639 replies to this topic

[Mike K.]

Foreign Policy has a great take on Sweden's ungovernable situation. Regardless of what the pollsters published, the rise of the Sweden Democrats was swift and its effect on the political reality of the country tremendous. The concern now is the party will continue to rise in popularity.

 

https://foreignpolic...n-ungovernable/

 

 

I have also seen zero sources behind your claim that they did so well that they didn't have enough member to fill their seats...do you have a source for that statement? There was no doubt a significant rise from the right, but I'm not sure you have all the facts straight here.

 

If you can't view the English version, have your browser translate it for you: https://www.svt.se/n...runtom-i-landet

 

Dodgy translation but here you go:

This term of office seems to be a series of empty chairs right from the start. At least 22 chairs will be left empty in 17 municipalities, showing SVT's review of the election results. In all cases, it is the Swedish Democrats who have empty chairs from the start, thus not being able to use the mandate given by the voters.

 

"Yes, it's because you have more mandate than you have candidates," says Hans-Ivar Swärd, electoral prosecutor at the Valuation on the situation.

[shoeflack]

Foreign Policy has a great take on Sweden's ungovernable situation. Regardless of what the pollsters published, the rise of the Sweden Democrats was swift and its effect on the political reality of the country tremendous. The concern now is the party will continue to rise in popularity.

 

https://foreignpolic...n-ungovernable/

 

 

 

If you can't view the English version, have your browser translate it for you: https://www.svt.se/n...runtom-i-landet

 

Dodgy translation but here you go:

 

Ah yes, very good. I thought you were specifically referencing the national election. Here's a quick English article that speaks to their shortfall of bodies following municipal elections.

 

https://euobserver.com/tickers/142915

[Hotel Mike]

We have a pretty simple and straightforward system now. If you can convince enough of your neighbours in your riding, that you would be their best representative, they elect you. Maybe they like your party or leader. Maybe they like you. You are now beholden to them...all of your constituents. If they don't like the job you do, they can turf you next time out. 

 

If the people of any riding were to elect a neo-Nazi say, or a virulent anti-immigration or anti-abortion candidate, then woe to us all. That would mean that the majority in that area want such a representative. It's unlikely, thankfully at least in BC. But under PR, it's a guarantee that parties with special anti-interests will form and then claim their percentage of representatives. No thanks. I'd be happy to keep them out of government by depending on the majority of my fellow citizens to vote for our representative. We don't want parties choosing the people who will make our laws. We get to do that.

[Mike K.]

Ah yes, very good. I thought you were specifically referencing the national election. Here's a quick English article that speaks to their shortfall of bodies following municipal elections.

 

https://euobserver.com/tickers/142915

 

You call that an article? It's barely a paragraph!

[shoeflack]

You call that an article? It's barely a paragraph!

 

Well, it takes jist of the Swedish article and condenses it into English for us dummies who only know IKEA Swedish. I applaud it for that!

[Mike K.]

We have a pretty simple and straightforward system now. If you can convince enough of your neighbours in your riding, that you would be their best representative, they elect you. Maybe they like your party or leader. Maybe they like you. You are now beholden to them...all of your constituents. If they don't like the job you do, they can turf you next time out. 

 

If the people of any riding were to elect a neo-Nazi say, or a virulent anti-immigration or anti-abortion candidate, then woe to us all. That would mean that the majority in that area want such a representative. It's unlikely, thankfully at least in BC. But under PR, it's a guarantee that parties with special anti-interests will form and then claim their percentage of representatives. No thanks. I'd be happy to keep them out of government by depending on the majority of my fellow citizens to vote for our representative. We don't want parties choosing the people who will make our laws. We get to do that.

 

Those last four words give me hope that the voters in this province are wise to the scheme being pushed upon us.

 

I actually believe Horgan doesn't want PR any more than Wilkinson wants PR hence the amateur-hour roll out of the referendum, the indifference towards concerns over a system yet to be defined, the poor showing at the debate, etc. The NDP doesn't want to be in a coalition with the Greens. They want to govern with no strings attached and depending on the state of the economy in 2021 they might actually have enough of a chance to win a majority by a seat or two and will get rid of their chains.

[LeoVictoria]

PR sometimes leads to gridlock.  FPTP sometimes leads to trump.  

[Mike K.]

Perfect, let's confuse things further by comparing a two-person presidential race in the United States to an 87-riding provincial general election in Canada.

[shoeflack]

Perfect, let's confuse things further by comparing a two-person presidential race in the United States to an 87-riding provincial general election in Canada.

 

But that's all the US Presidential system is...whomever gets the most of the 538 electoral votes wins. Same things with BC, whomever gets the most of the 87 ridings wins. They're very comparable.

[lanforod]

PR sometimes leads to gridlock.  FPTP sometimes leads to trump.  

 

More likely: PR sometimes leads to gridlock AND Isitt, FPTP sometimes leads to Isitt. BC is far more likely to elect a far left radical than a far right one.

[nagel]

But that's all the US Presidential system is...whomever gets the most of the 538 electoral votes wins. Same things with BC, whomever gets the most of the 87 ridings wins. They're very comparable.

Sort of correct, except at least FPTP (which I don't want to keep) is based on pure popular vote, not some made up BS that has twice in recent history elected a president who lost the popular vote, which is totally asinine in a two party system.

[Mike K.]

^^^Comparable like a tiger is to an elephant, in that they both have four legs, two eyes and a tail.

[Mike K.]

Sort of correct, except at least FPTP (which I don't want to keep) is based on pure popular vote, not some made up BS that has twice in recent history elected a president who lost the popular vote, which is totally asinine in a two party system.

Two states elect their representatives via PR and 24 states do not require the vote to coincide with the will of the electorate.

Electoral college votes are also split in such a way as to give a more equitable voice to smaller states. If the popular vote alone decided the fate of a presidential election larger states would have political influence over smaller states.

But that’s neither here nor there. The American presidential election ultimately chooses one individual. Not 87 or however many we’ll end up with if PR is implemented in BC.

[rjag]

PR sometimes leads to gridlock. FPTP sometimes leads to trump.

Yup and it gave Ontario Wynne and Alberta Klein.... both opposites who would you rather have had? And seriously if PR was in Ontario today there would probably be a coalition of Wynne and Horvath which would have been the death knell for a once great economy

[Bingo]

    Elections BC says the number of ballots received in BC's electoral reform referendum are now at  just over 682-thousand, or about 21% of ballots returned. 

That number doesn't reflect the number received by Canada Post, but have not yet delivered to Elections BC.

    The deadline to have your ballot in is 4:30pm November 30th.

     Elections BC Communications Director, Rebecca Penz, urges voters to keep in mind the rotating strikes at Canada Post, and to take measures to get your ballot in on time:

Drop off sites in Victoria:

Victoria - Elections BC (Referendum Service Office) 100 - 1112 Fort St, Victoria November 5 - 30, 8:30-4:30 Mon-Fri 

Victoria (Service BC Office) 403 - 771 Vernon Ave, Gateway Village, Victoria BC November 5 - 30, 8:30-4:30 Mon-Fri

http://www.iheartrad...at-21-1.8570606

[vortoozo]

Bingo, that number is out of date. As of this morning, it's 24%.

You can find the daily updates here: https://elections.bc...ndum-resources/

[shoeflack]

Sort of correct, except at least FPTP (which I don't want to keep) is based on pure popular vote, not some made up BS that has twice in recent history elected a president who lost the popular vote, which is totally asinine in a two party system.

 

But in the US system, it is really FPTP. If the Presidential candidate gets the most votes in a state, then they get those electoral votes. The same thing happens here, where if you get the most votes in a riding, you win that riding. Whoever wins the most ridings (or electoral votes), wins the leadership.

 

You can win the popular vote in BC and still end up with a majority government for the other team (ex: 1996 BC election -- Libs win the popular vote, NDP gets a majority government), the same way you can win the popular vote in the US and still lose the Presidency.

[rjag]

https://www.ft.com/c...f2-7574db66bcd5

 

 

 

Awakening of Spain’s far-right fringe unsettles mainstream parties

Vox leader says party’s anti-immigration ideas have become more relevant

[LeoVictoria]

Yup and it gave Ontario Wynne and Alberta Klein.... both opposites who would you rather have had? And seriously if PR was in Ontario today there would probably be a coalition of Wynne and Horvath which would have been the death knell for a once great economy

 

I want the elected representatives to reflect the votes of the people.  Simple as that.   That does not favour one party over another.  

[Mike K.]

I sat down with an acquaintance yesterday and we got to talking about PR. He’s a former UVic prof (a liberal arts department, not business, econ, etc) now retired and watching the PR saga unfold. He says he’s 100% behind FPTP and feels something is very fishy about the push for PR, with the lack of a quorum being most suspect of all.

We were also chatting with someone who took an online poll she believed was sponsored by the government which helped her identify which system most aligns with her views. When we told her the quiz was not likely to have been sanctioned by the government she was perplexed. “Who would do that?” “Yeah, well...”

There were several people there who didn’t bother responding because they weren’t aware they could “one and done.”

I honestly believe the PR options are way over most people’s heads, and when they’re told the final design of each of the three options has yet to be completed they lose interest in the process and disengage.