Electoral Reform Referendum

[Foxsea]

Look at who is campaigning against Pro Rep: Big money donors, old school politicians, party insiders and lobbyists, they all benefit from the current voting system.

In Canada, politicians are routinely elected without support from the majority of voters in their ridings. As we just saw in Quebec and Ontario, parties can win majority control of the government with less than 40 per cent of the popular vote. They can be kept in power by “safe seats.” And once elected, they aren’t accountable to anyone, resulting in policies that reflect donors’ and lobbyists’ interests more than the people they are supposed to represent.

This has real life consequences in British Columbia — criminals laundering dirty money through casinos, the overdose crisis, the out-of-control housing market. This is what happens when we don’t have a government that reflects the needs of real people who live and work in this province.

 

[IronNoggin]

... This is what happens when we don’t have a government that reflects the needs of real people who live and work in this province.

And you somehow believe the current coalition does??
Sam Elliot has a "special" saying to that kind of thinking... LOL

Cheers,
Nog

 

[california]

Look at who is campaigning against Pro Rep: Big money donors, old school politicians, party insiders and lobbyists, they all benefit from the current voting system.

In Canada, politicians are routinely elected without support from the majority of voters in their ridings. As we just saw in Quebec and Ontario, parties can win majority control of the government with less than 40 per cent of the popular vote. They can be kept in power by “safe seats.” And once elected, they aren’t accountable to anyone, resulting in policies that reflect donors’ and lobbyists’ interests more than the people they are supposed to represent.

This has real life consequences in British Columbia — criminals laundering dirty money through casinos, the overdose crisis, the out-of-control housing market. This is what happens when we don’t have a government that reflects the needs of real people who live and work in this province.

There are valid reasons to vote for PR, but I think it is a stretch to believe PR is going to fix the overdose crisis, housing market, or criminal activity! It's important to realize half of the members of the legislature responsible for enacting laws will be un-elected party appointees. So those people will not be any more beholden to voters than current MLA's, and perhaps less. Those people will be beholden to the party not voters. The NDP Premier and all his MLA's are campaigning for PR, how are they not old school politicians and party insiders?

 

[Foxsea]

There are valid reasons to vote for PR, but I think it is a stretch to believe PR is going to fix the overdose crisis, housing market, or criminal activity! It's important to realize half of the members of the legislature responsible for enacting laws will be un-elected party appointees. So those people will not be any more beholden to voters than current MLA's, and perhaps less. Those people will be beholden to the party not voters. The NDP Premier and all his MLA's are campaigning for PR, how are they not old school politicians and party insiders?

I'm not pretending Pro-Rep will fix all the problems but it will more accurately reflect the will of our population. 40% of the vote will no longer capture 100% of the power. I agree that Carol James and John Horgan are old school but they are not responsible for the legacy of 16 years of Liberal shenanigans in B.C. The current vote is to change the system that allowed their excesses, not to change any government. That time will come soon enough.

 

[GLG]

The last provincial election on Vancouver Island the NDP won 11 seats and the Liberals won only 1 seat. Under PR the results would have been different because the Liberals would have had 30% of the seats, that was their share of the popular vote on VI. FPTP is an old system that frankly has outlived it's time. This should not be a partisan issue and framing it as one is not right, yes I know I just showed how one party got an advantage over another. The issue is democracy and what voting system gives us the best representation of the will of the people. It seems to me we go from voting one dictator to another every four years or so when we could go to a system that forces each party to work with one another. Too many times we see the opposition more concerned with scoring points with a "got you" moment or the government pounding on their desk to show the TV camera that they agree with themselfs. We have reduced parliament to a sideshow with carnival barkers. We have a chance to change this and I for one will be voting for that change.

 

[Foxsea]

And you somehow believe the current coalition does??
Sam Elliot has a "special" saying to that kind of thinking... LOL

Cheers,
Nog

We were doing pretty well with keeping the discussion respectful. Let's carry on with the intelligent debate and leave the Sam Elliot memes in Hollywood.

 

[wildmanyeah]

better debate here then elsewhere on the internet/tv or radio.

 

[GLG]

And you somehow believe the current coalition does??
Sam Elliot has a "special" saying to that kind of thinking... LOL

Cheers,
Nog

Don't take offence Nog I'm just trying to lighten things up.

 

[Foxsea]

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&sour...UQo7QBCCIwAw&usg=AOvVaw1okr9VlwG7x5r3_Zj1AAbR

Some pretty good points raised.

 

[GLG]

This is one worth watching.

 

[Aces]

And you somehow believe the current coalition does??
Sam Elliot has a "special" saying to that kind of thinking... LOL

Cheers,
Nog

I agree with 100%. I don't want to be dictated by the millennials that live in the city

 

[Teja]

I am pro FPTP and against PR. PR in the vast majority of situations (+/-86%) leads to coalition governments and FPTP in the minority of situations (+/- 23%) leads to coalition governments.

From a voter's perspective, coalition governments can be fraught with problems, a few of which follow.

Firstly, the cooperation agreement that is struck between the various political parties in order to form government happens after the vote so as voters we don’t know or have any control or influence over what that the power sharing deal looks like. The last BC election is a good example ... neither the NDP nor the BC Liberals ran on a platform that included a referendum on political reform, yet here we are voting on a referendum for political reform. That is the typical coalition issue ... decisions end up being dictated by a fringe group that controls the balance of power despite the fact that they only got a small percentage of the vote (with the current BC government, the Greens wanted PR and hence we are voting on PR).

Secondly, there can clearly be unintended consequences from cooperation agreements that are struck. Following is a highly summarized example from the current sitting of the New Zealand government:

1. New Zealand has two major parties, the National Party and the the Labor Party, and two minor parties, the Green Party and the NZ First Party. NZ First is essentially a one man party (Mr. Winston Peters);

2. Last year the National Party had been in power for two terms and called an election. They won the election by a good margin, but not a majority;

3. The #2 and #3 parties, the Green Party and the Labor Party, were relatively quick to form a coalition, but it wasn’t enough to gain control so they went to Winston Peters of the one man NZ First Party. Winston had been a sitting member but had lost his seat. No other party members were elected however the party was allocated 7% of the seats as that was their percentage of the vote;

4. Winston agreed to join the Labor Party/Green Party coalition provided he was appointed Minister of Foreign Affairs.

5. A month after the election Jacinda Ardern, the acting Prime Minister announced she was pregnant. When she went off on maternity leave Winston became interim Prime Minister. The guy who lost his seat, the leader of a party that won only 7% of the vote, became Prime Minister.

Thirdly, there is always a risk a coalition isn't formed and government stalls as decision making can't occur ... to the extreme, Northern Ireland government is currently over 600 days in without a sitting government.

Fourthly, PR governments are expensive. From a recent Fraser Institute Study based on election data from 26 countries between 2004 and 2015 (the most recent year of comparable data), the average government spending of countries with PR systems is 30.3 per cent of GDP compared to only 23.7 per cent for countries with plurality or majoritarian election rules.

Anyways, I am a no but then comes question #2 ... which of the three PR systems to vote for and be stuck with in the worst case scenario of losing the vote, when the government will not establish the rules for the three different PR scenarios until after the note ... do you vote for the only one of the three options (Mixed Member Proportional) that has ever been used by a sitting government; do you vote for one of the two theoretical systems; or, do you just vote no overall then not vote for one of the three PR systems out of principle given that it won't spoil your vote overall (but then you swing with the population)?

 

[halimark]

Thanks Nog, well explained and exactly as I see this mess (coalition scam). California I agree 100% on your points. Good to see us on the same "side".

HM

 

[fish brain]

I am for Proportional Representation, because our current FPTP system has led to such a fractious situation, that if the other team has an idea, it has to be bad, even if it is good. Our whole country is being run on whatever the other guys don't want is what we want. This leads to wholesale changes as the new government tries it's hardest to undo everything the last government implemented.
I believe that with Proportional Representation, parties will be forced to work together. Let's use the current situation as an example. The NDP forms the government with the Greens backing it up, the Libs sulk in the background. Now consider the recent LNG announcement. Do you think there is any chance in He## that The Greens support this? NO! but it will be built with the support of the Libs. If the Libs come up with an idea that the Greens like but the NDP doesn't, It too could, in theory pass.
What it means in the future is that good ideas form all parties will be incorporated into policy instead of just ideologies being pushed through because there is no reason to consider other opinions.

And if we hate Proportional Representation, in two election cycles there will be another referendum to chuck it out. What we have now doesn't work well in my opinion, so why not give PR a chance?

 

[ziggy]

I am for Proportional Representation, because our current FPTP system has led to such a fractious situation, that if the other team has an idea, it has to be bad, even if it is good. Our whole country is being run on whatever the other guys don't want is what we want. This leads to wholesale changes as the new government tries it's hardest to undo everything the last government implemented.
I believe that with Proportional Representation, parties will be forced to work together. Let's use the current situation as an example. The NDP forms the government with the Greens backing it up, the Libs sulk in the background. Now consider the recent LNG announcement. Do you think there is any chance in He## that The Greens support this? NO! but it will be built with the support of the Libs. If the Libs come up with an idea that the Greens like but the NDP doesn't, It too could, in theory pass.
What it means in the future is that good ideas form all parties will be incorporated into policy instead of just ideologies being pushed through because there is no reason to consider other opinions.

And if we hate Proportional Representation, in two election cycles there will be another referendum to chuck it out. What we have now doesn't work well in my opinion, so why not give PR a chance?

In the example you give two parties are working together and it’s under First Past the Post! Seems to me we can hold this up as a valid example of why we don’t need Proportional Representation to encourage parties to work together?

 

[Clint r]

Hmmm a lying, cheating , rubber stamping thieving political party so dead said against something? I’m in for sure.

Seems to me people have already forgotten about the last party in power In his province. The cheating and back room deals, the total lack of any kind of regard for the people of BC and casual borderline criminal behaviour.

I’m not saying it wouldn’t happen with a new system but it would be harder for the dirty party to run their games with proportional representation.

 

[fish brain]

In the example you give two parties are working together and it’s under First Past the Post! Seems to me we can hold this up as a valid example of why we don’t need Proportional Representation to encourage parties to work together?

Only, it is rare for our parties to act like this. How often can you give examples of the ruling party co-operating with the opposition on anything ?

Another point to be made is that only once since 1980 has any federal party in Canada won an election with more than 49% of the vote. That was Brain Mulroney in i984 with exactly 50% of the vote, not an overwhelming majority. In Canada ruling parties have governed with an average of 40.7% of the vote. If you did not vote for the ruling party, there is a good chance that the party in power does not remotely represent your views or the views of at least six of your friends. With proportional representation there is a higher chance that if the party doesn't represent your views, at least a party that is closer aligned may hold the balance of power and keep the Government on a more even keel.

 

[fish brain]

Hmmm a lying, cheating , rubber stamping thieving political party so dead said against something? I’m in for sure.

You lost me ?

 

[Clint r]

You lost me ?

Wilkinson and the libs. They don’t want it because it will weaken their ability to push legislation through that the common people may not want. I’m in favour of PR for that reason alone. Just remember Christie Clarke and think about some of the nefarious deals the libs were involved in. Dont choose PR if you want that type of situation to happen again.

 

[Gong Show]

In the Federal realm, the Liberals have been made to back down on more than a few of their hare brained ideas.
They have a pretty good majority in Ottawa. So FPTP is not as absolute as some advocates would have you believe.

The thing that steams me is a graphic I was shown from my wife (she's on FB not me) put out by Lead Now that says if you support FPTP you are a dirty political insider!
This flies in the face of voting for a party that will then decide, in a dirty backroom, which individual is going to take the seat the party won.
Problem is, that graphic is probably working. Ugh, just went to their website to see if it was there. Wow.