Electoral Reform Referendum
- Thread starter fish brain
- Start date
ziggy
Well-Known Member
Lol. Where are the Oilers and Jets? Only two teams shown here! What we need is to show their scores and have them decide if they want to join up with the Canucks or Flames to declare a winner. Final Score Canucks 4-2 over the Flames, Jets 5-4 over Oilers. Oilers combine their score with Flames and team Alberta wins with 6 goals Jets and Canucks both lose.
So while neitherAlberta Team won a game, when they combined their goals they had more than any individual team that did win and therefore were declared winners. Standby for next week when the Habs and Leafs join in the fray lol.
So while neitherAlberta Team won a game, when they combined their goals they had more than any individual team that did win and therefore were declared winners. Standby for next week when the Habs and Leafs join in the fray lol.
Last edited:
bigbruce
Crew Member
Sorry Foxsea - that has got to be one of the dumbest analogies I think I've ever seen! You're really reaching with this one.
Foxsea
Well-Known Member
It's right up there with the **** ads. Is it satire? Ziggy's more in tune with the meme. It's not that serious, Bruce. I watched my Grandson's hockey game this morning and thought this was comical. Life will carry on in spite of the referendum. Lol - right?
bigbruce
Crew Member
I'd suggest it's more down there with the **** ads. And in terms of your latest effort - I'm going to the Red Lion for a beer. The problem with the whole coffee shop thing is that we don't know which shop we're voting for because they're on a list put together by a bunch of coffee shops that we've never had an opportunity to examine.
ziggy
Well-Known Member
Never thought about it that way. Clearly Proportional Representation encourages alcoholism? Lol. How much are they paying for these ads or are they someones school project?
Last edited:
Clint r
Well-Known Member
Is it any wonder? Remember what the libs did to the school system here in BC? Nurses, teachers, ICBC and BC hydro. All a result of the current system and government thinking they have a mandate when they really have only the slimmest majority. These and a long long list of other provincial govt fiascos is exactly why we need change.
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
And it did change their is a green/NDP coalition
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
Don’t be fooled by the hocus pocus of pro rep math
By Mel Rothenburger
THERE ARE SO MANY THINGS wrong with the referendum on proportional representation, it would take as long to cover it all as it would to explain the convoluted and foggy alternatives on the ballot.
So let’s just talk about the hocus pocus of proportional representation (also known as prop rep, pro rep or PR) math. This one giant flaw should be enough to make us run, not walk, away from prop rep.
Throughout the months leading up to this vote, prop rep boosters have relied heavily on a simplistic abracadabra formula to convince us their system makes sense.
Their favourite line is “40 per cent of the votes should equal 40 per cent of the seats,” or variations thereof.
With the current First Past the Post, they say, “39 per cent of the votes = 54 per cent of the seats = 100 per cent of the power” but with PR “39 per cent of the vote = 39 per cent of the seats = Compromise, cooperation, collaboration.” This is labeled “Proportional Representation Math.”
I once called it “voodoo math.” It’s magical, catchy and easy to understand. “It’s that simple,” they say. No need to think about it, just have faith that under prop rep “every vote will count.” With prop rep, everyone will surely sit around singing Kumbaya as they compromise, co-operate and collaborate. Sure, that’s what politicians do.
In reality, of course, it’s just spin. The subtext of prop rep math is a different story.
The myth of prop rep is that it’s more democratic. But by definition, an “at large” or total-popular-vote system — which is what prop rep is — centralizes electoral power at the expense of local communities.
It works from the top down rather than from the bottom up. FPTP is a ward system that does the opposite. That’s the fundamental difference between the two.
The grade school algebra used in the pro-PR campaign is designed to divert attention from the shortcomings of the at-large system, as well as from the ridiculously complicated and largely untested algorithms of the prop rep alternatives we’re being asked to choose from in the referendum.
PR puts the power base in big population centres. The at-large system of government is inappropriate for a major jurisdiction like B.C. In order to retain ridings at all it must resort to complex combinations of elected and appointed representatives.
One of the PR options on the ballot even proposes combining completely different systems — one for urban and semi-urban centres and another for less populated “rural” British Columbia. Want cheese on that?
Two of the three PR options have never even been tried before.
Though electoral maps for these various PR systems have never been released, boundaries will be moved, ridings combined, or ridings grouped into regions, some MLAs elected and others assigned higgledy-piggledy by parties, all in aid of attaining the electoral grail of “40 per cent of the votes must equal 40 per cent of the seats.”
The First Past the Post ward system is straight-forward. Wards, of course, are called ridings, constituencies or electoral districts at the provincial level. We usually associate ward systems
with civic elections and I’m not a fan of them for any but the largest cities. In the case of a sprawling province with widely diverse economies, cultures and aspirations, however, FPTP works and here’s why.
The best explanation I’ve heard of FPTP is that it’s actually 87 mini elections. That’s how many ridings there are in the province.
The people of each riding get to choose who will represent them in the Legislature without anyone else interfering. Some ridings have more or less population than others, bigger or smaller turnouts and different priorities. Some might elect their MLA by a huge margin, and others might elect their MLA by a smaller margin but in The Ledge they’re equals.
The winning party may or may not get more than half the popular vote with FPTP but the people who represent us will get the most votes here at home, and there will usually be a majority government.
If I elect Joe or Josie Schmotz I want to see him or her in Victoria, not eliminated because of some complex PR formula that decides they’re not from the right party. If Bill or Beckie Blotz and the other candidates from their party get 10 per cent in every single riding it doesn’t mean they should get 10 per cent of the seats. Sorry, but you should have to win somewhere.
In other words, FPTP works close to home by focusing on electoral districts first. PR tries to fit a size 10 foot into a size 7 shoe by bastardizing electoral districts.
Forty per cent of the votes should equal 40 per cent of the seats? Mathematical nonsense is not what’s needed here. In fact, prop rep isn’t needed at all, except by the Greens.
No vote is ever wasted when we take the trouble to use it. But don’t be sucked in by this “40-40” stuff. Don't vote for prop rep just because the slogans sound good. Something this important shouldn’t be decided with slogans, it should be decided by substance. Go to the Elections BC website and try to figure out the three PR alternatives on offer.
If you do, you’ll see that the mathematics of proportional representation doesn’t add up.
https://cfjctoday.com/column/639564/don-t-be-fooled-hocus-pocus-pro-rep-math
By Mel Rothenburger
THERE ARE SO MANY THINGS wrong with the referendum on proportional representation, it would take as long to cover it all as it would to explain the convoluted and foggy alternatives on the ballot.
So let’s just talk about the hocus pocus of proportional representation (also known as prop rep, pro rep or PR) math. This one giant flaw should be enough to make us run, not walk, away from prop rep.
Throughout the months leading up to this vote, prop rep boosters have relied heavily on a simplistic abracadabra formula to convince us their system makes sense.
Their favourite line is “40 per cent of the votes should equal 40 per cent of the seats,” or variations thereof.
With the current First Past the Post, they say, “39 per cent of the votes = 54 per cent of the seats = 100 per cent of the power” but with PR “39 per cent of the vote = 39 per cent of the seats = Compromise, cooperation, collaboration.” This is labeled “Proportional Representation Math.”
I once called it “voodoo math.” It’s magical, catchy and easy to understand. “It’s that simple,” they say. No need to think about it, just have faith that under prop rep “every vote will count.” With prop rep, everyone will surely sit around singing Kumbaya as they compromise, co-operate and collaborate. Sure, that’s what politicians do.
In reality, of course, it’s just spin. The subtext of prop rep math is a different story.
The myth of prop rep is that it’s more democratic. But by definition, an “at large” or total-popular-vote system — which is what prop rep is — centralizes electoral power at the expense of local communities.
It works from the top down rather than from the bottom up. FPTP is a ward system that does the opposite. That’s the fundamental difference between the two.
The grade school algebra used in the pro-PR campaign is designed to divert attention from the shortcomings of the at-large system, as well as from the ridiculously complicated and largely untested algorithms of the prop rep alternatives we’re being asked to choose from in the referendum.
PR puts the power base in big population centres. The at-large system of government is inappropriate for a major jurisdiction like B.C. In order to retain ridings at all it must resort to complex combinations of elected and appointed representatives.
One of the PR options on the ballot even proposes combining completely different systems — one for urban and semi-urban centres and another for less populated “rural” British Columbia. Want cheese on that?
Two of the three PR options have never even been tried before.
Though electoral maps for these various PR systems have never been released, boundaries will be moved, ridings combined, or ridings grouped into regions, some MLAs elected and others assigned higgledy-piggledy by parties, all in aid of attaining the electoral grail of “40 per cent of the votes must equal 40 per cent of the seats.”
The First Past the Post ward system is straight-forward. Wards, of course, are called ridings, constituencies or electoral districts at the provincial level. We usually associate ward systems
with civic elections and I’m not a fan of them for any but the largest cities. In the case of a sprawling province with widely diverse economies, cultures and aspirations, however, FPTP works and here’s why.
The best explanation I’ve heard of FPTP is that it’s actually 87 mini elections. That’s how many ridings there are in the province.
The people of each riding get to choose who will represent them in the Legislature without anyone else interfering. Some ridings have more or less population than others, bigger or smaller turnouts and different priorities. Some might elect their MLA by a huge margin, and others might elect their MLA by a smaller margin but in The Ledge they’re equals.
The winning party may or may not get more than half the popular vote with FPTP but the people who represent us will get the most votes here at home, and there will usually be a majority government.
If I elect Joe or Josie Schmotz I want to see him or her in Victoria, not eliminated because of some complex PR formula that decides they’re not from the right party. If Bill or Beckie Blotz and the other candidates from their party get 10 per cent in every single riding it doesn’t mean they should get 10 per cent of the seats. Sorry, but you should have to win somewhere.
In other words, FPTP works close to home by focusing on electoral districts first. PR tries to fit a size 10 foot into a size 7 shoe by bastardizing electoral districts.
Forty per cent of the votes should equal 40 per cent of the seats? Mathematical nonsense is not what’s needed here. In fact, prop rep isn’t needed at all, except by the Greens.
No vote is ever wasted when we take the trouble to use it. But don’t be sucked in by this “40-40” stuff. Don't vote for prop rep just because the slogans sound good. Something this important shouldn’t be decided with slogans, it should be decided by substance. Go to the Elections BC website and try to figure out the three PR alternatives on offer.
If you do, you’ll see that the mathematics of proportional representation doesn’t add up.
https://cfjctoday.com/column/639564/don-t-be-fooled-hocus-pocus-pro-rep-math
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
The Big Lie
John Winter: British Columbians are being sold a bill of goods
In the coming weeks, British Columbians will be asked to vote in a very important referendum on changing how we elect our MLAs, not an insignificant initiative.
We’ve rejected proportional representation twice before. It’s essential we do so a third time.
I support our current voting system, which is simple, produces stable governments and is one of the institutional pillars that all our successes stand on. On the first question on the ballot, I urge you to vote in favour of First Past the Post (FPTP), option one.
The alternative is to jump into the unknown. Three versions of Proportional Representation (PR) are on offer. Two have never been used or tried anywhere in the world, and the third is presently used in just four countries. That third option is called Mixed Member Proportional (MMP). It was soundly rejected in BC by the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform in 2005 because of the damage it does to local representation.
I point this out, because there is a big lie in this referendum campaign.
It underscores everything proponents of electoral reform say. The claims that PR jurisdictions out-perform ones like ours, or that PR improves voter turnout or that the environment fares better under their preferred electoral system are not comparing apples to apples. Such claims stand on a foundation of misdirection, lies, and obfuscations – because the electoral systems that inform the research findings are not even on the ballot in BC this fall.
The Yes side says PR is used in more than 80 countries. In truth, only four countries actually use any of the forms that appear on BC’s referendum ballot. The rest use some form of “list” PR.
That means parties make lists of candidates to be elected, and seats are allocated based on the overall proportion of votes. Over 90% of the countries held up as examples use electoral systems BC isn’t even voting on.
Citizens of countries that do use list system are becoming very uncomfortable. The evidence is clear on at least two fronts.
First, radical parties of the left and the right are taking advantage of the low threshold to win a seat. They seize on voters’ fears and frustrations and run single-issue, municipal-style campaigns based on emotion, ignoring vast swathes of policy. You can see this today in Germany, Austria, Poland, Hungary, Romania, and Italy, which has had 61 governments in 67 years under such systems.
Secondly, countries are constantly fiddling with their electoral processes to try and make a flawed system work better. New Zealand has recently passed a bill that would strip MPs of their seat if they switch parties or their leader kicks them out of the party. Germany is trying for the third time to introduce a vote threshold to minimize small parties.
The second question on our ballots reflects the dense academic nature of this attempt to fix proportional representation.
Let’s look at the one option on the ballot used in the real world – MMP.
Under this model, 40% of the elected members are from party lists. This means constituencies will be at least 40% larger, with a real impact in the north and interior of BC.
For example, the provincial riding of Stikine is already large – and if increased by 40%, would be larger than New Zealand! Taking systems in use in small countries and transferring them to BC in a social experiment disenfranchises people outside the Lower Mainland. There is nothing fair about that. Local representation is cast aside.
Our current system, First Past the Post (FPTP) puts local representation first, where it should be. Most countries which use FPTP are or were members of the British Commonwealth. It is part of our heritage, part of who we are as Canadians, mirroring our Parliamentary traditions.
MMP is used for parliamentary elections in four countries including Germany and New Zealand. In Germany, it took almost six months to form a coalition government after last September’s election, and is growing ever more fragile. Germany’s Bundestag is now home to seven parties, including radical parties on both the right and the left. Proportional representation amplifies their impact by giving them legitimacy and resources to advance their extremist agendas.
New Zealand recently switched electoral systems to MMP. The current government is a hodge-podge of the Labour Party, the Greens and an anti-immigrant party called New Zealand First. The latter two members didn’t elect a single member in constituency elections by getting the most votes.
They leveraged their 7% of the popular vote into four cabinet posts, including that of Deputy Prime Minister.
This is the big lie.
PR promoters claim that proportional representation is the solution to all our electoral woes and point to its widespread use around the world. The truth is that the options we’ve been given are complex, esoteric and used in very few places with little experience to point to.
We’ve rejected changing our system in referendums twice this century for very good reasons. How many more times do we have to go to this well?
Another lie is in the details. All three options on the ballot leave the important details, including maps and the number of MLAs until after the referendum. It’s only then the NDP/Green marriage of convenience will carefully choose those to favour their electoral prospects.
This referendum is a desperate move to give the Green party a permanent platform. If they can elect three people, they deserve three seats.
With apologies to Churchill, FPTP is the worst electoral system, except for all the others. Vote to keep our current system, and ignore the lies, vote to keep the status quo.
John Winter is the past president and CEO of the BC Chamber of Commerce
http://theorca.ca/visiting-pod/the-big-lie/
John Winter: British Columbians are being sold a bill of goods
In the coming weeks, British Columbians will be asked to vote in a very important referendum on changing how we elect our MLAs, not an insignificant initiative.
We’ve rejected proportional representation twice before. It’s essential we do so a third time.
I support our current voting system, which is simple, produces stable governments and is one of the institutional pillars that all our successes stand on. On the first question on the ballot, I urge you to vote in favour of First Past the Post (FPTP), option one.
The alternative is to jump into the unknown. Three versions of Proportional Representation (PR) are on offer. Two have never been used or tried anywhere in the world, and the third is presently used in just four countries. That third option is called Mixed Member Proportional (MMP). It was soundly rejected in BC by the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform in 2005 because of the damage it does to local representation.
I point this out, because there is a big lie in this referendum campaign.
It underscores everything proponents of electoral reform say. The claims that PR jurisdictions out-perform ones like ours, or that PR improves voter turnout or that the environment fares better under their preferred electoral system are not comparing apples to apples. Such claims stand on a foundation of misdirection, lies, and obfuscations – because the electoral systems that inform the research findings are not even on the ballot in BC this fall.
The Yes side says PR is used in more than 80 countries. In truth, only four countries actually use any of the forms that appear on BC’s referendum ballot. The rest use some form of “list” PR.
That means parties make lists of candidates to be elected, and seats are allocated based on the overall proportion of votes. Over 90% of the countries held up as examples use electoral systems BC isn’t even voting on.
Citizens of countries that do use list system are becoming very uncomfortable. The evidence is clear on at least two fronts.
First, radical parties of the left and the right are taking advantage of the low threshold to win a seat. They seize on voters’ fears and frustrations and run single-issue, municipal-style campaigns based on emotion, ignoring vast swathes of policy. You can see this today in Germany, Austria, Poland, Hungary, Romania, and Italy, which has had 61 governments in 67 years under such systems.
Secondly, countries are constantly fiddling with their electoral processes to try and make a flawed system work better. New Zealand has recently passed a bill that would strip MPs of their seat if they switch parties or their leader kicks them out of the party. Germany is trying for the third time to introduce a vote threshold to minimize small parties.
The second question on our ballots reflects the dense academic nature of this attempt to fix proportional representation.
Let’s look at the one option on the ballot used in the real world – MMP.
Under this model, 40% of the elected members are from party lists. This means constituencies will be at least 40% larger, with a real impact in the north and interior of BC.
For example, the provincial riding of Stikine is already large – and if increased by 40%, would be larger than New Zealand! Taking systems in use in small countries and transferring them to BC in a social experiment disenfranchises people outside the Lower Mainland. There is nothing fair about that. Local representation is cast aside.
Our current system, First Past the Post (FPTP) puts local representation first, where it should be. Most countries which use FPTP are or were members of the British Commonwealth. It is part of our heritage, part of who we are as Canadians, mirroring our Parliamentary traditions.
MMP is used for parliamentary elections in four countries including Germany and New Zealand. In Germany, it took almost six months to form a coalition government after last September’s election, and is growing ever more fragile. Germany’s Bundestag is now home to seven parties, including radical parties on both the right and the left. Proportional representation amplifies their impact by giving them legitimacy and resources to advance their extremist agendas.
New Zealand recently switched electoral systems to MMP. The current government is a hodge-podge of the Labour Party, the Greens and an anti-immigrant party called New Zealand First. The latter two members didn’t elect a single member in constituency elections by getting the most votes.
They leveraged their 7% of the popular vote into four cabinet posts, including that of Deputy Prime Minister.
This is the big lie.
PR promoters claim that proportional representation is the solution to all our electoral woes and point to its widespread use around the world. The truth is that the options we’ve been given are complex, esoteric and used in very few places with little experience to point to.
We’ve rejected changing our system in referendums twice this century for very good reasons. How many more times do we have to go to this well?
Another lie is in the details. All three options on the ballot leave the important details, including maps and the number of MLAs until after the referendum. It’s only then the NDP/Green marriage of convenience will carefully choose those to favour their electoral prospects.
This referendum is a desperate move to give the Green party a permanent platform. If they can elect three people, they deserve three seats.
With apologies to Churchill, FPTP is the worst electoral system, except for all the others. Vote to keep our current system, and ignore the lies, vote to keep the status quo.
John Winter is the past president and CEO of the BC Chamber of Commerce
http://theorca.ca/visiting-pod/the-big-lie/
GLG
Well-Known Member
Comments on the last two posts.
FUD
fear - uncertainty - doubt
Fear "the jackboots are coming" keep a lookout under your bed for the reds ...... The question I would like answered is, why after ww2 when the British and the Americans setup an electoral system in Germany they picked PR rather than FPTP. They had a chance to look at their systems and then chose a different way for a reason. They understood the flaw in their system.
Uncertainty Where math is turned into “voodoo math” because he doesn't understand it or purposely misrepresents it. That begs the question as to why he would do this. The excuse is ...... it can't work because the math makes no sense. Nonsense, the math is easy and fair.
Doubt Spin the lies and tell everyone that the other side is lying and that makes you wonder what the truth is. Until we know, keep it safe and continue with the current course. Perfect, paralyze everyone so nothing changes.
The truth is that powerful interest would prefer the system we have now as it works well for them. They know the game and are well versed in the 'in's and out's" of the system. Here is our chance to break this endless cycle of adversity and force cooperation in goverency. Unleash competition of ideas so the best one wins not just say the opposite so that you don't agree. One only has to watch the mindless statements that come from our so called leaders on both side of any issue here in Canada.
Force Them To Work Together
FUD
fear - uncertainty - doubt
Fear "the jackboots are coming" keep a lookout under your bed for the reds ...... The question I would like answered is, why after ww2 when the British and the Americans setup an electoral system in Germany they picked PR rather than FPTP. They had a chance to look at their systems and then chose a different way for a reason. They understood the flaw in their system.
Uncertainty Where math is turned into “voodoo math” because he doesn't understand it or purposely misrepresents it. That begs the question as to why he would do this. The excuse is ...... it can't work because the math makes no sense. Nonsense, the math is easy and fair.
Doubt Spin the lies and tell everyone that the other side is lying and that makes you wonder what the truth is. Until we know, keep it safe and continue with the current course. Perfect, paralyze everyone so nothing changes.
The truth is that powerful interest would prefer the system we have now as it works well for them. They know the game and are well versed in the 'in's and out's" of the system. Here is our chance to break this endless cycle of adversity and force cooperation in goverency. Unleash competition of ideas so the best one wins not just say the opposite so that you don't agree. One only has to watch the mindless statements that come from our so called leaders on both side of any issue here in Canada.
Force Them To Work Together
Foxsea
Well-Known Member
A good debate where both were considerate and respectful. Good points were raised by both but it remains that some are not comfortable with a change. Maria made the valid point that democratic institutions are eroding and we need to see better voter turnout and engagement to revitalize our democracy. Feeling heard and well represented in a fair system could go a long way to accomplishing that.
Gong Show
Well-Known Member
I have a degree in political science and am a lawyer.
I am not afraid of change. I went from being a gillnetter to being a lawyer.
I knew the goal and the way to get there. The change was mostly positive.
I voted NO to this referendum.
Not because I am afraid of change, but if you want me to agree to a fundamental change to the way governments are elected, you must do a very good job of explaining why the change is needed and what the goal(s) we are trying to achieve.
This has not happened.
Add to that the pro-rep lobbying and advocating that anyone voting NO is a political insider or some other nefarious thing, nail in the coffin.
If pro-rep is so great, why can't they sell it on its own merits. Have not heard one convincing argument in the 6 pages here, or any other place.
I am not afraid of change. I went from being a gillnetter to being a lawyer.
I knew the goal and the way to get there. The change was mostly positive.
I voted NO to this referendum.
Not because I am afraid of change, but if you want me to agree to a fundamental change to the way governments are elected, you must do a very good job of explaining why the change is needed and what the goal(s) we are trying to achieve.
This has not happened.
Add to that the pro-rep lobbying and advocating that anyone voting NO is a political insider or some other nefarious thing, nail in the coffin.
If pro-rep is so great, why can't they sell it on its own merits. Have not heard one convincing argument in the 6 pages here, or any other place.
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
NDP botched this by giving people 3 options to 3 mystery PR options.
fogged in
Well-Known Member
Can someone tell me why we can talk about this subject which has absolutely NOTHING TO DO WITH FISHING, but can't discuss Fish Farms.
If some Fish Farm posters cross the line when posting, ban them!!
Show me some news about Fish Farms please!
Or ban me if Admin does not like to be challenged on his unfair policy!!!
If some Fish Farm posters cross the line when posting, ban them!!
Show me some news about Fish Farms please!
Or ban me if Admin does not like to be challenged on his unfair policy!!!
GLG
Well-Known Member
I think Andrew Coyne of the National Post explained what is wrong with FPTP.
It happened here in BC.
