Electoral Reform Referendum

[tincan]

Travesty? How so? Please touch on a few of the many more reason this is a travesty of a system. Open to hearing reasons that are supported by some sort of evidence so if you have links to historical examples of PR gone horribly wrong or data that supports your position that would be preferred. Much of the criticism i've heard of PR has been fairly easily de-bunked with a quick google search but I'm always open to hearing new support of FPTP.

BC has an opportunity to lead Canada in moving to a PR system that the vast majority of OECD countries are currently using.... and using very successfully. If PR is such a travesty of a system why are NONE of the countries currently using it look to move back to a winner take all system? On the flip side, why are several jurisdictions with winner take all systems looking to move to PR? hmmm?

LOL! Generalize much??

Both myself and the vast majority of my Buddies who live on The Rock will be voting against this travesty.
A few touched on the reasons above, and there are more. Many more.
BC will become a running joke and even more politically twisted than it is under the proposed PR regime.
Not on our watch it won't!

Also note that not everyone on The Rock votes NDP. Really.
Some have actually graduated beyond voting for their grandfather's party which has done very very little for them since the days of their grandfathers.

Cheers,
Nog

And what one of the 3 PR systems would this play out best under?

 

[tincan]

Lots to talk about here @IronNoggin but i'll just tackle this first one for now. I am of the opinion that we don't need "Big Tent Parties" but rather we do need "Big Tent Legislation". Big Tent Legislation is created when political leaders of many stripes get together and work on legislation that reflects all of their views as best as possible. Under PR, there will most likely be more parties and more coalition governments. Coalition governments (almost by definition) will be working together to craft legislation that takes a much broader perspective as opposed to a piece of legislation that is created by one political party that caters to their base (which may be well less than 40% of the people).

As you've probably heard, the act of one party coming into power, putting in new legislation to fit their idealogy only to have a new party with a completely different ideology come into power a few years later and rip everything apart and then implement a new piece of legislation that fits their ideology (and around and around we go) is called Policy Lurch. Lurch is one of the best arguments against FPTP. It is expensive and divisive. Under systems with PR operating around the world we have seen considerably less policy lurch which means legislation is crafted collaboratively and is in place for much longer and if/when changes are made they are typically more incremental than complete overhauls. This is good for the economy as a whole as we have all heard the saying "business hates uncertainty". Collaborative legislation creates more certainty around the laws of the land.

1. We need broad-based parties. One Issue Parties are not what running a government is all about.

Good Government needs "Big Tent Parties," not single-issue parties. Governing B.C. is about running a health care system, an education system, social assistance, parks, environmental assessments, a highways system, and much, much more. Parties need policies on all of these areas to be credible and offer voters a full picture of what you will do. They should also span a broader range of ideas to bring diverse views to the table and create good policies for all British Columbians. Hopefully, voters think about the big picture as well and consider a balance of policies before deciding who to hand power to for four years.

In today's world of increasingly fragmented news sources, social media silos, and "tribe building" it is all too easy for a group to focus on only one issue, build a "tribe" around one narrow set of policies — immigration, reducing taxes, regional representation (There is still a Vancouver Island Party) and aim to get five per cent of vote, thus guaranteeing them enough seats to potentially broker a deal to make their narrow agenda part of the government agenda.

For years, the Green Party languished in the low single digits as a one issue party until more recently when they have been able to put together a broader platform.

It may not be ideal that a party with 40 per cent of the vote gets 100 per cent of the power, but it is better than an extreme party with 5 to 10 per cent of the vote getting some of the power and being at the table to push their narrow agenda.

 

[tincan]

Well, since you're so easily swayed @pescador it might become a little confusing for you when you realize that not only do the current NDP support PR, but the Greens also do....

and past BC Liberal Leader Christy Clark does:

....and past Chief of Staff to Stephen Harper does: https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.3463105

....and current President of the Conservative Party of BC does:

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=325872224659531

Are the NDP for it or against it? That’s all I need to know to influence which way to vote.

 

[tincan]

The current coalition is happening under FPTP!!! Another great reason for turfing this archaic system. Under a PR system the existing coalition in its current form would NOT be governing. It would require a larger coalition that represents a higher % of the people in BC.

And you somehow believe the current coalition does??
Sam Elliot has a "special" saying to that kind of thinking... LOL

Cheers,
Nog

 

[tincan]

Thanks for your good comments, Ziggy! I agree with many of them and I too have serious questions about the level of transparency and the 'trust us, we'll sort it out later' mentality. I would much have preferred they went thru a non-partisan group or citizens assembly to come up with the referendum details. At the end of the day, however, all of the 3 systems will lead to a result where 30% of the popular vote means 30% of the seats in the legislature and for me that is more important than some of these other details that I disagree with.

As for who benefits from pushing an agenda, I think it is abundantly clear that the wealthiest business interests in our province have the most to lose if FPTP is replaced with PR. I happen to believe that wealth/income inequality has gotten so far out of hand that it is one of the root causes of many of societies issues and if we can elect a government that is more representative of the people (which PR will do) it will be a good thing for the average BC resident.

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!

 

[tincan]

Pro Rep has been sold on it's own merits all over the world, actually. There has been lots presented on this forum and the associated links to support that PR systems are working well in most places they are operating. Below is a video of an event I went to last week at SFU where Andrew Coyne (a conservative leaning columnist) lays out several convincing arguments for saying YES to PR.

https://www.facebook.com/voteprbc/videos/341115369788712/?hc_location=ufi

Ultimately, I am voting for a system that works for the people and PR seems to be working well for most people in most countries where it is used. No countries currently using PR are actively looking to switch back to a FPTP system while several places (including BC) are seriously considering moving from FPTP to PR. that should be pretty telling alone.

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.

 

[tincan]

The current systems has/is failing the country in that voter apathy is at/near an all time high while voter turnout is an/near an all-time low.

BC has long-since moved beyond a 2 party system and FPTP requires that a 2 party system be in place for it to have any credibility. Given we've had 3-4 parties in our province for so long now it's time for our system to catch up and that is what PR will do.

And yet we managed to survive this so-called election travesty. That's one of the problems I have with this whole issue. We've somehow managed to survive, and some would say thrive for over 150 years with the FPTP electoral system. But now, for some reason, the math experts seem to think we need to change the system to something that makes more sense from a mathematical point of view but without any real evidence showing how the current system has failed the Country. As for Mr Coyne - I'd feel a bit better about his views if he actually lived in BC. I'd also like to hear something from him about the ham handed way our current coalition government has handled the whole decision process. Given his history, I'm surprised Mr Coyne would accept the "trust us to work out the details" from any political party.

 

[Gong Show]

Sweden, no government for the last 2 months! https://www.politico.eu/article/sweden-stefan-lofven-fails-again-to-form-new-government/

My good kiwi friend tells me that there system is worse than what we currently have.
New Zealand's non-voting problem growing: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/96083630/new-zealands-growing-nonvoting-problem

Tough to vote for what works for the people, until the people tell you what they think works for them by voting!

 

[tincan]

I think you just made the point for PR.

A quote from that article; "At the last election, 77.9 per cent of enrolled voters turned up at polling booths"... .and that is considered bad for New Zealand??

The highest voter turnout Canada has EVER had since 1867 is 79%. We are now hovering around 60% voter turnout, which I agree is pathetic! On average, countries with PR systems have around 10% higher voter turnout than countries with FPTP.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_Canada

New Zealand's non-voting problem growing: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/96083630/new-zealands-growing-nonvoting-problem

 

[jasonj]

Sweden voted 17% for a far-right party. The result there is reflective of their society which is much much different than ours in BC. In BC, only 2.5% of the vote went to non-major parties.

From the posted article, New Zealand voter turnout is 77%! Compares this to BC at 61% for 2017 and 57% before that. If we can get to 77% that would be great!

Sweden, no government for the last 2 months! https://www.politico.eu/article/sweden-stefan-lofven-fails-again-to-form-new-government/

My good kiwi friend tells me that there system is worse than what we currently have.
New Zealand's non-voting problem growing: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/96083630/new-zealands-growing-nonvoting-problem

Tough to vote for what works for the people, until the people tell you what they think works for them by voting!

 

[Gong Show]

I think you missed the part where Australia has 90% with FPTP.
They do it through mandatory voting.

 

[Foxsea]

I think you missed the part where Australia has 90% with FPTP.
They do it through mandatory voting.

Australia does NOT use FPTP. They use IRV, a preferential voting system where candidates are ranked on the ballot.

Instant-runoff voting (IRV) is used in single-seat elections with more than two candidates. Instead of voting only for a single candidate, voters in IRV elections can rank the candidates in order of preference. Ballots are initially counted for each elector's top choice, losing candidates are eliminated, and ballots for losing candidates are redistributed until one candidate is the top remaining choice of a majority of the voters. When the field is reduced to two, it has become an "instant runoff" that allows a comparison of the top two candidates head-to-head.

Instant-runoff voting is used in national elections in several countries. For example, it is used to elect members of the Australian House of Representatives and most Australian state legislatures;[1] the President of India and members of legislative councils in India; the President of Ireland;[2] adopted and being used to elect members of Congress in Maine in the United States;[3] and the parliament in Papua New Guinea. The method is also used in local elections around the world, as well as by some political parties (to elect internal leaders) and private associations, for various voting purposes such as that for choosing the Academy Award for Best Picture. IRV is described in Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised under the name preferential voting;[4] it is also sometimes referred to as the alternative vote or ranked-choice voting (though there are many other preferential voting systems that use ranked-choice ballots). - Wikipedia

 

[wildmanyeah]

New zealand and australia you can be fined for not voting

 

[california]

Sweden voted 17% for a far-right party. The result there is reflective of their society which is much much different than ours in BC. In BC, only 2.5% of the vote went to non-major parties.

From the posted article, New Zealand voter turnout is 77%! Compares this to BC at 61% for 2017 and 57% before that. If we can get to 77% that would be great!

Really, Sweden, the bastion of democratic socialism is so much different from BC that it would ferment 17% far right votes? The fact only 2.5%of the BC votes go to fringe parties is part of the argument for FPTP. That is likely to go up with PR as fringe parties gain more power.

 

[jasonj]

Having more parties in the legislature that represent the diversity of views from British Columbians is not a bad thing. Unless of course you are against representative democracy.

The 5% limit though will keep the parties with lower support out. See the New Zealand election results where just the top four parties would meet the 5% threshold.

https://www.elections.org.nz/news-media/new-zealand-2017-general-election-official-results

Really, Sweden, the bastion of democratic socialism is so much different from BC that it would ferment 17% far right votes? The fact only 2.5%of the BC votes go to fringe parties is part of the argument for FPTP. That is likely to go up with PR as fringe parties gain more power.

 

[wildmanyeah]

Having more parties in the legislature that represent the diversity of views from British Columbians is not a bad thing. Unless of course you are against democracy.

The 5% limit though will keep the parties with lower support out. See the New Zealand election results where just the top four parties would meet the 5% threashold.

https://www.elections.org.nz/news-media/new-zealand-2017-general-election-official-results

New Zealand is currently probably the poorest example of pr working as intended.

 

[jasonj]

Ok. Why is New Zealand the worst example? And which country is the best example?

New Zealand is currently probably the poorest example of pr working as intended.

 

[KCW]

They were talking about PR on CFAX yesterday . One caller was concerned about an increase of MLA's with a PR system and who's going to pay for the increase of seats .

 

[fish brain]

They were talking about PR on CFAX yesterday . One caller was concerned about an increase of MLA's with a PR system and who's going to pay for the increase of seats .

Who pays when a new government is elected under FPTP and the new government proceeds to undo as much of work the old government did? You pay one way or the other. A few new MLAs will cost less than Fast Ferries, Cancelled Hydro projects, Pipelines that are promised and don't get built, etc.

 

[tincan]

This is one of the legitimate concerns of PR that I fully agree with, actually. At this point we don't know the exact number of MLA's that would be elected under PR but I've heard estimates of a 5-10% increase which would not be an insignificant budget item. However, if that is one of the only costs of a PR system the benefits still vastly outweigh these costs.... and as @fish brain mentioned above, in the grand scheme of things it's a fraction of what any major government programs costs to implement/rescind so the overall cost savings to tax payers should be much higher under a PR system when expensive policy lurch is considered (which it rarely is in any discussion).

They were talking about PR on CFAX yesterday . One caller was concerned about an increase of MLA's with a PR system and who's going to pay for the increase of seats .