Electoral reform in BC

[Dare]

No those who do not care to know how their government works would be the lowest denominator. Like I said the majority would know.

Most people do not care how their government works, nor do most people know how the government works. If we consider the volume of law required to actually know how our government works, that would require a lifetime to learn. Now as for knowing how our representatives are selected, I would say it is important those who vote understand how the selection works in detail.

No, read what I wrote, not what you think I mean. If a person buys into anything merely on the "word" of anyone then they get what they asked for, weither or not it is what they think it is.

That statement is illogical first off. If a person asks for an orange and gets an apple, they did *not* get what they asked for. If I make a transaction on Ebay and I don't get what I order. That is against the law. I didn't get what I asked for. Your critique of the "lowest common denominator" on how they do not know how their government works. Well our government works on the law which is based on the "word". If a person buys something based on the "word" of a person and does not get what they asked for, the person they made that contract has made a breach. So why would we hold our press and public representatives to a lower standard than we would hold advertisements for anything else? Especially when we consider the possibility of a bait and switch on something as important as radical election reform!

But you see, with SMP most of our governments over the last 138 years have not won anywhere near the majority of votes therefore the idea you expouse that the majority of seats in the HOC represents the majority of votes is false. Under an PR method and coalition government the ruling party in coalition would have to earn the majority of votes in the HOC and therefore would represent something closer to the majority of Canadian Voters.

Well, we're talking on a federal level again, but I'll say to this that if the areas of representations are disproportionate, then the areas should be redrawn. Not the system of selection. Or at least, not with this particular system.

No, in most cases in SMP "their guy" doesn't get in and their vote is wasted. Take a look at the figures in the essay I posted earlier
That's rather disingenuous of you to purposely post the wiki article that decries the possibility of strategic voting under STV and then turn around and claim that it doesn't matter to you when the argument is proven to be as applicable to SMP.

I was not using the argument in that fashion. While the article decries that possibility. It argues that it makes strategic voting difficult (not impossible). As I said I have no problem with strategic voting. I have a problem with making strategic voting difficult, or more aptly, making it obscure.

So, simplicity for simplicities sake? Why would a democratic nation cling to a system that has been proven to distort and misrepresent the votes of the populace. SMP does not except in the most unusual of cases produce majority rule, at least under STV or any other PR system that fact is realized and the system forces political parties and their leaders to build a consensus and coalitions with which to govern.

1) Simplicity, certainly, you have to admit, has it's benefits. Especially when dealing with the general public. Now as I mentioned in a previous message, I had been thinking of a system such as this for some time, but this particular one, I do not favour because it simply does not satisfy me as being a fair system, despite constantly being advertised as being fair. It seems to just obscure the methods one could use to strategically vote, which, to me, seems unethical. I was a bit open to the idea at first, but the more I read about it, the less convinced I became. Then the advertising campaign secured my vote. They're not even bothering to educate the people. They're just saying "trust us" it's "safe", "fair" and  "lot's of other people do it, let's do it also". This is not a proper way to drum up support for a radical restructuring of our current voting method.
2) Sometimes the process by which one builds a consensus can be a hinderance to operations. There are occasions when there needs to be less talk and more doing. Frankly, the way our MP's behave in Parliament has me shuddering to think that there would be even more sides yelling amongst the cacauphonous rambling currently present. 

 

[suffolkowner]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/electoral-reform-referendum-results-1.4954538

resurrecting this old thread as I wasn't sure where to put it or whether it was worth a new thread

I wonder if this is the death of electoral reform in BC if not Canada. Whatever the benefits of electoral reform it seems its proponents have been unable to convince the general public

 

[Cronicbny]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/electoral-reform-referendum-results-1.4954538

resurrecting this old thread as I wasn't sure where to put it or whether it was worth a new thread

I wonder if this is the death of electoral reform in BC if not Canada. Whatever the benefits of electoral reform it seems its proponents have been unable to convince the general public

I thought that after each of the previous two referenda.... it would not surprise me if we end up here again. "No" isnt really an answer in BC... after all, only 42pct of the population voted so, surely, the other 58pct need another chance

 

[AbdullahD]

I thought that after each of the previous two referenda.... it would not surprise me if we end up here again. "No" isnt really an answer in BC... after all, only 42pct of the population voted so, surely, the other 58pct need another chance

I'll admit my wife and I did not vote, because none of the options really worked for us. Maybe we are a little ignorant and one is better then the other, but to us they all seemed to be about the same.. as far as pros and cons went. So we didnt vote.

Abdullah

 

[Infanteer]

Thank the gods.  All these convoluted forms of Proportional Representation brief well, but when you start to examine the specifics, they aren't very good.

First-past-the-post has a 150-year record of providing stability and winners.  We may not like all of them, but we don't have to deal with half-measure elections.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Thank the gods.  All these convoluted forms of Proportional Representation brief well, but when you start to examine the specifics, they aren't very good.

First-past-the-post has a 150-year record of providing stability and winners.  We may not like all of them, but we don't have to deal with half-measure elections.

CBC radio today was just packed full of sore losers, who are all convinced the average BCer is just too stupid to understand the perfect brilliance of ProRep.  :

 

[Rifleman62]

The same people who are all convinced the average Canadian is just too stupid to understand the perfect brilliance of Justin Trudeau.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Thank the gods.  All these convoluted forms of Proportional Representation brief well, but when you start to examine the specifics, they aren't very good.

First-past-the-post has a 150-year record of providing stability and winners.  We may not like all of them, but we don't have to deal with half-measure elections.

I don't disagree with you.  I don't think our challenge should be to change the electoral method, but instead to motivate the voters to get out and vote.  Federally we were at 68% last time.  That's not bad, but I think we should be doing better.  We're missing 32% of the eligible population. 

Just look at this referendum of only 42% voter turn out... Sad.  Our problem is voter apathy not the FPTP system.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Election BC went all out to get people to vote. The reality is that the issue was only important to a small number of people. So the only people who voted are the ones fully for or against it. the rest are to busy with their lives and don't feel that it would change anything.

 

[YZT580]

Election BC went all out to get people to vote. The reality is that the issue was only important to a small number of people. So the only people who voted are the ones fully for or against it. the rest are to busy with their lives and don't feel that it would change anything.

  Perhaps only the percentage that truly want to vote is the only group that should vote.  The rest would probably vote according to either party, last nights pub discussion or as per the boss's inclinations which could produce a result that is contrary to those who actually care.  So I think the system works quite well as is.  For those who care they always get the person or result they want if they are in the majority.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Basically the only people that voted are those that wanted it and those that did not. If you imagine the voter base as 100 people, only 18 of them really wanted it.

 

[Brad Sallows]

As "first choices":
FPTP: 61.30%
MMP: 15.96%
DMP: 11.40%
R-U: 11.34%

The government tried to encourage votes for change by providing a list, and then goofed by making two of the options on the list too complex and obscure.  I suspect they meant to nudge voters toward MMP, but it backfired.  There are certainly people who might have voted for change but balked at the complexity of the question and the loosey-goosey implementation rules.

It (specifically, MMP) was really the Green's baby; the NDP were not whole-heartedly in favour.  They are conscious of the fact that FPTP is the only road to a majority of seats for the NDP in BC.

 

[Kirkhill]

I don't disagree with you.  I don't think our challenge should be to change the electoral method, but instead to motivate the voters to get out and vote.  Federally we were at 68% last time.  That's not bad, but I think we should be doing better.  We're missing 32% of the eligible population. 

Just look at this referendum of only 42% voter turn out... Sad.  Our problem is voter apathy not the FPTP system.

I don't think we are missing folks.  I read those folks not as apathetic but as content. They see no difference between one party and the other in their daily lives and their is no reason for them to get bothered enough to change things.

30 to 40% of the population is happy regardless of who is in charge.  Another 30% is happy when their party is in charge.  And thus you have stability.

Arguably, the only people  with a vested interest in promoting change are politicians.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

As "first choices":
FPTP: 61.30%
MMP: 15.96%
DMP: 11.40%
R-U: 11.34%

The government tried to encourage votes for change by providing a list, and then goofed by making two of the options on the list too complex and obscure.  I suspect they meant to nudge voters toward MMP, but it backfired.  There are certainly people who might have voted for change but balked at the complexity of the question and the loosey-goosey implementation rules.

It (specifically, MMP) was really the Green's baby; the NDP were not whole-heartedly in favour.  They are conscious of the fact that FPTP is the only road to a majority of seats for the NDP in BC.

Brad, that was my assesment, too. This referendum was the NDP payoff to keep the Greens onside. I also do not detect much enthusiasm amongst the NDP for anything other than FPTP. I wonder if they are having second thoughts about getting in bed with Weaver?

 

[daftandbarmy]

Third strike, they're out. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/electoral-reform-referendum-result-1.4955171

A bunch of unconstrained idiots on steroids, controlled by a vocal minority of self-entitled rug rats, IMHO.

Now maybe they can do some 'adulting' and figure out how to fix slightly more important things like, you know,how to prevent the $20 B + Health Care Pac Man from eating up all the other ministry budgets:

“Rising health care costs may threaten the provincial government’s ability to provide services and meet financial commitments both now and in the future. This is something we noticed two years ago in our report on monitoring British Columbia’s fiscal sustainability. Between 2013 and 2018, health care expenses are projected to increase by $2.7 billion. This is more than the combined budgets of the 11 smallest ministries or even the budget of the third largest ministry, education.” Auditor General of BC

https://www.myprincegeorgenow.com/44234/bc-auditor-general-breaks-health-care-spending-british-columbians/

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I think in most cases, those parties that push for change from our FPTP are usually the loser or those with no chance of winning. You don't see many sitting governments that want to change the rules that gave them the win.

I do like the idea that they, at least, held a referendum. How we vote, who votes and how we count those votes belong to qualified Canadian citizens. Not the government.