Electoral Reform Referendum

[Ripperoflips]

I'm having a hard time understanding why were going through this process and the need for it, and this isn't the first time were doing it. The great thing about FPTP is, when the populous tires of the government that is in power the populous will tell that government in an election their time is over. Generally governments are voted out not in. I personally think that is a good thing and fear that with PR that option will be gone. Just a little history how FPTP works fairly, in 1991 the NDP won the provincial election with 41% of the popular vote due in part to a scandal plagued S.C. (social credit) government that only got 25% of the popular vote and the Lib. got 33%. The system worked. But then in 1996 the NDP popularity waned and had 39% of the popular vote but won 39 seats to the Libs 33 seats but 42% of the popular vote, so stayed in power, but after their fudget budget scandal they were given the boot in the 2001 election and won only 2 seats ( this the government that Horgan was so proud of) they got only 22% of the popular vote to the Libs 58% and 77 seats, a government was VOTED out not in! The system works! It just seems like a huge waste of money to me. If it's not broke no need to fix it.

 

[terrin]

Seriously? Come on, You have to know why. ICBC, money laundering, BC hydro, cash payoffs from big industry, drunken party leaders. The list is incredibly long. A little research on the BC liberal party will uncover a dozen reasons why they don’t want it. A few are even above board.

You forgot a few other reasons like Farming out Hospital cleaning contracts to "For profit operators" who then hired poorly paid untrained cleaners to keep our sick elders and children in dirty environments while the contractors turn a healthy profit at a greater cost to the tax payer than what was there before, $400 million cost overrun on Vancouver Convention Centre, $400 million on a leaky new roof on the BC Place stadium that other major cities with similar stadiums blow up and build new for the same amount of money, selling BC's crown jewell BC Rail, going after Basi and Virk scandal where immunity is given to the bribers for testimony against the takers (All the tv shows I watch they get the bottom guys to turn so they can catch the big guys but not here),making BC the most indebted province http://commonsensecanadian.ca/economist-thanks-liberals-bc-canadas-indebted-province/ and if we go back a little more how they gave away Vancouvers in harbour False Creek to Lee Ka Shing for $300 million then the taxpayer spent more than that cleaning up the site so basically gave it away for free to name a few more.

 

[UkeeDreamin]

Wow - therein lies one of the roots of these polarized positions. I’m sure I’m not the only one who views the history of B.C. politics, and it’s drastic swings in platforms, parties and policies, all the scandals and wasted tax dollars and, particularly the governments formed that don’t reflect what the majority of British Columbians voted for as exactly the kind of ongoing cluster-f&ck that PR will ensure doesn’t continue to happen.

As an East-coaster who moved to the “best coast” in the mid-90s, BCs wild political swings were always the butt of jokes across the rest of Canada. I feel most folks felt BC would be the envy of the rest of the Nation were it not for the wild and extreme political pendulum. Again, that’s just one side of the coin and obviously others view BCs political history as a good thing? Impossible to reach consensus with such fundamentally different view of the same history.

Cheers!

Ukee

 

[ziggy]

Seriously? Come on, You have to know why. ICBC, money laundering, BC hydro, cash payoffs from big industry, drunken party leaders. The list is incredibly long. A little research on the BC liberal party will uncover a dozen reasons why they don’t want it. A few are even above board.

You lost me! We’re you trying to respond to my Post? This discussion is not about individual Parties but about how we elect them.

 

[jasonj]

Where will the new Electoral Boundaries be drawn?
Who will decide which riding are rural or urban?.

On Electoral Boundaries, the current ones are defined by the Electoral Boundary Commission which is an independent body that redefines them when required. They will be the ones to set up the new boundaries, not the NDP or Greens. Also with PR, the exact boundaries will not have a large impact on the election because the total number of seats given to a party is based on the popular vote overall, rather than from the distortions of local boundaries.

How come they don’t know how many MLA’s will be in the Legislature?

This depends on the system chosen. For DMP, there will be a fixed number approx the same as now. For MMP and RUP, this will change from election to election depending on the top up required just like in other MMP jurisdictions. There is nothing sinister here. Also, the number of MLAs will also not have a large impact on which party has control as the results will still be proportional.

Will the Party lists be open and subject to voter or Party selection?

For DMP and STV, there is no separate list. For MMP there would be a list that is closed or open. Closed just means that when a party needs more MLA's to get a proportional result, Elections BC will pick from a public party list. Open means that you can actually vote directly for members on that list. What would be your preference? The choice is not partisan. Regardless, the result would still be proportional.

Why are so many details left out of how the system will work?
When those questions are answered then maybe PR would be an option.

Most details actually have been worked out here or in other countries. The actual implementation will still result in a proportional distribution of MLAs based on the popular vote. There is not a whole lot here for a partisan government to tilt in their favour.

I really don't think these details are a good reason to vote against. I'm guessing that people fixed on the NO side would still be opposed even if these details were specified more clearly.

 

[jasonj]

But then in 1996 the NDP popularity waned and had 39% of the popular vote but won 39 seats to the Libs 33 seats but 42% of the popular vote, so stayed in power, but after their fudget budget scandal they were given the boot in the 2001 election and won only 2 seats ( this the government that Horgan was so proud of) they got only 22% of the popular vote to the Libs 58% and 77 seats, a government was VOTED out not in! The system works! It just seems like a huge waste of money to me. If it's not broke no need to fix it.

If that's not a broken system, I don't know what is. It took 4 YEARS longer to boot out the "false majority" NDP government than it should have because of FPTP. It also resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars being misspent.

 

[Ripperoflips]

If that's not a broken system, I don't know what is. It took 4 YEARS longer to boot out the "false majority" NDP government than it should have because of FPTP. It also resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars being misspent.

"BUT" the NDP won more seats, than the LIB's. Why should a constituent in a less populated constituency have less say in the politic's of the province. Almost 3,000,000 people live in the lower mainland and V.I., so that leave's about 1.6 mil. in the rest of the province, the way I see it their voting rights are going to be displaced because here comes the voting majority with their percentage of popular vote and the candidate that they want to move to a different riding, yours. And you said that it resulted in millions of dollars being misspent, well I think that was money well spent, because it took the NDP 16 years to lie their way back in to power and if we get PR I'm afraid we'll never get rid of them! The worst thing about political history is people forget how bad the NDP had screwed up the province in the late 1900's and early 2000's. Bingo gate, fast cats, and chased a lot of big business out of the province never to return.

 

[Foxsea]

 

[ziggy]

On Electoral Boundaries, the current ones are defined by the Electoral Boundary Commission which is an independent body that redefines them when required. They will be the ones to set up the new boundaries, not the NDP or Greens. Also with PR, the exact boundaries will not have a large impact on the election because the total number of seats given to a party is based on the popular vote overall, rather than from the distortions of local boundaries.



This depends on the system chosen. For DMP, there will be a fixed number approx the same as now. For MMP and RUP, this will change from election to election depending on the top up required just like in other MMP jurisdictions. There is nothing sinister here. Also, the number of MLAs will also not have a large impact on which party has control as the results will still be proportional.



For DMP and STV, there is no separate list. For MMP there would be a list that is closed or open. Closed just means that when a party needs more MLA's to get a proportional result, Elections BC will pick from a public party list. Open means that you can actually vote directly for members on that list. What would be your preference? The choice is not partisan. Regardless, the result would still be proportional.



Most details actually have been worked out here or in other countries. The actual implementation will still result in a proportional distribution of MLAs based on the popular vote. There is not a whole lot here for a partisan government to tilt in their favour.

I really don't think these details are a good reason to vote against. I'm guessing that people fixed on the NO side would still be opposed even if these details were specified more clearly.

Can’t agree, as I understand new electoral boundaries will have to be defined based on rural and urban ridings. I see nowhere where it indicates this will be done by an unbiased, non partisan Parliamentary Committee that consists of a fair representation of current elected MLA’s. Suggest you read the mandate of an Electoral Boundary Commission.

I don’t believe Elections BC ever will chose the representative from the Potential MLA list. The List is compiled by the Party and at best Elections BC will inform the Party how many MLA’s to choose from their list. Other than that as I understand it, the voter may get a second choice. However the government has yet to tell us which model they plan to use. If your selecting Elections BC will actually pick an individual candidate from a Party list, I’d love to have a link.

You say most details have been worked out in other countries, that’s awesome. Really makes you wonder why this government was so incompetent or so rushed it couldn’t do the same. You’d think the AG would have been able to use the other countries details as a template in order to provide details for his proposed system, but instead we have a whole lot of blanks! Then again only one of the three has ever been used.

The earliest this system can be used is 2021, yet there is a massive rush to foist an unfinished fill in the blanks system on the public. Either the AG’s staff is pretty incompetent, or he really wants this Referendum to fail? Either way the lack of details, some of which are very important is more than enough to put me off. Each his own I guess.

 

[ziggy]

View attachment 41262

Got a list of how many of them were given a follow up referendum on it? Bet Germany who adopted in 1918 might have had second thoughts around 1945.

 

[jasonj]

The earliest this system can be used is 2021, yet there is a massive rush to foist an unfinished fill in the blanks system on the public. Either the AG’s staff is pretty incompetent, or he really wants this Referendum to fail? Either way the lack of details, some of which are very important is more than enough to put me off. Each his own I guess.

Simple question. Would you vote for PR if these blanks were filled in to your satisfaction?

 

[ziggy]

Simple question. Would you vote for PR if these blanks were filled in to your satisfaction?

Not sure, at the start of the process I was quite intrigued and would have certainly looked at it more favourably. The way this has been rolled out has totally put me off. No minimum number of responses required to adopt the system. A kind of crappy insecure mail in ballot system when it could have been simply added on to the recent Municipal election ballot and have had proper verification. The minimal 50% plus 1 to pass. And of course an actual the missing details the government will fill in after the referndum we have been discussing. Wouldn’t buy a boat without a survey or sea trail. Can’t support a voting system which has so much still to be determined by the seller. Guess I’m just not a leap of faith guy. Oh and I see the Leaders are going to debate it after the voting has started! Priceless.

 

[mayday]

I honestly dont understand the naivete of the pro PR people - human nature being what it is, there is a reason why "management by committee" is a universally accepted term for "fuster cluck" - it's the classic case of theory vs reality - in theory communism is great, reality - hmm, not so much.
Lets say the PR utopia comes true - now around this big boardroom table you have 34 NDP, 30 Liberal, 10 greens 3 Flat Earthers, 2 Elvis is Alive and 1 Sport Fishing BC members - do you really think anything meaningful is going to get done in a timely manor??? And even if a decision does get made - it's still guaranteed to **** off the "majority" of people - so where has your "PR" improved things - most of the time "your" opinion is ignored and you feel your vote has been wasted - deja vue all over again.
There is a reason why any scenario where decisions need to be made you need one final arbitrator - good or bad, at least it keeps things moving. I actually think it averages out in the end - Liberals get in power, do 7 good deeds, 3 bad - next time NDP come in, reverse 2 of those, do 5 good of their own, 4 bad - 10yr average we are still better off.

 

[Clint r]

You lost me! We’re you trying to respond to my Post? This discussion is not about individual Parties but about how we elect them.

Nice try..... but it was you who wondered in your own post why Gordon Campbell and Christie Clarke didn’t support PR.

I’m just stating the obvious.

 

[fish brain]

Nice try..... but it was you who wondered in your own post why Gordon Campbell and Christie Clarke didn’t support PR.

I’m just stating the obvious.

Easy, lest keep things respectful, or Admin will shut this down

 

[Clint r]

Not arguing and no disrespect intended. Ziggy wondered. I answered. Google is your friend, lol All you have to do is search. I will say that my decision to support PR comes not from who I want in, it’s more to prevent a slim majority thinking they have a mandate. If I learned anything under Christie’s watch it’s that.

 

[fish brain]

I honestly dont understand the naivete of the pro PR people - human nature being what it is, there is a reason why "management by committee" is a universally accepted term for "fuster cluck" - it's the classic case of theory vs reality - in theory communism is great, reality - hmm, not so much.
Lets say the PR utopia comes true - now around this big boardroom table you have 34 NDP, 30 Liberal, 10 greens 3 Flat Earthers, 2 Elvis is Alive and 1 Sport Fishing BC members - do you really think anything meaningful is going to get done in a timely manor??? And even if a decision does get made - it's still guaranteed to **** off the "majority" of people - so where has your "PR" improved things - most of the time "your" opinion is ignored and you feel your vote has been wasted - deja vue all over again.
There is a reason why any scenario where decisions need to be made you need one final arbitrator - good or bad, at least it keeps things moving. I actually think it averages out in the end - Liberals get in power, do 7 good deeds, 3 bad - next time NDP come in, reverse 2 of those, do 5 good of their own, 4 bad - 10yr average we are still better off.

Your point " it's still guaranteed to **** off the "majority" of people" Is misguided. To make a decision, The governing party would need the support of at least one other party (assuming a coalition government, which is likely) This means that the decision would actually be made by parties that a true majority of voters elected. The whole point of PR is that these decisions will be more fair, because they truly represent what the majority of voters want. Not the minority that voted for the governing party under FPTP

 

[fish brain]

No disrespect intended. Ziggy wondered. I answered. Google is your friend in situations like this. All the infos there you just gotta read it..

Sorry, it looked to me like your response could be taken out of context.
Thanks for all your inpput

 

[ziggy]

Nice try..... but it was you who wondered in your own post why Gordon Campbell and Christie Clarke didn’t support PR.

I’m just stating the obvious.

Actually if you read the string you’d see that my comment about Clarke and Campbell was a response to someone saying they did support PR! I questioned why this meant so much to them.

 

[Clint r]

Sorry, it looked to me like your response could be taken out of context.
Thanks for all your inpput

No worries. It’s politics lol. And I know it’s ironic we’re dealing with that scenario where a slim majority is running the show right now. But, shoes on the other foot now political party wise and libs are getting a taste of their own medicine.

Seems like it might be a bitter pill to swallow