Electoral Reform Referendum

[fish brain]

I guess at the end of the debate, you can ask yourself if you believe that our democracy is based on majority rule. That's what we teach our children. The decisions of the government are made with the best intentions of the majority of people. We don't get this with FPTP. Do you think that with PR and the coalition governments it will likely bring will best reflect the majority, because no one party can pass legislation without co operation from at least one other party. A party that people voted for and therefore must answer to their voters.

Good point regarding a majority rule should there be a requirement for over 50% of all B.C. voters to vote for PR or just 50% of the ballots returned? I ask this because I keep hearing from PR supporters that less than 50% is unacceptable. What if only 20% of the ballots are returned? Is 10% plus 1 good enough? What is the minimum % of B.C. voters returns acceptable to gain a valid result?[/QUOTE]

Voter turnout / response / apathy is a completely different problem. The way things are today, the people who show up to vote get to elect their representatives. Even if only 10% of voters turn out. I am unaware of any statement that a certain level of response must be obtained to validate the results. Perhaps an un returned ballot signals acceptance ?

 

[ziggy]

Good point regarding a majority rule should there be a requirement for over 50% of all B.C. voters to vote for PR or just 50% of the ballots returned? I ask this because I keep hearing from PR supporters that less than 50% is unacceptable. What if only 20% of the ballots are returned? Is 10% plus 1 good enough? What is the minimum % of B.C. voters returns acceptable to gain a valid result?

Voter turnout / response / apathy is a completely different problem. The way things are today, the people who show up to vote get to elect their representatives. Even if only 10% of voters turn out. I am unaware of any statement that a certain level of response must be obtained to validate the results. Perhaps an un returned ballot signals acceptance ?[/QUOTE]
Actually PEI held a similar referendum and discounted it because of the low response. My point is though that I keep hearing we need 50% of the vote to govern but then, any number is acceptable for changing the system? Surely there needs to be a threshold right?

 

[fish brain]

Voter turnout / response / apathy is a completely different problem. The way things are today, the people who show up to vote get to elect their representatives. Even if only 10% of voters turn out. I am unaware of any statement that a certain level of response must be obtained to validate the results. Perhaps an un returned ballot signals acceptance ?

Actually PEI held a similar referendum and discounted it because of the low response. My point is though that I keep hearing we need 50% of the vote to govern but then, any number is acceptable for changing the system? Surely there needs to be a threshold right?[/QUOTE]

One would think.
I haven't seen a minimum response posted anywhere. I haven't looked either. But considering typical voter apathy, I assume the threshold is low.

 

[ziggy]

There is no minimum amount of Referendum returns required to change the system. This was another of the points made regarding how incomplete the process was.

 

[Foxsea]

Actually PEI held a similar referendum and discounted it because of the low response. My point is though that I keep hearing we need 50% of the vote to govern but then, any number is acceptable for changing the system? Surely there needs to be a threshold right?

To be binding in 2009, similar to 2005, the STV referendum required 60 per cent overall approval and 50 per cent approval in at least 60 per cent of the province's electoral districts. The current referendum requires 50% overall approval.

I would think voter participation of less than 50% would make the referendum results questionable. However, this is a vote for FPTP, as well. There are definitely questions that may need answering. I just hope most voters will participate.

 

[california]

The greens and NDP are not going to care what participation rate is if it passes. Weaver didn't even want a referendum. There are ballots stacked up in the lobbys of apartment building for people who have moved accessible to anyone. If this thing passes you still don't know what you will get as there are 3 options, which will all get varying response. For those three options the details will be filled in after the election by the greens and NDP. I could probably be convinced to vote for a SINGLE PR option that was clearly defined and fleshed out before hand, and done through a proper election procedure where you go and vote either stand alone or in conjunction with a provincial or federal election. If the result is 55% for PR, then one PR option gets 60% it will be passed with the support of 33% of voters. The other 2/3 will have voted for something else. I voted no not because PR is inherently bad, but because this "kangaroo court" like process is.

 

[tincan]

Oh the irony of some calling this referendum between FPTP and PR into question because "a small % of the electorate can have such a big determination on the outcome for so many"

I couldn't agree more than we need more people voting. Voter turnout and voter apathy (as mentioned in a previous post) is a huge problem IMO and countries around the world have shown the PR leads to improvements in both.

While I would like to have 80% of the electorate respond to this referendum that just aint gonna happen. Keep in mind we typically elect our Prime Minister with a majority government with less than 20% of Canada's total population actually voting for them (JT had around 17% I believe). Of the electorate it's around 25% who vote for the PM and of those who actually cast ballots is a whopping 35%. However you cut it, a shockingly small % of the population regularly decides who runs our country/province/city in Canada. While implement a proportional representation system in BC/Canada would not solve all of our problems it would move all these things in the right direction.

The greens and NDP are not going to care what participation rate is if it passes. Weaver didn't even want a referendum. There are ballots stacked up in the lobbys of apartment building for people who have moved accessible to anyone. If this thing passes you still don't know what you will get as there are 3 options, which will all get varying response. For those three options the details will be filled in after the election by the greens and NDP. I could probably be convinced to vote for a SINGLE PR option that was clearly defined and fleshed out before hand, and done through a proper election procedure where you go and vote either stand alone or in conjunction with a provincial or federal election. If the result is 55% for PR, then one PR option gets 60% it will be passed with the support of 33% of voters. The other 2/3 will have voted for something else. I voted no not because PR is inherently bad, but because this "kangaroo court" like process is.

 

[wildmanyeah]

If they do form a goverment

Sweden has tried for 4 different combinations of coalitions and they have all failed to form a goverment.

"Since Sweden's September 9th election left the two main blocs separated by just one seat, arriving at a compromise has proved difficult. "

After the leader of Sweden's centre-right party announced his failure on Sunday to form a workable coalition government, what's next for Sweden?
https://www.thelocal.se/20181015/what-next-for-sweden-after-failure-to-form-a-government

Sweden no closer to government as coalition talks collapse
https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe...coalition-talks-collapse-20181014-p509jh.html

 

[Foxsea]

For those participating, this matrix may help in deciding which choice is for you. Grade it for yourself.

 

[Foxsea]

I couldn't agree more than we need more people voting. Voter turnout and voter apathy (as mentioned in a previous post) is a huge problem IMO ...

As a rough approximation, look at this thread and the number of viewers (5800) compared to the few that voted here (80 ish). This Provincial referendum has already sunk due to lack of interest.

 

[wildmanyeah]

I like Rural Urban, Will we be getting that one?

 

[tincan]

RUP is my favourite option as well.

My prediction however is that the results will not favour moving to a PR system. In my conversations with people the vast majority have a surface level understanding of the the referendum in general and have little/no understanding of how FPTP or the various PR systems work. What typically happens in referendums like this one is the 'status quo' wins out as people don't like change. I think that will happen here.

The only promising note from the "yes to PR" side is that the more people learn about PR the more likely they are to vote yes for it. Of course this doesn't apply to all people but in my circle of several dozen that I've had meaningful conversations with on PR, there are a lot who have 'flipped' their vote once they learn things such as:

-PR is not a 'new' system. It is used in the vast majority of OECD countries
-PR systems don't allow ****'s to sweet into power as the 'no' side has predicted
-PR systems proposed all allow for me to keep my local elected representative.... and even to add another regional rep in some cases!
-FPTP was passed/forced on to Canada and most other colonies of Britain and is designed for 2 party systems... which we don't have anymore.

I like Rural Urban, Will we be getting that one?

 

[Clipper]

I tried to keep this decision as simple as possible. PR increases the complexity of government, from my perspective and any increase in complexity is counter productive. I voted NO.

 

[jasonj]

I tried to keep this decision as simple as possible. PR increases the complexity of government, from my perspective and any increase in complexity is counter productive. I voted NO.

If simplicity is what we want, then we should go back to having a Colonial Governor with absolute power over BC like we had before 1871. It was much simpler back then with no legislature to worry about and you didn't even have to worry about voting!

Having fair representation does add some complexity to the process but it is worth it IMO.

 

[Clipper]

I see no way that PR will make my life better. Why is it worth it?

 

[jasonj]

I see no way that PR will make my life better. Why is it worth it?

Why is PR worth it? The main reason is that a significant number of our votes are not counting under FPTP and we are not getting the governments we should be getting which has a significant cost.

How many votes are not counting or are being wasted? I'm a data guy and I just ran the numbers on the 2017 BC election database since I couldn't easily find a source in the media.

My number is 68.6%. 68.6% of our votes in the 2017 election were wasted and had no impact on the election because of FPTP. How is this number calculated:

Total number of valid votes in 2017 election: 1,974,712
Total number of votes that went to candidates that didn't win a riding: 973,397 (or 49.3%)
Total number of votes for winning candidates that exceeded the number required to elect: 380,339 (or 19.3%)

Why is the third number of 19.3% important? Because those votes could have gone to another riding to elect another like minded MLA but were wasted instead because of the FPTP boundaries.

Total this all up and we have 68.6% of votes that effectively didn't count. That's really bad. PR will fix this.

 

[california]

Why is the third number of 19.3% important? Because those votes could have gone to another riding to elect another like minded MLA but were wasted instead because of the FPTP boundaries.
Total this all up and we have 68.6% of votes that effectively didn't count. That's really bad. PR will fix this.

The number that is important is so far about 3% of British Columbians have voted with 3 weeks ago. It looks like turnout is going to be very low, as people really do not know what they are voting for with this idiotic choice of 3 versions of PR. How low does the turnout have to be to de-legitimize this sham process?

 

[terrin]

The number that is important is so far about 3% of British Columbians have voted with 3 weeks ago. It looks like turnout is going to be very low, as people really do not know what they are voting for with this idiotic choice of 3 versions of PR. How low does the turnout have to be to de-legitimize this sham process?

How do you know why they are not voting "yet"? How low is too low for you? Maybe the people that actually care and vote will have their say and there is nothing wrong with that as far as I can see. Imagine if the DFO would give us a ballot with some choices on it instead of the insiders and lobbyists getting all the say what a nice concept that would be.

 

[Foxsea]

There is no minimum amount of Referendum returns required to change the system. This was another of the points made regarding how incomplete the process was.

In tonight's debate Q&A John Horgan implied an 18% ballot return was okay while Andrew Wilkinson suggested a 40% return would satisfy him.

 

[california]

In tonight's debate Q&A John Horgan implied an 18% ballot return was okay while Andrew Wilkinson suggested a 40% return would satisfy him.

It will be lucky to get to 18%. So a flawed process and ill advised mail in ballots could result in 18% turnout, with 55% voting for PR, and 50% voting for one of the 3 options. So horgan is fine if less than 5% of eligible voters decide on the electoral system for the other 95%, most of whom abstained from voting in this sham process. Put a vote for PR to the people that is simple, includes the details and is attached to another election to ensure maximum participation. PR may be better, but THIS process to bring it to the people is a partisan political joke.