639 replies to this topic

[Bob Fugger]

Perhaps yes.

 

Why don't they have an option for STV province wide? Whats with the hybrid option, is there an issue with using STV in rural areas?

Because if you treat the entire province as one constituency, Vancouver.

[LJ]

The last time this was tried there was a citizens assembly that studied and looked at every option and potential pitfall and finally came up with a proposal.

It passed by 59% but failed to reach the 60% threshold and was canned.

 

This time we have couple of wonks coming up with whatever works best for their party and we are supposed to vote for it?

 

I don't think so.

[Mike K.]

CFAX had a UBC prof on today to explain the three PR options on the table.

He could only get through one of the options after the host put the breaks on the explanation and asked that he re-explain the whole thing. Yikes.

[Cats4Hire]

I don't really get why people want PR yet complain it's too hard to understand. Unless we want to get rid of ridings (which would be a terrible idea federally and probably just as bad provincially) you can't have PR without it being complicated. 

[Mike K.]

Can you imagine every government moving forward operating like the GreeNDP, where two “leaders” work to appease each other while the tax payer is left wondering what’s really going on?

The fact that Horgan and Weaver call their first year in power as “stable” is a head scratcher given the instability and melee we’ve seen over the last twelve months. Every day feels like Election Day is just around the corner and the two party leaders are trying to convince us that this form of government is healthy for our province and PR will help us see more governance the likes they’ve exhibited?

No thank you. First Past the Post is perfectly fine and has served us very well. There’s no need to create a mountain out of a mole hill solely for the purposes of giving fringe parties more elbow room so either of the two big parties can wrangle power away from their (more popular) opponent.

[rjag]

I don't really get why people want PR yet complain it's too hard to understand. Unless we want to get rid of ridings (which would be a terrible idea federally and probably just as bad provincially) you can't have PR without it being complicated. 

 

Because they are hearing from folks like Sonia Furstenau that your vote is wasted under the current system, when a party can form government with 40% of the vote and your vote should count always...except nobody's vote is wasted under fptp. That 40% was the 1 party that garnered the most of all the votes.

 

Under the proposed systems we will be stuck with the type of disruptive circus we have witnessed this past year. The present system works, if you get tired of the ruling party you vote them out. It works.

 

The only electoral reform I would like to see is a direct vote for Premier and PM similar to Municipal elections.

[Cats4Hire]

Can you imagine every government moving forward operating like the GreeNDP, where two “leaders” work to appease each other while the tax payer is left wondering what’s really going on?

idk New Zealand seems to be doing alright. Same with Germany. Both use MMP which is one of the options here.

 

Because they are hearing from folks like Sonia Furstenau that your vote is wasted under the current system, when a party can form government with 40% of the vote and your vote should count always...except nobody's vote is wasted under fptp. That 40% was the 1 party that garnered the most of all the votes.

 

In a 2 party system I agree. The problem is say the Trudeau government, they got 39.5% of the popular vote and I think around 60% of the seats. Sure they got more votes than anyone else but some of the ridings their MPs won probably had 6 or 7 candidates (or even more, my riding had 6 and we have NDP) meaning if it was a close race they could have got their seat with like 20% of the vote meaning 80% of the people did not want them and did in fact waste their vote. fptp is more than anyone else not the most. (note I'm using federal because there's more parties and I took a polisci class before the provincial election so all our case studies were based around that and I know it. Personally I would prefer federal reform unless the BC Conservatives make a comeback or another party is able to rise here as 3 does seem kind of small for PR).

[rjag]

idk New Zealand seems to be doing alright. Same with Germany. Both use MMP which is one of the options here.

 

In a 2 party system I agree. The problem is say the Trudeau government, they got 39.5% of the popular vote and I think around 60% of the seats. Sure they got more votes than anyone else but some of the ridings their MPs won probably had 6 or 7 candidates (or even more, my riding had 6 and we have NDP) meaning if it was a close race they could have got their seat with like 20% of the vote meaning 80% of the people did not want them and did in fact waste their vote. fptp is more than anyone else not the most. (note I'm using federal because there's more parties and I took a polisci class before the provincial election so all our case studies were based around that and I know it. Personally I would prefer federal reform unless the BC Conservatives make a comeback or another party is able to rise here as 3 does seem kind of small for PR).

 

And then theres Italy that uses 1/3 fptp and 2/3 prop rep. They've had 65 governments since 1945 compared to the UK 25. Which one do you think has been more stable?

 

I think there are pros and cons for both systems, I'm more concerned about how this current crew in BC are really stacking the odds and moving the goalposts....Horgan will become Weavers permanent puppet

[spanky123]

Because they are hearing from folks like Sonia Furstenau that your vote is wasted under the current system, when a party can form government with 40% of the vote and your vote should count always...except nobody's vote is wasted under fptp. That 40% was the 1 party that garnered the most of all the votes.

 

Under the proposed systems we will be stuck with the type of disruptive circus we have witnessed this past year. The present system works, if you get tired of the ruling party you vote them out. It works.

 

The only electoral reform I would like to see is a direct vote for Premier and PM similar to Municipal elections.

 

 

What many people are missing is that the proposed system will actually be more restrictive than what we have now. The reason being that an MLA cannot be elected unless their 'party' receives more than 5% of the total vote across the Province. That would eliminate any independent candidate (ie Vicki Huntington who by all accounts did a great job) and ensure that we only have 3 parties. All the proposed changes would really do is try and redistribute the MLAs to favour certain parties and urban centres.

[Cats4Hire]

And then theres Italy that uses 1/3 fptp and 2/3 prop rep. They've had 65 governments since 1945 compared to the UK 25. Which one do you think has been more stable?

 

I think there are pros and cons for both systems, I'm more concerned about how this current crew in BC are really stacking the odds and moving the goalposts....Horgan will become Weavers permanent puppet

I'm sure if I cared enough I could find countries with fptp that have had constant change ups (hell Harper seemed to enjoy calling one every 3 years for a while there) where as NZ has fixed election years and has never collapsed. 

 

What many people are missing is that the proposed system will actually be more restrictive than what we have now. The reason being that an MLA cannot be elected unless their 'party' receives more than 5% of the total vote across the Province. That would eliminate any independent candidate (ie Vicki Huntington who by all accounts did a great job) and ensure that we only have 3 parties. All the proposed changes would really do is try and redistribute the MLAs to favour certain parties and urban centres.

The point of any PR is to encourage smaller parties to form and stand a chance though. If we do switch to PR and don't get more than 3 parties the system has failed. 

[Bob Fugger]

Because they are hearing from folks like Sonia Furstenau that your vote is wasted under the current system, when a party can form government with 40% of the vote and your vote should count always...

Speaking of the insufferable Ms. Furstenau, check out this bon mot in today's TC:

 

"Sonia Furstenau, Green Party MLA for Cowichan Valley, said the B.C. Greens favour electoral reform and want to see a system where people vote for the party they want, not strategically against the party they don’t want."

 

But in this referendum, she's asking us to vote strategically against a status quo option, rather than for a particular iteration of PR.  HASHTAG IRONY.

[spanky123]

I'm sure if I cared enough I could find countries with fptp that have had constant change ups (hell Harper seemed to enjoy calling one every 3 years for a while there) where as NZ has fixed election years and has never collapsed. 

 

The point of any PR is to encourage smaller parties to form and stand a chance though. If we do switch to PR and don't get more than 3 parties the system has failed. 

 

But if the threshold is 5% of the Provincial popular vote then what smaller party would ever have a chance? Heck it was only the last election (I believe) where the Greens broke 10%.

[Bob Fugger]

But if the threshold is 5% of the Provincial popular vote then what smaller party would ever have a chance? Heck it was only the last election (I believe) where the Greens broke 10%.

I think what would happen is that the big tent parties (the free market coalition on the right and the progressive union on the left) would splinter off at the fringes, feeding those other parties.  So you'd get some disenchanted NDPers, who are for workers rights, damn the torpedoes, break off and join the Communist Part of BC.  Some of the Liberal Party of BC's base would feed into the Conservative Party of BC or the Christian Heritage Party of BC.  Heck, I'd think that under PR, the Libertarian Party of BC would get a vote.

 

You would also get new, regional parties.  One of the only upsides of PR will be the emergence of the VIP - Vancouver Island Party.  You heard it here first: consider this the announcement of my VIP candidacy.  I studied political science in Quebec, so I know exactly how to hold the rest of the Province hostage to Vancouver Island's particular set of needs.

 

You know who loses (you know, aside from the entire electorate?)?  Independent candidates.  You will never see another Independent candidate elected in BC.

[Cats4Hire]

But if the threshold is 5% of the Provincial popular vote then what smaller party would ever have a chance? Heck it was only the last election (I believe) where the Greens broke 10%.

The thing is will people vote the same way? That's the problem I always have with comparing fptp results with potential PR. If smaller parties have a chance of getting in people wouldn't vote "against" anyone (NDP/Green getting in was totally a protest against Cristy not a vote for them) and if Federal goes back to Conservative that will be a protest against Trudeau since no one even knows about Schear.

As I said though. I think fptp is the best for a 2 party system and I consider BC a 2 party system. Greens only got 3 seats this time because of protest votes and if next election is fptp I would be shocked if Green didn't lose the two they gained this time (I say this as someone who became a big fan of MMP after studying a number of systems and it's one of the choices) I just want to try and help people understand how the systems work in case it turns out they actually do like one the government just did a very poor job explaining it.

[spanky123]

^ Again though, a VIP (party) would require like 30% of the vote on Vancouver Island to carry the minimum 5% of the Provincial vote that it would require to elect an MLA. Wouldn't that then be a fiasco, a local party winning a huge percentage of the local vote but not being able to have it's candidate declared the MLA because it failed to reach the 5% threshold as a party and thus a candidate with a much lower percentage vote is chosen!

[Cats4Hire]

In MMP they'd probably get seats anyway. Here's a pretty good video from New Zealand explaining the system https://youtu.be/8Uk44aykGg4

[Mike K.]

Over the long term the NDP is the likeliest party to fracture if PR is introduced.

They’ve alienated their historic base (blue collar and resource industry workers) in favour of urban environmentalists. The party is at war with itself and it’s just a matter of time before their MLA’s start knocking on doors or a faction unites to represent the party’s historic roots.

[Nparker]

I was on the fence about electoral reform since I find all the major parties pretty reprehensible. However, since the issue seems to have raised the hackles of numerous folks here on VV and it potentially might mean I never have to again hear how a party that gets elected with less than 50% of the popular vote has a "mandate from the people", then I think I know how I am leaning in the referendum.

[lanforod]

I hadn't thought of independent candidates in regards to the 5% rule. The solution there is to except independent candidates from that rule (but also mandate they must remain independent for their term if elected).

[AndrewReeve]

CFAX had a UBC prof on today to explain the three PR options on the table.

He could only get through one of the options after the host put the breaks on the explanation and asked that he re-explain the whole thing. Yikes.

 

To be fair, MMP is the only one of the three options a Political Science Prof would be intimately familiar with. The other two have never been used anywhere in the world.

 

DMP was made up by a math student in Alberta in 2013 and RUP was straight up invented by PR Advocates. It doesn't even have a wikipedia page yet.