apiece, then so be it. Still, I think even with that flaw, it's
essential that we do something to bring power back to the people.
If we reject it, then that's it, the mainstream parties and the special
interests that back them will never bring in any kind of parliamentary
reform. I watched Voice of BC a few weeks ago, and Dan Miller was defending
the current system, and I'm sitting here thinking to myself that his party
got decimated, even though the clear public will wasn't to deprive the NDP
of all but two seats in the 2001-2005 legislature. In the last two
elections we have seen a legislature which in no way represented the will of
the people. But the politicians, of course, are willing to put up with
extreme circumstances if it means in general the system works to their
benefit.
I would still like to see parliamentary and party reform. I would like to
see the committee system reformed and I'd like to see measures taken to ease
off party discipline which has really been very anti-democratic over the
last decade or so. Both Glen Clark and Gordon Campbell have pretty much run
the province as a personal fiefdom and the party discipline by and large
allowed them to do that, though I'm quite certain that in both cases there
were MLAs who would have just loved to have stood up and said "Screw you!"
STV at least will weaken the shackles a bit, and may see some independents
get in. At the very least it can't be any worse than what the last two
elections showed us.
Dennis G.
>This issue is so scary to the major parties they won't even mention it.
>Why would any of these parties fear putting democracy back in the hands
>of the electorate?
Premier Campbell has stated that this is a matter for a decision by the BC
electorate separate from political beliefs or preferences.
It is not a matter for parties.
He is right.
Dennis
Gordon Scott
He's right it isnt a matter for parties, its a matter against parties,
and for people. And we all know it is more democratic. Now why wouldn't a
party or politician state that a more democratic system is a laudable
cause and stand behind it?
He isn't a premier, he's a puppet of big business.
Gordon
AC
Because it robs the party system of some of its influence. I'll be just
fine with the politicians staying out of it. They're the ones that sold
their souls to the party machine for decades, so they don't have any
business commenting on it one way or the other.
>
> He isn't a premier, he's a puppet of big business.
Is that any worse than being a puppet of the unions, or just simply an
incompetent?
Gordon Scott
Well were were talking about Gordon Cambell :)
And yes, I'm not for puppets subservient to any faction.
I'd rather have an incompetent (amazing how that sounds like encumbant)
and unexperienced politician, than one who's sold their soul.
Gordon
Gordon
Neely
Neely
Gordon Scott wrote:
Gorgon prefers the blind leading the blind.
Marvelous, just marvelous...........
Gordon Scott
As if any recent leader in almost any democracy has had a profound effect
on any of the ills of the day....
Of course there was Pope John Paul II.
But somehow I get that a profound sense of spiritual direction conflicts
with your current view of real leadership.
Gordon