Electoral Reform Referendum

[seascene]

"The report said that the transfer of public wealth to the private sector has left governments without the resources needed to invest enough in education, health and other measures to help counter inequality."Credit Suisse Research Institute’s Global Wealth Report.

The largest transfer of wealth from middle class to the richest 1% who now own 50% of global wealth. Financial elites, banks and corp folk finance, pressure, bribe and lobby first past the post politicians and we have been sucker punched with paranoia propaganda while their "useful idiots" as one billionaire labeled the middle class hang themselves with their own rope. Forests, fish, wildlife, land resources for families all vanishing in a giant vortex of greed ... who could honestly call BC "supernatural". Super Depleted BC is happening right on the road outside our place as logging truck expressway daily empties the Alberni Valley of all standing from twigs to old growth. All of this has happened under the sell out of First Past the Post. At least give PR a chance.. can always go back.

 

[Foxsea]

Debunking myths:
https://goo.gl/images/SSEzzf

 

[Gong Show]

Debunking myths:
https://goo.gl/images/SSEzzf

That link tried to send me to a LeadNow page.
Please see my previous post. Ugh.

 

[california]

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

Miracles do happen

 

[IronNoggin]

That link tried to send me to a LeadNow page.
Please see my previous post. Ugh.

Simply more pro propaganda...

 

[IronNoggin]

MLA Mike Morris on past ruling that he says shows unconstitutionality.

"How about the right to cast one’s vote in an electoral system which has not been “gerrymandered”? From the beginning, this entire process has been gerrymandered beginning with the “not so neutral” arbiter attorney general, the very biased public consultation process, the flawed process of the Referendum Act 2018 with no regional or voter thresholds, the lack of information available to voters to make an informed decision (the right to sufficient information about public policies to make an informed decision), and a campaign period intertwined with a municipal election campaign to confuse voters and take advantage of voter fatigue."

https://www.bclocalnews.com/opinion...NAxSQwNMe2d_erf5MRLNyvoXuTAkwUHIe5mirc3U1p8qs

 

[IronNoggin]

Proportional-Representation electoral systems make parties more powerful than people

If pro rep turned out well, this might not matter. But it's going badly around the world, in particular, in modern democracies like Canada's

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/pr...ystems-make-parties-more-powerful-than-people

 

[halimark]

Bad in the world yes, and I think worse is coming for Canada. Certainly do not believe that this NDP/Green want of a new voting system will help anything in BC. Am at a loss at the folks who think they and BC are somehow better now than under last BC Gov. I know my budget is paying substantially more now than then, mostly directly due to a certain coalition. Coincidence that Vic still has highest gas prices, .30c ltr more than Northern BC???? Lets see how BC votes on electoral reform.

HM

 

[Foxsea]

MYTH BUSTER
Under our current First Past the Post (FPTP) system, whoever wins a majority of ridings forms government, no matter who wins the most overall votes. Only one BC government in the last 60 years won a majority of votes. How fair is that?

In Pro Rep, the party gets the same percentage of seats in government as they got in the vote. Now, that’s fair!

Let’s address some of the many myths about Pro Rep being circulated by defenders of the status quo.

Myth: Pro Rep is unconstitutional.

Fact: The BC Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that changing our political system is constitutional.

Myth: Pro Rep is a risky unknown.

Fact: More than 90% of the world’s democracies use Pro Rep. Only four countries still use FPTP: the United Kingdom, U.S.A, Canada and India.

Myth: Pro Rep will result in fringe parties.

Fact: To win a seat under Pro Rep, a party must win at least 5% of the vote. Political parties will need substantial support, in which case, maybe they’re not fringe.

Myth: Pro Rep will result in dictators.

Fact: FPTP concentrates power in the leader of the winning party; Pro Rep does not. Just look at the US or Ontario to see FPTP can result in dictator-like rulers.

Myth: Pro Rep leads to minority governments that can’t get anything done.

Fact: Minority governments often achieve more than majority governments.And don’t forget that when governments under FPTP alternate between two parties, they tend to undo each other’s work. Talk about not getting anything done!

Myth: Pro Rep is too complex; people won’t understand the ballot.

Fact: Voters in other countries are no more intelligent than Canadians and they manage Pro Rep just fine. Let’s give British Columbians some credit. We can handle this.

Myth: If we vote for Pro Rep and we don’t like it, we are stuck with it forever.

Fact: BC will hold a second referendum after two elections to see if people want to keep Pro Rep or return to FPTP. We can go back to FPTP if we don’t like it. BTW: No country has ever gone back after adopting Pro Rep.

 

[Foxsea]

If the YES side is so good ...
why does the No side have any support?

First, “Big Tent” parties like the B.C. Liberals, are worried about losing votes to smaller parties that many of their current supporters actually prefer.

Second, Pro Rep hampers the ability of wealthy elites like billionaire Jim Shepherd, who dominate the No side’s funding, to swing elections with expensive attack ads.

Opponents of Pro Rep with vested interests in the status quo like Imperial Minerals (Of Mount Polley fame), have scare mongered with false claims.

Here’s the truth:

• Pro Rep will maintain the regional balance of power because no region will lose MLAs.

• Candidates will not be “dropped in” by parties; they will be nominated in local/regional meetings, just like today.

• Moderate parties will dominate because they need five per cent of the vote to elect members.

• Pro Rep is sufficiently simple for 80 per cent of advanced democracies. We’re smart enough too.

For more information go to prorepfactcheck.ca.

Please help improve our democracy and vote Yes on question one: We need proportional representation. All the Pro Rep systems in question two are moderate and vastly better than FPTP.

The choice is clear: Voting for proportional representation is voting for real democracy.

 

[Foxsea]

MLA Mike Morris on past ruling that he says shows unconstitutionality.

"How about the right to cast one’s vote in an electoral system which has not been “gerrymandered”? From the beginning, this entire process has been gerrymandered beginning with the “not so neutral” arbiter attorney general, the very biased public consultation process, the flawed process of the Referendum Act 2018 with no regional or voter thresholds, the lack of information available to voters to make an informed decision (the right to sufficient information about public policies to make an informed decision), and a campaign period intertwined with a municipal election campaign to confuse voters and take advantage of voter fatigue."

https://www.bclocalnews.com/opinion...NAxSQwNMe2d_erf5MRLNyvoXuTAkwUHIe5mirc3U1p8qs

The old-school politicians who have spoken up against Pro Rep would rather hand power back and forth between the two legacy parties than give everyday British Columbians a voice.

Liberal insiders like Suzanne Anton, Bob Tieleman and Bob Plecas, Ujjal Dosanjh, Andrew Wilkinson and Rich Coleman all stand to lose power and influence under Pro Rep. In the case of Wilkinson and Coleman, they could lose their taxpayer-funded jobs too.

As mentioned, one more person who has been outspoken against Pro Rep. is Jim Shepard, the former CEO of the lumber corporation Canfor, a major BC Liberal donor and a close friend to Christy Clark. You can imagine why a multi-millionaire with ties to right-wing politicians would want to uphold a system that keeps his friends in power.

Shepard is the head of a sketchy group called “Fair Referendum” which calls the whole referendum process into question in an effort to confuse and suppress voters. Watch out for things from “Fair Referendum” like this:

The No side’s main strategy appears to be to confuse and scare older voters in order to keep the status quo — and to keep themselves in power.

We aren’t fooled by them. They aren’t confusing us. They aren’t scaring us. We see them for exactly who they are and what their real intentions are for our province.

 

[GLG]

This should not be about parties but it seems that some can't get over that. What if the NO side was lead by old NDP'ers would that change anyone's mind? If so then the NO side has some explaining to do because that is who is leading the No side.
goggle Bill Tieleman

 

[wildmanyeah]

Frankly I don’t like PR because it can allow extremists on both side of the political spectrum to get their agendas though in lop sided coalitions.

Instead of an ndp/green coalition would you be okay with a liberal/concservitive coalition where 3 conservatives get part of their agenda though in order to prevent a non convenience vote. What if the 3 conservatives wanted to double the amount of fish farms in order to boosts the economy. Maybe that’s the low hanging fruit that keeps the coalition togeather...

 

[halimark]

MYTH BUSTER
Under our current First Past the Post (FPTP) system, whoever wins a majority of ridings forms government, no matter who wins the most overall votes. Only one BC government in the last 60 years won a majority of votes. How fair is that?

In Pro Rep, the party gets the same percentage of seats in government as they got in the vote. Now, that’s fair!

Let’s address some of the many myths about Pro Rep being circulated by defenders of the status quo.

Myth: Pro Rep is unconstitutional.

Fact: The BC Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that changing our political system is constitutional.

Myth: Pro Rep is a risky unknown.

Fact: More than 90% of the world’s democracies use Pro Rep. Only four countries still use FPTP: the United Kingdom, U.S.A, Canada and India.

Myth: Pro Rep will result in fringe parties.

Fact: To win a seat under Pro Rep, a party must win at least 5% of the vote. Political parties will need substantial support, in which case, maybe they’re not fringe.

Myth: Pro Rep will result in dictators.

Fact: FPTP concentrates power in the leader of the winning party; Pro Rep does not. Just look at the US or Ontario to see FPTP can result in dictator-like rulers.

Myth: Pro Rep leads to minority governments that can’t get anything done.

Fact: Minority governments often achieve more than majority governments.And don’t forget that when governments under FPTP alternate between two parties, they tend to undo each other’s work. Talk about not getting anything done!

Myth: Pro Rep is too complex; people won’t understand the ballot.

Fact: Voters in other countries are no more intelligent than Canadians and they manage Pro Rep just fine. Let’s give British Columbians some credit. We can handle this.

Myth: If we vote for Pro Rep and we don’t like it, we are stuck with it forever.

Fact: BC will hold a second referendum after two elections to see if people want to keep Pro Rep or return to FPTP. We can go back to FPTP if we don’t like it. BTW: No country has ever gone back after adopting Pro Rep.

Sorry your post strengthened my vote. Your facts need serious validation, may not be as you state, many answers (real facts) have not been provided by current coalition Gov,? Do 90% of democratic countries have Pr type as listed in BC's referendum? Has the BC supreme court even seen Pr as listed in the referendum? Do you really believe your last fact? Lastly I do not consider the Ont Premier or Mr Trump a "dictator". Another "fact" you may have incorrect. Now I'm off for a few weeks hunting/fishing, what will us BC residents decide?

HM

 

[cracked_ribs]

I like FPTP. It creates big tent parties that prevent wild swings and single-issue nutbars from holding too much power. People think Canada (and BC especially) swings substantially from left to right but most of the changes between governments are frankly window dressing. Even the current feds are making pretty minimal changes to Harper's policies. Why? Because they're all basically pro-free-trade democratic capitalists. What's the criticism of the Liberal performance in signing the USMCA? "We'd have done that a bit differently." What's the Liberal reaction to the Pan-Pacific trade deal Harper championed? "He didn't sign on soon enough and now we have to do it." They're very similar, just one side has stuffy hair and sweater vests and seasons its policies with maple leaves and veterans, and the other has dashing hair and clown costumes and seasons its policies with rainbow flags and multicultural photo-ops.

Anyway, the only reason I would ever support PR would be if I was specifically trying to destabilize a jurisdiction. This is my actual field of expertise, although I am mostly out of that business except in the most tangential way... but my primary training is in international relations and I spent most of my university studying interactions between countries and how they rise and fall and what you do if you want to help accelerate them in one direction or the other. Basically, democracy tends to stabilize nations, but proportional representation is a pretty unstable form of democracy and if you want to knock a democracy down a peg or two, introducing PR is a good way to start.

The nice thing about it is that you can really screw with a place's ability to make policy decisions, and I have always been of the opinion that a government which can't pass laws effectively is better than one that can, simply because their powers are so drastically limited. But if you like good governance and rules and order, PR is generally worse than FPTP.

Interesting fun fact: Single member district plurality systems, or what are commonly known as FPTP, evolve into two-party systems almost without exception. The only notable exception has been a sparsely populated nation known as "Canada" - some of you will have heard of it I'm sure - which is generally classed as a two-party-plus system. Most people in the field think it's because of our extremely large size and spread out population; the geographic distribution is thought to allow for a lot more regionalism, which ordinarily thrives more in PR systems but gets bred out in SMDP. But I've never been entirely satisfied with that explanation because the most consistent and long-lived third party in Canada is the NDP, who aren't really regional.

Just one more way Canadians are special, I guess.

 

[ziggy]

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.

I think what’s overlooked in all this speculation on greater co operation is that it’s already been happening for years. Just recently an NDP member of the house declared the Liberal Party was afraid of fracturing into its real components. Those components he claimed were Liberals, Conservatives and Libertarians! If this is true and I believe it is, coalitions are,and have been alive and well in BC politics for many years. Truth is within the Liberal Party, members range from slightly right of center to quite far right of center. The NDP has members just left of center, the Premiere being one, to quite far left of centre. Arguably both these parties are in fact coalitions now. I see little benefit in breaking these organizations into a bunch of smaller Parties simply in order to have numerous Parties all collecting the benefits of Official Party status?

 

[GLG]

 

[Rain City]

I'm for it. Well not "it" exactly but something that's different. If it doesn't work we vote it out. This all could have been done better but seeing the comical propaganda from both sides shows how in need of change we really are.

 

[ziggy]

I’m not necessarily against a new system so much as I’m against the inability of the government to articulate how that system will work. I just read the voters guide and it raises more questions than it answers. Two of the three PR systems exist only on paper, they have never been used anywhere in the world! All of the PR systems are layed out in general terms with the government filling in the important details at a later date. “Yup, trust us we’ll let you know how it will really work at a later date”. No thanks, I demand a clear choice and want to know what I’m getting before I’ll vote for change. I believe the Premier even referred to it as a leap of faith.

To win this referendum needs 50% of the vote plus one vote. That doesn’t sound too bad except that if you factor in the small numbers of legitimate returns you’ll get, probably in the neighbourhood of 40% at best, a simple 20% of the voters can determine if the Province goes to PR. Now factor in that the PR system we get saddled with is one of three that could be determined by 1/3 of the original 20% and it becomes even more ridiculous. I can’t for the life of me understand how a referendum on something this important could be so botched!

I might have been swayed if as was done, as it was in one of the previous failed referendums where a citizens coalition had been formed, chose a system and took the time to flesh out how it would actually work then gave a finished product as the actual choice. Clearly this isn’t the case! You have to ask yourself why?

I’d never buy a boat from a photograph alone! I’d want a sea trial and a survey to see the details before plunking down a wad of cash. I guess I’m too old to take a leap of faith and trust politicians have put my interests ahead of their own. I’m sure guys who send money to third world countries to help the models they met on the internet immigrate are not always being taken, but I’d never recommend it!

I’m not a person that believes in change for the sake of change. I always look to see who benefits from pushing and agenda and why. I like to have a clear choice and research it before committing. I want to chose my representative not have a political party decide for me. In this case the choice will only become clear after its made and that’s ridiculous.

In the absence of a clear choice that has all the details layed out, I’m voting no!

 

[ziggy]

Or , well I guess we’ll get hamburgers because the electorate couldn’t make an informed decision like we politicians already did! The hamburger vote never really registered, but has promised to prop us up on the drink order if we support them against those cheese pizza people. Still nice to let them think it was their hunger we were worried about lol.