Electoral Reform Referendum

[ziggy]

Very interesting discussion. I’m really trying to understand why some people still want FPTP. From reading here, I see the following arguments:

1) The results we get from FPTP have been OK and I don’t see the need to change:
Things may seem OK but I would argue the result is not what the majority had voted for. Best example is 1996 election. BC liberals: 41.82% of the vote, BC NDP 39.45% of the vote. BC NDP get majority government with a minority of votes because of FPTP. Was this what voters had intended? Clearly not and we got the failed fast ferries as a result. Also note that BC Liberals were in favour of PR while in opposition.

2) The PR systems are confusing:
This really insults the intelligence of voters in BC. If voters in Germany, New Zealand and 90+ other countries can understand it shouldn’t we assume that BC can handle it? Also, the concept is simple %votes = %seats. There is also plenty of information on each proposed system online to make a choice.

3) I don’t trust the NDP / Greens to implement a fair system:
This may be a valid concern if they were inventing these system from scratch (they are not). However, if they were really going to rig the system, they would have just legislated it already. Instead they are actually giving us choices. The government needs long term buy-in from the public for this change, otherwise the next gov will just change it to suit them. This is also why there will be another referendum after two elections in case we don’t like it. It would be a long term failure for them to mandate an unfair system that gets rejected at a later date. Also, if our PR system ends up looking biased when compared to examples in other countries, the public will punish the gov for it (remember HST?).

4) ****’s will take over:
tincan has a great response to this. Basically we’ll have a 5% threshold to prevent extreme fringe parties.

In general I would look at this from a voter’s perspective rather than what the parties want. Personally, I’m tired of having my vote wasted every election because I live in a “safe” riding where the seat has not changed hands in more than 27 years.

I want my vote to count. I also want your vote to count too.

1) Good point, how often has it happened? How do we address the fact that in a coalition government a Party with a small % of voters needs to be courted to form a government and will then have far more influence than their voter support would warrant? The Greens with 17% of the vote are currently propping up the government, do you think they aren’t cutting deals with the NDP? This whole referendum, number 3 on this topic, is their demand!

2) An NDP Cabinet Minister with a degree in Political Science couldn't explain the system, because the details are unknown or perhaps lack of intelligence? I'm going with the first choice. Remember the countries using ProRep have the details, which can make a significant difference in how the system works. The BC model will have the details promulgated at a later date by the sitting government. I also question 90 countries use the Pro Rep system we are being offered. Given two of the three are used nowhere that means the MMP as detailed in our voter guide is used in 90 countries? I don’t think so!

3) My lack of trust in the current government is based on the fact that the models selected were not selected by a non partisan Parliamentry nor a Citizens Committee. That’s a red flag for me. In addition the 50% +1 of however many unverified ballots ( should have been a question on Munnicipal election, where votes could be verified)will change the system. To me that’s an artificially low number! Are we happy with say 50% of the 40% of mailed in,unverified ballots changing the system?

The Greens and NDP have claimed to be in favour of PR since the last election, yet they now tell us they haven’t decided where electoral boundaries will be, what constitutes a rural or urban riding, how the Party candidates list will work etc. These are all very important details and to say they will be decided later by an as yet named organization constitutes a leap of faith. Gerrymandering comes to mind.

4) I agree the ****’s won’t likely take over. But let’s not dismiss the fact that in Austria a Party formed by a former **** SS Officer is a key component in the coalition government. In fact one of its member holds the key position of Minister of Defence. To say it would happen here is a stretch, but to pretend it can’t happen under PR is an outright lie. It has happened.

I don’t think a 5% threshold is as unattainable as some would suggest. In most arguments they hold up fringe candidates that run in a handful of tidings. If however there is a chance of gaining a seat or gaining Party status by gaining two seats I think you’ll see a change. I would not be surprised to see a Vancouver Isalnd Party regionally. Provincially if a fringe Party could field candidates in a large number of tidings, 5% could be easily attainable.

I think it’s great to hear people debating this issue, I just wish the process was not so rushed, given its results won’t come into being effect until 2021.I wish a non partisan clear choice had been offered with all the details worked out. As it stands I can’t support it.

 

[tincan]

1) Good point, how often has it happened? How do we address the fact that in a coalition government a Party with a small % of voters needs to be courted to form a government and will then have far more influence than their voter support would warrant? The Greens with 17% of the vote are currently propping up the government, do you think they aren’t cutting deals with the NDP? This whole referendum, number 3 on this topic, is their demand!

Under a PR system the power of such a small number of people (voters and elected MLA's) will be reduced. Right now, a small number of votes in a small number of ridings are the difference between being a winning party with full control of government versus being completely shut out. Because this is the case under FPTP, parties will cater to this small swing vote in particular ridings which greatly disorts the value of their vote versus the value of other voters in BC. Take the US for example, every election cycle Ohio and FLA (and others) are particularly important states. Candidates know this and spend a disproportionate amount of time, money and political goodwill and promises in order to try to sway just a small number of people to come to their side in hopes they can win the state. A candidate who wins Ohio and Florida in the US today has a great chance of winning the election overall. This is total distorted democracy.

The Greens (with just 3 seats) did get 17% of the popular vote last election and should have some voice in government with that much of the province voting for them. Take away strategic voting and most people acknowledge the greens would have a much larger share of the popular vote so 'propping up' government is exactly what should be happening as at least this coalition gov't represents around 55% of the voters, whereas past false majority governments have less from 40% of the popular vote yet 100% of power in the legislature.

2) An NDP Cabinet Minister with a degree in Political Science couldn't explain the system, because the details are unknown or perhaps lack of intelligence? I'm going with the first choice. Remember the countries using ProRep have the details, which can make a significant difference in how the system works. The BC model will have the details promulgated at a later date by the sitting government. I also question 90 countries use the Pro Rep system we are being offered. Given two of the three are used nowhere that means the MMP as detailed in our voter guide is used in 90 countries? I don’t think so!

Agree, this is embarrassing. Politicians should be held to high standards, especially as it relates to the electoral systems in which they could be elected under (this was an MP however, not a provincial MLA). That said, do you really think Donald Trump can explain the details of how US elections work? Unfortunately we have a lot of people in places of power who are not there due to their competence.

3) My lack of trust in the current government is based on the fact that the models selected were not selected by a non partisan Parliamentry nor a Citizens Committee. That’s a red flag for me. In addition the 50% +1 of however many unverified ballots ( should have been a question on Munnicipal election, where votes could be verified)will change the system. To me that’s an artificially low number! Are we happy with say 50% of the 40% of mailed in,unverified ballots changing the system?

The Greens and NDP have claimed to be in favour of PR since the last election, yet they now tell us they haven’t decided where electoral boundaries will be, what constitutes a rural or urban riding, how the Party candidates list will work etc. These are all very important details and to say they will be decided later by an as yet named organization constitutes a leap of faith. Gerrymandering comes to mind.

Agree to some extent. I think more details would be beneficial to some and detrimental to other. For those closely following the referendum more details on what you mentioned above would be helpful. For those barely paying attention (unfortunately the majority of BC), any more detail than what they have seen would be sensory overload and confuse the sh*t out of them to the point they don't vote, or vote one way or another out of spite.

4) I agree the ****’s won’t likely take over. But let’s not dismiss the fact that in Austria a Party formed by a former **** SS Officer is a key component in the coalition government. In fact one of its member holds the key position of Minister of Defence. To say it would happen here is a stretch, but to pretend it can’t happen under PR is an outright lie. It has happened.

I don’t think a 5% threshold is as unattainable as some would suggest. In most arguments they hold up fringe candidates that run in a handful of tidings. If however there is a chance of gaining a seat or gaining Party status by gaining two seats I think you’ll see a change. I would not be surprised to see a Vancouver Isalnd Party regionally. Provincially if a fringe Party could field candidates in a large number of tidings, 5% could be easily attainable.

You could have just ended with "I agree the ****'s won't likely take over". As soon as you added the 'but' you lost me. The ****'s are not going to take over! The ****'s are not going to take over! The ****'s are not going to take over!

In the last provincial election there were close to 2M votes I believe. For a **** party to even win a seat they would need 5% of that or 100,000 votes!!! Do you really think their are 100,000 **** party voters in BC? If you look at the last federal election there were some 20+ fringe parties on the ballots and their total cumulative vote was still less that 1% between all 20 parties. Just because there are a few loud voices out there doesn't mean there are big swaths of people supporting those views, whether **** party or some other fringe.

I think it’s great to hear people debating this issue, I just wish the process was not so rushed, given its results won’t come into being effect until 2021.I wish a non partisan clear choice had been offered with all the details worked out. As it stands I can’t support it.

Agree that it's great to hear some civil debate on an important issue. I don't think it's rushed as it was pretty clearly laid out in both the green and ndp campaign platforms (also in the fed liberals but JT sh*t the bed on that one).

 

[GLG]

The evidence is clear. Canada needs electoral reform
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-the-evidence-is-clear-canada-needs-electoral-reform/

ED BROADBENT AND HUGH SEGAL
CONTRIBUTED TO THE GLOBE AND MAIL
PUBLISHED OCTOBER 9, 2018

Ed Broadbent is chair of the Broadbent Institute. Hugh Segal is an author, former senator, and principal of Massey College

Aside from the ascendance of newer political parties at the expense of those more established, one of the most significant aspects of Monday’s election in Quebec is what it may mean for electoral reform across the country.

Three of the four parties now represented in the National Assembly, including François Legault’s Coalition Avenir Québec, who will now form a majority government, have signed an agreement declaring that they will support changing the province’s voting system from the first-past-the-post model to a proportional system before the next election, and do so without a referendum.
Mr. Legault now has the clearest of mandates to implement this commitment.


Meanwhile, in Prince Edward Island, the birthplace of Confederation, the legislature has decided to conduct a referendum on the question of proportional representation in concert with the next provincial election, which needs to be held in the next year. As a possible foreshadowing of the result, in 2016 a majority of Islanders voted in favour of a proportional voting system in a non-binding plebiscite.

This month and next, British Columbians will be voting in a provincewide, mail-in ballot referendum as to whether to move to a proportional voting system in time for the next election.
Within the next year, therefore, we may see proportional representation take root in three provinces.

Both of us, despite very different partisan perspectives, have been long-standing supporters of a proportional voting system for Canada – one in which the number of seats a party gets in the legislature corresponds with its popular vote. Indeed, the vast majority of industrialized countries have long used this system. The fact that Canada still uses an archaic first-past-the-post system, dating from before Confederation, is increasingly anomalous in the world. Even Britain, whose system is the basis of our own, now uses proportional representation for elections in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.
The imperative of moving to proportional representation is neither a right-wing nor a left-wing point of view. It’s simply democratic common sense. And recent Canadian election results underline the urgency of getting a move-on.

In first-past-the-post elections, the candidate with the most votes in a riding wins. This worked fine when we had a two-party system. But in most cases, provincially and federally, we now have a multitude of parties running candidates. This means with first-past-the-post it’s possible for a party to capture a riding with less than a third of the votes cast. The votes of the majority who supported other parties will count for nothing. This is a key contributor to people not voting. In a proportional system, every vote will be taken into account equally.

Increasingly – as in Quebec on Monday and in Ontario earlier this year – parties with less than 40 per cent of the vote are forming governments with a majority of the seats. In British Columbia, the governing party even won with fewer votes than the Opposition.
In a particularly perverse example, in last month’s New Brunswick election, the Liberal Party won 37.8 per cent of the vote in a five-party race, but took one less seat than the Progressive Conservative Party, who won only 31.9 per cent of the vote.

What used to be unusual occurrences in our system – minority governments – are fast becoming the norm both provincially and federally. Three of the past five federal elections have produced minority governments. With a first-past-the-post electoral system, this can be a recipe for increasing instability.

The reason for this is that such a system exaggerates the effects of even tiny swings in voting: Just a few votes in a single riding can be the difference between a majority and a minority government.
As a consequence, parties that find themselves in a minority situation often engage in a constant game of “chicken,” continually jockeying for advantage with an eye to a snap election. In proportional systems, such gamesmanship is rare. A small change in the vote for a party only results in a small change in the number of seats. There’s no point in triggering a snap election. So people get on with governing. And, knowing a number of parties are likely to be elected causes leaders to be more collaborative and less confrontational with each other. This makes for better government.

The evidence of the past few months is clear. Given the realities of Canadian voting trends, converting our provincial and federal electoral systems to proportional ones needs to be an immediate priority. We hope that Quebec, B.C. and PEI get the ball rolling and we look forward to seeing other Canadian provinces and the federal level following their example as soon as possible.

 

[Aces]

The evidence is clear. Canada needs electoral reform
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-the-evidence-is-clear-canada-needs-electoral-reform/

ED BROADBENT AND HUGH SEGAL
CONTRIBUTED TO THE GLOBE AND MAIL
PUBLISHED OCTOBER 9, 2018

Ed Broadbent is chair of the Broadbent Institute. Hugh Segal is an author, former senator, and principal of Massey College

Aside from the ascendance of newer political parties at the expense of those more established, one of the most significant aspects of Monday’s election in Quebec is what it may mean for electoral reform across the country.

Three of the four parties now represented in the National Assembly, including François Legault’s Coalition Avenir Québec, who will now form a majority government, have signed an agreement declaring that they will support changing the province’s voting system from the first-past-the-post model to a proportional system before the next election, and do so without a referendum.
Mr. Legault now has the clearest of mandates to implement this commitment.


Meanwhile, in Prince Edward Island, the birthplace of Confederation, the legislature has decided to conduct a referendum on the question of proportional representation in concert with the next provincial election, which needs to be held in the next year. As a possible foreshadowing of the result, in 2016 a majority of Islanders voted in favour of a proportional voting system in a non-binding plebiscite.

This month and next, British Columbians will be voting in a provincewide, mail-in ballot referendum as to whether to move to a proportional voting system in time for the next election.
Within the next year, therefore, we may see proportional representation take root in three provinces.

Both of us, despite very different partisan perspectives, have been long-standing supporters of a proportional voting system for Canada – one in which the number of seats a party gets in the legislature corresponds with its popular vote. Indeed, the vast majority of industrialized countries have long used this system. The fact that Canada still uses an archaic first-past-the-post system, dating from before Confederation, is increasingly anomalous in the world. Even Britain, whose system is the basis of our own, now uses proportional representation for elections in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.
The imperative of moving to proportional representation is neither a right-wing nor a left-wing point of view. It’s simply democratic common sense. And recent Canadian election results underline the urgency of getting a move-on.

In first-past-the-post elections, the candidate with the most votes in a riding wins. This worked fine when we had a two-party system. But in most cases, provincially and federally, we now have a multitude of parties running candidates. This means with first-past-the-post it’s possible for a party to capture a riding with less than a third of the votes cast. The votes of the majority who supported other parties will count for nothing. This is a key contributor to people not voting. In a proportional system, every vote will be taken into account equally.

Increasingly – as in Quebec on Monday and in Ontario earlier this year – parties with less than 40 per cent of the vote are forming governments with a majority of the seats. In British Columbia, the governing party even won with fewer votes than the Opposition.
In a particularly perverse example, in last month’s New Brunswick election, the Liberal Party won 37.8 per cent of the vote in a five-party race, but took one less seat than the Progressive Conservative Party, who won only 31.9 per cent of the vote.

What used to be unusual occurrences in our system – minority governments – are fast becoming the norm both provincially and federally. Three of the past five federal elections have produced minority governments. With a first-past-the-post electoral system, this can be a recipe for increasing instability.

The reason for this is that such a system exaggerates the effects of even tiny swings in voting: Just a few votes in a single riding can be the difference between a majority and a minority government.
As a consequence, parties that find themselves in a minority situation often engage in a constant game of “chicken,” continually jockeying for advantage with an eye to a snap election. In proportional systems, such gamesmanship is rare. A small change in the vote for a party only results in a small change in the number of seats. There’s no point in triggering a snap election. So people get on with governing. And, knowing a number of parties are likely to be elected causes leaders to be more collaborative and less confrontational with each other. This makes for better government.

The evidence of the past few months is clear. Given the realities of Canadian voting trends, converting our provincial and federal electoral systems to proportional ones needs to be an immediate priority. We hope that Quebec, B.C. and PEI get the ball rolling and we look forward to seeing other Canadian provinces and the federal level following their example as soon as possible.

You lost me @ Ed Broadbent

 

[tincan]

As shown earlier in the thread, there is PR support from key leaders of all parties. So if Broadbent scares you off, just google:

-Christy Clark supports Proportional Representation
-Harper's chief Guy Giorno of staff supports PR
-Andrew Coyne (national post right-leaning commentator) supports PR
-President of Conservative Party of BC supports PR
-etc, etc.

This should not be a left/right thing and for those turning it into that should consider the actual evidence of PR systems worldwide and hopefully see how they tend to move countries in the right direction in terms of having a healthy democracy.

You lost me @ Ed Broadbent

 

[california]

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.

Are you saying boondoggle projects will not get built with PR? Small parties must often be bought off for support with their pet projects. I think a green/NDP coalition is just as able to build a fast ferry type debacle as the NDP alone. PR is not a panacea to remove wasteful spending.

 

[tincan]

It certainly will not eliminate all wasteful spending I will grant you that. It will however, cut down on the approvals of and subsequent cancellations of major projects as, under PR, decisions to go ahead with any given project will be done through more consensus building. Under FPTP, a party X with 37% of popular vote can decide to ram through a whole bunch of projects that it's party supports (bike lanes, pipelines, transit, bridges, etc.) only to have the next gov't (Party Y, perhaps elected with a whopping 39% of popular vote) with opposite views go ahead and spend time and money cancelling Party X projects and implementing their own. Next election, Party X is back in power and the cycle continues.

Under PR, a party that gets 37% of the popular vote would not be able to ram any projects through with much broader support, perhaps from Party Y or perhaps from other parties that get the cumulative total well over 50%. When major projects/decisions are made more collaboratively they will stick around longer as they better represent the views of the majority of the public. This is a HUGE benefit of PR systems!

Are you saying boondoggle projects will not get built with PR? Small parties must often be bought off for support with their pet projects. I think a green/NDP coalition is just as able to build a fast ferry type debacle as the NDP alone. PR is not a panacea to remove wasteful spending.

 

[jasonj]

I wish a non partisan clear choice had been offered with all the details worked out.

PR is not a partisan issue and neither are the choices. PR is/was supported by Gordon Campbell, Christy Clark from BC Libs, and the current BC NDP, BC Greens and BC Conservatives and many other politicians of all stripes across Canada.

Each choice has the same fundamental principle of having %votes = %seats. This concept is not partisan.

Each PR choice is a different way of achieving this and each choice was not invented by the NDP or Greens. Here is a rundown:

-Dual Member Proportional (DMP):
A "Made in Canada" solution invented in 2013 by Sean Graham while a graduate student at University of Alberta. It's not used anywhere yet but was invented specifically to achieve PR while also ensuring that every member represents a specific geographic riding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-member_proportional_representation
https://theprovince.com/opinion/op-ed/sean-graham-dual-member-proportional-is-best-for-b-c

-Mixed Member Proportional (MMP):
Was initially adopted for West Germany in 1949 and has been adopted in numerous other jurisdictions world wide. Achieves PR by having two votes: one for local candidate and second for a party.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-member_proportional_representation

-Rural Urban Proportional (RUP) :
Uses STV for urban/suburban ridings and MMP for smaller rural ridings. The early STV system was invented by the British in 1857 and has been used throughout the British Empire and beyond including Ireland, Australia and US municipalities. MMP is the same system as listed above for rural ridings. The combination of the two was proposed in 2016 by Canada's former chief electoral officer Jean-Pierre Kingsley.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural–urban_proportional_representation

Again these choices are not partisan and should be judged on their own merit. All of them will achieve PR which addresses the fundamental problem with FPTP.

 

[wildmanyeah]

You guys are making PR as this Utopian voting system. The fact is it results in coalitions like the one we currently have.

If PR worked out as you described we would have the liberals in charge and then when it came time to vote on bills they would work with the NDP or greens to get legislation though with broad support.

That is not the way it turned out instead greens/NDP made a coalition and made a bunch of deals all wrapped up in a non confidence agreement. Is that agreement even public?

 

[GLG]

You lost me @ Ed Broadbent

Ok I understand. What perked my interest in reading it was the second name Hugh Segal. Interesting fella that has been around for a very long time in Conservative circles. I have been following politics for a long time and always paid attention to what he said. A principled man that stayed true to his conservative values. Something that I can respect, not like these modern ones that seem to blow depending on the wind.

 

[tincan]

It (PR) is not a utopian voting system.... it is just a much, much, much better system than the one we currently have.

It is impossible to compare coalitions we have under FPTP to ones we might have under a PR system because under a PR system there would be 2 serious and immediate changes:

1) voters would actually get to vote for the person/party they want to support! Imagine that, no more strategic voting. This would change the popular vote for each party and also change some locally elected MLA's (most likely)
2) there would be (most likely) a couple 'new' parties to vote for. These new parties would take some of the votes away from our existing big parties but it's tough to predict how that would look.

You guys are making PR as this Utopian voting system. The fact is it results in coalitions like the one we currently have.

If PR worked out as you described we would have the liberals in charge and then when it came time to vote on bills they would work with the NDP or greens to get legislation though with broad support.

That is not the way it turned out instead greens/NDP made a coalition and made a bunch of deals all wrapped up in a non confidence agreement. Is that agreement even public?

 

[GLG]

You guys are making PR as this Utopian voting system. The fact is it results in coalitions like the one we currently have.

If PR worked out as you described we would have the liberals in charge and then when it came time to vote on bills they would work with the NDP or greens to get legislation though with broad support.

That is not the way it turned out instead greens/NDP made a coalition and made a bunch of deals all wrapped up in a non confidence agreement. Is that agreement even public?

Have you not been reading the NO side information. The deal is a backroom secret or so we are told. Truth is it's available all over the net but you need to be able to use a search engine or request a copy by mail. Your in luck though I know how to search so here is a link for you.
https://www.scribd.com/document/349...C-Green-Caucus-and-the-BC-New-Democrat-Caucus

 

[GLG]

It (PR) is not a utopian voting system.... it is just a much, much, much better system than the one we currently have.

It is impossible to compare coalitions we have under FPTP to ones we might have under a PR system because under a PR system there would be 2 serious and immediate changes:

1) voters would actually get to vote for the person/party they want to support! Imagine that, no more strategic voting. This would change the popular vote for each party and also change some locally elected MLA's (most likely)
2) there would be (most likely) a couple 'new' parties to vote for. These new parties would take some of the votes away from our existing big parties but it's tough to predict how that would look.

One thing that would not have happened is this from Courtenay / Comox in the last election. Would PR change the final results? Not sure as it's hard to tell how many people that voted would not have to vote strategically.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/courtenay-comox-final-results-1.4129821

B.C. Liberals fall short of majority following final vote count
Liberals have first opportunity to form government, but party is one seat short of a majority

Liberals lost this riding by nine votes and we know the rest of the story.

 

[GLG]

Or how about this one.

Glen Clark led the NDP to the 1996 election win: 39 seats, with just over 39% of the popular vote.
The Gordon Campbell-led Liberals remained in opposition, with 33 seats, despite a higher popular vote (almost 42%).

 

[halimark]

I have trusted this coalition Govn to many times already and been stabbed as all outdoorsman in BC have. Now I am asked to trust them again after I cast my ballot?? NOT ON MY LIFE. How quickly all forget, yes the people listed above spoke for PR, did they speak to and support what is proposed now on the ballot? Why the secrecy with the details, specifics??? Stinks to me, smells like another grizzly promise, so my vote is cast as are all members of household, I never want another coalition like we have now, that's more probable with PR. Now back outdoors, ruts starting.

HM

 

[fish brain]

I have trusted this coalition Govn to many times already and been stabbed as all outdoorsman in BC have. Now I am asked to trust them again after I cast my ballot?? NOT ON MY LIFE. How quickly all forget, yes the people listed above spoke for PR, did they speak to and support what is proposed now on the ballot? Why the secrecy with the details, specifics??? Stinks to me, smells like another grizzly promise, so my vote is cast as are all members of household, I never want another coalition like we have now, that's more probable with PR. Now back outdoors, ruts starting.

HM

You are NOT voting for the current government when voting for PR. You are voting for FUTURE governments. I haven't run the numbers, but it is unlikely we would have the government we have now if we had PR in the last election

 

[halimark]

I understand I voted for the process for a 2021? gov, but really we ARE voting for current gov and their future chance at Gov. WHO will set the lines, make the rules and situate the estimate for themselves on the answers they refuse to currently provide? I don't see PR helping Gov who historically had majorities before. It would be different if all answers were provided, questions answered and the WHAT we are voting on were provided BEFORE we vote. I am reading lots of BS without real substantiation and answers. If it is not broke don't fix it and yes lets hope the current Gov is a once in a lifetime snake in the grass event. Keep trusting and go ahead and sign the blank cheques for coalitions. Not me.

HM

 

[wildmanyeah]

Part of me thinks the NDP botched this because they like the current system and only did it because the greens wanted it.

Maybe I’ll vote for it I’m now, good argument here has made me undecided on this topic.

I voted for PR last time but I hoped that groups like the greens would have more of a say and drive more environment agenda.

Now that I’ve seen what their say is about meh lol

 

[UkeeDreamin]

A lot of commentary on here about the fears or evils of coalition governments and yet it is the FPTP that resulted in our current Provincial coalition and two of the last 4 federal governments in a minority situation, which essentially requires coalition governance. I wonder if most folks actually know what they want vs simply being inherently fearful of change?

I’d also argue that the last two minority federal governments did a pretty good job of balancing the needs of the country and governing responsibly while Harpers majority was far too anti-environment/pro-development for about half the population and now Trudeau’s majority is far too socially liberal for the other half. As one of the common themes in this thread is lack of trust of governments and politicians, don’t we want them to be forced to keep each other somewhat honest?

Cheers!

Ukee

Ps - damn hard typing with trick or treaters at the door every few minutes! LOL

 

[fish brain]

I understand I voted for the process for a 2021? gov, but really we ARE voting for current gov and their future chance at Gov. WHO will set the lines, make the rules and situate the estimate for themselves on the answers they refuse to currently provide? I don't see PR helping Gov who historically had majorities before. It would be different if all answers were provided, questions answered and the WHAT we are voting on were provided BEFORE we vote. I am reading lots of BS without real substantiation and answers. If it is not broke don't fix it and yes lets hope the current Gov is a once in a lifetime snake in the grass event. Keep trusting and go ahead and sign the blank cheques for coalitions. Not me.

HM

In my opinion we are quickly sliding toward highly partizan politics in Canada. We only need to look at the dumpster fire down south of us to see here that will lead. That's whats broke