tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3136317901768500285.post4966436156227557636..comments2023-10-23T11:40:32.553-04:00Comments on The Skinny: Bill Tieleman: manipulateur for the unmentioned First-Past-the-Post voting systemUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3136317901768500285.post-19257753833861833142009-04-30T06:18:00.000-04:002009-04-30T06:18:00.000-04:00Hi Jan,
It would be nice if Tieleman could openly...Hi Jan,<br /><br />It would be nice if Tieleman could openly state that he supports a PR system such as MMP or province-wide List. If he could support some variation of the above, that would make it clearer. I have that cynical feeling that if BCers were voting on MMP, he would be campaigning against that system also.<br /><br />Mr. Tieleman is a highly intelligent man who knows how to frame the voting reform debate. He constantly attacks BC-STV. Never does he mention anything good about First-Past-the-Post. If I were in his shoes, I would be doing using the same strategy.<br /><br />BC-STV supporters need to follow Messrs. Tieleman and Schreck's strategy by attacking FPTP. <B> Many of us joined the proportional representation movement because we felt cheated by the use and abuse of the antiquated First-Past-the-Post voting system. We need to tell our stories.</B> We need to tell how it doesn't make a difference whether or not we vote in our FPTP ridings. How, our local MLAs and MPs do not listen to us because power is centralized in the party leaders' offices and government MLAs and MPs don't listen to us because power is controlled by the governing leader and his unelected staff.Skinny Dipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12818163310102120130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3136317901768500285.post-27483851802968958392009-04-29T20:40:00.000-04:002009-04-29T20:40:00.000-04:00I read the article by Tieleman. It doesn't appear ...I read the article by Tieleman. It doesn't appear that he is pro FPTP but would prefer proportional representation or a mixed system of representation, in which Chrystal points out, is not a consideration. <br /><br />Bill does voice some real concerns that I sure hope don't materialize, such as independents or small parties actually not getting elected. <br /><br />I would if I could vote for STV, not because I think it is good or better than FPTP, but the fact that it would help create change in other electoral systems, especially at the federal level. <br /><br />However, I don't like STV in comparison to PP and a mixed system.susansmithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02573558646874765432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3136317901768500285.post-77481856088627088792009-04-29T20:06:00.000-04:002009-04-29T20:06:00.000-04:00That's why I never refer to the pro-FPTP side as a...That's why I never refer to the pro-FPTP side as anything but that. There are only two electoral systems up for referendum: FPTP and BC-STV. The one is a single member plurality system which was originally designed for a two-party state, the other takes the best of SMP and adds elements of proportionality in order to accommodate a multi-party state.<br /><br />Some BC-STV supporters have fallen to defending STV. It's unnecessary. I want to know what is so wonderful about FPTP such that Messrs. Tieleman and Schreck, members of the inner circle of the purportedly ONLY progressive party in BC, think that it's better. It's not about BC-STV vs. NOT BC-STV. The issue is BC-STV vs. FPTP.Chrystal Oceanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00171002438761303983noreply@blogger.com