Addie Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 I see that STV, the single transferable voting system has reared it's ugly head once again. This truly has to be the dogs breakfast of all voting options. Here Manx Radio gives a taste. Far from a 'none of the above' option, that would remove the need to spoil papers, and allow each vote to be counted - once - it appears that we'll be forced to vote for all and sundry if we want to or not! The STV silliness removes voter options rather than offer increased options. Under the new proposal, voters would have to indicate a preference for as many candidates as there were seats in that constituency, or their ballot paper would be considered spoilt. I'm really considering offering a suitably timed Guy Fawkes up to see how he gets on. What the hell is going on with these people? Add that potential fiasco to the disgrace of MLCs clinging limpet-like to their unelected seats, it's time the lot were hoofed out. And they actually wonder why voters are not using their vote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarahc Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Many years ago when STV was still in we had a mock General Election at school. We had people who were involved in the vote counting etc for real to help out. I voted for the one person I wanted with a 1 and handed it in. The following conversation ensued. "you have only voted for one person". "Yes, I only want one person to get the seat." "But you should put two other people on." "Why?" "Because otherwise you have wasted your vote." "But I only want one person to be elected. I don't want any of the other candidates to get in." "But you have wasted your vote." Etc. I hate STV. And this new way of doing it seems really really awful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Without having a None of the Above option (or the name I prefer Re Open Nominations RON) a single transferable vote is a waste of time. I think many people on the Island would like the opportunity to vote for RON ... any voting reform should include it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 I know STV has its drawbacks but would it not be better to have STV than stick to the present system. I don't really understand the fuss over adopting STV, why do people rate it so badly? If we want representative government then getting rid of 'first past the post' voting would be a good start. I think the Commission that came to the Isle of Man in the 70s or 80s actually said that for the island STV would be best but had to be adopted with a change to the makeup of the government, they said that the rural constituencies have too much voting power compared with the towns. The electoral system went STV without altering the vote of the constituencies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GD4ELI Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 People who don't understand STV shouldn't be allowed to vote as they are as clinically thick as a squashed hedgehog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 I find the STV system easier to understand than the first passed the post system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirdick Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 I don't understand it. I've never heard of it, does that mean I can't vote? I'd like to have a say on who runs this Island thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagman Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 STV will never work in the Island. Not because it's not a good voting system, it's just that there's too many people who refuse to try and understand how it works. It's certainly a much fairer system than first-past-the-post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GD4ELI Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 I don't understand it. I've never heard of it, does that mean I can't vote? I'd like to have a say on who runs this Island thanks. If you can understand the explanation which will be circulated then you have passed the test. If you don't understand it then you'll be spoiling you vote anyway. It's not rocket science, just because a voter hasn't come across it before is no excuse to chuck the toys out of of the pram. Some things are done better in other countries . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesemonster2005 Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 First-past-the-post is not a democratic system. STV isn't ideal as some people seem to want to be able to refuse all candidates. The STV system works fine in many countries and they enjoy better democracy because of this. This system may lead to more coalition governments (when using a party system) but at least the people would be better represented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirdick Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 I don't understand it. I've never heard of it, does that mean I can't vote? I'd like to have a say on who runs this Island thanks. chuck the toys out of of the pram. Pah. Ok, I started reading this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Transferable_Vote but it might take me a while to get my head around it. I'll come back after I've done my homework Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 You vote for the candidates in order of preference. So in your case... Fat Mike 1 Dr Who 2 The Inventor of Cheese 3 Pete Burns 4 George W. Bush 5 They count all the first choices, and if anyone gets 50% they are elected automatically. If no-one gets 50% the candidate with least first choices is eliminated and their votes go to their second choice. So if Fat Mike failled to convince the electorate your vote would move on to Dr Who. And that would continue until someone had 50% of the vote. Simple enough, in a single member constituency, it gets a bit more complicated in a multi-member constituency. But here goes... Say the votes went like this Fat Mike 60% Dr Who 25% The Inventor of Cheese 10% Pete Burns 3% George Bush 2% Fat Mike would be elected into the first of the two places. And the second choices of the his voters passed on to the other candidates. There are two ways of doing this - either distributing the Mike's 60% or the surplus 10% - Method 1 Fat Mike Elected Dr Who 25% + 30% from Fat Mike = 55% The Inventor of Cheese 10% + 20% = 30% Pete Burns 3% + 5% = 8% George Bush 2% + 5 % = 7% So Dr Who would get elected as well. Method 2 Fat Mike = Elected (so keeps 50% out of his 60%) Dr Who 25% + 5% (from Fat Mike remaining 10%) = 30% The Inventor of Cheese 10% + 3% = 13% Pete Burns 3% + 1% = 4% George Bush 2% + 1 % = 3% So Dr Who would be elected because the combined total of the other three candidates is less than his share. If he didn't have enough the bottom candidates would be illiminated and their votes redistributed until there was a winner. Then the Supreme Court would overturn the election and declare George Bush the winner. Now what is complicated about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 Can't understand why you'd be prevented from voting for just one candidate though. It should be up to you if you don't want your vote to transfer to any of the others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 I think they should keep the process of voting as simple as possible, and not require voters to familiarize themselves with the STV again (or for the first time, depending on age) - turnout during the last elections was low enough - as low as 41% in east Douglas - focus should be put on getting more people to vote, especially the younger population, not discouraging them from doing something many don't seem to bother with anyway... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 People aren't stupid. They can understand a simple concept like "vote for your candidates in order of preference" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.