Squamish- Grand W. Massive Banner Yesterday

[Jens]

Did anyone else see the MASSIVE blue banner that was hung from a good ways up the grand wall yesterday? I thought it was a pretty amazing feat, however some of my buddies were less than amused.

 

I wonder how early they had to get up to hang the thing and I wonder how much it weighed?

[genepires]

what did the banner say?

[Choada_Boy]

It was up on Sunday as well. I think it has something to do with the Canucks being in the playoffs, or it was a super-ghetto bivy on Uncle Bens.

[matchswain]

The banner said "BC-STV", which I presume is a reference to the transferable vote referendum that's up for voting in May. Seems an interesting but visible way to get out the vote...

[Jeremy_Frimer]

That was 'Danger' Dan Tezlaff, BJ Cummings, and Matt Maddaloni, taking democracy into their own hands. The vote is on May 12, and concerns whether BC's voting system is simply local versus a mix of local and proportional. Last election the "Liberals" (they are actually fairly conservative) won something around 90% of seats with around 35% of the popular vote. The STV would prevent that from happening again.

 

And yes, that is the Split Pillar.

 

[eldiente]

That's rad. You could take a big whip on the pillar and use the banner to catch your fall.

[bstach]

While I agree STV is probably an improvement, its is going down due to the fact that it is too complicated for the masses to understand and they will prefer to stick with the devil they know. I wonder if this is the whole gambit of the Liberal goverment.

 

Personally, I think an "instant run-off" system would be much better. This is where you simply rank the candidates in order of preference. Then, if a candidate does not receive a majority after first count, the last place candidate is removed and the second place votes are counted etc. until one candidate has a majority. This would have prevented the Chretien dictatorship nonsense while the Conservative and Alliance were beating the crap out of each other.

 

I'm curious to hear how the CC.com brain trust views STV....

[Choada_Boy]

That's rad. You could take a big whip on the pillar and use the banner to catch your fall.

 

Let me know how that works out.

[jmace]

Maybe he means like this

 

[video:youtube]5OmbEkh24r0

[Jeremy_Frimer]

bstach, I think you are right that the STV faces a problem in that many people will vote against it because they don't understand it. But can you explain to me why people feel the need to be able to understand exactly how it works? Almost none of us understand exactly how our car works. But we get the following: put gas in the gas tank, turn the key, push on the right lever, and away you go. We let our mechanic understand the nitty gritty, so long as it performs the goals we want it to perform. Same goes for voting. The current FPTP system doesn't work in the sense that it doesn't represent the wishes of voters (violates the principle of democracy) while it does afford local representation. The STV is a system that balances both principles: local representation and proportional representation. Why does the conversation shift beyond that? I'm genuinely curious to hear your perspective.

 

-Jeremy

[G-spotter]

I remember when Guy and Andy G etc. tried to hang the UBC Engineering red VW Bug off the Pillar and the hauling system failed partway up the lower bolt ladder.

[bstach]

bstach, I think you are right that the STV faces a problem in that many people will vote against it because they don't understand it. But can you explain to me why people feel the need to be able to understand exactly how it works? Almost none of us understand exactly how our car works. But we get the following: put gas in the gas tank, turn the key, push on the right lever, and away you go. We let our mechanic understand the nitty gritty, so long as it performs the goals we want it to perform. Same goes for voting. The current FPTP system doesn't work in the sense that it doesn't represent the wishes of voters (violates the principle of democracy) while it does afford local representation. The STV is a system that balances both principles: local representation and proportional representation. Why does the conversation shift beyond that? I'm genuinely curious to hear your perspective.

 

-Jeremy

 

Just to be clear, I agree with you that STV would be an improvment over the current FPTP system. Regarding why people feel they need to understand how it works, I can only speculate. First of all, reforming an electoral system is of much greater consequence than, say, deciding to get the automatic transmission package or anti-lock brakes (to continue with your analogy) and harder to reverse. That combined with a general mistrust of politicians and whatever particular Kool-Aid du jour they happen to be pushing. Add to that the usual inertia that must be overcome to get people to want to change. If they haven't been sold on the idea, any excuse will do not to support the change. Thats my guess. Final answer.

 

Along my last point, personally I am disgusted (but not surprised) by the lack of thoughtful discourse on STV. I.e.What it is, what the beneifts are, how will this change the power balance, what the potential drawbacks are etc. Just the usual partisan FUD throwing (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt).