Thursday, April 30, 2009

Bill Tieleman debates STV with Bruce Hallsor - Sunday at 4 p.m. on Voice of BC on Shaw Cable


As president of No STV I debate Bruce Hallsor - co-chair of British Columbians for BC STV on Voice of BC with host Vaughn Palmer of the Vancouver Sun on Shaw Cable on Sunday May 3 at 4 p.m. on Channel 4 in Metro Vancouver.

The show also aired in Metro Vancouver on Thursday at 8 p.m.

Check local listings in other areas - but do tune in!



DPL said...

Thanks Bill, I was trying to decide if Voice of Bc would be a rerun or I could watch Doc Martin , the Brit series that for sure is a rerun. Let the debate begin.Palmer will keep you both from hand to hand combat. Personally I'm checking both sides of the debate. Maybe tonight will edge me on one direction or the other.

Bill Tieleman said...

Thanks Denis - and you're not watching the Canuck either!

I could spoil the night by telling you how it all turns out but let's just say I was pleased with the results! ;)

Chris said...

I just saw the first "No STV" ad on tv. What a bunch of fear-mongering. So much for sticking to the facts.

Anonymous said...

Thank god Tielman. You finally got off your anti-BC Liberal bandwagon ass and finally showed your NO STV colors.

Your well done TV ad during the Canucks game tonight made me realize that there is still hope and that you are not the incompetent fool that the Yes STV side says you are.

Well done.

Anonymous said...

I think Mr T that you would be happier seeing STV defeated than the BC Liberals.

Bill Tieleman said...

Hmmm - do I have to choose between defeat for the BC Liberals and defeat for BC STV? They are both bad news but then again, BC STV would last far longer.

As to the other Anonymous, I am actually working with BC Liberals, BC Conservatives, Socreds, Greens and NDPers to defeat STV - and glad you like our TV ad - there are a heck of lot more of them to come, plus radio, plus newspaper ads.

Anonymous said...

Bill: I will be voting FOR STV. In my opinion, it doesn't matter right now whether STV is the BEST alternative to First Past The Post; all that matters is that it will be BETTER than FPTP. If it helps take power away from the likes of Campbell, and gives other parties a chance to show their stuff in the Leg, that's enough for me for the first step.
Joan L.

Jeff Barkley said...

I can't help but agree, Bill. The whole reason this has been engineered by Campbell and the Liberals was to maintain power.

I love the belief that citizens decided on STV. So they didn't have a "facilitator" or two? No one laid out the foundations for the discussions? No one simply listed "what is commonly believed" during the setup for the discussions? It is easy to manipulate uninformed individuals into considering positions "a matter of fact" when they are no more than right-wing hopes and dreams. Suddenly those ideas are part of the "basis for discussion" and have a sense of legitimacy.

That is all only a supposition of how a generally uninformed group of the public could have been led to this mathematical model. Don't tell me that they came up with this on their own. You just know thats not true.

Have you all forgotten why a preferential ballot was brought about in the past? It was to cheat. Simple as that. At the time is was the Liberal, the Conservatives, and the CCF (early NDP). The liberals and conservatives brought in the preferential ballot to ensure that the two of them together could agree to form a coalition after the election and defeat the CCF, no matter what the election outcome was (if you voted for the CCF you had to make a second choice, so it had to be liberal or conservative. that way the liberal/conservative coalition would win no matter what the voters wanted). I'm not saying that STV has exactly the same issues, I am just saying that is why the BC Liberals want it can be manipulated through either voting or counting those votes with the aid of a "special" computer....

There is nothing wrong with first past the post. The only thing that is wrong is the BC Liberals corruption and that won't change by changing the way we vote.

By the way, if a Nazi party existed, they also could be represented with STV, whether they would have won or not....just say'in is all...

Anonymous said...

Also, why didn't the right-wing implement STV when they got 58% of the vote if they're so eager to put it in?

Jeff Barkley said...

anon said
"Couldn't Nazis be elected under FPTP too?"

Yes, they could, but not without a significant portion of the population voting for them. I used that inflamitory group in my example, at the risk of offending some, to illustrate that the actual idea behind giving representation to small groups that did not win a large percentage of the vote was fraught with issues itself. Many make the mistake of assuming that giving small groups representation, when they have not won a significant part of the vote, is always a good thing. They are likely thinking of groups like the Green party, but there is an equal opportunity for the seedy side of the populace to suddenly garner legitimacy and power.

On a personal level, I just feel that I don't want any portion of my vote going to extremist groups of any type. I want my vote to go to whomever I have decided will be the best representative in office. I want one vote for one person, thats pretty simple, and a voting system where I can, as a member of the public, go and watch the count taking place and see the actual pieces of paper and how they are marked. We have that, and I don't want to give it up anytime soon.

neil said...

Jeff Barkley doesn't want any part of his vote going to extremists. That could only happen if he chooses to rank extremists on his ballot. Don't want them don't vote for them.
Paper ballots would still be kept under stv in case of dispute just like our current system and your 1 vote would only be used for people you have indicated preference for.

Rational Anarchist said...

I used to read your words thinking they were written by someone possessing both sense and reason. However since you started spewing such fatuous and insulting nonsense for the no STV supporters of the Liberals and the status quo, it is abundantly apparent that you have lost you mind or have been lying to your readers for a long time. I will not read your words again until you publicly announce that you have sought help for you illness or admit to your readers you're a bald (faced) liar.
Peter Spencer, New Westminster

Bill Tieleman said...

Peter - I debated publishing your comment but decided to - despite the fact that your personal insults are both rude and uncalled for.

If you want to have a rational debate - like I just had in Kamloops with Nick Loenen of the Yes to STV side - then make a specific point where you think I'm wrong and we can exchange facts and figures.

Otherwise, don't bother coming to this blog to simply insult me or others - you have nothing to offer in that case.

DPL said...

Rational Anachist seems to believe that a large percentage of BC citizens are off their rocker for talking about the NO side of the STV argument. Nasty comments as well. With or without it, the voter still gets one vote. Do we really want our vote, if declared surplus to shift over to someone else? Maybe the someone else is a person the voter is violently opposed to getting elected. FPTP may not be the best system but at least you get to vote for your favourite, not have it passed
along to Joe Smuck who the voter figures is a goof ball and wouldn't vote for the guy to be dog catcher, not a law maker. Am I pro STV, or FPTP? Still checking but calling a supporter names:{I used to read your words thinking they were written by someone possessing both sense and reason. However since you started spewing such fatuous and insulting nonsense for the no STV supporters of the Liberals and the status quo, it is abundantly apparent that you have lost you mind or have been lying to your readers for a long time:}

I might suggest Anarchist may not post things on this thread again, but will take a look to see what folks have to say about his efforts. In our neck of the woods I see three Pro STV signs. Two on a fence of a recently shut down garage and one on common property of a strata, which by the way, is no doubt illegal to be there. Politics make strange bedfellows and calling folks a few names doesn't usually increase your level of support. STV was close last time as everyone hated the idea of a lopsided Legislature. It's not so lopsided now so be civil and work hard for your cause and see the results. And no I'm not shilling for Tieleman but I'm sure he gained a few converts after Anarchist got involved. I understood Anarhicist don't like to vote , at least that's what the ones I know say, as it tends to encourage candidates. Sudden change in thinking maybe?

Jeff Barkley said...

Rational Anarchist I am always open to hear reasoned, and logical points of contention regarding my views. I'm afraid I'm not seeing that in your posts on this topic. You make a fundamental error when you point your finger at "the no STV supporters of the Liberals and the status quo". I am a life-long NDP member and have fought for the preservation of BC's environment and social safety net the entire time. I can understand your angst regarding BC Liberal supporters but you are using a scattergun approach by including all no-stv supporters in that camp. We are not "spewing such fatuous and insulting nonsense" or "lying" in an attempt to cover up support of the BC Liberals corporate agenda. We, like you, are trying as best we can to protect BC from those excesses.

neil said...

DPL repeats the fallacy that my vote can be transferred to someone that I didn't vote for. This is simply not true. Your vote can only go to someone that you ranked. Joe Smuck can only get all or part of your vote if you ranked him. If there is only 1 person on the ballot that you want to vote for that is al you need to do. If that person is not popular enough to get elected or is very popular your vote will not transfer to anybody else.

Rational Anarchist said...

Insults aside, I still believe the No STV argument to be fatuous nonsense. FPTP supposes every voter casts their ballot for the candidate of their choice as that individual who would best represent in Parliament. Nothing could be farther from the truth, this is best illustrated by the tragic results of the last THREE federal elections, there have been so many variations of the protest, strategic, and anyone but votes, that it is doubtful that anyone actually votes for the candidate they feel best fills the post. And we all know that voting the party line gets us just that, individual MPs are emasculated and forced to abandon their consciences.

I have to go to work, more to come.

Rational Anarchist

Rational Anarchist said...

If you are saying that no ones opinion but your own is worth anything, then you must say FPTP is best, as long as everyone else feels exactly like yourself. This is the only apparent reason we can end up with the unpleasant "democratic" dictatorships we end up with all to often, that serve no one in the electorate.

However, I do believe others value their neighbors opinions, and would prefer that representation in government better reflect a majority of views.

This may mean, to use your highly distasteful metaphor, that the nazi party would get representation in a STV election, IF in the highly unlikely chance there were enough of that unpleasant type of creature to vote for them. BUT THEY DON'T DO THEY? No more than exist under a FPTP system, so again the argument is fatuous.

Yes, there will probably be more minority government, but it appears again you have used your status quo thinking, you expect the nasty type of partisan, strict party line, bitchfests that we have gotten all to often recently. And why do we get those? FPTP.

Under STV we will begin to see party line politics begin to be less and less relevant as the electorate get representation and expect to see it in action. Hopefully as individual votes of conscience become the norm, cooperation between weakened minority parties will arise.

Please stop insulting the intelligence of British Columbians, most of us are more than bright enough to understand how STV works and to comprehend its benefits.

I do not call myself Anarchist, they are Molotov hurling thugs who seek to break systems they see as being antithetical to themselves, they believe in nothing. My tag, Rational Anarchist, refers to my perception that our system of governance, and many other structures of our society, are broken or at least sorely damaged. I, in my small way, attempt to find ways to encourage the working parts to do more, utilize unused or idle bits and discourage or correct the malfunctioning pieces. All while remaining as non-partisan and outside the system as possible, it is broken after all.

Oh, and finally, to DPL (or should I say Bill?), Who is insulting whom? This is a blog after all, you surely don't expect everyone to kiss the ground you walk on, I'll ignore your own insulting remarks, OK. Read a little history, and only a complete ejut doesn't use spell check, and go back and read what he has just written.

Anonymous said...

I'll immediately clutch your rss as I can not find your e-mail subscription hyperlink or e-newsletter
service. Do you have any? Kindly let me recognize so that I may just subscribe.

my blog post: handgun targets ()