doodlebug Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 Gosh I must be out of touch! Talking about re-introducing the STV system - I didn't realise it had been done away with. As one poster mentioned about the Legislative Council - I think they shouldn't be allowed to get their feet under the table and stay there while the dust piles up on top of them. There should be regular elections for them too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesemonster2005 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. If there are 5 candidates and you rate Bush as a '5' you're effectively saying that you don't want him. What's so complicated about this system? Does anyone understand the fpp system and why it's so unfair? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 er... I support STV. I was just saying there was no reason why a person who thought the remaining candidates were equally bad couldn't just vote for their first choice. I don't see why STV could or should prevent them doing that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doodlebug 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. If there are 5 candidates and you rate Bush as a '5' you're effectively saying that you don't want him. What's so complicated about this system? Does anyone understand the fpp system and why it's so unfair? The fpp system is a very unfair and undemocratic system. No wonder people across have lost interest in voting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirdick Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 Now that you've explained it like that Declan it makes a lot more sense. In a way it's like when you're applying to uni and you have to make your selection based on preference. Of course, there's only one of you there and you go to the one you get into, not get spread out over all of them. So it's not entirely the same. As a "young person voting for the first time" I fully intend to understand this election deal as much as possible, so much so infact that I'm willing to take the time to get my friends and people my age involved in it aswell as much as possible. I know a load of people who probably don't even know there is an election this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesemonster2005 Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 er... I support STV. I was just saying there was no reason why a person who thought the remaining candidates were equally bad couldn't just vote for their first choice. I don't see why STV could or should prevent them doing that. Yeah I know Declan. Remember I'm an ass so I have to disagree with you even if I agree with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempus Fugit Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 I don't think the problem is voting for the number required, it's more of having candidates that you would even consider voting for, or maybe you should have a 'black ball' box to eliminate those who you would not want elected in any cirumstances Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirdick Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 Yeah, say there were 5 names on the list, you had your favourite and one other you were probably indifferent about then you could mark them 1 and 2. But if the other 3 you really didn't want in at any cost why should you number them? You're then having to choose between your 3 least favourite where there still might be a chance due to your vote that they could get in. Right? I like the idea of numbering your top favourites but you should be able to choose how many of the ones listed you want to number. Right? I'm saying right to check I've got the jist of this voting system. So far it seems like a better idea than the just choosing one system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 You would not be compelled to mark everyone 1-10 or however many the candidates are. However, earlier posts suggest that if you lived in a 2 or 3 member consitituency (which you don't) you would be compelled to vote for at least 2 or 3 candidates. I'm not sure this is correct, but if it is it is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lisner Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 We are not all smartarses you know, and the average person has enough on their plate without bothering with politics and who to vote for. STV maybe ok for you lot who can type on computers and write poems and make witty comments and do erudite things and that, but your average person has enough on their plate without having to come to a decision to vote for one of the folks that has knocked on their door, let alone put them in some sort of order. Stick your head oota the window now and look at the people in the street. STV? naaahhh. 1 (wo)man, 1 vote, 1 person. Only way I'm afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 Bollocks! Most people can count and most people understand the concept of ranking things in order of preference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lisner Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 Go to the Manx Music Festival. Listen to 5 solists singing a song. Put them in order of merit. Drive 5 new cars. Put them in order of merit. Go judge a ploughing match. (I reckon I could get the first but stuffed after that). etc. Or do whatever. I read Declan's explanations of STV. Very well done. I am informed. But I don't think I am any the wiser and my head now hurts. And I have some O' levels (or CSE equivalents). More than anyone else in our street anyway. So STV is beyond me. Come the polling day I'll jist stay down the Bowler until a few minutes past eight. Ooops, missed the Polling Booth again. It's a damn sight easier you see. And I reckon it would scare off all the rest of the street too. Very few folk are interested in deciding or placing more than one candidate. Simple as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 Very few folk are interested in deciding or placing more than one candidate. Simple as that. But most people already have to choose more than one candidate, as most constituencies are 2 or 3 member ones. Besides, I'm not saying you can't only vote for one candidate. The only difference being you would write "1" instead of "x". The current system is unfair. At the last election I firmly wanted Crellin to get elected, didn't mind Rimminigton getting elected either, and thought Gill was the best of the rest. So I voted for all three (Rushen has 3 MHKs) and each vote carried the same weight. I had to vote for three beause I wanted to stop Crowe being re-elected. Now imagine if Crellin and Gill had been scrapping for the final post. My votes would have counted equally for both of them, even though I thought Crellin would make a much better MHK. Besides how satisfying for an Onchan voter would it be to mark 10 next to Corkill's name? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lisner Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 Mr Corkill will be standing come hell or high water. As long as he gets more than null points then there should be a nice little pension pay off coming his way. A real win-win situation really. Hmmmn, STV. If that system could have prevented Mrs Crowe from being re-elected then it has one helluva lot going for it. The lady who is not for turning is with us for a few more years yet it seems whether we like it or not. Oh, and some folks in our street can't write more than an 'x'. Seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirdick Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 Well let's hope there are some government types reading this and they have the nouce to stick out some educational leaflets if they decide to go with this STV thing. And have them in obviousspeak rather than making them eligable for non-voting due to them being as clinically thick as a squashed hedgehog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.