BC Electoral Reform Referendum - Results In - Voters Reject PR

[JM_]

Just now, aGENT said:

It's a bit presumptuous of you to assume they 'caved' on anything or what in turn they may have gained otherwise for compromising (as opposing parties are supposed to do) on some of those issues. 

 

And even if what you're claiming is true with these specific circumstances, people, parties and seats, that's hardly a a claim it would always be that way with all parties, people and seats.

 

I think it's fairly obvious how PR might otherwise give ignored people and ideas a larger footing for their platforms and overall governance.

 

 

I don't want to pick a fight with you, but I can't see how you aren't profoundly disappointed in Weaver. I'm not presuming anything. Weaver threatened to take Horgan to task on Site C and on LNG but folded like a cheap tent on both. He also hasn't had one iota of impact on housing. I was hopeful that the Greens would be more effective on promoting green tech innovation but nothing there either. 

 

If you can show me where Weaver has had and significant impact over and above what the NDP had in its platform I'd love to see it. 

 

I disagree on the last point. All PR does is give a closer approximation of seats to the actual vote. Sure thats nice, but means nothing if your vote isn't for someone in power or part of the leading coalition. There's still the potential for nearly 1/2 the province to have no effective say in anything even with PR. 

[aGENT]

15 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I don't want to pick a fight with you, but I can't see how you aren't profoundly disappointed in Weaver. I'm not presuming anything. Weaver threatened to take Horgan to task on Site C and on LNG but folded like a cheap tent on both. He also hasn't had one iota of impact on housing. I was hopeful that the Greens would be more effective on promoting green tech innovation but nothing there either. 

 

If you can show me where Weaver has had and significant impact over and above what the NDP had in its platform I'd love to see it. 

 

I disagree on the last point. All PR does is give a closer approximation of seats to the actual vote. Sure thats nice, but means nothing if your vote isn't for someone in power or part of the leading coalition. There's still the potential for nearly 1/2 the province to have no effective say in anything even with PR. 

This sounds like the similar 'problem' some people had with how the Canucks have r-worded. Yelling and screaming about how they're not rebuilding or aren't rebuilding 'properly'.

 

They might not like how the Canucks have been rebuilding, but to deny at this point that they've been rebuilding, or how 'properly' it's been done...

 

I have no idea what backroom deals Horgan and Weaver have or haven't made in exchange for the Green's support on Site C or LNG but neither do you. I'm guess I'm willing to wait and see if Weaver and Co can pull out their own 'Pettersson'. YMMV. 

 

One thing I pretty strongly support though would be to give the Green's (and any other worthwhile parties that happen along) a larger footing in government to challenge conventions and bring new ideas to the forefront while allowing for a more accurate representation of the will of the people rather than a system designed to maintain status quo and see-sawing between two poor options.

 

There's potential for a lot of things out there. PR tends to create far more coalition governments than majority ones. By all means rural voters could form their own party and actually have better representation under PR as well for example.

[JM_]

9 minutes ago, aGENT said:

 

There's potential for a lot of things out there. PR tends to create far more coalition governments than majority ones. By all means rural voters could form their own party and actually have better representation under PR as well for example.

I think thats my issue with all this ultimately. I've never liked the idea of leadership by committee, I don't believe you get better decisions or leaders that way.

 

But, I fully expect PR (whatever that means for Horgan) to pass and I think we'll get to find out 

[aGENT]

8 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I think thats my issue with all this ultimately. I've never liked the idea of leadership by committee, I don't believe you get better decisions or leaders that way.

 

But, I fully expect PR (whatever that means for Horgan) to pass and I think we'll get to find out 

If history is any sort of evidence, at least when it comes to politics, you don't get those in majorities either 

[Violator]

If i was allowed to vote I would choose the one that helps rural bc.Starting to not like the fact the legislature is in victoria and how much the island has say in the rest of the province.

[aGENT]

7 minutes ago, Violator said:

If i was allowed to vote I would choose the one that helps rural bc.Starting to not like the fact the legislature is in victoria and how much the island has say in the rest of the province.

The elected representatives in the legislature in Victoria are from all over the province. It's not like all our elected politicians are all from Victoria/Van Island. The island gets no more say than any other part of the province.

[JM_]

3 hours ago, aGENT said:

If history is any sort of evidence, at least when it comes to politics, you don't get those in majorities either 

true a lot of the time, but you do get things done.

 

My worry is a Green-DP alliance decade will be one without a single major project conducted in BC. Hopefully I'm wrong but I don't see that alliance being very industry friendly. 

[aGENT]

6 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

true a lot of the time, but you do get things done.

 

My worry is a Green-DP alliance decade will be one without a single major project conducted in BC. Hopefully I'm wrong but I don't see that alliance being very industry friendly. 

Depends on the industry. All parties like jobs.

[JM_]

Just now, aGENT said:

Depends on the industry. All parties like jobs.

honestly in BC I'm not so sure about that. I was in a meeting once with some post-secondary folks who though that it was beneath them to get involved in industrial R&D, they literally said they didn't want to spend their time "hustling industry"  but one example of many over my career and others I know. There is a very strong no-to-everything vibe in many corners of BC. For some its fine to take tax money from business to pay their public sector wages but actually support industry? thats just too far for some. Like I said, hope I'm wrong but we'll see, my money's on a long stretch of zilch. 

[JM_]

If you needed any more evidence of the fix being in, Horgan is already making decisions on the type of MMP without consulting voters. 

 

Premier John Horgan says he’ll instruct his NDP MLAs to block an unappealing version of one of the proportional representation models, if it wins in this month’s referendum.

 

Horgan told Postmedia News on Wednesday that if British Columbians vote to replace the province’s electoral system with mixed member proportional, he will order NDP MLAs to oppose the so-called closed list approach when a legislature committee decides the details of the new system.

 

https://vancouversun.com/news/politics/b-c-premier-to-veto-closed-list-version-of-mixed-member-pro-rep

[Ghostsof1915]

I'm not a fan of first past the post. But I'm also not really liking the options on proportional voting either. Sounds like the Political Parties are going to have more power on choosing who gets the winning vote. Wouldn't it be better if we abolished political parties. And made MLA's accountable to the electorate based on what they do? 

After all, aren't politicians supposed to do what the voters want? 

[Warhippy]

On 2018-11-15 at 4:29 PM, Jimmy McGill said:

If you needed any more evidence of the fix being in, Horgan is already making decisions on the type of MMP without consulting voters. 

 

Premier John Horgan says he’ll instruct his NDP MLAs to block an unappealing version of one of the proportional representation models, if it wins in this month’s referendum.

 

Horgan told Postmedia News on Wednesday that if British Columbians vote to replace the province’s electoral system with mixed member proportional, he will order NDP MLAs to oppose the so-called closed list approach when a legislature committee decides the details of the new system.

 

https://vancouversun.com/news/politics/b-c-premier-to-veto-closed-list-version-of-mixed-member-pro-rep

I'm actually going to need you to explain what the "fix is" here

 

Under closed list, the electorate/voters would NOT get their say of who is selected as MLA based on the 60/40  MMP represents.  He said he would ask his MLA's to support Open List format instead thus giving the electorate/voters the ability to then select the candidate of their choosing as closed list balloting seems undemocratic.

 

So again, what fix?  As this seems incredibly fair to the voters should MMP be selected.  I can see how him saying he supports MMP because it is already functioning and in use in other countries as a potential sway to the people taking in the ballot.  I can also see how him literally explaining WHY he supports and and WHY he supports open list over closed could be seen as swaying opinion

 

But again, you keep claiming the "fix is in" but everything regarding evidence and direct quotes state you're simply fear mongering and intentionally misquoting him.

 

Under mixed-member, sixty per cent of MLAs would be directly elected using the current first-past-the-post system in ridings. The other 40 per cent of seats would be distributed to people on party lists to ensure seat totals are adjusted to reflect the popular vote.

With a closed list, the public sees, but doesn’t vote on, the candidates on the party lists. The main criticism  is that it allows political parties to stack their lists with patronage candidates who might not be popular enough to win a vote but nonetheless become an MLA by being on the list.

Horgan said if mixed members wins, he’d direct MLAs to support the “open list” model, where voters get to indicate their preference for individuals on party lists with direct votes.

“With an open list under MMP you’d have the local names, nominated by the various parties, and another list of names nominated again by the parties,” said Horgan.

“My view would be that you put your preferences beside those as you would prefer them. I think that’s easily achievable and would maintain the transparency I think everybody wants. I’ve been pretty clear everybody elected to the legislature will be just that, elected as an individual, representing a point of view.”

[King Heffy]

On 11/14/2018 at 3:59 PM, Jimmy McGill said:

true a lot of the time, but you do get things done.

 

My worry is a Green-DP alliance decade will be one without a single major project conducted in BC. Hopefully I'm wrong but I don't see that alliance being very industry friendly. 

"Getting things done" isn't always good when the government is trying to do something bad.  See the tire fire we have to the south for an example where more checks and balances would be beneficial.

[JM_]

21 hours ago, Warhippy said:

I'm actually going to need you to explain what the "fix is" here

 

Under closed list, the electorate/voters would NOT get their say of who is selected as MLA based on the 60/40  MMP represents.  He said he would ask his MLA's to support Open List format instead thus giving the electorate/voters the ability to then select the candidate of their choosing as closed list balloting seems undemocratic.

 

So again, what fix?  As this seems incredibly fair to the voters should MMP be selected.  I can see how him saying he supports MMP because it is already functioning and in use in other countries as a potential sway to the people taking in the ballot.  I can also see how him literally explaining WHY he supports and and WHY he supports open list over closed could be seen as swaying opinion

 

But again, you keep claiming the "fix is in" but everything regarding evidence and direct quotes state you're simply fear mongering and intentionally misquoting him.

 

Under mixed-member, sixty per cent of MLAs would be directly elected using the current first-past-the-post system in ridings. The other 40 per cent of seats would be distributed to people on party lists to ensure seat totals are adjusted to reflect the popular vote.

With a closed list, the public sees, but doesn’t vote on, the candidates on the party lists. The main criticism  is that it allows political parties to stack their lists with patronage candidates who might not be popular enough to win a vote but nonetheless become an MLA by being on the list.

Horgan said if mixed members wins, he’d direct MLAs to support the “open list” model, where voters get to indicate their preference for individuals on party lists with direct votes.

“With an open list under MMP you’d have the local names, nominated by the various parties, and another list of names nominated again by the parties,” said Horgan.

“My view would be that you put your preferences beside those as you would prefer them. I think that’s easily achievable and would maintain the transparency I think everybody wants. I’ve been pretty clear everybody elected to the legislature will be just that, elected as an individual, representing a point of view.”

the "fix" is Horgan providing his option on how he voted, and how he's already talking about which options he'd bring in. I thought all of that was supposed to be done under an independent committee?

 

the way its being run really cheeses me off, any option other than the version of MMP Horgan wanted is for all intents and purposes off the table. That should bother people. It certainly would if the Liberals were gearing things to their preference. 

 

I don't really care in the end what the voters choose, but it should be the voters that do it, not Horgan dictating things. 

 

[JM_]

20 hours ago, King Heffy said:

"Getting things done" isn't always good when the government is trying to do something bad.  See the tire fire we have to the south for an example where more checks and balances would be beneficial.

I guess that would mean we'd have to get more checks and balances under a committee system, but I don't see how committees are better inherently than fptp or why that outcome would be guaranteed or more likely. 

 

[King Heffy]

36 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I guess that would mean we'd have to get more checks and balances under a committee system, but I don't see how committees are better inherently than fptp or why that outcome would be guaranteed or more likely. 

 

I prefer a minority government.  I find when governments have free reign to bring in their entire platform, some really terrible legisliation gets enacted which then needs to be cleaned up.

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, King Heffy said:

I prefer a minority government.

What about no government, like the US currently has?  

[RWMc1]

I think the ballots have to be in by Nov. 30th, so mail them in asap if you want to be counted.

[JM_]

21 hours ago, King Heffy said:

I prefer a minority government.  I find when governments have free reign to bring in their entire platform, some really terrible legisliation gets enacted which then needs to be cleaned up.

minority FPTP governments often work very well thats true (it kept Harper in line for a while), I'd prefer that far more than what I think we'll get with MMP. 

 

What I find really frustrating about the way this is occurring is the federal NDP ripped Trudeau a new one for stating and promoting his preference for ranked ballot, so why is it OK for Horgan to do something similar. It worries me that Horgan will also preferentially set things like the new riding boundaries as well. 

 

 

[DonLever]

A last minute reminder for people to mail in their ballots.   They have to be RECEIVED by NOV.30.  

 

So if you havn't mailed yours in already, it is probably too late.