Electoral reform in BC

[qjdb]

On the web-page that was in the first post on this topic, there is a spot there to ask for a copy of the report that is due out in December.  I just ordered one, and it sounds like you all are interested in it too.  It doesn't say that you have to live in BC to get one.

Quentin

 

[Kirkhill]

Hence why I am in fundamental agreement with the Republican principle of Checks and Balances.

Infanteer:

It is not a Republican principle.  Large R of small r, American or otherwise.

Magna Carta, Runnymede, King John and the Barons 1215, all that sort of stuff, was the imposition by the Barons of checks on the Monarch (Monarch = Government).  It was preceded by the Roman Catholic Church imposing their restrictions on the King (made councillors, granted lands, courts and taxing powers) and it was followed by an ever increasing number of people that imposed their checks and balances on the Monarch: Large land holders, small holders, merchants, the educated, labourers, all men, women.  Usually the "ear" of the Monarch and squeezing into a seat at the table required force or at least public disorder and threats.  Very little was willingly ceded.

Thing is, most people asking for the Monarch's ear supported the Monarch's continued existence.  Asking for the Monarch's head was considered counter-productive, and proved to be so, at least in Britain and arguably also in France and Russia. 

Cheers.

 

[Infanteer]

Actually, I think it is a republican principle.  Republican doesn't necessarily mean French or American.  Much of what I equate republicanism to be stems from the Classical philosophers.  It seems to me that many of the ideas that developed in the European Renaissance concerning the state and citzenship resulted as an infusion of rediscovered Classical ideas with notions that grew around the dominance of the Church in Europe after the fall of Rome.

I believe much of those concepts from English history you allude to find their root in the ideas of the Roman Republic and its Greek (Aristotelian) antecedents.  Diffusion of powers or "checks and balances" was found in the Roman notion that the state was best served when power was shared between monarchical, aristocratic, and democratic powers.  You could translate the notion of King, Parliament and the People into the Cursus Honourum and Senatus Populusque Romanus.  Even the term "Commonwealth" is a direct translation from the Latin res publica.

 

[Kirkhill]

Infanteer:

I think that the notions of democracy and limits on the Monarch in Britain came from native soil and were not imported.  Classical influences on British thought weren't particularly common until the Enlightenment in the 1700's (rising largely out of Glasgow and Edinburgh because the Scottish population was supplied with a free education from the 1500s in support of ability for each person to be able to understand the bible for themselves and that required learning latin and greek).

The Celtic Monarchs were not Kings of Land (as in the King of England) but were Kings of People (as in the King of Scots).  The Celtic Monarchs came from proven bloodlines, meaning they were of the unaldulterated version of the pure blood of their people, but the ruled at the pleasure of the sub-kings and ultimately the people.  Of course elections were often decided by the sword but the principle is there was no divine right to rule over people or land and no primo geniture.  The powers of the King were held in check and tribal councils were important bodies.

The Danes and ultimately the Norman Kings couldn't claim right to rule by blood so they claimed right by force.  This claim was ultimately supported by the Catholic Church. They justified the forceful conversion of the pagans (non-Roman christians in some cases) by the faithful Normans and in return gained the King's ear, lands and taxes. 

The locals had no particular reason to accept their loss of control over their Kings and disputed the Norman Catholic right for centuries.  I believe that if you track your way through all the dynastic and civil wars of Britain you will find that essential dynamic present throughout.  Other causes may have come and gone and overlaid the discussion but that to me is the reason that Britain looked to check the power of the King.

It was not so much they were opposed to a King per se,  they were opposed to Kings that were not their kings (not sharing their blood) and to kngs that did not listen to their people.

The Anti-King Republican spirit that arose on the continent out of the Renaissance study of the Classics and the subsequent continental version of the Enlightenment appear to me to be different.  Perhaps it is due to the Island aspect of Britain buffering change.  Britain was invaded but in waves centuries apart or as slow stead incursions, drip by drip.  The peoples of the continent constantly saw their rulers change, their boundaries change on a generational basis and occasionally wholesale tidal waves of disruption.  If they ever had that personal attachment to the King that was obvious in Britain I think it could have been buried in the constant battling for power and survival.

If I think about it perhaps that is a fundamental between British conservative parliamentarianism and French radical republicanism, that basic attachment and perhaps even a personal attachment to the Monarch.  Many folks in Britain, even "anti-Monarchists" know someone of the blood, or someone who has worked for someone of the blood and feel an attachment to their history because of it, no matter how incongruous it feels when viewed rationally.  The Queen still resonates personally in the lives of many Brits.

Now for Canadians I can see there is not that personal attachment, at least not for the non-Brits and not even for all of those with Brit connections.  Especially not for the majority of Franco-Canadians.  And that is reasonable.

However, in my view, a desire to control the power of government, whether it is a monarchy, a tyranny, a democracy or anything in between does not necessarily mean that one is a Republican.  This monarchist, believes in a democratic government, held in check by the people's reps.  He does not yet wish to see the Monarchy abolished.  He is not a Republican.

 

[Storm]

Stepping back a few posts, basically the reason why I'm happy with this is not because I think it's some magical political silver bullet to solve all that ails us. Not even close.

Why I like STV is because it reduces strategic and wasted votes. You get to put the person you think will do the best job representing you as choice #1 without fear that this takes support away from your #2 pick who actually stands a chance.   Independents also stand at least half a chance in hell of getting some seats because of this. Since it can help the problem of wasted and strategic votes, hopefully some of the apathy towards the voting process will be broken. The first step to any sort of meaningful change as far as I'm concerned is an involved public that shows up at the polls.

After actually thinking about it beyond the "STV" title though, I think my initial joy was premature. I jumped the gun and didn't fully think through the consequences of having such large multimember districts. The more I think about ones with up to 7 people the more scared I get. 7 seats means each party runs 7 candidates. Add independents to this and you have easily at least 20 people (minimum) to try and learn about. This will negate a lot of the benefit to independents mentioned above, since far fewer people will bother to learn about all the candidates and will just vote by party affiliation.

Additionally, huge districts leave us with essentially a proportional system, complete with the high probability of coalitions (at least it's better than party lists though). If they really wanted to bow down to the all-popular buzzword "proportional,"   two seats per would have been plenty thanks. After a sober second thought I'm not as impressed with the proposal as I was at first, but I still think it's a step up from what we have now.

And finally,

I (until now) favored the old system because it meant less Jack Latyon's & Co. in the House. Could someone explain why 3 obviously right-wing members (Kirkhill, Brad Sallows, Storm) all support PR if it means more NDP/Greens and other left-wing nutbars elected to the House?

I'm not a big fan of PR, and hence the loss of excitement about the proposed system after time to reflect on it. While I think some - but definately not all - proportional options are better than our current system, I would prefer a single seat STV election above all other choices.

I never realized I'd exposed myself as obviously right-wing in only a couple dozen posts. I always viewed myself as a centrist leaning right   ;D. I go left quite a bit on certain issues, so my vote swings based on the important issues of the day. I guess since my net affiliation leans slightly right I can forgive you if you meant moderate right

In all honesty, as much as seeing a bunch of Laytons running around with power would scare the crap out of me, if the 45% or so of voters that aren't turning out right now all showed up and voted NDP I'd see that as an improvement. The one thing that scares me more for the future of our country than people with opinions I think are retarded are people who don't have any opinion at all.

(whew... that was a freaking novel. Either I need to start coming here more to respond in shorter messages more often, or I need to learn the skill of self-editing.)

reason for edit: it's long... I made mistakes

 

[dutchie]

I never realized I'd exposed myself as obviously right-wing in only a couple dozen posts. I always viewed myself as a centrist leaning right

Yeah, I guess I lumped you with Brad, John Galt, et al as right wing. (no offence - 'right' is right IMO). I used to consider myself quite right-wing, but now I guess I'm more right-centre (definately NOT in the Fed Liberal sense).

Anyhow, just a clarification. Carry on.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

I guess I lumped you with Brad, John Galt, et al as right wing. (no offence - 'right' is right IMO).

I'm not taking offense (& don't want to blow up the thread), but FWIW I consider myself much more of a libertarian (hence the "John Galt" moniker) than "right wing"  (generally socialists accuse libertarians of being 'right wing' on economic issues, but consevatives accuse libertarians of being 'left wing' on social issues) ...

 

[Infanteer]

Bah, right wing, left wing...don't bother trying to place yourself; trying to fit a wide variety of political viewpoints into a nice small package doesn't do any justice to the thought required to approach each issue.  This kind of thinking can be left for the ideologues..."He believes in private delivery of Health service, he obviously thinks gays need to burn in hell as well!!!"

Painting issues with a broad brush is the reason why political discourse suffers in a democracy.

 

[dutchie]

This kind of thinking can be left for the ideologues..."He believes in private delivery of Health service, he obviously thinks gays need to burn in heck as well!!!"

Agreed. Which is why you hear people say things like, "I am socially conservative, but fiscally liberal."......huh?!?!

 

[Storm]

I agree that it's kind of pointless to try and classify yourself as left or right, that's why I thought I'd poke fun at it. Secretly I was wondering if I'd said something revealing about myself or if somebody out there has literary superpowers... ever since my girlfriend told me about how at this fancy private school she went to for a few years it was expected that, given a period article that could be as inane as a private journal entry talking about the weather, they could identify the author's political bias, social status, decade the piece was written in, etc I've been kind of suspicious about how easily some people can figure me out.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I'd rather the people who don't put any particular thought into voting continue to remain at home on election days.

 

[Infanteer]

I'd rather the people who don't put any particular thought into voting continue to remain at home on election days.

Who would vote for the Marijuana Party then?

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Hey, I'm not one to try to put people into little boxes, and I wouldn't pretend that everyone in a group has the same views on everything, but it does sometimes help to understand where someone is coming from (or in the case of electoral politics, going to).

That said, my original point (which I suspect might be being misinterpreted) was that I have my own set of political views, some of which might be viewed as very "right wong" or very "left wing," depending on your perspective: most of my views tend toward the "live and let live" way of things ...

I found this interesting: http://politicalcompass.org/ (I came in at +9.25/-2.21 ... right around where Uncle Milty is ...)

 

[Infanteer]

Sounds like something one would pick up in Tailand, eh?

Just curious on what other British Columbians (or anyone else, for that matter) think about the electoral reform that we're going to be voting on next month.   Here is some info:

http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/public

I, for one, am voting NO.

Just look at the system, if you can figure it all out, than congratulations.

First off, I don't like the gerrymandering (as one critic described it) that goes about messing with the tried-and-true setup of One Riding/One Representative.  Your MP or MLA, regardless of his political party, is your representative - if they are not doing this, then perhaps we need to address political parties and how they function.

As well, I don't like the fact that your vote may or may not get siphoned off to a second or third choice.   I really want X, but because he got a certain number of votes, I actually get Y.   Who makes the decision on who gets their primary and who gets their secondary votes counted?   Seems a little fishy to me.

So, you don't want anyone but X and just put that down - problem solved, right?   Not quite - by supporting the only candidate you are interested in, it seems that you may bump someone who also voted for X down to their secondary vote of Y (who you may not really want to see in office).   Basically, by voting only for your candidate, you are giving someone you don't support more support - you are almost better off staying at home.

All in all, I don't like the system because it is too complicated.   There is something to be said for the KISS principle in our democracy - people don't really want to go and vote now, so now that they may be presented with a 6 page ballot with 30-40 candidates will encourage them to?   It is my opinion that the more complicated the process, the more liable to get FUBAR'd it becomes.

Why mess with a system that has worked for us for centuries?   It seems that electoral reform has been kickstarted due to people's dissatisfaction with politicians and politics in general.   Perhaps we should put our energy into changing the way we make our representatives accountable instead of altering the way we send idiots to their Seat.

Infaneer (says vote NO)

 

[Trinity]

Infaneer (says vote NO)

Thats great.

Now... what does Infanteer say.........

Cause i never trust that Infaneer guy... he's shifty....

 

[Dare]

Sounds like something one would pick up in Tailand, eh?

Just curious on what other British Columbians (or anyone else, for that matter) think about the electoral reform that we're going to be voting on next month.  Here is some info:

http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/public

I, for one, am voting NO.

Just look at the system, if you can figure it all out, than congratulations.

First off, I don't like the gerrymandering (as one critic described it) that goes about messing with the tried-and-true setup of One Riding/One Representative.  Your MP or MLA, regardless of his political party, is your representative - if they are not doing this, then perhaps we need to address political parties and how they function.

As well, I don't like the fact that your vote may or may not get siphoned off to a second or third choice.  I really want X, but because he got a certain number of votes, I actually get Y.  Who makes the decision on who gets their primary and who gets their secondary votes counted?  Seems a little fishy to me.

Yes, the scoring of it does not seem to be detailed. Where are the mathematical equations for how these votes will be calculated? Ie. If one candidate gets 2000 votes as #2 does he win over the candidate that gets 1999 votes as #1? I could not really figure it out from the information given there. I had been thinking of a system such as this for a while, but from that, I can not see it as whole, despite their bolding of the word fair. What problem is this supposed to fix?

Fishy, indeed.

 

[a_majoor]

You guys make everything so complicated.

Its very simple. The Liberal party will nominate 2/3 of all the people running in every particular riding, to ensure only the "right" party gets in power. What could be simpler than that? 

 

[TCBF]

For God's sakes, vote NO.

Tom

 

[beach_bum]

Just say NO!!!!!! 

 

[mdh]

I'm voting no - IMHO the reasoning behind this academic Frankenstein is flawed to the nth degree. 

In the last election the BC NDP wasn't competitive because it was responsible for one of the worst provincial governments in Canadian history - wracked by scandal, fiscal mismanagement, a collapsing economy, you know, all the usual socialist nonsense. 

They were made accountable for that record, their brand wasn't competitive with the electorate, they couldn't achieve plurality across a majority of ridings -- and hence their rump status.  This strikes me as a reasonable outcome given the history of the time -- despite the bleatings of the media and the NDP itself which hasn't learned a thing from the experience (just ask Jim Sinclair, the real leader of the BC NDP).

Moreover STV is supposed to be some sort of instrument reviving grass roots democracy - reducing the power of party establishments, increasing genuine representation in the legislature, transparency in the political process, etc. - but it will have the opposite impact - increase the power of party establishments to choose a slate of candidates, create artificial power blocks with parties representing factions, and cloud the electorial process with a highly complex voting system.

It may make the academic eggheads happy, but it will do nothing to re-energize democracy - which must have a cultural revitalization not some elaborate tinker toy that holds out false promises.

First-past-the-post has provided stable government (for the most part) strong majorities, and direct lines of accountability between an elected official in a riding and his or her constituents - no matter how problematic that relationship might be.

cheers, mdh