Re: [NL] Single Transferable Vote (STV)
From: "Mike/Celeste Culpepper" <ccbc@[xxx]>
Subject: Re: [NL] Single Transferable Vote (STV)
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 17:32:08 -0700
I haven't read the NDN article in question but Bill Tieleman (that's his
name, Sjeng) has been an open and articulate supporter of FPTP from Day One.
Perhaps you should actually read what he has to say.
I wonder, if STV is so great, why its supporters are always name-calling,
making ad hominem arguments, and falsifying their opponents' position?
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "sjeng derkx" <sderkx@[xxx]>
To: <nelson@[xxx]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: [NL] Single Transferable Vote (STV)
> If the reporting in the NDN and Express are accurate, then Tielemans
> and his merry band of party hacks are frauds. They are actually trying
> to make people believe that they are not voting for First Past the
> Post if they vote First Past the Post. They act as if there is a 'yes'
> or 'no' to STV referendum question and that good things will follow if
> only STV is defeated first. There isn't. We vote for either STV or for
> FPTP, and if we vote for FPTP, we vote to keep FPTP and that will be
> it. We are not going to have endless referendums until Tielemans gets
> his way; this will be the final referendum over electoral reform for a
> long, long time, and he is plenty politically astute to know that.
>
> His little group prefers to not even talk about FPTP, even though they
> have been given half a million tax dollars to represent that side.
> They know that if people put the two systems side by side, the choice
> is clear, and it is not FPTP. STV is confusing and complicated? The
> Irish may have understood and used it for almost a century, but
> Tielemans & co think that here in BC we are too dumb to figure it out;
> thanks for the compliment 'no' side; what a bargain at half a million
> tax dollars.
>
> The two big parties don't want STV because it closes their convenient
> backdoor to power with a minority of the vote (in 15 of the 16
> elections since 1952 the so called 'majority' government received less
> than half of the votes and more than half the votes were wasted). Is
> STV perfect in every aspect? Of course it isn't, but it is a much
> needed update to FPTP, which even Tielemans and co admit is 'broken'.
>
> The local candidates of both the Liberals and NDP both are saying that
> they want electoral reform but that they 'are not sure if STV is the
> right choice'. Right. Just like Tielemans, they want to hang on to
> FPTP but don't want to admit it because they know it is indefensable.
>
> Look through the smoke and mirrors folks. First Past the Post is
> 'great for party hacks, bad for voters' First Past the Post for the
> foreseeable future. Only the other option will bring change and
> election results that reflect how we actually voted: the Single
> Transferrable Vote.
>
> Sjeng
--
All communications made available as part of this mailing list and any opinions, advice, statements, views or other information expressed in this forum are solely provided by, and the responsibility of, the person posting such communication. The Kootenay Communications Society does not certify, endorse, verify, edit or review the contents of any communication posted to these forums, nor do we offer warranty of any kind, express or implied, with regard to the posted communications or information contained therein. KICS is not responsible for defamatory, offensive or illegal conduct of any author posting to this forum.
|
