Electoral Reform Referendum
- Thread starter fish brain
- Start date
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
Anton, Tieleman and Plecas say that proportional representation systems put political parties ahead of voters; are confusing; cut directly accountable locally-elected representation – especially in rural areas – and promote extremist parties who can hold the balance of power in perpetual minority governments, and decide who governs, and with what policies.
“Proportional representation electoral systems put parties ahead of people,” said Anton. “Pro-rep systems where 30 to 40 per cent of elected officials come from a party-chosen list means that party bosses choose legislators and not people. Those legislators are not from geographic ridings and are not accountable to citizens.”
“Our current electoral system encourages parties to gain broad-based support and take into account all regions of the province and all perspectives – or face defeat,” Plecas said. “It is particularly important that non-urban voters have locally elected representatives who they can hold responsible – and ensure their interests are not lost in a rush to gain urban votes.”
“The requirement in 2005 and 2009 that 60 per cent of voters approve of such a fundamental change is now gone and only 50 per cent plus one could give us a disastrous electoral system with endless minorities, backroom deals and unaccountable politicians forever,” Tieleman said.
http://billtieleman.blogspot.com/2018/01/no-bc-proportional-representation.html
“Proportional representation electoral systems put parties ahead of people,” said Anton. “Pro-rep systems where 30 to 40 per cent of elected officials come from a party-chosen list means that party bosses choose legislators and not people. Those legislators are not from geographic ridings and are not accountable to citizens.”
“Our current electoral system encourages parties to gain broad-based support and take into account all regions of the province and all perspectives – or face defeat,” Plecas said. “It is particularly important that non-urban voters have locally elected representatives who they can hold responsible – and ensure their interests are not lost in a rush to gain urban votes.”
“The requirement in 2005 and 2009 that 60 per cent of voters approve of such a fundamental change is now gone and only 50 per cent plus one could give us a disastrous electoral system with endless minorities, backroom deals and unaccountable politicians forever,” Tieleman said.
http://billtieleman.blogspot.com/2018/01/no-bc-proportional-representation.html
california
Well-Known Member
The guy in the video has some good points. particularly wrt to the fear based campaign from No. While the rise of white nationalists parties is possible, for provincial politics where the govt has no control over immigration or such issues it may not be that big of a risk. For me the biggest reason to vote No is the replacement of elected MLAs with appointed ones. The large pool (up to 47 if we go to 95 MLAs) of un-elected prime law making positions will lead to all kinds of backroom dealing and political payoffs for party hacks from ALL parties for those positions. If you are OK with no longer having the ability to vote for half of your prospective representatives and trust the political parties to instead appoint ones, then PR may be for you.
GLG
Well-Known Member
So I'm listening to this podcast right now but I thought I would post a link so others know about it. It's 1 hour long but it seems to me worth a listen as it's a debate on this topic that promises to be civil.
https://politicoast.ca/2018/10/26/ep-109-the-great-canadian-club-electoral-reform-debate/
https://politicoast.ca/2018/10/26/ep-109-the-great-canadian-club-electoral-reform-debate/
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
I voted for PR the last time it was around and also for the Green Party. (i was young, did not have a family and brainwashed by the education system)
This time I would consider it if I could see how the areas would be broken down. How much power would Vancouver, Surrey and Richmond have? how many MLA's? What PR system gives them the most power? what PR system gives them the least power?
What if I like urban Rural but hate the other two? even if I vote for PR i may get a system that i do not like
This time I would consider it if I could see how the areas would be broken down. How much power would Vancouver, Surrey and Richmond have? how many MLA's? What PR system gives them the most power? what PR system gives them the least power?
What if I like urban Rural but hate the other two? even if I vote for PR i may get a system that i do not like
UkeeDreamin
Well-Known Member
Question Nog, why is it that it seems that articles and explanations that differ from your inherent view are “propaganda” while those that affirm your view are presumably valid info worthy of sharing with us all?
It’s all info and opinion, some of it good and some of it pretty weak and biased ... on both sides of the discussion. It’s up to individuals to educate themselves and weigh what’s important to them. I prefer reading your posts that provide fact and opinion, which you do frequently, than the posts where you use lazy rhetoric like exclaiming “propaganda”, but to each their own.
I agree with all of those who’ve voiced displeasure with how the question is being asked and not sticking to a simple yes/no for electoral reform.
For my part, I choose to live in non-urban areas due to my profession as well as my interests but I don’t share the political views of my “neighbours”. As such, it is extremely disheartening to participate in an election that is a foregone conclusion in a riding that supports the same party every election regardless of candidate or the current party platform (the concept of supporting the current system as it allows local representatives to be held “accountable” is not grounded in reality in many federal and provincial ridings that are known “strongholds” for one party or another). I don’t think it is too much to hope for that in a democratic society that everyone’s vote should be equally valued, regardless of where you live. Consistent with that, the fact that the current FPTP riding/seat system routinely sees a party winning the most “seats” and forming government despite the popular vote, aka the majority of citizens, supporting a different party should be evidence enough that the current system doesn’t work for the majority of voters.
I’ll admit that how to fix that in a way that is acceptable to the majority of the electorate is far beyond me.
Cheers!
Ukee
It’s all info and opinion, some of it good and some of it pretty weak and biased ... on both sides of the discussion. It’s up to individuals to educate themselves and weigh what’s important to them. I prefer reading your posts that provide fact and opinion, which you do frequently, than the posts where you use lazy rhetoric like exclaiming “propaganda”, but to each their own.
I agree with all of those who’ve voiced displeasure with how the question is being asked and not sticking to a simple yes/no for electoral reform.
For my part, I choose to live in non-urban areas due to my profession as well as my interests but I don’t share the political views of my “neighbours”. As such, it is extremely disheartening to participate in an election that is a foregone conclusion in a riding that supports the same party every election regardless of candidate or the current party platform (the concept of supporting the current system as it allows local representatives to be held “accountable” is not grounded in reality in many federal and provincial ridings that are known “strongholds” for one party or another). I don’t think it is too much to hope for that in a democratic society that everyone’s vote should be equally valued, regardless of where you live. Consistent with that, the fact that the current FPTP riding/seat system routinely sees a party winning the most “seats” and forming government despite the popular vote, aka the majority of citizens, supporting a different party should be evidence enough that the current system doesn’t work for the majority of voters.
I’ll admit that how to fix that in a way that is acceptable to the majority of the electorate is far beyond me.
Cheers!
Ukee
Foxsea
Well-Known Member
Claim: “You will have your representatives chosen off political party lists. Most often, these people are well-connected political operatives who, more often than not, will be from the Lower Mainland or Victoria.”
Claim: “When you vote for a political party you are giving over your authority to that political party to appoint people to the legislature.” “With pro rep, MLAs are awarded by parties, not voted in.”
Stated by: BC Liberal website, NO side spokesperson Suzanne Anton No BC Pro Rep ad
Fact Check
These claims are false. There is no system on the ballot with “MLAs appointed by party bosses”.
Most of the systems give voters more choice than they have today.
In all proportional systems on the ballot, candidates will be from your local riding or region. Any exceptions that occur in real life also apply to our current system, first-past-the-post.
The issue of closed versus open party lists is different from (non-existent) “appointed” MLAs. The NDP, Greens and citizens groups have have expressed support for open lists, so there’s little realistic chance of a closed list system.
https://prorepfactcheck.ca/appointedmlas/
Foxsea
Well-Known Member
Pro Rep Fact Checker is independent and credible. It cuts through a lot of the noise . I have posted this to help correct any misinformation on the most common areas of confusion.
Pro Rep Fact Checker investigates claims made about proportional representation by opponents, proponents, and media columnists.
All information on this site has been validated for accuracy by two of Canada’s top electoral reform experts,
Dr. Dennis Pilon and Dr. Brian Tanguay
Claim
Under Proportional Representation we’re going to see a loss of regional representation.
> More detail and Video
Claim
Proportional representation will be bad for the BC economy.
> More detail and Video
Claim
Under proportional representation, your vote will count in every election.
> More detail
Claim
Proportional representation is complicated and confusing . . .
> More detail and Video
Claim
Political Parties will choose your representatives from party lists.
> More detail
Claim
Proportional representation creates perpetual minority governments and instability.
> More detail and Video
Claim
Voter turnout is 7% higher on average in countries with proportional representation.
> More detail
Claim
Proportional Representation is a way to keep the NDP and Greens in power indefinitely.
> More detail
Claim
Fringe parties can get elected with a tiny percentage of the vote.
> More detail
Claim
Extremist groups will win seats.
> More detail
The Experts:
Dennis Pilon received his Bachelor in Sociology/History, and Masters in History from Simon Fraser University and his PhD from York University in Politics. In 2005/06 he was the Canada Research Chair Postdoctoral Fellow in Canadian Studies at Trent University in Peterborough, Ontario.
From 2006 to 2011 he was an Assistant Professor in the Political Science Department at the University of Victoria. In 2011 he was hired as an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at York. His research has focused primarily on issues of democratization and democratic reform in western countries.
He is the author of Wrestling with Democracy: Voting Systems as Politics in the Twentieth Century West, 2013; co-editor of Politics and Government in British Columbia, 2009; and author of The Politics of Voting: Reforming Canada’s Electoral System, 2007.
> More about Dennis Pilon
Brian Tanguay completed a BA in French and Political Science at McMaster University. He received a PhD in Political Science from Carleton University in 1990.
He has taught political science at Wilfrid Laurier University, Trent University, University of Ottawa and Carleton University.
In 2003-2004, Brian worked for the Law Commission of Canada as the lead author of Voting Counts: Electoral Reform for Canada, a 200 page report that was submitted to the federal Minister of Justice in March 2004 recommending Mixed Member proportional representation.
In 2005, Brian was invited as an expert witness to appear before select committees of both the Ontario and Quebec provincial governments to comment on proposed legislation on electoral reform.
> More about Brain Tanguay
Pro Rep Fact Checker investigates claims made about proportional representation by opponents, proponents, and media columnists.
All information on this site has been validated for accuracy by two of Canada’s top electoral reform experts,
Dr. Dennis Pilon and Dr. Brian Tanguay
Claim
Under Proportional Representation we’re going to see a loss of regional representation.
> More detail and Video
Claim
Proportional representation will be bad for the BC economy.
> More detail and Video
Claim
Under proportional representation, your vote will count in every election.
> More detail
Claim
Proportional representation is complicated and confusing . . .
> More detail and Video
Claim
Political Parties will choose your representatives from party lists.
> More detail
Claim
Proportional representation creates perpetual minority governments and instability.
> More detail and Video
Claim
Voter turnout is 7% higher on average in countries with proportional representation.
> More detail
Claim
Proportional Representation is a way to keep the NDP and Greens in power indefinitely.
> More detail
Claim
Fringe parties can get elected with a tiny percentage of the vote.
> More detail
Claim
Extremist groups will win seats.
> More detail
The Experts:
Dennis Pilon received his Bachelor in Sociology/History, and Masters in History from Simon Fraser University and his PhD from York University in Politics. In 2005/06 he was the Canada Research Chair Postdoctoral Fellow in Canadian Studies at Trent University in Peterborough, Ontario.
From 2006 to 2011 he was an Assistant Professor in the Political Science Department at the University of Victoria. In 2011 he was hired as an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at York. His research has focused primarily on issues of democratization and democratic reform in western countries.
He is the author of Wrestling with Democracy: Voting Systems as Politics in the Twentieth Century West, 2013; co-editor of Politics and Government in British Columbia, 2009; and author of The Politics of Voting: Reforming Canada’s Electoral System, 2007.
> More about Dennis Pilon
Brian Tanguay completed a BA in French and Political Science at McMaster University. He received a PhD in Political Science from Carleton University in 1990.
He has taught political science at Wilfrid Laurier University, Trent University, University of Ottawa and Carleton University.
In 2003-2004, Brian worked for the Law Commission of Canada as the lead author of Voting Counts: Electoral Reform for Canada, a 200 page report that was submitted to the federal Minister of Justice in March 2004 recommending Mixed Member proportional representation.
In 2005, Brian was invited as an expert witness to appear before select committees of both the Ontario and Quebec provincial governments to comment on proposed legislation on electoral reform.
> More about Brain Tanguay
ziggy
Well-Known Member
Interesting opinion column in the Vancouver Sun today, part of which I’ve copied below. This mirrors my concerns and I’m sure many others.
“But the biggest problem with the latest electoral reform referendum is how badly the NDP has handled the issue and how partisan the process has become.
Previous electoral reform votes were held after citizen assemblies worked for months in a non-partisan manner on how to proceed with electoral reform — a constitutional change. This time, the NDP, which supports PR, handed the issue to Attorney General David Eby to make up the rules. That’s like allowing one team in a hockey game to also be the referee.
Then there is the fact that voters are not being given a clear choice as in past referendums about what new voting system would replace FPTP. The ruling politicians, those with the greatest vested interest in the outcome, are telling British Columbians to trust them to work out dozens of details, including what kinds of MLAs will sit in the legislature and the size and shape of the ridings.
For example, under mixed-member proportional representation, one of the three systems being considered, 40 per cent of MLAs would not be directly elected. They would come from party lists and we don’t know whether voters would be able to choose them or whether parties would decide after elections who would fill those seats, possibly insiders and patronage appointees. We have not even been told if the parties will be required to make public their lists prior to an election.
Finally, there is the low threshold the NDP has set to change how we vote, allowing 50 per cent plus one in a mail-in ballot with no requirement over how many ballots must be cast to legitimize the referendum. That means a small percentage of the population could change our voting system.
All this is unacceptable. British Columbians should vote “no.”
“But the biggest problem with the latest electoral reform referendum is how badly the NDP has handled the issue and how partisan the process has become.
Previous electoral reform votes were held after citizen assemblies worked for months in a non-partisan manner on how to proceed with electoral reform — a constitutional change. This time, the NDP, which supports PR, handed the issue to Attorney General David Eby to make up the rules. That’s like allowing one team in a hockey game to also be the referee.
Then there is the fact that voters are not being given a clear choice as in past referendums about what new voting system would replace FPTP. The ruling politicians, those with the greatest vested interest in the outcome, are telling British Columbians to trust them to work out dozens of details, including what kinds of MLAs will sit in the legislature and the size and shape of the ridings.
For example, under mixed-member proportional representation, one of the three systems being considered, 40 per cent of MLAs would not be directly elected. They would come from party lists and we don’t know whether voters would be able to choose them or whether parties would decide after elections who would fill those seats, possibly insiders and patronage appointees. We have not even been told if the parties will be required to make public their lists prior to an election.
Finally, there is the low threshold the NDP has set to change how we vote, allowing 50 per cent plus one in a mail-in ballot with no requirement over how many ballots must be cast to legitimize the referendum. That means a small percentage of the population could change our voting system.
All this is unacceptable. British Columbians should vote “no.”
fish brain
Crew Member
I agree with you about the mail in ballot, and question how many returns they will get. I wish the referendum voting occurred during the recent municipal elections. Asking voters, most of whom will not bother to research them, to choose from three options is crazy. The chance of a meaningful result is low in my opinion. Should the general vote go yes, then I suspect a citizens coalition would be struck to make the final determination on which system to use. I did pull up Eby's 100 plus page report last night, but have not had time to read it.
ziggy
Well-Known Member
I can’t support it because I guess being a sceptic or perhaps overly cautious I want the clear choice that hopefully a non partisan citizens assembly would have produced. I don’t trust a government that wants this system so badly to flesh out the details. That’s just me, others may have more faith.
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
Foxsea: Cool Graphics! Quite eye catching actually.
You might want to check on the associations your two talking heads are supported by.
And just so you are aware, there have been a host of other "experts" that have directly challenged many of these two's assertions btw.
But neat graphics anyway...
Cheers,
Nog
You might want to check on the associations your two talking heads are supported by.
And just so you are aware, there have been a host of other "experts" that have directly challenged many of these two's assertions btw.
But neat graphics anyway...
Cheers,
Nog
Foxsea
Well-Known Member
The Yes campaign got off to a great start with a high-energy prime-time rally in Victoria that attracted 1,000 people and lots of media coverage. There was no major No campaign rally to counter it.
The Yes side also seems to have a more vigorous and creative ground game, including campaign lawn signs and a special outreach program on college and university campusescalled “Pro Rep Is Lit.” (“Lit” means cool or exciting to millennials, by the way.)
This is extremely smart, since polls suggest younger voters are more likely to support proportional representation but less likely to actually vote. A focused effort to motivate them could pay major dividends.
The No campaign, meanwhile, is backed by the B.C. Liberal Party, which held a 16-year lock on power under an existing first past the post voting system they are desperate to keep in place.
The Liberals’ traditional allies in big and small business support the No campaign.
The Urban Development Institute, representing B.C. real-estate developers, endorsed the No side last week.
These are powerful, established interests in British Columbia, which makes it that much more surprising that the No campaign got off to such a lousy start.
Instead of a high-energy public rally like the Yes side held, the No campaign kicked off with a TV attack ad warning about a fascist takeover of the province.
“Don’t let extremists into our B.C. legislature,” the ad implores, as jackbooted neo-Nazis march in a column along the street.
The ad included images of street riots in European countries where extreme right-wing parties have won parliamentary seats under pro-rep voting systems.
It also included a shot of riots in Israel, prompting the campaign to briefly pull the ad.
“We received complaints from some of our Jewish supporters,” explained No campaign organizer Bill Tieleman.
The Israel reference was edited out and the ad was relaunched, jackboots intact.
After you stop laughing at this over-the-top fearmongering, consider this: There are no legally registered neo-**** political parties in B.C.
- Mike Smyth, The Province
The Yes side also seems to have a more vigorous and creative ground game, including campaign lawn signs and a special outreach program on college and university campusescalled “Pro Rep Is Lit.” (“Lit” means cool or exciting to millennials, by the way.)
This is extremely smart, since polls suggest younger voters are more likely to support proportional representation but less likely to actually vote. A focused effort to motivate them could pay major dividends.
The No campaign, meanwhile, is backed by the B.C. Liberal Party, which held a 16-year lock on power under an existing first past the post voting system they are desperate to keep in place.
The Liberals’ traditional allies in big and small business support the No campaign.
The Urban Development Institute, representing B.C. real-estate developers, endorsed the No side last week.
These are powerful, established interests in British Columbia, which makes it that much more surprising that the No campaign got off to such a lousy start.
Instead of a high-energy public rally like the Yes side held, the No campaign kicked off with a TV attack ad warning about a fascist takeover of the province.
“Don’t let extremists into our B.C. legislature,” the ad implores, as jackbooted neo-Nazis march in a column along the street.
The ad included images of street riots in European countries where extreme right-wing parties have won parliamentary seats under pro-rep voting systems.
It also included a shot of riots in Israel, prompting the campaign to briefly pull the ad.
“We received complaints from some of our Jewish supporters,” explained No campaign organizer Bill Tieleman.
The Israel reference was edited out and the ad was relaunched, jackboots intact.
After you stop laughing at this over-the-top fearmongering, consider this: There are no legally registered neo-**** political parties in B.C.
- Mike Smyth, The Province
ziggy
Well-Known Member
This is an excerpt from a CBC story about Politicians pounding the pavement for the Proportional Representation. Specifically Melanie Mark
“Elections B.C. mailed out ballots earlier this week with the options, along with a guide explaining what they are. But many of the people Mark spoke with on Saturday said they weren't clear about what the options mean.
Even Mark seemed to have trouble explaining how any of the three systems would work. When reporters asked her several times to break them down, she just repeated that the first-past-the-post system is inadequate.
"With all due respect I don't have all of the guide memorized, I just received it," Mark said. "I do have a degree in political science, but I'm not an expert in electoral representation."”
So here we have a NDP Minister campaigning for a system she doesn’t understand. Another indication this whole referendum is based on a lack of knowledge and the “Trust Me I know what’s best for you” concept!
“Elections B.C. mailed out ballots earlier this week with the options, along with a guide explaining what they are. But many of the people Mark spoke with on Saturday said they weren't clear about what the options mean.
Even Mark seemed to have trouble explaining how any of the three systems would work. When reporters asked her several times to break them down, she just repeated that the first-past-the-post system is inadequate.
"With all due respect I don't have all of the guide memorized, I just received it," Mark said. "I do have a degree in political science, but I'm not an expert in electoral representation."”
So here we have a NDP Minister campaigning for a system she doesn’t understand. Another indication this whole referendum is based on a lack of knowledge and the “Trust Me I know what’s best for you” concept!
Foxsea
Well-Known Member
There is no doubt in my mind that Rural-urban Proportional Representation is the best choice for B.C.
Rural Urban Proportional in a Nutshell
This system provides flexibility for different areas of the province to vote using different methods. In urban areas (densely populated but relatively small geographically), ridings would be merged and voters would elect multiple MLAs using a ranked ballot. In rural areas, voters would elect one local MLA as they do now, plus a team of regional ones, as in Mixed Member. Variations of this system are used in some Scandinavian countries.
The Rural-Urban PR model proposed by the Attorney General for BC builds on the work of previous commissions and assemblies, combining Mixed Member Proportional and Single Transferable Vote to meet the challenges of BC’s geography. A model like this was proposed federally in 2016 by Canada’s former Chief Electoral Officer Jean-Pierre Kingsley, and something very similar to this is used in Sweden, Denmark and Iceland.
Rural Urban offers the ability to tailor the voting system according to the different needs across the province. Citizens would have a greater selection of MLAs to approach with concerns, since MLAs from several different parties would be representing them. This system provides maximum voter choice (often including a choice among candidates from the same party) and, therefore, the least party control over which MLAs are elected. Proportionality is assured on a regional scale.
Granted, this is a new system for us so a bit of effort is required to get our heads around it. The benefit is that voters wishes are more fairly represented, people begin to feel less cynical about voting and outcomes and perhaps more people, especially younger voters will choose to turnout to vote.
Rural Urban Proportional in a Nutshell
This system provides flexibility for different areas of the province to vote using different methods. In urban areas (densely populated but relatively small geographically), ridings would be merged and voters would elect multiple MLAs using a ranked ballot. In rural areas, voters would elect one local MLA as they do now, plus a team of regional ones, as in Mixed Member. Variations of this system are used in some Scandinavian countries.
The Rural-Urban PR model proposed by the Attorney General for BC builds on the work of previous commissions and assemblies, combining Mixed Member Proportional and Single Transferable Vote to meet the challenges of BC’s geography. A model like this was proposed federally in 2016 by Canada’s former Chief Electoral Officer Jean-Pierre Kingsley, and something very similar to this is used in Sweden, Denmark and Iceland.
Rural Urban offers the ability to tailor the voting system according to the different needs across the province. Citizens would have a greater selection of MLAs to approach with concerns, since MLAs from several different parties would be representing them. This system provides maximum voter choice (often including a choice among candidates from the same party) and, therefore, the least party control over which MLAs are elected. Proportionality is assured on a regional scale.
Granted, this is a new system for us so a bit of effort is required to get our heads around it. The benefit is that voters wishes are more fairly represented, people begin to feel less cynical about voting and outcomes and perhaps more people, especially younger voters will choose to turnout to vote.
UkeeDreamin
Well-Known Member
Curious what other folks think but, it seems to me that our current political system sees all parties exerting a lot, if not total (Eg Harper), control over the party and its member MPs/MLAs (particularly on any meaningful, “big ticket” issues) ... as such, I’m personally not nearly as concerned about the voting system ensuring local choice of a local representative as I am about it ensuring party representation in parliament that reflects the proportional voting of all British Columbians/Canadians.
Do others feel their local MLA or MP is able to over-ride party politics in modern Canadian governance?
Cheers!
Ukee
Do others feel their local MLA or MP is able to over-ride party politics in modern Canadian governance?
Cheers!
Ukee
Foxsea
Well-Known Member
Whipped MP's and MLA's are forced to vote against constituents and their consciences.
ziggy
Well-Known Member
I believe all Parties are whipped by their leadership and this will continue no matter what system is in place. I doubt all NDP elected Members are in favour of Proportional Representation, however,whether they understand it or not,they have been directed to preach its benefits. Conversely I’d suggest the same is true for the Liberals and the No side,with only the Greens fully supporting it. No surprise there I guess.
What you are looking for is free voting in the Legislature, something that could only occur if the Party system was binned and Politicians sat as Independents. That isn’t about to happen under any of the systems being offered. In fact I would speculate that if PR goes through we will have numerous parties all of which will need to be tightly controlled by their Leaders.
I think there is a misconception that we will only have 3 or 4 Parties. Frankly I think we will see very many more, all based on special interests. In order to form the coalition required to form a government the members of these Parties will need to support the Party or Parties their leadership cuts a deal with. A good example is the current Green Party, anyone think they are really in favour of Site C or LNG? They are holding their noses though and will not make a move until PR is settled. I think you’ll see a different Green Party once this referendum is over.
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
There is little fair about NDP's electoral reform referendum
Even before the ink dried on the agreement between the Greens and NDP, the NDP took steps to ensure that the vote would support proportional representation so as to keep the Greens’ support. The Greens need proportional representation to solidify their foothold in the legislature. They can’t get many candidates elected because very few ridings want them, so they want to change the election system instead.
The government promised clarity once the ballot was made public. So here’s a test: Ask anyone around you to explain any of the three proposed systems. You’ll be met with blank stares. So much for clarity.
It is fundamentally unfair to ask voters to choose from three vague, hypothetical systems and — only once the vote is counted — to allow a select group of the legislature (with a majority of pro-rep supporters from the Greens and NDP) to fill in the critical details.
Who is accountable when the party lists put the MLA in place and the government itself is a coalition negotiated in the backrooms after the election?
I will be voting to keep our current system. I will not be choosing one of the proportional representation options. We have a stable democracy in one of the best places in the world. I am not willing to lose that.
Lorna Pawluk, QC, is principal at Lorna Pawluk Law Corporation. She is past chair of the National Administrative Law Section of the Canadian Bar Association.
https://vancouversun.com/opinion/op...e-fair-about-ndps-electoral-reform-referendum
Even before the ink dried on the agreement between the Greens and NDP, the NDP took steps to ensure that the vote would support proportional representation so as to keep the Greens’ support. The Greens need proportional representation to solidify their foothold in the legislature. They can’t get many candidates elected because very few ridings want them, so they want to change the election system instead.
The government promised clarity once the ballot was made public. So here’s a test: Ask anyone around you to explain any of the three proposed systems. You’ll be met with blank stares. So much for clarity.
It is fundamentally unfair to ask voters to choose from three vague, hypothetical systems and — only once the vote is counted — to allow a select group of the legislature (with a majority of pro-rep supporters from the Greens and NDP) to fill in the critical details.
Who is accountable when the party lists put the MLA in place and the government itself is a coalition negotiated in the backrooms after the election?
I will be voting to keep our current system. I will not be choosing one of the proportional representation options. We have a stable democracy in one of the best places in the world. I am not willing to lose that.
Lorna Pawluk, QC, is principal at Lorna Pawluk Law Corporation. She is past chair of the National Administrative Law Section of the Canadian Bar Association.
https://vancouversun.com/opinion/op...e-fair-about-ndps-electoral-reform-referendum
