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
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.

I guess that is the main reason some people want to vote out the current system, for "something" different. Its not like Canada has not prospered under FPTP. Its one of the most affluent countries in the world, with a stable political and economic system in place. Not to say that would dissapear under PR, it would not, but to suggest that there will be some great improvement in the political process that fix any first world ills the country has are also unrealistic. Countries with PR still have political graft and waste (arguably more as parties need to be incentivized to join coalitions through funding of pet projects or programs). There will be a whole new branch of beaurocratic graft since half of the MLA seats will be appointed, and minority governments are often much less able to adapt to anything including a crisis quickly or decisively. Obviously there are pros and cons to both sides.

The NDP and greens think it will put them in power forever. It will almost certainly assure them the next election. Longer term it will likely also result in a fracturing of the Liberal/Conservative coalition that has existed for 70 years in BC. The Liberal party of BC is dominated by federal conservatives, and could split back in to traditional conservative and liberal parties more closely affilliated with the federal parties. This will mean a shift right for the conservatives, a shift left for the Liberals, into the moderate part of the NDP party. The NDP will start being squeezed on the right from the liberals and have already lost much of the far left to the greens. The Long term winners may be the traditional liberal party, which will have the option of coalitions with conservatives or the NDP to form governments. Of course over time there could be fractioning of the NDP, and as most European countries have seen single issue nationalist parties emerge. PR will definitely result in "something" different, its likely not all of those somethings will be predictable, or positive.
 
Last edited:
My wife got a call from the nurses union last night telling her to vote for PR. The phone call she said was creepy. I think it has convinced her not to vote for PR.
 
My wife got a call from the nurses union last night telling her to vote for PR. The phone call she said was creepy. I think it has convinced her not to vote for PR.
Haha that's what it's come down to for sure. Who's giving me the heebie jeebies the least? Do we agree with the Lizards on the right or the dunces on the left? We're ******.
 
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!

I am annoyed that the question of what type of representation is even on the ballot. As you said there is no way that there will be any form of agreement on them.
I think the question should be are you in favor of PR period. Then if the vote was yes, a Citizens coalition would determine which model would best serve the citizens of BC
 
My wife got a call from the nurses union last night telling her to vote for PR. The phone call she said was creepy. I think it has convinced her not to vote for PR.
Perhaps the foundation for a new Labour Party being formed? Heard Transit Union has also seconded members to preach the benefits of PR to its members. I could see an off shoot of the NDP focused more on appealing to the more militant dwindling numbers of Union members?
 
I am annoyed that the question of what type of representation is even on the ballot. As you said there is no way that there will be any form of agreement on them.
I think the question should be are you in favor of PR period. Then if the vote was yes, a Citizens coalition would determine which model would best serve the citizens of BC
I think that should have been the first step! Determine what form, flesh out the details and then ask!
 
My wife got a call from the nurses union last night telling her to vote for PR. The phone call she said was creepy. I think it has convinced her not to vote for PR.

Yeah, my wife’s also a health care worker. For Interior Heath which covers the Thompson/okanagan and some kootenays area. It’s funny how things are so regional as you won’t find too many in her union local that forget liberal cuts to health employees wages.
 
Something else of interest contained in the Voters Guide. It appears under PR the number of MLA’s that was just raised up to 87 can be raised again to 95! That coupled with the fact that the government passed legislation to lower the number of MLA’s required to receive part status to 2 and you can see we are going to be paying a lot more for government. With Party status the leader gets a 25% raise, the House Leader 10% and Party Whip 10% at least that’s how the three Green members are compensated. Plus additional Office Staff, Travel Budgets etc., it isn’t going to be cheap having a raft of new parties.
 
The problem with First Past The Post.
 
Wow and here’s me foolishly thinking we have four different Federal Parties with elected members and three Provincial Parties with elected members. A little fact checking and less monkeying about with the truth would make this video more credible. Not sure whether this was an attempt at humour or just a shot at the intellect of voters?
 
The problem with First Past The Post.
Thanks for this. The point about the inevitable math and spoiler effect inherent in FPTP is well illustrated. We often get stuck with government that we didn't elect.
 
... A little fact checking and less monkeying about with the truth would make this video more credible. Not sure whether this was an attempt at humour or just a shot at the intellect of voters?

It is simply counting on confusing voters such that they vote the producers intended way.
Propaganda in other words.

Very much the same as what is posted here by Foxsea, despite his assurances to the contrary:

... 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.

Yes, most of us actually do see and understand the tactics being employed by the coalition supporters. And no, we are not fooled, nor scared into believing their poorly designed proposal is right for BC. At All that is. As a consequence, I do believe the majority will be voting an appropriate and resounding NO!

Cheers,
Nog
 
New filings released by British Columbia’s elections authority show the ‘No’ side in the province’s upcoming electoral reform referendum is largely funded by BC’s 1%ers: the wealthiest elites and right-wing power brokers.

This fall, British Columbians will cast their votes on whether the province should stick with its outdated first-past-the-post electoral system or join other countries around the world, such as Germany, New Zealand and Norway, who have relied on a proportional voting system without any problems for decades.

According to newly published financial disclosures by Elections BC, it turns out the people who most want to stick with the status quo are BC’s rich and powerful “entrenched interests.”

For the referendum campaign, Elections BC announced the government has allocated $500,000 to both the pro-reform and anti-reform campaigns, and will allow an additional $200,000 in advertising funds for each side to come from third parties.

Here’s a breakdown of some of the big spenders who each donated more than $1,000 to the ‘No’ campaign – as well as some of their ludicrous views and shady dealings:

Christy Clark’s Attorney General Suzanne Anton

Suzanne Anton, the former Attorney General under Christy Clark’s BC Liberal government, is the founder and director of the No Proportional Representation Society of BC, the official group representing the ‘No’ side.

Anton recently tweeted an absurd theory suggesting “proportional representation” is part of a conspiracy aimed at the “disruption of Canadian economic activity.”

Except that theory doesn’t make much sense: an acclaimed 2011 study found proportional voting systems produced “astonishingly robust” and “quite substantial” increases in economic growth.

Moreover, a 2015 study concludes a mixed-member proportional voting system “enhances both political and government stability stimulating a relatively high growth rate.”

Finally, a 2014 study found that countries without proportional representation systems have an average of 65.7 per cent higher national debts than countries using proportional representation.

Mining tycoon Ross Beaty

Ross Beaty, a wealthy mining tycoon whose company was accused of scavenging off Iceland’s economic collapse after the firm bought up assets from a failing local hydro company, is also helping bankroll the ‘No’campaign.

Beaty donated nearly $90,000 to the BC Liberals between 2010 and 2017, including a $5,000 donation to BC Liberal leader Andrew Wilkinson’s leadership campaign.

Ironically, Beaty’s preferred BC Liberal leadership candidate would have lost the contest under the first-past-the-post system that he is now paying to support.

Venture capitalist Rob Hartvikson

Rob Hartvikson is a wealthy venture capitalist who got rich from heavily discounted stocks in the gold and diamond industries during the 1990s.

Hartvikson subsequently became tangled up in a conflict of interest scandal. In 2000, a commission found that Hartvikson and Blayne Johnson, a fellow Vancouver stockbroker, withheld information from their clients and made off with more than $5 million.

Hartvikson subsequently fled to Ireland in 2001 to avoid public attention.

Future Shop billionaire Hassan Khosrowshahi

Hassan Khosrowshahi, a Vancouver-based billionaire and founder of Future Shop, is a major BC Liberal donor and serves as a director for the right-wing Fraser Institute.

In 2015, Clark’s BC Liberal government sold Khosrowshahi 14 parcels of land in Coquitlam for a staggering $43 million below its appraised value. At the time, the NDP accused the BC Liberals of discounting the land as a personal favour to Khosrowshahi, whose company had donated nearly $1 million to the Liberals.

Corporate lobbist Jess Ketchum

Jess Ketchum is president of Ketchum Communications, a lobbying firm whose clients have included the Council of Forest Industries and the British Columbia Lumber Trade Council

Prior to becoming a lobbyist, Ketchum was a well-known political operative and campaign manager for the right-wing BC Social Credit Party. He later worked as a BC Liberal advisor.

Who else?

Other donors listed in the initial disclosure include:

Peter Armstrong, former president of the Non Partisan Association, a right-wing municipal political party in Vancouver

George Affleck, an entrepreneur and NPA councillor

Reid Carter, an asset manager and director of West Fraser Timber

Mohan Jawl, a major developer in Victoria

Peter Gustavson, CEO of Gustavson Capital Corp who sold his previous company for $370 million USD

James Sutcliffe, a banking and financial services lawyer.

These donors aren’t the only ones bankrolling efforts to stop electoral reform.

Earlier this year, multi-millionaire lumber magnate and long time BC Liberal donor Jim Shepherd was outed as the person behind a well-funded astroturf group that was bombarding British Columbians with attack ads and robocalls in advance of the official referendum campaign.

When FPTP is so good for Big Money in B.C. can it be good for you, too?
 
Last edited:
Wow and here’s me foolishly thinking we have four different Federal Parties with elected members and three Provincial Parties with elected members. A little fact checking and less monkeying about with the truth would make this video more credible. Not sure whether this was an attempt at humour or just a shot at the intellect of voters?
Sorry I should have mentioned that it was an explainer video from 7 years ago. Consider that perhaps, provincial, we are on the path to a two party system but have not made it there yet. We could have the greens going to NDP or Liberal and that would leave Conservatives to wither or move to Liberals. Food for thought but thanks for the comment.
 
New filings released by British Columbia’s elections authority show the ‘No’ side in the province’s upcoming electoral reform referendum is largely funded by BC’s wealthiest elites and right-wing power brokers.

This fall, British Columbians will cast their votes on whether the province should stick with its outdated first-past-the-post electoral system or join other countries around the world, such as Germany, New Zealand and Norway, who have relied on a proportional voting system without any problems for decades.

According to newly published financial disclosures by Elections BC, it turns out the people who most want to stick with the status quo are BC’s rich and powerful “entrenched interests.”

For the referendum campaign, Elections BC announced the government has allocated $500,000 to both the pro-reform and anti-reform campaigns, and will allow an additional $200,000 in advertising funds for each side to come from third parties.

Here’s a breakdown of some of the big spenders who each donated more than $1,000 to the ‘No’ campaign – as well as some of their ludicrous views and shady dealings:

Christy Clark’s Attorney General Suzanne Anton

Suzanne Anton, the former Attorney General under Christy Clark’s BC Liberal government, is the founder and director of the No Proportional Representation Society of BC, the official group representing the ‘No’ side.

Anton recently tweeted an absurd theory suggesting “proportional representation” is part of a conspiracy aimed at the “disruption of Canadian economic activity.”

Except that theory doesn’t make much sense: an acclaimed 2011 study found proportional voting systems produced “astonishingly robust” and “quite substantial” increases in economic growth.

Moreover, a 2015 study concludes a mixed-member proportional voting system “enhances both political and government stability stimulating a relatively high growth rate.”

Finally, a 2014 study found that countries without proportional representation systems have an average of 65.7 per cent higher national debts than countries using proportional representation.

Mining tycoon Ross Beaty

Ross Beaty, a wealthy mining tycoon whose company was accused of scavenging off Iceland’s economic collapse after the firm bought up assets from a failing local hydro company, is also helping bankroll the ‘No’campaign.

Beaty donated nearly $90,000 to the BC Liberals between 2010 and 2017, including a $5,000 donation to BC Liberal leader Andrew Wilkinson’s leadership campaign.

Ironically, Beaty’s preferred BC Liberal leadership candidate would have lost the contest under the first-past-the-post system that he is now paying to support.

Venture capitalist Rob Hartvikson

Rob Hartvikson is a wealthy venture capitalist who got rich from heavily discounted stocks in the gold and diamond industries during the 1990s.

Hartvikson subsequently became tangled up in a conflict of interest scandal. In 2000, a commission found that Hartvikson and Blayne Johnson, a fellow Vancouver stockbroker, withheld information from their clients and made off with more than $5 million.

Hartvikson subsequently fled to Ireland in 2001 to avoid public attention.

Future Shop billionaire Hassan Khosrowshahi

Hassan Khosrowshahi, a Vancouver-based billionaire and founder of Future Shop, is a major BC Liberal donor and serves as a director for the right-wing Fraser Institute.

In 2015, Clark’s BC Liberal government sold Khosrowshahi 14 parcels of land in Coquitlam for a staggering $43 million below its appraised value. At the time, the NDP accused the BC Liberals of discounting the land as a personal favour to Khosrowshahi, whose company had donated nearly $1 million to the Liberals.

Corporate lobbist Jess Ketchum

Jess Ketchum is president of Ketchum Communications, a lobbying firm whose clients have included the Council of Forest Industries and the British Columbia Lumber Trade Council

Prior to becoming a lobbyist, Ketchum was a well-known political operative and campaign manager for the right-wing BC Social Credit Party. He later worked as a BC Liberal advisor.

Who else?

Other donors listed in the initial disclosure include:

Peter Armstrong, former president of the Non Partisan Association, a right-wing municipal political party in Vancouver

George Affleck, an entrepreneur and NPA councillor

Reid Carter, an asset manager and director of West Fraser Timber

Mohan Jawl, a major developer in Victoria

Peter Gustavson, CEO of Gustavson Capital Corp who sold his previous company for $370 million USD

James Sutcliffe, a banking and financial services lawyer.

These donors aren’t the only ones bankrolling efforts to stop electoral reform.

Earlier this year, multi-millionaire lumber magnate and long time BC Liberal donor Jim Shepherd was outed as the person behind a well-funded astroturf group that was bombarding British Columbians with attack ads and robocalls in advance of the official referendum campaign.

When FPTP is so good for Big Money in B.C. can it be good for you, too?
So in the interest in balanced reporting as a Yes supporter do you have a list of whose financing the campaign you support? What weight would you attribute to the current NDP and Green coalition pushing the Agenda? How about big unions?I would not be surprised to find it’s a pretty comparable list! That being said, if people take the time to read the Voter Handout and do a little research, they should be able to dismiss the hysterics on both sides and make an informed decision! I think or at least hope most of us on here are capable of making our own decisions and separating the wheat from the chaff.
 
Sorry I should have mentioned that it was an explainer video from 7 years ago. Consider that perhaps, provincial, we are on the path to a two party system but have not made it there yet. We could have the greens going to NDP or Liberal and that would leave Conservatives to wither or move to Liberals. Food for thought but thanks for the comment.
We have had at least three Parties Federally for decades GLG and often four (Greens and BQ).Our Federal system is First Past the Post so I can’t agree that it “inevitably results in a two Party system? This untruth seems to come up often which is surprising given we have examples to the contrary in plain view.

Provincially we seem to end up with two Parties because the Parties tend to be coalition of what could be several separate parties, but instead have found enough commonality to work together. Oddly enough this is what Proportional Rep wants to achieve and claims as a major benefit of the system? I guess keeping separate names and reaping more taxpayer funds because of it, appeals to some.
 
Consider these two election in BC where two different parties had strange results but did form government.
Is this what one vote = one person means in a democracy? Or as Nog would say propaganda.
index.php
 
We have had at least three Parties Federally for decades GLG and often four (Greens and BQ).Our Federal system is First Past the Post so I can’t agree that it “inevitably results in a two Party system? This untruth seems to come up often which is surprising given we have examples to the contrary in plain view.

Provincially we seem to end up with two Parties because the Parties tend to be coalition of what could be several separate parties, but instead have found enough commonality to work together. Oddly enough this is what Proportional Rep wants to achieve and claims as a major benefit of the system? I guess keeping separate names and reaping more taxpayer funds because of it, appeals to some.
Well you could look at our friends to the south who are now effectively a two party system that have been electing using FPTP for over 100 years more than us.
 
Well you could look at our friends to the south who are now effectively a two party system that have been electing using FPTP for over 100 years more than us.
True but I’d prefer to think we do things differently than our friends to the South. I think we should be looking at well over half a century of our own politics rather than at our neighbours, who have a totally different system, which I’m sure you are aware of. I get the Trump scare tactic that sometimes is used, but dismiss it along with the Austrian neo **** Proportional Rep members. Different countries.
 
Back
Top