If the tables were turned, the response would be "Too bad. That's just the way it works."
Danica.
And the complaints also ignore the fact that she has less mass for leverage, which has some effect on performance as well.
Has there ever been a complaint about a small man?
Get over it.
If it is a consistent issue and she wins all the time, then perhaps take a look at the sort of equalization they use with jockeys.
But until said advantage is clear, get over it and address the real issue - having to share the field with a woman. Oh, boo-hoo.
When is the movie going to get made?
.... Well, that was a nearly contextless rant.
Sunday, May 29, 2005
Thursday, May 26, 2005
Microsoft Woe
Well, heck.
I had my primary hard-drive fail me last week - really bad timing as I've got a delivery date for a video project on the first of June. Luckily none of my data was lost, but all my programs were! The process of recovery (several steps there, including self-driven attempts and finally getting someone else to look at it); buckling in and getting a new hard-drive; formatting and replacing the software has all taken close to a week - and I'm still not done.
It makes me crazy.
And 90% of my woes surround Windows. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I can hear the Apple advocates now saying that one word that they tend to pull out that they think means "You know better, but you're just too stubborn to do anythign about it." You know the word I mean. And it's usually delivered in a slightly condescening sing-song voice: "Ma-a-a-ac."
I'm not going to get indepth into the great Coke vs. Pepsi debate here. But I will admit that Mac's tendency to have less immediate crashing problems is appealing. But it totally ignores such things as the annoying non-modularity of it (which of course is a major reason it has less crash problems); the general counter-intuitiveness of the interface (an admittedly arguable point, but I have never found Apple products to be as easy as they we're proclaimed to be - and I was once a devoted user, my girl-friend still owns one and when I use it I want to tear it out of the wall, so I'm not speaking out of ignorance); and when a Mac does fail, it's inscruitable error messages are utterly infuriating... just to name a few beefs I have with Mac.
But I really want to air my beefs about Microsoft.
I discovered that the version of Windows that came on my hard-drive was apparently cracked. Am I surprised? No. Before XP, the work-arounds were pretty simple. But by now the updates to Service Packs 1 and 2 are really irritating (actually, in my lack of awareness of the specifics, I am not sure that it's even possible to do SP2 yet - I figure it must be, but it's taken me two days just to think I have SP1 worked out, and SP2 is still just this monster T-Rex tearing apart others of my fellow cave men on the horizon.)
Now, it is obvious that MS would like my money. And the money of anyone else who pirates their precious, next-to-mandatory operating system. I get that. But the extremes they are going to are getting pretty outrageous.
I believe that making sure that there are some extra hurdles for those who do want to take advantage of them is necessary - to stop the 'honest thief.' But to make the hurdles so close to totally exclusionary seems to me to be counter-productive. All it serves to do it make people less pleased with the products as a whole - and therefore less likely to bite the bullet and actually buy down the road. Also, preventing the community at large from being a more up-to-date, stronger, community is counter-productive. Strengthening the whole, strengthens the individual, and vice versa.
They make a ridiculous amount of money just on corporate (and other professional) installations. And it's relatively easy to keep the businesses in line - much easier to track them legally. Why not just make sure that they are all in line and be thankful for all the personal users who actually dish-out for the OS?
I am hoping that soon I will be in the category of 'business who is easier to keep in line' and then I'll be happy to pay for an honest install of Windows. I'd even do it now, just to save the grief and hassle I'm currently experiencing, but; 1) I just spent money I can barely afford on a new HD - which of course started this problem - a bit of unfortunate circular logic and; 2) This experience is souring me more to MS and actually making me want to say 'fuck-you' to them even more - also a bit of circular logic, snowballing in this case.
God, I wish I actually liked how Macs work.
I had my primary hard-drive fail me last week - really bad timing as I've got a delivery date for a video project on the first of June. Luckily none of my data was lost, but all my programs were! The process of recovery (several steps there, including self-driven attempts and finally getting someone else to look at it); buckling in and getting a new hard-drive; formatting and replacing the software has all taken close to a week - and I'm still not done.
It makes me crazy.
And 90% of my woes surround Windows. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I can hear the Apple advocates now saying that one word that they tend to pull out that they think means "You know better, but you're just too stubborn to do anythign about it." You know the word I mean. And it's usually delivered in a slightly condescening sing-song voice: "Ma-a-a-ac."
I'm not going to get indepth into the great Coke vs. Pepsi debate here. But I will admit that Mac's tendency to have less immediate crashing problems is appealing. But it totally ignores such things as the annoying non-modularity of it (which of course is a major reason it has less crash problems); the general counter-intuitiveness of the interface (an admittedly arguable point, but I have never found Apple products to be as easy as they we're proclaimed to be - and I was once a devoted user, my girl-friend still owns one and when I use it I want to tear it out of the wall, so I'm not speaking out of ignorance); and when a Mac does fail, it's inscruitable error messages are utterly infuriating... just to name a few beefs I have with Mac.
But I really want to air my beefs about Microsoft.
I discovered that the version of Windows that came on my hard-drive was apparently cracked. Am I surprised? No. Before XP, the work-arounds were pretty simple. But by now the updates to Service Packs 1 and 2 are really irritating (actually, in my lack of awareness of the specifics, I am not sure that it's even possible to do SP2 yet - I figure it must be, but it's taken me two days just to think I have SP1 worked out, and SP2 is still just this monster T-Rex tearing apart others of my fellow cave men on the horizon.)
Now, it is obvious that MS would like my money. And the money of anyone else who pirates their precious, next-to-mandatory operating system. I get that. But the extremes they are going to are getting pretty outrageous.
I believe that making sure that there are some extra hurdles for those who do want to take advantage of them is necessary - to stop the 'honest thief.' But to make the hurdles so close to totally exclusionary seems to me to be counter-productive. All it serves to do it make people less pleased with the products as a whole - and therefore less likely to bite the bullet and actually buy down the road. Also, preventing the community at large from being a more up-to-date, stronger, community is counter-productive. Strengthening the whole, strengthens the individual, and vice versa.
They make a ridiculous amount of money just on corporate (and other professional) installations. And it's relatively easy to keep the businesses in line - much easier to track them legally. Why not just make sure that they are all in line and be thankful for all the personal users who actually dish-out for the OS?
I am hoping that soon I will be in the category of 'business who is easier to keep in line' and then I'll be happy to pay for an honest install of Windows. I'd even do it now, just to save the grief and hassle I'm currently experiencing, but; 1) I just spent money I can barely afford on a new HD - which of course started this problem - a bit of unfortunate circular logic and; 2) This experience is souring me more to MS and actually making me want to say 'fuck-you' to them even more - also a bit of circular logic, snowballing in this case.
God, I wish I actually liked how Macs work.
Thursday, May 19, 2005
Political Triage over Political Harikari
Well, Damn.
STV was voted down.
I suspect that a public that was more aware of the issue would have voted in favour. Oh well.
But it was close - more than close, really.
Way more than 60% of the ridings voted in favour by a simple majority - requirement #1 met.
Over 57% of the total voting public voted in favour. Less than 3% shy of the 60% required.
Clearly a sizable majority of the province wants change. In fact it seems pretty clear that STV is acceptable to most or all - 60% majorities are intended to protect minorities, which in this particular referendum is an illogical concern as the STV system is designed to benefit minority opinion.
The government could push STV through without much flak as it stands. The voice of the province is pretty clear. But it's dubious that they would as it doesn't serve their power position much if at all. But ignoring it would be political suicide so they have to do SOMETHING.
Curious to see what and how.
The simplest answer would be to push it through - the process has been started, the mechanics of the system are worked out and the people are in favour by a demonstrable margin.
But probably deciding upon some sort of watered down electoral reform that the parties come up with that doesn't undermine their position as badly will be the answer - - and what kind of reform is that?
Another referendum, or another Citizens Assembly is probably too much effort and cost, and too scary to let go the control of their fate yet again.
STV was voted down.
I suspect that a public that was more aware of the issue would have voted in favour. Oh well.
But it was close - more than close, really.
Way more than 60% of the ridings voted in favour by a simple majority - requirement #1 met.
Over 57% of the total voting public voted in favour. Less than 3% shy of the 60% required.
Clearly a sizable majority of the province wants change. In fact it seems pretty clear that STV is acceptable to most or all - 60% majorities are intended to protect minorities, which in this particular referendum is an illogical concern as the STV system is designed to benefit minority opinion.
The government could push STV through without much flak as it stands. The voice of the province is pretty clear. But it's dubious that they would as it doesn't serve their power position much if at all. But ignoring it would be political suicide so they have to do SOMETHING.
Curious to see what and how.
The simplest answer would be to push it through - the process has been started, the mechanics of the system are worked out and the people are in favour by a demonstrable margin.
But probably deciding upon some sort of watered down electoral reform that the parties come up with that doesn't undermine their position as badly will be the answer - - and what kind of reform is that?
Another referendum, or another Citizens Assembly is probably too much effort and cost, and too scary to let go the control of their fate yet again.
Sunday, May 15, 2005
Should we just start blaming Steve Moore now?
Well, Canada lost at the IIHF Worlds of Hockey.
A Silver will have to do. And the Czechs need to be given acknowledgement as a damned good team. (Actually all four of the last teams were the four teams that should have gone into the final four. Sweden, Russia, Czech and Canada. The US was merely a close 'also ran' to those four.
But what would have happened if Canada had had Todd Bertuzzi? Would Bertie have been good for that extra punch in the final game? My money is on 'yes' - partly as a Bertuzzi true-believer, and partly out of a need to blame someone.
So who exactly do we blame for the loss then? Well, Canada really seemed to lose the game in the third - both the first two periods were solid (despite the first goal fairly early on), but the third was full of mistakes and a lack of discipline. The team is culpable there, for certain.
But if Steve Moore wasn't such a knob from the start - read: his hit on Naslund and it's fall-out that I've already weighed in on at length - then Bertuzzi could have been playing today. Canada could have won.
Really.
A Silver will have to do. And the Czechs need to be given acknowledgement as a damned good team. (Actually all four of the last teams were the four teams that should have gone into the final four. Sweden, Russia, Czech and Canada. The US was merely a close 'also ran' to those four.
But what would have happened if Canada had had Todd Bertuzzi? Would Bertie have been good for that extra punch in the final game? My money is on 'yes' - partly as a Bertuzzi true-believer, and partly out of a need to blame someone.
So who exactly do we blame for the loss then? Well, Canada really seemed to lose the game in the third - both the first two periods were solid (despite the first goal fairly early on), but the third was full of mistakes and a lack of discipline. The team is culpable there, for certain.
But if Steve Moore wasn't such a knob from the start - read: his hit on Naslund and it's fall-out that I've already weighed in on at length - then Bertuzzi could have been playing today. Canada could have won.
Really.
Thursday, May 12, 2005
And yet another cheap excuse for a post...
The following is my response to the message I posted in my last post: "More on STV."
Apologies for not reformatting either into a more readable structure - busy day.
Thanks for your considered response... I was beginning to think that I may never hear anything back! (I hope I've finally got this posting as something other than 'guest' - I'd like to have SOME sort of identity.) Over the past few days I've been making a point of discussing this with virtually everyone I cross paths with. Still the balance of opinion seems to be woefully under aware of the issues - even some of the more educated and erudite folk I know have little real understanding of the processes involved. I've had to explain numerous times how the system works - at varying levels of detail depending on the interest and political capacity of the people involved. (More on that in a moment.) But generally - and this could be a function of the segment of society I typically associate with - it seems as though the weight of opinion is in favour of reform... actually I can't recall anyone declaring that they were intending to vote 'no.' As I have talked about it more and explained all I can on both sides of the issue, the more and more convinced I have become that I too will be voting 'yes.' In fact, I would pretty much call it a certainty at this point. My main concern remains that people are under educated on the issue - not that there is much to be done either way with merely six days and counting to go. My gut tells me that disenfranchised voters who don't understand the new system are more likely to vote 'yes' as their knee-jerk, thinking that it's a strike against the Liberals (which it may or may not be, depending on how you expect the system to work in the end.) Pass or fail, I take issue with blind voting. Drives me nuts. To this end I've made a point of trying to properly represent both sides of the argument when discussing the issues with people. (I would suggest that it is this effort that has actually swayed me solidly in favour.) A further concern I have is how spoiled ballots will be counted. With a double majority needed to pass the referendum, spoiled ballots could seriously favour the 'no' side. I spoke with an Elections B.C official just last night in quiring about the counting process and so forth. He could not tell me (read: 'he did not know', not the more sinister 'he wouldn't tell me') whether the 60% of the total or the 50% in any specific riding was of total ballots or of valid ballots. If spoiled ballots are counted to towards the total, a spoiled ballot is then as good as a 'no' vote! Potentially good news for the 'no' side. I can see a situation where voters are handed their referendum ballot (which aparently they have the option to outright decline) and respond with a "What!?! There's a referendum and it's been so poorly publicized that this is the first I've heard about it!? Well then, I'm expressing my outrage by spoiling this ballot." Admittedly this is all hypothetical, and the scenario laid out should be of no concern to the detractors as it works entirely in favour of the 'no' side of the debate. One more thing that I would like to respond directly to - hopefully in aid of getting more clarification:
Quote:
Proponents often argue that electoral reform is either 'dead' permanently, if STV fails now, or will be at least a couple elections before it gets back onto the table, complaining that would be too much for them...well. But, voting for STV will, again, mean a guaranteed delay of several more elections (and who knows what politically, in the meantime) while already present disatisfaction with SMP/FPTP will likely ensure the issue will stay very much alive. Carole James has recently reaffirmed the BC NDP's support for ER, whatever happens this referendum, and the Greens and other smaller parties will also continue pushing for it, as will a lot of people like myself. This level of reform strikes me as a once in a generation opportunity. Any other reformative measures (Recall, for example) are more along the lines of tweaks to the existing structure. (Indeed, Recall itself needed to be tweaked.) It is thoroughly unreasonable to expect that any electoral process we agree to is going to be a sweep. There is simply no way we will get it all right the first time around. (Of course getting it 'ALL right' will never be possible, simply due to varying opinions, but for the sake of argument let's assume that 'acceptable to the majority is synonymous with 'all right.') So it seems to me, that with no other forward-moving option on the table, we should embrace what has been presented with the knowledge that we have a legislated chance to adapt it (or give it the heave-ho) after an opportunity to road test it. I don't really think three elections is a long-time. Sure, it is at least 15% of most of our lives, but I think that it will take at least that long for the process and it's fall-out to become apparent. For better or for worse, we cannot fairly assess the system without reasonable time and practice. Yes, if we say 'no' to STV now, we will have a chance in the future for another crack at PR. I truly believe that we are much further than 12 years away from it if this is the choice we make. There is no evidence of this of course, except for how long it has taken us to get to this point in the first place. Lastly, and 'just for the record'... I can see how I may have come across as believeing that the CA was a waste of tax payer's money. Actually, I believe that it is a fantastic excercise in democracy. I was merely stating that I would understand the cornerstones of that argument fairly easily. Once again, thanks for the reasoned response. As previously mentioned, I expect I am going to be putting my 'X' in favour of BC-STV, but your aid in helping me find clarity (such as it is) is greatly appreciated, and I hope that I can use the further information you have provided to accurately present the 'No' side of the equation in my continued quest to educate those whom I cross paths with over the next week. Perhaps I'll even give a few of them enough reason to vote 'no.' Which would be my ultimate personal victory. I'd rather have someone voting 'no' from an informed position than 'yes' because they thought the acronym 'BC-STV' was 'neat' (or any other poor excuse for a decision.) Not part of the argument at hand, but an amusing anecdote to close on... Friday, my Voter Registration that I mailed... god knows how long ago... (I moved to a new riding in the past year.) was returned to me by Canada Post, despite it being "Business Reply Mail, Postage Paid of Mailed in Canada" and Elections BC's address being clearly labelled on the front - by Elections BC itself. No explanation. If I were an inherently more suspicious person... 8-o
Apologies for not reformatting either into a more readable structure - busy day.
Thanks for your considered response... I was beginning to think that I may never hear anything back! (I hope I've finally got this posting as something other than 'guest' - I'd like to have SOME sort of identity.) Over the past few days I've been making a point of discussing this with virtually everyone I cross paths with. Still the balance of opinion seems to be woefully under aware of the issues - even some of the more educated and erudite folk I know have little real understanding of the processes involved. I've had to explain numerous times how the system works - at varying levels of detail depending on the interest and political capacity of the people involved. (More on that in a moment.) But generally - and this could be a function of the segment of society I typically associate with - it seems as though the weight of opinion is in favour of reform... actually I can't recall anyone declaring that they were intending to vote 'no.' As I have talked about it more and explained all I can on both sides of the issue, the more and more convinced I have become that I too will be voting 'yes.' In fact, I would pretty much call it a certainty at this point. My main concern remains that people are under educated on the issue - not that there is much to be done either way with merely six days and counting to go. My gut tells me that disenfranchised voters who don't understand the new system are more likely to vote 'yes' as their knee-jerk, thinking that it's a strike against the Liberals (which it may or may not be, depending on how you expect the system to work in the end.) Pass or fail, I take issue with blind voting. Drives me nuts. To this end I've made a point of trying to properly represent both sides of the argument when discussing the issues with people. (I would suggest that it is this effort that has actually swayed me solidly in favour.) A further concern I have is how spoiled ballots will be counted. With a double majority needed to pass the referendum, spoiled ballots could seriously favour the 'no' side. I spoke with an Elections B.C official just last night in quiring about the counting process and so forth. He could not tell me (read: 'he did not know', not the more sinister 'he wouldn't tell me') whether the 60% of the total or the 50% in any specific riding was of total ballots or of valid ballots. If spoiled ballots are counted to towards the total, a spoiled ballot is then as good as a 'no' vote! Potentially good news for the 'no' side. I can see a situation where voters are handed their referendum ballot (which aparently they have the option to outright decline) and respond with a "What!?! There's a referendum and it's been so poorly publicized that this is the first I've heard about it!? Well then, I'm expressing my outrage by spoiling this ballot." Admittedly this is all hypothetical, and the scenario laid out should be of no concern to the detractors as it works entirely in favour of the 'no' side of the debate. One more thing that I would like to respond directly to - hopefully in aid of getting more clarification:
Quote:
Proponents often argue that electoral reform is either 'dead' permanently, if STV fails now, or will be at least a couple elections before it gets back onto the table, complaining that would be too much for them...well. But, voting for STV will, again, mean a guaranteed delay of several more elections (and who knows what politically, in the meantime) while already present disatisfaction with SMP/FPTP will likely ensure the issue will stay very much alive. Carole James has recently reaffirmed the BC NDP's support for ER, whatever happens this referendum, and the Greens and other smaller parties will also continue pushing for it, as will a lot of people like myself. This level of reform strikes me as a once in a generation opportunity. Any other reformative measures (Recall, for example) are more along the lines of tweaks to the existing structure. (Indeed, Recall itself needed to be tweaked.) It is thoroughly unreasonable to expect that any electoral process we agree to is going to be a sweep. There is simply no way we will get it all right the first time around. (Of course getting it 'ALL right' will never be possible, simply due to varying opinions, but for the sake of argument let's assume that 'acceptable to the majority is synonymous with 'all right.') So it seems to me, that with no other forward-moving option on the table, we should embrace what has been presented with the knowledge that we have a legislated chance to adapt it (or give it the heave-ho) after an opportunity to road test it. I don't really think three elections is a long-time. Sure, it is at least 15% of most of our lives, but I think that it will take at least that long for the process and it's fall-out to become apparent. For better or for worse, we cannot fairly assess the system without reasonable time and practice. Yes, if we say 'no' to STV now, we will have a chance in the future for another crack at PR. I truly believe that we are much further than 12 years away from it if this is the choice we make. There is no evidence of this of course, except for how long it has taken us to get to this point in the first place. Lastly, and 'just for the record'... I can see how I may have come across as believeing that the CA was a waste of tax payer's money. Actually, I believe that it is a fantastic excercise in democracy. I was merely stating that I would understand the cornerstones of that argument fairly easily. Once again, thanks for the reasoned response. As previously mentioned, I expect I am going to be putting my 'X' in favour of BC-STV, but your aid in helping me find clarity (such as it is) is greatly appreciated, and I hope that I can use the further information you have provided to accurately present the 'No' side of the equation in my continued quest to educate those whom I cross paths with over the next week. Perhaps I'll even give a few of them enough reason to vote 'no.' Which would be my ultimate personal victory. I'd rather have someone voting 'no' from an informed position than 'yes' because they thought the acronym 'BC-STV' was 'neat' (or any other poor excuse for a decision.) Not part of the argument at hand, but an amusing anecdote to close on... Friday, my Voter Registration that I mailed... god knows how long ago... (I moved to a new riding in the past year.) was returned to me by Canada Post, despite it being "Business Reply Mail, Postage Paid of Mailed in Canada" and Elections BC's address being clearly labelled on the front - by Elections BC itself. No explanation. If I were an inherently more suspicious person... 8-o
More on STV...
I finally got a response! Hooray!!!
Anonymous wrote:
Hi, New to the forum, and relatively new to the issue and debate... I count myself as 'undecided' but leaning towards being a 'yes' vote. I feel as though there are a lot of elements of the issue I still need answered for myself. I am concerned by the huge numbers of people who know very little about it. I have been vaguely aware of the referendum for... I don't know how long - ages. But the specifics have not been well distributed - despite the CA report being delievered to every household. In the three days it has been since I took it upon myself to figure out what the details are I have also taken it upon myself to talk to as many of my friends and peers as I can to discuss the merits and problems with the proposed system. I have yet to have a single person be able to talk about it straight up. Most have needed to be directed to information explaining the proposed system and in a few cases the response has been the equivalent of "There's a referendum?" At this point I am more concerned by the lack of awareness (let alone understanding) than I am by any declared weaknesses in the STV voting system. Actually so am I. One of the main reasons I set this site up was to get more open debate about it, rather than simple cheerleading or denunciations even the more 'informed' public has so far received. Short time line of seven months after year long committee may have been another of the CA's weaknesses, but can't blame members for that either.
Quote:
So... on to other concerns... Playing devil's advocate here. All possible weaknesses aside, it seems to me that the detractors are regularly leaving out a significant piece of information that makes all forseeable and unforseeable consequences less dire. If the referendum passes favourably then we are committing to three elections under the STV system. 12-16 years maximum, depending on how you count it. By which time, the advantages and disadvantages of STV politics will have been given a good opportunity to show themselves in practice. Yes, there are several examples of how the system works in other democracies. It is fair to assume that the results will be similar. But similar is not the same. We will really only know exactly how the system works for British Columbia by putting it to the test. Having said that, I must admit that I would like to be reasonably assured that we're onto an idea that has SOME merit. Now, am I misunderstanding circumstances? If STV is a dismal failure, are we really stuck with it? The way I read the circumstances, we are at the very least going to have an opportunity to ammend the system. I appreciate your approaching this with an open mind. This is an essential question I should get into further. After a lot of waffling back and forth, what finally decided me to actively campaign against BC-STV is the fact that CA members, I'd been discussing and debating this with elsewhere, seemed quite happy to stick with STV (which is a bit much for an MMP supporter being asked to support this in hopes of further reform) and three more elections minimum before even a 'review' is considered is just too much time lost to me. Proponents often argue that electoral reform is either 'dead' permanently, if STV fails now, or will be at least a couple elections before it gets back onto the table, complaining that would be too much for them...well. But, voting for STV will, again, mean a guaranteed delay of several more elections (and who knows what politically, in the meantime) while already present disatisfaction with SMP/FPTP will likely ensure the issue will stay very much alive. Carole James has recently reaffirmed the BC NDP's support for ER, whatever happens this referendum, and the Greens and other smaller parties will also continue pushing for it, as will a lot of people like myself.
Quote:
The report by the CA paints STV as such a positive point of change that it comes across as a no-brainer... which ought to be a red-flag for any cynic. Certainly my inital response was that it sounded too good to be true - I figured that Senator Palpatine had to be waiting somewhere in the wings. I can't deny that the report's various broad claims such as that it will improve local accountability and deter partisan obediance are specious, but so far I have yet to find an argument against it that amounts to more than an equally specious 'Oh no it won't!' I'm afraid some of arguments against it haven't been well put either, true enough, too unfocused to begin with for sure. STV of differents formats apparently means different results in different places at different times, and too many people too often just choose the examples that best suite their own arguments. (except for ME, of course! ) How it would play out in BC can't be predicted for sure, but again, it's really up to proponents and CA members, who have supposedly studied this in depth, to demonstrate why we should take the risk of supporting a new and barely tried system with mixed results, why these benefits are in fact likely in BC, and why these would in fact be beneficial. And if they still can't, then what was their decision really based on...? I personally believe that corruption is more likely among candidates who are running mostly for and by themselves, or for a particular locale alone (and I suspect historical records would tend to show that) and have less reason to conform to party discipline and platforms. So the theory goes, that is. Ireland OTOH indicates that party discipline could become even more rigorous in other ways to compensate, so it may again depend on how parties again approach this. Another thing that I don't like about it, adding yet another level for parties to manipulate results....though I'm sure propenents would dispute that too. = Mostly I don't like this approach because I want to have an decent idea what members actually stand for, something they can always lie about in any system but which there is at least a general party position now to call them to account on. My support for all forms of PR was originally conditional on some effective nomination process for grassroots members. (yet another issue)
Quote:
The system is rather confusing on the surface. The complexity of the formulae is rather exaggerated. There is no way that the public as a whole is going to wrap their heads around the mechanics of it until it is in use. That is unfortunate, but I doubt that a system could be proposed which wouldn't ultimately suffer the same problem. This has more to do with the intellectual laziness of humanity as a greater whole than the 'X times Y plus ones' of it. Hate it all you like, it's a probelm that will only be avoided by sticking with the current system, or by adopting an even more basic solution, both of which have myriad problems of their own. Despite what others say STV is much more complex than others in ways that really count, and, though the basic idea of it can understood by most with use, I don't believe the myriad of possible outcomes can be predicted and therefore elections themselves become far more difficult to predict, which is a real potential problem when we have a system that will demand more than ever from parties on how to alocate their resources. It's fashionable to trash parties nowadays (often for good reason, yes) but this shouldn't be the basis on which their effectiveness should be judged or elections decided. Also an added problem for voters like me trying to guess who best to support in my much expanded 'constituency'. Don't think that's an exaggerated concern on our part.
Quote:
Another major argument against STV that I'm having trouble buying is that it fails to provide effective proportional representation. Actually, let me rephrase that. I believe I see exactly how it can fail to provide effective proportional representation, but I look at the representation currently in the Legislature and have to wonder how staying with the FPTP system does a better job? The claims in the report that show the Marijuana Party managing to procure a seat are dubious - particularly considering that the sampling votes that it was based upon (the last election) didn't include second voting preferences, let alone third and further. But it seems to me that a greater balance between the established parties would be all but inevitable, and while that may not be the ultimately desired outcome, it is better that what is in place.I really don't know if that's true though, and as I've argued before, I don't know that voting STV will bring about more truly proportional systems sooner, I doubt it for a variety of reasons. The issue isn't the Marijuana Party or whoever, but whether a PR system should have such high minimum thresholds, and how such high thresholds could effect the political balance. Unless or until all party structure starts to fragment further, BC-STV would mean a three party system which would either give a structural advantage to one end of the political spectrum or another, depending on which way the third party shifts, or it gives the lucky third party a huge amount of bargaining power over its coalition partners, by virtue of nothing more than being in the enviable position to negotiate with either front runners as sole arbiters or 'king makers'. That is the opposite of 'proportional' in my opinion, danger to all PR system but particularly with this form.
Quote:
I could give creedence to the argument that STV should be voted down because passing it would give value to the process of the CA and simply encourage further usage of it as a political process and further wasting tax-payer's money. But I don't hear anyone making that claim. Interesting angle, some might be making that argument amongst friends, but doubt it would win many others over. Citizens' Assemblies aren't wrong because of cost or even in principle IMO, this particular process was just flawed the way it was set up and therefore came to a flawed decision -in my opinion, yes.
Quote:
I still feel unconvinced in either direction, but if I were voting tomorrow, I would be voting 'yes' as it seems to me that while the proposed system does leave something to be desired, staying put is likely to solve less. We can not make improvements if we don't make changes, and we will NEVER make a change that solves all the problems at once, our best bet is to make an educated guess and take a leap of faith, see how it sizes up, and make further tweaks from there. I currently believe that the educated guess that has been tabled is relatively sound, but I'm feeling tentative. David Schreck's claim that if we're feeling uncertain we should vote 'no' falls apart for me in the face of the term for review after three elections. Am I missing something? Please, I'd rather feel confident in my choice and the in the arguments I will be making in the next ten days with my friends and peers.Hope that helps a bit but up to you of course. Either way you decide I appreciate your intelligent questions, if you want to discuss this further please do. Raised some valid points that should be considered more.
Next... my response in return.
Anonymous wrote:
Hi, New to the forum, and relatively new to the issue and debate... I count myself as 'undecided' but leaning towards being a 'yes' vote. I feel as though there are a lot of elements of the issue I still need answered for myself. I am concerned by the huge numbers of people who know very little about it. I have been vaguely aware of the referendum for... I don't know how long - ages. But the specifics have not been well distributed - despite the CA report being delievered to every household. In the three days it has been since I took it upon myself to figure out what the details are I have also taken it upon myself to talk to as many of my friends and peers as I can to discuss the merits and problems with the proposed system. I have yet to have a single person be able to talk about it straight up. Most have needed to be directed to information explaining the proposed system and in a few cases the response has been the equivalent of "There's a referendum?" At this point I am more concerned by the lack of awareness (let alone understanding) than I am by any declared weaknesses in the STV voting system. Actually so am I. One of the main reasons I set this site up was to get more open debate about it, rather than simple cheerleading or denunciations even the more 'informed' public has so far received. Short time line of seven months after year long committee may have been another of the CA's weaknesses, but can't blame members for that either.
Quote:
So... on to other concerns... Playing devil's advocate here. All possible weaknesses aside, it seems to me that the detractors are regularly leaving out a significant piece of information that makes all forseeable and unforseeable consequences less dire. If the referendum passes favourably then we are committing to three elections under the STV system. 12-16 years maximum, depending on how you count it. By which time, the advantages and disadvantages of STV politics will have been given a good opportunity to show themselves in practice. Yes, there are several examples of how the system works in other democracies. It is fair to assume that the results will be similar. But similar is not the same. We will really only know exactly how the system works for British Columbia by putting it to the test. Having said that, I must admit that I would like to be reasonably assured that we're onto an idea that has SOME merit. Now, am I misunderstanding circumstances? If STV is a dismal failure, are we really stuck with it? The way I read the circumstances, we are at the very least going to have an opportunity to ammend the system. I appreciate your approaching this with an open mind. This is an essential question I should get into further. After a lot of waffling back and forth, what finally decided me to actively campaign against BC-STV is the fact that CA members, I'd been discussing and debating this with elsewhere, seemed quite happy to stick with STV (which is a bit much for an MMP supporter being asked to support this in hopes of further reform) and three more elections minimum before even a 'review' is considered is just too much time lost to me. Proponents often argue that electoral reform is either 'dead' permanently, if STV fails now, or will be at least a couple elections before it gets back onto the table, complaining that would be too much for them...well. But, voting for STV will, again, mean a guaranteed delay of several more elections (and who knows what politically, in the meantime) while already present disatisfaction with SMP/FPTP will likely ensure the issue will stay very much alive. Carole James has recently reaffirmed the BC NDP's support for ER, whatever happens this referendum, and the Greens and other smaller parties will also continue pushing for it, as will a lot of people like myself.
Quote:
The report by the CA paints STV as such a positive point of change that it comes across as a no-brainer... which ought to be a red-flag for any cynic. Certainly my inital response was that it sounded too good to be true - I figured that Senator Palpatine had to be waiting somewhere in the wings. I can't deny that the report's various broad claims such as that it will improve local accountability and deter partisan obediance are specious, but so far I have yet to find an argument against it that amounts to more than an equally specious 'Oh no it won't!' I'm afraid some of arguments against it haven't been well put either, true enough, too unfocused to begin with for sure. STV of differents formats apparently means different results in different places at different times, and too many people too often just choose the examples that best suite their own arguments. (except for ME, of course! ) How it would play out in BC can't be predicted for sure, but again, it's really up to proponents and CA members, who have supposedly studied this in depth, to demonstrate why we should take the risk of supporting a new and barely tried system with mixed results, why these benefits are in fact likely in BC, and why these would in fact be beneficial. And if they still can't, then what was their decision really based on...? I personally believe that corruption is more likely among candidates who are running mostly for and by themselves, or for a particular locale alone (and I suspect historical records would tend to show that) and have less reason to conform to party discipline and platforms. So the theory goes, that is. Ireland OTOH indicates that party discipline could become even more rigorous in other ways to compensate, so it may again depend on how parties again approach this. Another thing that I don't like about it, adding yet another level for parties to manipulate results....though I'm sure propenents would dispute that too. = Mostly I don't like this approach because I want to have an decent idea what members actually stand for, something they can always lie about in any system but which there is at least a general party position now to call them to account on. My support for all forms of PR was originally conditional on some effective nomination process for grassroots members. (yet another issue)
Quote:
The system is rather confusing on the surface. The complexity of the formulae is rather exaggerated. There is no way that the public as a whole is going to wrap their heads around the mechanics of it until it is in use. That is unfortunate, but I doubt that a system could be proposed which wouldn't ultimately suffer the same problem. This has more to do with the intellectual laziness of humanity as a greater whole than the 'X times Y plus ones' of it. Hate it all you like, it's a probelm that will only be avoided by sticking with the current system, or by adopting an even more basic solution, both of which have myriad problems of their own. Despite what others say STV is much more complex than others in ways that really count, and, though the basic idea of it can understood by most with use, I don't believe the myriad of possible outcomes can be predicted and therefore elections themselves become far more difficult to predict, which is a real potential problem when we have a system that will demand more than ever from parties on how to alocate their resources. It's fashionable to trash parties nowadays (often for good reason, yes) but this shouldn't be the basis on which their effectiveness should be judged or elections decided. Also an added problem for voters like me trying to guess who best to support in my much expanded 'constituency'. Don't think that's an exaggerated concern on our part.
Quote:
Another major argument against STV that I'm having trouble buying is that it fails to provide effective proportional representation. Actually, let me rephrase that. I believe I see exactly how it can fail to provide effective proportional representation, but I look at the representation currently in the Legislature and have to wonder how staying with the FPTP system does a better job? The claims in the report that show the Marijuana Party managing to procure a seat are dubious - particularly considering that the sampling votes that it was based upon (the last election) didn't include second voting preferences, let alone third and further. But it seems to me that a greater balance between the established parties would be all but inevitable, and while that may not be the ultimately desired outcome, it is better that what is in place.I really don't know if that's true though, and as I've argued before, I don't know that voting STV will bring about more truly proportional systems sooner, I doubt it for a variety of reasons. The issue isn't the Marijuana Party or whoever, but whether a PR system should have such high minimum thresholds, and how such high thresholds could effect the political balance. Unless or until all party structure starts to fragment further, BC-STV would mean a three party system which would either give a structural advantage to one end of the political spectrum or another, depending on which way the third party shifts, or it gives the lucky third party a huge amount of bargaining power over its coalition partners, by virtue of nothing more than being in the enviable position to negotiate with either front runners as sole arbiters or 'king makers'. That is the opposite of 'proportional' in my opinion, danger to all PR system but particularly with this form.
Quote:
I could give creedence to the argument that STV should be voted down because passing it would give value to the process of the CA and simply encourage further usage of it as a political process and further wasting tax-payer's money. But I don't hear anyone making that claim. Interesting angle, some might be making that argument amongst friends, but doubt it would win many others over. Citizens' Assemblies aren't wrong because of cost or even in principle IMO, this particular process was just flawed the way it was set up and therefore came to a flawed decision -in my opinion, yes.
Quote:
I still feel unconvinced in either direction, but if I were voting tomorrow, I would be voting 'yes' as it seems to me that while the proposed system does leave something to be desired, staying put is likely to solve less. We can not make improvements if we don't make changes, and we will NEVER make a change that solves all the problems at once, our best bet is to make an educated guess and take a leap of faith, see how it sizes up, and make further tweaks from there. I currently believe that the educated guess that has been tabled is relatively sound, but I'm feeling tentative. David Schreck's claim that if we're feeling uncertain we should vote 'no' falls apart for me in the face of the term for review after three elections. Am I missing something? Please, I'd rather feel confident in my choice and the in the arguments I will be making in the next ten days with my friends and peers.Hope that helps a bit but up to you of course. Either way you decide I appreciate your intelligent questions, if you want to discuss this further please do. Raised some valid points that should be considered more.
Next... my response in return.
Sunday, May 08, 2005
When it all seems shit...
Sometimes you just have to remind yourself just how good it is for you.
Yesterday I left work and could not get over how grumpy I was. I was well past the point where the grumpiness becomes self-perpetuating. I was mad because I was mad.
I had a run in with a co-worker. Not a big one, but one that really reflected back upon myself.
He's really just a pup, and holy shit is he loud, and inconsiderate. Much like I was at his age. We often play music around the office. But usually when there are just 2-3 of us and rarely do we crank it up very loud. When there are 5 or more, it's almost always head-phones time. When it is played out loud, we take turns, so there is a good variety.
But, the Pup just doesn't 'get' it.
To make matters worse... Yesterday was Kentucky Derby Day, which meant that the work load for the person doing my specific job was heavier and (no pun intended) higher-stakes than ANY OTHER DAY OF THE YEAR. On top of all that, due to some software glitches that appeared last week, my job could only be done by one person - rather than shared, as it usually is on high-volume days. The result was that I have never been under more pressure at my job than yesterday.
Meanwhile, the Pup was playing his music CONSTANTLY with the volume at 11, all day. I have no idea why no one else said anything, and certainly I should have said somethign long before I did, because it didn't come out very nicely.
It would have been less of an issue if his music taste was broader. Generally when he plays his music it is the eccelctic, yet bizarre mix of: Chris Issac - Wicked Game; AC/DC - Thunderstruck (a song that they wrote long after they jumped the shark, in my opinion); Billy Idol - White Wedding (there's a reason I can only hear that song once every now and then and still be able to enjoy it at all , but it's a long story); Public Enemy - Night Train; and the real crime of it all, any number of songs that he wrote himself (it's not that they're specifically bad, they're just typically derivative self-aggrandizing gangsta rap, and I've long since got past the point of being able to find amusement in a kid from Coquitlam talking about how he "laid a man down with [his] A.K.") But honest to god, that's it! His own weak efforts plus four songs. It makes me mental.
So, I was pretty down on myself when I got home. I was mad that I was mad and mad that I felt like I've been mad for longer than I can figure - which I'm pretty certain simply means that I have to quit drinking coffee, which won't be the end of the world - certainly not after the first week.
When I got home Eden wanted me to go out to see a play that her Ex-husband wrote. He was going to be there. Fucking great. We've never met.
But I've been wanting to get the 'meeting Vern' thing over for nine months now. I just didn't want to have to do it when a) I'm feeling like Godzilla and b) Looking like a Trailer Park Boy (for an upcoming role) - a fact that is only exacerbated by the fact that any clothes I would identify as 'good' are in the laundry.
I went anyhow - I didn't really see that I had much of a choice. The first of the two of the three plays were weak. Not outright bad, but I was simply not in the mood to put up with mediocrity.
Then came the third play - Vern's. He showed up just before it started. That was a good warm up. We got introduced, shared some pleasantries and the lights went down.
Luckily his show was the best of the three by a long shot.
We went out after wards and we joined by the Co-Artistic Director of the theatre company. It was good to chat with Vern and share some theatrical stories. It was also really good to talk with Johnna (The A.D.) - nice to find out that the A.D of a Professional Theatre Company also has a 'real' job to make sure that there is a regular income and that there's a benefits plan in place. I totally understand that. She also had some really nice things to say about a piece that I wrote and submitted to her company over a year ago. Yay.
So, here I am back at work - and back to a day with normal volume (both of music and of work). And I'm thinking that actually life is pretty good. Yeah I'd rather be doing just my art - but seeing as I'm not/can't I'm glad I have a job where I can do a lot of my art simultaneously... most days. Derby Day excluded.
I look out the window and see the crack-head shuffling down to Victory Square and Pigeon Park and I know life could be a hell of a lot worse.
I'm still going to have to have a polite and rational conversation with the Pup about how he plays his music and that no-one should have trouble hearing their headphones over it, and also let him know that I think Public Enemy is one of the most under-rated bands of the past twenty years... just so that he doesn't think I hate his taste, and maybe to encourage him to be a bit more creative and rise above the poseur level he's currently at.
Yesterday I left work and could not get over how grumpy I was. I was well past the point where the grumpiness becomes self-perpetuating. I was mad because I was mad.
I had a run in with a co-worker. Not a big one, but one that really reflected back upon myself.
He's really just a pup, and holy shit is he loud, and inconsiderate. Much like I was at his age. We often play music around the office. But usually when there are just 2-3 of us and rarely do we crank it up very loud. When there are 5 or more, it's almost always head-phones time. When it is played out loud, we take turns, so there is a good variety.
But, the Pup just doesn't 'get' it.
To make matters worse... Yesterday was Kentucky Derby Day, which meant that the work load for the person doing my specific job was heavier and (no pun intended) higher-stakes than ANY OTHER DAY OF THE YEAR. On top of all that, due to some software glitches that appeared last week, my job could only be done by one person - rather than shared, as it usually is on high-volume days. The result was that I have never been under more pressure at my job than yesterday.
Meanwhile, the Pup was playing his music CONSTANTLY with the volume at 11, all day. I have no idea why no one else said anything, and certainly I should have said somethign long before I did, because it didn't come out very nicely.
It would have been less of an issue if his music taste was broader. Generally when he plays his music it is the eccelctic, yet bizarre mix of: Chris Issac - Wicked Game; AC/DC - Thunderstruck (a song that they wrote long after they jumped the shark, in my opinion); Billy Idol - White Wedding (there's a reason I can only hear that song once every now and then and still be able to enjoy it at all , but it's a long story); Public Enemy - Night Train; and the real crime of it all, any number of songs that he wrote himself (it's not that they're specifically bad, they're just typically derivative self-aggrandizing gangsta rap, and I've long since got past the point of being able to find amusement in a kid from Coquitlam talking about how he "laid a man down with [his] A.K.") But honest to god, that's it! His own weak efforts plus four songs. It makes me mental.
So, I was pretty down on myself when I got home. I was mad that I was mad and mad that I felt like I've been mad for longer than I can figure - which I'm pretty certain simply means that I have to quit drinking coffee, which won't be the end of the world - certainly not after the first week.
When I got home Eden wanted me to go out to see a play that her Ex-husband wrote. He was going to be there. Fucking great. We've never met.
But I've been wanting to get the 'meeting Vern' thing over for nine months now. I just didn't want to have to do it when a) I'm feeling like Godzilla and b) Looking like a Trailer Park Boy (for an upcoming role) - a fact that is only exacerbated by the fact that any clothes I would identify as 'good' are in the laundry.
I went anyhow - I didn't really see that I had much of a choice. The first of the two of the three plays were weak. Not outright bad, but I was simply not in the mood to put up with mediocrity.
Then came the third play - Vern's. He showed up just before it started. That was a good warm up. We got introduced, shared some pleasantries and the lights went down.
Luckily his show was the best of the three by a long shot.
We went out after wards and we joined by the Co-Artistic Director of the theatre company. It was good to chat with Vern and share some theatrical stories. It was also really good to talk with Johnna (The A.D.) - nice to find out that the A.D of a Professional Theatre Company also has a 'real' job to make sure that there is a regular income and that there's a benefits plan in place. I totally understand that. She also had some really nice things to say about a piece that I wrote and submitted to her company over a year ago. Yay.
So, here I am back at work - and back to a day with normal volume (both of music and of work). And I'm thinking that actually life is pretty good. Yeah I'd rather be doing just my art - but seeing as I'm not/can't I'm glad I have a job where I can do a lot of my art simultaneously... most days. Derby Day excluded.
I look out the window and see the crack-head shuffling down to Victory Square and Pigeon Park and I know life could be a hell of a lot worse.
I'm still going to have to have a polite and rational conversation with the Pup about how he plays his music and that no-one should have trouble hearing their headphones over it, and also let him know that I think Public Enemy is one of the most under-rated bands of the past twenty years... just so that he doesn't think I hate his taste, and maybe to encourage him to be a bit more creative and rise above the poseur level he's currently at.
Friday, May 06, 2005
BC-STV better than your average STD.
The following is a re-posting of a message I left on a BC-STV discussion board. It covers most of my thoughts thus far.
Hi,
New to the forum, and relatively new to the issue and debate...
I count myself as 'undecided' but leaning towards being a 'yes' vote.
I feel as though there are a lot of elements of the issue I still need answered for myself.
I am concerned by the huge numbers of people who know very little about it. I have been vaguely aware of the referendum for... I don't know how long - ages. But the specifics have not been well distributed - despite the CA report being delievered to every household. In the three days it has been since I took it upon myself to figure out what the details are I have also taken it upon myself to talk to as many of my friends and peers as I can to discuss the merits and problems with the proposed system.
I have yet to have a single person be able to talk about it straight up. Most have needed to be directed to information explaining the proposed system and in a few cases the response has been the equivalent of "There's a referendum?" At this point I am more concerned by the lack of awareness (let alone understanding) than I am by any declared weaknesses in the STV voting system.
So... on to other concerns...
Playing devil's advocate here.
All possible weaknesses aside, it seems to me that the detractors are regularly leaving out a significant piece of information that makes all forseeable and unforseeable consequences less dire.
If the referendum passes favourably then we are committing to three elections under the STV system. 12-16 years maximum, depending on how you count it. By which time, the advantages and disadvantages of STV politics will have been given a good opportunity to show themselves in practice. Yes, there are several examples of how the system works in other democracies. It is fair to assume that the results will be similar. But similar is not the same. We will really only know exactly how the system works for British Columbia by putting it to the test. Having said that, I must admit that I would like to be reasonably assured that we're onto an idea that has SOME merit.
Now, am I misunderstanding circumstances?
If STV is a dismal failure, are we really stuck with it? The way I read the circumstances, we are at the very least going to have an opportunity to ammend the system.
The report by the CA paints STV as such a positive point of change that it comes across as a no-brainer... which ought to be a red-flag for any cynic.
Certainly my inital response was that it sounded too good to be true - I figured that Senator Palpatine had to be waiting somewhere in the wings.
I can't deny that the report's various broad claims such as that it will improve local accountability and deter partisan obediance are specious, but so far I have yet to find an argument against it that amounts to more than an equally specious 'Oh no it won't!'
The system is rather confusing on the surface. The complexity of the formulae is rather exaggerated. There is no way that the public as a whole is going to wrap their heads around the mechanics of it until it is in use. That is unfortunate, but I doubt that a system could be proposed which wouldn't ultimately suffer the same problem. This has more to do with the intellectual laziness of humanity as a greater whole than the 'X times Y plus ones' of it. Hate it all you like, it's a problem that will only be avoided by sticking with the current system, or by adopting an even more basic solution, both of which have myriad problems of their own.
Another major argument against STV that I'm having trouble buying is that it fails to provide effective proportional representation. Actually, let me rephrase that. I believe I see exactly how it can fail to provide effective proportional representation, but I look at the representation currently in the Legislature and have to wonder how staying with the FPTP system does a better job? The claims in the report that show the Marijuana Party managing to procure a seat are dubious - particularly considering that the sampling votes that it was based upon (the last election) didn't include second voting preferences, let alone third and further. But it seems to me that a greater balance between the established parties would be all but inevitable, and while that may not be the ultimately desired outcome, it is better that what is in place.
I could give creedence to the argument that STV should be voted down because passing it would give value to the process of the CA and simply encourage further usage of it as a political process and further wasting tax-payer's money. But I don't hear anyone making that claim.
I still feel unconvinced in either direction, but if I were voting tomorrow, I would be voting 'yes' as it seems to me that while the proposed system does leave something to be desired, staying put is likely to solve less. We can not make improvements if we don't make changes, and we will NEVER make a change that solves all the problems at once, our best bet is to make an educated guess and take a leap of faith, see how it sizes up, and make further tweaks from there. I currently believe that the educated guess that has been tabled is relatively sound, but I'm feeling tentative. David Schreck's claim that if we're feeling uncertain we should vote 'no' falls apart for me in the face of the term for review after three elections.
Am I missing something? Please, I'd rather feel confident in my choice and the in the arguments I will be making in the next ten days with my friends and peers.
Hi,
New to the forum, and relatively new to the issue and debate...
I count myself as 'undecided' but leaning towards being a 'yes' vote.
I feel as though there are a lot of elements of the issue I still need answered for myself.
I am concerned by the huge numbers of people who know very little about it. I have been vaguely aware of the referendum for... I don't know how long - ages. But the specifics have not been well distributed - despite the CA report being delievered to every household. In the three days it has been since I took it upon myself to figure out what the details are I have also taken it upon myself to talk to as many of my friends and peers as I can to discuss the merits and problems with the proposed system.
I have yet to have a single person be able to talk about it straight up. Most have needed to be directed to information explaining the proposed system and in a few cases the response has been the equivalent of "There's a referendum?" At this point I am more concerned by the lack of awareness (let alone understanding) than I am by any declared weaknesses in the STV voting system.
So... on to other concerns...
Playing devil's advocate here.
All possible weaknesses aside, it seems to me that the detractors are regularly leaving out a significant piece of information that makes all forseeable and unforseeable consequences less dire.
If the referendum passes favourably then we are committing to three elections under the STV system. 12-16 years maximum, depending on how you count it. By which time, the advantages and disadvantages of STV politics will have been given a good opportunity to show themselves in practice. Yes, there are several examples of how the system works in other democracies. It is fair to assume that the results will be similar. But similar is not the same. We will really only know exactly how the system works for British Columbia by putting it to the test. Having said that, I must admit that I would like to be reasonably assured that we're onto an idea that has SOME merit.
Now, am I misunderstanding circumstances?
If STV is a dismal failure, are we really stuck with it? The way I read the circumstances, we are at the very least going to have an opportunity to ammend the system.
The report by the CA paints STV as such a positive point of change that it comes across as a no-brainer... which ought to be a red-flag for any cynic.
Certainly my inital response was that it sounded too good to be true - I figured that Senator Palpatine had to be waiting somewhere in the wings.
I can't deny that the report's various broad claims such as that it will improve local accountability and deter partisan obediance are specious, but so far I have yet to find an argument against it that amounts to more than an equally specious 'Oh no it won't!'
The system is rather confusing on the surface. The complexity of the formulae is rather exaggerated. There is no way that the public as a whole is going to wrap their heads around the mechanics of it until it is in use. That is unfortunate, but I doubt that a system could be proposed which wouldn't ultimately suffer the same problem. This has more to do with the intellectual laziness of humanity as a greater whole than the 'X times Y plus ones' of it. Hate it all you like, it's a problem that will only be avoided by sticking with the current system, or by adopting an even more basic solution, both of which have myriad problems of their own.
Another major argument against STV that I'm having trouble buying is that it fails to provide effective proportional representation. Actually, let me rephrase that. I believe I see exactly how it can fail to provide effective proportional representation, but I look at the representation currently in the Legislature and have to wonder how staying with the FPTP system does a better job? The claims in the report that show the Marijuana Party managing to procure a seat are dubious - particularly considering that the sampling votes that it was based upon (the last election) didn't include second voting preferences, let alone third and further. But it seems to me that a greater balance between the established parties would be all but inevitable, and while that may not be the ultimately desired outcome, it is better that what is in place.
I could give creedence to the argument that STV should be voted down because passing it would give value to the process of the CA and simply encourage further usage of it as a political process and further wasting tax-payer's money. But I don't hear anyone making that claim.
I still feel unconvinced in either direction, but if I were voting tomorrow, I would be voting 'yes' as it seems to me that while the proposed system does leave something to be desired, staying put is likely to solve less. We can not make improvements if we don't make changes, and we will NEVER make a change that solves all the problems at once, our best bet is to make an educated guess and take a leap of faith, see how it sizes up, and make further tweaks from there. I currently believe that the educated guess that has been tabled is relatively sound, but I'm feeling tentative. David Schreck's claim that if we're feeling uncertain we should vote 'no' falls apart for me in the face of the term for review after three elections.
Am I missing something? Please, I'd rather feel confident in my choice and the in the arguments I will be making in the next ten days with my friends and peers.
Thursday, May 05, 2005
Oh Rats!
Lot's I want to talk about today. But It all came to my attention fairly late - too late for me to really get going on before I have to leave the office.
Number one: While I am an advocate of free speech, ANN COULTER is really beyond the pale. I don't think murder is a commendable political tool, but if she were to suddenly DROP DEAD. I would not consider it a bad thing. I honestly think that she is dangerous to the human race.
Her comments on global warming are fucking insane. If global warming is nothing but a possibly specious theory, which side of that theory do you think it's best for us to come own on? Possibly the one that DOESN'T leave the planet in ruin?
And leaving the UN and kicking it off of US Soil? Holy Christ. Yes. I think that it ought to be hosted by another country - one with it's head screwed on straight. But leave the UN? Let's see, why would you do that? So you can wreak havoc willy-nilly without having to answer to any other nation with no regard for any sort of national conscience?
Fucking cow.
I love how she is referred to as a "controversialist" on a regular basis by Matt Drudge (Second example). A 'controversialist' - as in her opinions (such as they are) are intentionally pitched in a manner as to stir the pot. It devalues their worth as a valid train of thought.
I think if you have an opinion, you should at least be expected to adhere to some semblence of fact - especially if you are going to hold those you criticize to the same standard.
I also have more to say about the BC-STV - and the detractors and what they are saying and what I have to say - both for and against that.
Perhaps tomorrow.
Number one: While I am an advocate of free speech, ANN COULTER is really beyond the pale. I don't think murder is a commendable political tool, but if she were to suddenly DROP DEAD. I would not consider it a bad thing. I honestly think that she is dangerous to the human race.
Her comments on global warming are fucking insane. If global warming is nothing but a possibly specious theory, which side of that theory do you think it's best for us to come own on? Possibly the one that DOESN'T leave the planet in ruin?
And leaving the UN and kicking it off of US Soil? Holy Christ. Yes. I think that it ought to be hosted by another country - one with it's head screwed on straight. But leave the UN? Let's see, why would you do that? So you can wreak havoc willy-nilly without having to answer to any other nation with no regard for any sort of national conscience?
Fucking cow.
I love how she is referred to as a "controversialist" on a regular basis by Matt Drudge (Second example). A 'controversialist' - as in her opinions (such as they are) are intentionally pitched in a manner as to stir the pot. It devalues their worth as a valid train of thought.
I think if you have an opinion, you should at least be expected to adhere to some semblence of fact - especially if you are going to hold those you criticize to the same standard.
I also have more to say about the BC-STV - and the detractors and what they are saying and what I have to say - both for and against that.
Perhaps tomorrow.
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
Un-precedented Political Progress in British Columbia? Too good to be true?
I can't imagine that this isn't a slam-dunk in the democratic process, but then again, I could not have concieved of a nation stupid enough to re-elect George W. Bush. Luckily I am not talking about the same nation.
The referendum that will be accompanying the B.C. election has all the markings of a no-brainer to me. So much so that I am actually a bit wary of it. All the literature I've found is SO persuasively written that it raises my suspicions. So, I've delved deeper - hunting out every fact which seems obfuscated... and all the information is easily accessible... and it all seems above the board... and rational and wise. Everything seems to say EXACTLY WHAT I WOULD WANT IT TO SAY! Yes, there is something almost too good to be true here.
It seems bizarre to me that the B.C. Liberal government, who has benefitted from the electoral system that is in place would push such an inclusive democratic process that could only serve to undermine their status and power. The only thing that makes any sense to me is that Senator Palpatine is waiting in the wings, letting us walk willfully into a trap that seems like an ideal political situation. WHAT AM I MISSING? Why isn't there a big movement to demonize the STV electoral system by the corporate entities that by all measures I can imagine only be hurt by the electoral reforms?
Well, until I can find evidence that contradicts the apparent circumstances, I stand as an advocate. We are only committed to it (if the referendum passes) for three elections (Yes, potentially 12 damaging years of our history - but NOT forever.)
The one element that I am most in favour of is the manner by which the new system was developed. The Citizens' Assembly. How progressive is that!? I've tried to find a hole in that process as well, and it too seems to be as above the board as can be. I hope that it is a big enough success that we as a Province will adopt it on other issues. Perhaps even convince other Provinces of it's value - even get it implemented Federally on select issues.
Further posts to come as my understanding develops and/or if more information arises.
The referendum that will be accompanying the B.C. election has all the markings of a no-brainer to me. So much so that I am actually a bit wary of it. All the literature I've found is SO persuasively written that it raises my suspicions. So, I've delved deeper - hunting out every fact which seems obfuscated... and all the information is easily accessible... and it all seems above the board... and rational and wise. Everything seems to say EXACTLY WHAT I WOULD WANT IT TO SAY! Yes, there is something almost too good to be true here.
It seems bizarre to me that the B.C. Liberal government, who has benefitted from the electoral system that is in place would push such an inclusive democratic process that could only serve to undermine their status and power. The only thing that makes any sense to me is that Senator Palpatine is waiting in the wings, letting us walk willfully into a trap that seems like an ideal political situation. WHAT AM I MISSING? Why isn't there a big movement to demonize the STV electoral system by the corporate entities that by all measures I can imagine only be hurt by the electoral reforms?
Well, until I can find evidence that contradicts the apparent circumstances, I stand as an advocate. We are only committed to it (if the referendum passes) for three elections (Yes, potentially 12 damaging years of our history - but NOT forever.)
The one element that I am most in favour of is the manner by which the new system was developed. The Citizens' Assembly. How progressive is that!? I've tried to find a hole in that process as well, and it too seems to be as above the board as can be. I hope that it is a big enough success that we as a Province will adopt it on other issues. Perhaps even convince other Provinces of it's value - even get it implemented Federally on select issues.
Further posts to come as my understanding develops and/or if more information arises.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)