Sign in to follow this  
Jimmy McGill

The BC proportional representation thread - 2018 referendum edition

Recommended Posts

I thought this topic was important enough for its own discussion. Now that the NDP has declared that there will be a mail-in vote on PR next fall, what do you think? it sounds like the referendum is going to be decided on a 50%+1 basis with no requirement for a majority in any specific number of regions, which means that the Lower Mainland could determine that PR is the way forward even if rural BC doesn't want it. Is that fair? Should it be changed? Are we destined for Green-DP for decades? Discuss! 

 

Here's some biased background to get us going: http://theprovince.com/news/bc-politics/high-stakes-game-the-fight-to-change-b-c-s-election-rules

Edited by Jimmy McGill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I thought this topic was important enough for its own discussion. Now that the NDP has declared that there will be a mail-in vote on PR next fall, what do you think? it sounds like its going to be decided on a 50%+1 basis with no requirement for a majority in any specific number of regions, which means that the Lower Mainland could determine that PR is the way forward even if rural BC doesn't want it. Is that fair? Should it be changed? Are we destined for Green-DP for decades? Discuss! 

 

Here's some biased background to get us going: http://theprovince.com/news/bc-politics/high-stakes-game-the-fight-to-change-b-c-s-election-rules

No more individual ridings?  How do the MLA’s get selected?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Alflives said:

No more individual ridings?  How do the MLA’s get selected?  

sorry Alf, my crap grammar mislead you - its the referendum itself that is a 50%+1 not the MLAs during regular elections. The actual MLA-PR system is yet to be finalized as I understand it, but usually is a smaller number of regional seats mixed with a number of other seats to make things proportional. Basically what we could have is a large majority to people voting 'yes" to PR around Vancouver determining the fate of the province. Personally I don't like it, it sets up a rural-urban fight that won't end. 

Edited by Jimmy McGill
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

sorry Alf, my crap grammar mislead you - its the referendum itself that is a 50%+1 not the MLAs during regular elections. The actual MLA-PR system is yet to be finalized as I understand it, but usually is a smaller number of regional seats mixed with a number of other seats to make things proportional. Basically what we could have is a large majority to people voting 'yes" to PR around Vancouver determining the fate of the province. Personally I don't like it, it sets up a rural-urban fight that won't end. 

I think it’s bad too.  I don’t understand how we can vote on something that is not clearly laid out for us.  If there are 85ridings, and by proportion the NDP deserve 30, then which 30 of their 85 candidates become MLAs?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Alflives said:

I think it’s bad too.  I don’t understand how we can vote on something that is not clearly laid out for us.  If there are 85ridings, and by proportion the NDP deserve 30, then which 30 of their 85 candidates become MLAs?  

All depends on how its set out, there are many different types of PR. Federally they were talking about making something like 250 bigger ridings, and 150 "party" seats that get doled out according to voting percentage. So say the Liberals would have got 150 regular riding seats and maybe 30 or so other ones not attached to any ridings. Something like that. 

 

What i think would be fair to the voters is for the PR referendum decision itself to require voters in 50%+1 by population, and also 44 ridings by majority to say yes to it, that way it represents at least some of rural BC. Its too important a decision for one region to dictate to all the others imo. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I thought this topic was important enough for its own discussion. Now that the NDP has declared that there will be a mail-in vote on PR next fall, what do you think? it sounds like the referendum is going to be decided on a 50%+1 basis with no requirement for a majority in any specific number of regions, which means that the Lower Mainland could determine that PR is the way forward even if rural BC doesn't want it. Is that fair? Should it be changed? Are we destined for Green-DP for decades? Discuss! 

 

Here's some biased background to get us going: http://theprovince.com/news/bc-politics/high-stakes-game-the-fight-to-change-b-c-s-election-rules

So we are going to have a vote on proportional representation using first past the post?  :P

 

Anyways...  From what I understand of proportional representation, chances are we would never see a majority government again.  Even in the landslide 2001 election, the Liberals won 97% of the ridings, but only had 58% of the popular vote.  So that would mean, unless there was a huge groundswell of support for a single party, we would likely only ever see minority / coalition governments from here on out.

 

Some say that would be a good thing.  I'm not so sure.  While a minority government may be more accountable, are they less productive because they are always worried about losing a confidence vote?

 

On our local radio, one of the hosts made what I thought was an interesting point.  If every government from now on is a minority government like we have now, will campaign promises really mean anything?  The ruling party could essentially ignore all sorts of promises and just blame the fact that they're a minority government and would never get it passed anyways.  The NDP have done it several times already.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I thought this topic was important enough for its own discussion. Now that the NDP has declared that there will be a mail-in vote on PR next fall, what do you think? it sounds like the referendum is going to be decided on a 50%+1 basis with no requirement for a majority in any specific number of regions, which means that the Lower Mainland could determine that PR is the way forward even if rural BC doesn't want it. Is that fair? Should it be changed? Are we destined for Green-DP for decades? Discuss! 

 

Here's some biased background to get us going: http://theprovince.com/news/bc-politics/high-stakes-game-the-fight-to-change-b-c-s-election-rules

It's an easy decision for me when you have a link from lamestream media telling us what is best for us - always go the opposite of what Corporate owned and backed dead beat media are saying.

 

The Province Newspaper works for their donors ( The elite and Corporate interests ) not the citizens of BC.... Relying on mass media is a low information decision.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said:

All depends on how its set out, there are many different types of PR. Federally they were talking about making something like 250 bigger ridings, and 150 "party" seats that get doled out according to voting percentage. So say the Liberals would have got 150 regular riding seats and maybe 30 or so other ones not attached to any ridings. Something like that. 

 

What i think would be fair to the voters is for the PR referendum decision itself to require voters in 50%+1 by population, and also 44 ridings by majority to say yes to it, that way it represents at least some of rural BC. Its too important a decision for one region to dictate to all the others imo. 

If the system is changed to some form of PR voting I'd like to see included a requirement that, after two elections using this new form of voting, there would be another binding referendum asking voters if they want to stay with this new system or go back to the old voting system.

 

An escape hatch, so to speak, just in case something that might sound good on paper doesn't work out that well in practice.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The greens like it right now but might not like it as much if the Liberals are clinging to power with the Christian Heritage party holding the balance of power. PR is a very inefficient system with minority parties driving the bus.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, goalie13 said:

So we are going to have a vote on proportional representation using first past the post?  :P

 

Anyways...  From what I understand of proportional representation, chances are we would never see a majority government again.  Even in the landslide 2001 election, the Liberals won 97% of the ridings, but only had 58% of the popular vote.  So that would mean, unless there was a huge groundswell of support for a single party, we would likely only ever see minority / coalition governments from here on out.

 

Some say that would be a good thing.  I'm not so sure.  While a minority government may be more accountable, are they less productive because they are always worried about losing a confidence vote?

 

On our local radio, one of the hosts made what I thought was an interesting point.  If every government from now on is a minority government like we have now, will campaign promises really mean anything?  The ruling party could essentially ignore all sorts of promises and just blame the fact that they're a minority government and would never get it passed anyways.  The NDP have done it several times already.

great points. I guess yah, FPTP in a sense is needed imo just to ensure that we don't build in an urban-rural split into the system.

 

It seems like an NDP-Green coalition, and lets be honest, its 98% NDP platform, is certainly served by Horgans plan. That doesn't necessarily make it a bad idea, but its worth considering exactly what you said, how much will promises mean? Healthy competition between parties is good for keeping politicians honest, if this new system takes it away then what? 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, 6string said:

It's an easy decision for me when you have a link from lamestream media telling us what is best for us - always go the opposite of what Corporate owned and backed dead beat media are saying.

 

The Province Newspaper works for their donors ( The elite and Corporate interests ) not the citizens of BC.... Relying on mass media is a low information decision.

thats why I chucked it in there, its clearly an imbalanced view, but does raise and interesting question, is Horgans proposal bad for rural BC?

Edited by Jimmy McGill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, inane said:

Long overdue. This is good.

Is it though? Change happened without PR. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

Is it though? Change happened without PR. 

Yep, it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, inane said:

Yep, it is.

would you feel the same way if it looked like it was designed to ensure years of right-leaning government? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

would you feel the same way if it looked like it was designed to ensure years of right-leaning government? 

We just went through 16 years of that.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said:

would you feel the same way if it looked like it was designed to ensure years of right-leaning government? 

No, it should be designed to reflect the will of the people. If that is 'right' sometimes, so be it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, inane said:

No, it should be designed to reflect the will of the people. If that is 'right' sometimes, so be it. 

agreed. But I think you can argue by just going with 50%+1 for the PR decision, and not considering any regional input, that Horgan and Weaver are stacking the deck in the same way that Trudeau wouldn't consider anything but a ranked ballot system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.