Electoral Reform Referendum

How will you vote?

  • I am in favour

    Votes: 30 34.5%
  • I am against it

    Votes: 56 64.4%
  • I don't plan to vote

    Votes: 1 1.1%

  • Total voters
    87
This may all be true, and if I was given a single fully fleshed out PR option to vote for there is a good chance I would for many of those reasons. I voted no not because PR is bad, but because voting for a vague system and letting the NDP and Greens then decide the details on how it will work is not acceptable.

Well FPTP was basically imposed on us in the 1800s and the citizens had no say on the system or the details and the poor results since speak for themselves.

In 2017, with FPTP, we had 68% of the votes that didn't count because they had no impact on the result. That means with FPTP only 32% of the votes actually counted to elect our MLAs. With PR, regardless of the details that are missing, more than 90% of the votes will count. This is a very significant improvement.

This improvement will occur regardless of the technical details that have yet to be worked out.

Basically I'm saying that the details are small compared to the very very large benefit to switching to a PR system.

And yes, voting against PR this referendum is voting FOR the continued use of the deeply flawed FPTP.
 
Last edited:
46072080_10157322856872952_1892114891263705088_n.jpg
 
How Proportional Representation Divides Society
PR opens the door for fringe and extremist parties to win seats.
dc420548b2bf7aed64980e12c6863b23
by Christopher Lindsay
November 12, 2018
in Analysis, B.C. News, Opinion, Politics
0


Many people can graciously accept defeat, but deep down, no one likes losing.

No one likes getting dumped by their boyfriend or girlfriend. No one likes being fired from a job.

And no politician likes being defeated in an election.

When small political parties lose an election, one thing they often complain about is the electoral system. Because they didn’t win many (or any) seats, they want to change the rules.

The First Past the Post System and its problems


At both the federal and provincial level, the current electoral system in Canada is a single member plurality system, commonly known as First Past the Post (FPTP).


Under FPTP, there is only one winner in each riding. The candidate who wins the most votes (a plurality) wins a seat, and everyone else is a loser.

One major criticism of FPTP is the number of seats a party wins rarely matches the popular vote.

Case in point: In the 2017 BC Provincial election the Green Party won 16.9% of the popular vote, but they only won 3 ridings. With 87 seats in the legislature, that is only 3.4% of the seats.

To many people, that seems unfair.

Is Proportional Representation a solution?
A popular alternative to FPTP is an electoral system called proportional representation (PR). Under PR “parties gain seats in proportion to the number of votes cast for them.”


For instance, if the 2017 BC Provincial election were held under PR, the Green Party would have won 14 seats instead of 3.

PR appeals to small parties because they don’t need to get the most votes in a riding to be a winner. It’s like in elementary school where everyone receives a medal in a race.

Even if they came in last place.

In British Columbia, a referendum is currently underway to possibly change the electoral system. Voters can choose between FPTP, or one of three forms of PR. If voters choose PR, a party that wins 5% of the popular vote will receive roughly 5% of the seats.

Proportional Representation creates room for more fringe parties
Because PR makes it easier for small parties to win seats, it incentivizes the creation of more political parties. A 2016 study of electoral systems found this to be true. From 2000 to 2015, PR systems had an average of 4.4 parties winning seats compared to 2.6 for plurality systems.


What PR ultimately does is break up “big tent” parties, which are coalitions of smaller political tribes. The fracturing of mainstream political parties opens the door for single-issue, fringe, and extremist parties to win seats. With more parties elected, majority governments are no longer the norm.

The same study found that elections held under PR resulted in a coalition government 83% of the time with an average of 3.4 parties. In a coalition, at least one small party becomes the kingmaker.

And that party could be a fringe or extremist party. This is a serious flaw of PR, and why it is inferior to FPTP.

Although PR is the “fairest” system in terms of representation matching the popular vote, it usually results in a small party holding the balance of power. (This can also happen under FPTP with a minority government, but it is far less common.)

Current system keeps parties close to the centre
Consequently, another flaw of PR is it consistently gives political power to small parties—and if they become part of a coalition, a disproportionate amount of power according to their share of the popular vote. They can force the government to change their policy positions, making election promises meaningless.

Worse still, PR moves society away from the political centre. When fringe and extremist parties win seats, their viewpoints gain legitimacy in society and become normalized.

Hence, PR serves to radicalize people on both the left and right. It increases division in the electorate—not unity—by dividing the political landscape into smaller tribes.

FPTP produces different electoral outcomes than PR. To win an election under FPTP, a party must appeal to the political centre to win a plurality (or majority) of the votes in a riding. It usually results in majority governments that are either centre-left or centre-right, and it is extremely rare for a fringe or an extremist party to hold the balance of power.

https://www.thepostmillennial.com/proportional-representation/
 
I voted for pro rep. But I don't think they made a strong enough case for change. With human nature being generally resistant to change, the referendum will fail and FPTP will continue. Oh well.

The always maneuvering Mr Horgan has kept the Greens on side by delivering the referendum as promised, even though it's not in the NDP's interest. My cynical side would suggest that the pro rep case was skillfully sabotaged by the NDP by presenting a baffling array of options.

Actually this current government is a poster child for minority rule. Obviously the NDP would much prefer to be in a simple majority situation, but they've found ways to get most of what they wanted. Minorities aren't a bad thing in and of themselves. This BC team was given no chance to survive and yet today they appear as solid and stable as any. Stephen Harper was at his best in his first term when in a minority position. The two subsequent terms with majority mandates showed him to be more autocratic and given to pursuing ideological hooha that didn't benefit the country much at all.
 
In a recent Vancouver Sun column, political legend Gordon Gibson — the man who designed the B.C. Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform — labelled the referendum process as dishonest, misleading and vulnerable to future manipulation.

Pointedly, and summarizing the attacks on the process from individuals of all political stripes, it’s clear that the referendum has been deeply flawed from the beginning, and simply doesn’t meet the high standards that such a fundamental change to our democracy should require.

For decades B.C. has enjoyed certainty, stability and governments held accountable for their decisions. Proportional representation, and the referendum constructed to achieve it, threatens to undermine this enviable position.


https://theprovince.com/opinion/op-...ccountability-threatened-by-flawed-referendum
 
I voted for pro rep. But I don't think they made a strong enough case for change. With human nature being generally resistant to change, the referendum will fail and FPTP will continue. Oh well.

The always maneuvering Mr Horgan has kept the Greens on side by delivering the referendum as promised, even though it's not in the NDP's interest. My cynical side would suggest that the pro rep case was skillfully sabotaged by the NDP by presenting a baffling array of options.

Actually this current government is a poster child for minority rule. Obviously the NDP would much prefer to be in a simple majority situation, but they've found ways to get most of what they wanted. Minorities aren't a bad thing in and of themselves. This BC team was given no chance to survive and yet today they appear as solid and stable as any. Stephen Harper was at his best in his first term when in a minority position. The two subsequent terms with majority mandates showed him to be more autocratic and given to pursuing ideological hooha that didn't benefit the country much at all.

I think there is some truth in your statement about the NDP potentially sabotaging the referendum.

The truth is that our seasoned politicians don’t like PR because their chances of forming a majority government are diminished as they would have to get at least 50% of the vote instead of the 40% they have now. This means they would have to work with other parties to run the province instead of getting absolute power like they are used to. Who doesn’t like absolute power?

This referendum really is a rare opportunity for us voters because once the politicians are in power for a while, they don’t want to charge the voting system that got them elected in the first place.

For example the BC Liberals campaigned for bringing in electoral reform during the 2001 election and we did have referendums because of their promise but once in power they didn’t campaign for it as they didn’t see the need anymore.

Same thing happened with Justin Trudeau who said he’d get rid of FPTP but once he got a majority with 39% of the vote, he canned the idea thinking FPTP was pretty good after all!

So you can’t really trust the long term politicians because they have been corrupted by the system. That goes also for the head of the no campaign Bill Tieleman who worked for the Glen Clark NDP government, which was the government who most benefited from FPTP by getting elected with less votes than the BC Liberals.

Again this is a rare opportunity for us voters to have a say. Too bad the politicians are trying to screw it up.
 
Last edited:
Horgan and the Greens are now getting desperate. After a disastrous debate, they are now mandating it be an open nomination system. What else will they mandate after the election? You have to be pretty naive to not believe they have political consultants providing advice on how they can skew the system in their favour if they get a yes vote. The expected surge in voting after the debate has not materialized, only 6.5% of eligible voters have voted. If they continue the post debate "surge"level, it will reach about 15% participation. And this is how political parties so concerned about democracy decide on an electoral system, with a confusing array of questions on how the system will work, with a voting system that could be decided by less than 10% of the electorate and then will be fleshed out by a partisan process to decide the details. It's not democratic, it's a joke. There have now been 3 votes in 13 years, there will be another. PR can wait for a proper democratic process and a clear vision of how it will work.
 
As far as I'm concerned if there's not a at least a 50% voter response, the proposed change should die a quick death
until the next minority gov't tries it again.
Policy should never change due to apathetic voter response.
 
Well, it seems ol' Horgan let the cat unintentionally out of the bag this morning...

"Horgan told Postmedia News on Wednesday that if British Columbians vote to replace the province’s electoral system with mixed member proportional, he will order NDP MLAs to oppose the so-called closed list approach when a legislature committee decides the details of the new system. The direction from me will be that the members of that committee not support a closed list,” said Horgan,"

https://vancouversun.com/news/polit...o-closed-list-version-of-mixed-member-pro-rep

And you can't get much clearer confirmation that he FULLY expects to be able to control, and direct the committee which will be deciding the parameters of the new system should voters find in favor (highly doubtful at this juncture). That certainly flies in the face of all those who voice with force that said committee will be unbiased. :eek:

Horgan is simply desperately scrambling to legitimize this nonsense. He needs sheeple to believe him, and at this point will say damn near anything to try and garner support for his nonsensical approach to a rather serious matter.

The Fix has been set up, and Horgan fully expects to DIRECT whichever way the new model unfolds.
Want to bet as to whose benefit he'll be looking after??

Cheers - Nog
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-11-15_11-54-51.gif
    upload_2018-11-15_11-54-51.gif
    43 bytes · Views: 5
As far as I'm concerned if there's not a at least a 50% voter response, the proposed change should die a quick death
until the next minority gov't tries it again.
Policy should never change due to apathetic voter response.
They barley crack over 50% in a regular election so should those not count too? Thats part of the purpose to go to porportional representation so younger people will know their vote counts unlike the current system. https://vancouversun.com/news/politics/b-c-election-2017-voter-turnout-estimated-at-60-up-from-2013
 
Well, it seems ol' Horgan let the cat unintentionally out of the bag this morning...

"Horgan told Postmedia News on Wednesday that if British Columbians vote to replace the province’s electoral system with mixed member proportional, he will order NDP MLAs to oppose the so-called closed list approach when a legislature committee decides the details of the new system. The direction from me will be that the members of that committee not support a closed list,” said Horgan,"
Cheers - Nog
Weird spin. I would think that having open lists, where the voters choose the MLA's, is a great thing for democracy. You imply that it's autocratic for Horgan to lead his Party in doing the right thing. Of course he opposes the closed list system. All parties are on record as being in favour of open lists. Who wouldn't be?
 
...You imply that it's autocratic for Horgan to lead his Party in doing the right thing...

Nope. You are (intentionally methinks) missing the point.

I am agreeing with Wilkinson when he noted: "John Horgan is trying to anticipate the decision of the all-party committee that he controls, so he might as well tell us all the answer right now rather than playing games with us,”.

One of the Yes side's bastions has always been that should the vote go their way, the All Party Committee will then decide on the details for whichever method wins out (again, unlikely conclusion). Horgan made it quite clear that he fully expects to CONTROL that committee if it is ever struck. Something openly alluded to by himself, and then Wilkinson (which Horgan did not subsequently challenge).

Of course Horgan is going to play shut the door on any closed system. He simply has to in order to keep any shred of hope alive. Hope that is rapidly dwindling (as it should IMO). And of course, as you note & were this farce to proceed, who would argue with that. But in doing so he exposed the fact that he expects to control and direct the all party committee in their deliberations to define the details. Sorry (NOT!) but that contradicts everything being touted by the yes side, and frankly is ripe with the smell of the Dippers ensuring that the method going into play is to their maximum benefit.

Constitutes a Major FOUL - and I am not anywhere near alone in that perception...

Cheers,
Nog
 
One of the Yes side's bastions has always been that should the vote go their way, the All Party Committee will then decide on the details for whichever method wins out (again, unlikely conclusion). Horgan made it quite clear that he fully expects to CONTROL that committee if it is ever struck. Something openly alluded to by himself, and then Wilkinson (which Horgan did not subsequently challenge).

I get your point @IronNoggin about the politicians having control of some of the details. The NDP will not have a majority on this committee so Horgan still needs another party's support (likely the Greens but not necessarily). You probably think that isn't good enough though.

Somebody has to figure out the details so who? I'm guessing the thought from the AG was that a legislative committee of elected officials is the most legitimate way to do it. Especially in this case when you need two parties to agree (which will represent more than 50% of the votes from the 2017 election).

So if a legislative committee is not legitimate in your view, than who should decide?
 
So if a legislative committee is not legitimate in your view, than who should decide?

I do not believe anyone or any party should be deciding / dictating details at this juncture.
The way this whole thing has been handled is a royal mess.
And as a consequence, I am adamantly opposed to what they are proposing at this time.

Re-think it, re-word it, make it understandable from the outset including the details (not simply a "leap of faith") and perhaps I might be persuaded to get behind it.
The way it is now, NO EFFING WAY! Period.

Cheers,
Nog
 
Weird spin. I would think that having open lists, where the voters choose the MLA's, is a great thing for democracy. You imply that it's autocratic for Horgan to lead his Party in doing the right thing. Of course he opposes the closed list system. All parties are on record as being in favour of open lists. Who wouldn't be?
He should have made that clear before ballots were mailed in by people who weren’t aware of the pending change. Clearly he will whip the vote so why all the secrecy? He and Weaver could have worked out their options and presented a finished product to the electorate, they didn’t though, so the question is why?This whole process is a bit of a mess, rushed and incomplete!Had he and Weaver cleared up these issues prior to calling the referendum, rather than pretend a committee would sort them out after the fact, it would be a lot more honest. We now know Horgan will dictate to the NDP and Weaver to the Green member, so why even bother with a Commitee other than as window dressing?
 
He should have made that clear before ballots were mailed in by people who weren’t aware of the pending change. Clearly he will whip the vote so why all the secrecy? He and Weaver could have worked out their options and presented a finished product to the electorate, they didn’t though, so the question is why?This whole process is a bit of a mess, rushed and incomplete!Had he and Weaver cleared up these issues prior to calling the referendum, rather than pretend a committee would sort them out after the fact, it would be a lot more honest. We now know Horgan will dictate to the NDP and Weaver to the Green member, so why even bother with a Commitee other than as window dressing?

That's a good question. I think it's because in the 2009 STV referendum all the details were provided with only one option and the No side complained about having only one choice and that STV was too confusing and that the details were decided by an unelected assembly etc etc. The No side won.

So this time they are trying to address the concerns of the 2009 referendum but providing 3 choices and not going into the "confusing" details.

It's entertaining really. In 2009, the No STV campaign actually used MMP as an example of a simpler system that BC should go for instead of STV. Now they are against MMP as well. See this link: http://nostv.org/compare.html
 
That's a good question. I think it's because in the 2009 STV referendum all the details were provided with only one option and the No side complained about having only one choice and that STV was too confusing and that the details were decided by an unelected assembly etc etc. The No side won.

So this time they are trying to address the concerns of the 2009 referendum but providing 3 choices and not going into the "confusing" details.

It's entertaining really. In 2009, the No STV campaign actually used MMP as an example of a simpler system that BC should go for instead of STV. Now they are against MMP as well. See this link: http://nostv.org/compare.html
I still don’t get the point of a Commitee to address the details after the fact, if the Leaders have already decided on them? All they have done is remove a clear choice from the electorate, in order to accommodate a toothless committee that will rubber stamp their ideas after the fact. Horgan and Weaver could have and should have, laid out the details and asked for a mandate based on a finished system.

I don’t think the pushback is so much about MMP as it was by a poorly defined MMP. By finally coming out and declaring the open list as the choice,Horgan is basically admitting the initial offering was flawed.
 
When is the deadline to have it mailed by?

I don't know why they haven't made this more clear.

Overall deadline is to be received by Elections BC by Nov 30th at 4:30 pm.

If you are mailing it, Canada Post delivery standard is 3 business days for BC. You would need to mail it by Nov 27th to be safe.

People can also drop it off at many locations around the province by the Nov 30th deadline:
https://elections.bc.ca/referendum/...rvice-bc-referendum-service-office-locations/
 
Back
Top