Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

BC Electoral Reform Referendum - Results In - Voters Reject PR


DonLever

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I'd prefer this as well.

 

@Warhippy you keep claiming its fear mongering but its a legitimate position to not like governing by committee, as is it is in my case. It has nothing to do with "fear" or misinformation. 

 

 

I believe this is the first time I've chimed in about this in some time and have numerous times pointed out how the scare is a fallacy which has been proven wrong almost everywhere.

 

There are numerous options for people to choose from, there are numerous sites and quite a fair amount of literature that explains PR and each potential replacement for FPTP.  The alternative of doing nothing based on a potential issue is essentially saying we'd rather just keep doing what we're doing because it's worked quite well the last 16.5 years.

 

For myself, that is not an option.  I rather enjoy the rural option and have filled in my form in that manner after reviewing everything as it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

I believe this is the first time I've chimed in about this in some time and have numerous times pointed out how the scare is a fallacy which has been proven wrong almost everywhere.

 

There are numerous options for people to choose from, there are numerous sites and quite a fair amount of literature that explains PR and each potential replacement for FPTP.  The alternative of doing nothing based on a potential issue is essentially saying we'd rather just keep doing what we're doing because it's worked quite well the last 16.5 years.

 

For myself, that is not an option.  I rather enjoy the rural option and have filled in my form in that manner after reviewing everything as it is.

fair enough, but these sites tell you that "your vote will finally count" - which is misleading. What matters is who's in power, everyone else gets to twiddle their thumbs. So there's misleading ideas on both sides of this.

 

Coalitions like the one we have now are no different from what we'll see under PR. One party will dominate, one or more to fill in the remaining majority votes will get tossed a few bones.  To me that not worth potentially shutting out the north and rural areas from relevance, rare fringe parties and just plain running by committee which often leads to poor governing. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

fair enough, but these sites tell you that "your vote will finally count" - which is misleading. What matters is who's in power, everyone else gets to twiddle their thumbs. So there's misleading ideas on both sides of this.

 

Coalitions like the one we have now are no different from what we'll see under PR. One party will dominate, one or more to fill in the remaining majority votes will get tossed a few bones.  To me that not worth potentially shutting out the north and rural areas from relevance, rare fringe parties and just plain running by committee which often leads to poor governing. 

 

I dare say we're seeing nore unified action in other areas of the province under this coalition than we've seen in years myself.

 

But ok

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Warhippy said:

I dare say we're seeing nore unified action in other areas of the province under this coalition than we've seen in years myself.

 

But ok

only because Horgan has turned out not to be an idiot. He hasn't done anything Weaver wanted that wasn't already on the NDP platform. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

only because Horgan has turned out not to be an idiot. He hasn't done anything Weaver wanted that wasn't already on the NDP platform. 

I dare say it's because there's two parties leading that have very similar platforms to varying extremes myself.

 

No matter who weaver backed that partnership was only ever going to be on the backs of ensuring the greens got wet they wanted, which arguably was going to be a net overall benefit to much of the province; but the greens were never going to get that they wanted unless concessions were made that they'd normally not have considered including LNG/Trans Mountain.

 

Much like the new PR models.  Partnerships working to benefit larger percentages of the entire province based off of mutual satisfaction to ensure everyone gets what they want within reason

 

Coalitions can work.  PR does work in many nations.  BC would and will be a great project for the rest of the nation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Warhippy said:

I dare say it's because there's two parties leading that have very similar platforms to varying extremes myself.

 

No matter who weaver backed that partnership was only ever going to be on the backs of ensuring the greens got wet they wanted, which arguably was going to be a net overall benefit to much of the province; but the greens were never going to get that they wanted unless concessions were made that they'd normally not have considered including LNG/Trans Mountain.

 

Much like the new PR models.  Partnerships working to benefit larger percentages of the entire province based off of mutual satisfaction to ensure everyone gets what they want within reason

 

Coalitions can work.  PR does work in many nations.  BC would and will be a great project for the rest of the nation

Similar platforms? So similar its like we don't need two of them. I suppose Site C, a massive foreign buyer tax and LNG weren't all that important to Weaver :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

Similar platforms? So similar its like we don't need two of them. I suppose Site C, a massive foreign buyer tax and LNG weren't all that important to Weaver :blink:

Similar means having a resemblance in appearance character or quality without being identical.

 

NDP and Green ran on platforms that were very similar to each other while being more to moderate and extreme ends of each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, BPA said:

Would we have the 2010 Olympics if we had PR back then?  

 

I remember a lot of opposition against the Olympics.  Especially the NDP.  

there was a lot of public support so probably. But who knows. What I know from this year is the Green's have caved in on core issues, and somehow thats being spun as good government or a better choice than our current system. The fact is Weaver could have decided to use his power and go on a vote by vote basis for his relationship with the NDP, he could have secured more for his base but instead he chose a neutered path thats basically all NDP platform. 

 

Weaver threatened to end the relationship over LNG but, hey look, that didn't happen either. Its a joke. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

there was a lot of public support so probably. But who knows. What I know from this year is the Green's have caved in on core issues, and somehow thats being spun as good government or a better choice than our current system. The fact is Weaver could have decided to use his power and go on a vote by vote basis for his relationship with the NDP, he could have secured more for his base but instead he chose a neutered path thats basically all NDP platform. 

 

Weaver threatened to end the relationship over LNG but, hey look, that didn't happen either. Its a joke. 

Backroom deals?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/proportional-representation-opinion

 

Social media has been rife with photos of voting packages sent to the wrong address or casually discarded as junk mail by confused recipients. What’s more, the government hasn’t set a minimum participation threshold for the result to count. This means that as few as 10 or 20% of voters could decide the future of the province for the rest of us – when even your average strata council can’t apply a new coat of paint without two-thirds of members voting in favour.

 

Not only that, but more than two dozen key aspects of the proposed proportional representation systems have been left to be decided by the ruling party – the NDP – after the votes are in. That’s like going to a restaurant and being told you have to pay up front, then eat whatever the server brings you. In effect, the NDP is asking for a blank cheque from British Columbians to impose the system of their choosing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, BPA said:

http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/proportional-representation-opinion

 

Social media has been rife with photos of voting packages sent to the wrong address or casually discarded as junk mail by confused recipients. What’s more, the government hasn’t set a minimum participation threshold for the result to count. This means that as few as 10 or 20% of voters could decide the future of the province for the rest of us – when even your average strata council can’t apply a new coat of paint without two-thirds of members voting in favour.

 

Not only that, but more than two dozen key aspects of the proposed proportional representation systems have been left to be decided by the ruling party – the NDP – after the votes are in. That’s like going to a restaurant and being told you have to pay up front, then eat whatever the server brings you. In effect, the NDP is asking for a blank cheque from British Columbians to impose the system of their choosing.

 

Just for a moment, imagine if Christy Clark tried to conduct the referendum this way. There would be howls of outrage saying she's trying to rig it. 

 

I think one of the reasons Horgan is doing such a poor job on this is he doesn't really want it to happen, I really doubt he wants to lose any seats to the Greens being so close to a majority. I think Horgan would much prefer to slam the Greens in the next election and try for a full term majority vs. more of the same. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are three different types of proportional representation systems people are asked to choose from — with varying levels of details that would be settled after the referendum, if selected by voters — and plenty of arguments about the merits of each.

 

So which type of PR does Horgan want to implement????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, prix57 said:

Do any of the other provinces use PR or had any referendums to introduce it?

I don't know about other provinces, this will be the 3rd time BCs had a kick at it. 

 

I just don't see the tangible benefits of the change. We're told every vote will count but thats very misleading, up to 49% of voters still won't have their choice in power so effectively whats the point? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IF there was an option where I could.

Vote for all the candidates in my riding in order of preference ie- 5 people running and my first vote goes to Bob, but Bob ends up with the least votes so gets dropped off, then my next choice is  Sue but she  gets the next least votes and so on till the last person is standing, I'd probably vote for that system.

 

But I will not vote for any system where the dang rules are not known before I vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...