แจกเครดิตทดลองเล่นฟรี ไม่ต้องฝาก_สูตรเล่นบาคาร่า gclub_สมัครเกมยิงปลาW88

181 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pondering

The pipeline lobby accuses environmental groups of being funded by the US sometimes along with a nefarious plot to prevent Canada from getting a higher price for its oil. The argument carries no weight with me. I'm not going to support or reject pipelines based on who is paying environmentalists.?

I think most people feel the same about PR. Just give us the facts.?

Magoo?is more devil's advocate than troll. He identifies??weaknesses? and false logic in arguments.?

It can be very annoying especially when he doesn't seem to care either way but there is an upside. It identifies weak points in the arguments so they can be avoided or solved.?

Who's paying can indicate some bias but it doesn't invalidate an argument or a?study.

?

NorthReport
Pogo Pogo's picture

Received.? I have been following it all along so it makes sense to me.? For people (perhaps a majority) who don't understand how we currently do things it is practically impossible.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Are the proposed new systems complicated/difficult to understand??

PR supporters typically claim that they aren't, and that saying they are is an attempt to undermine reform.? But then the same folk will suggest that a referendum failed because "the government didn't explain the new system adequately".

Martin N.

I'm voting no because no matter how bad FPP is, PR will be worse. I'm interested in efficient, effective government (yeah, oxymoron) and PR will just have different hands in the cookie jar with more process and less progress.

I'm?fully prepared to pass all the power on to the new generation but, be prepared to pay for your decisions - they are not free. YOU, not me, are going to pay for all the Groper's free spending and all the BC union buddy cost over runs.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Here's the guide that's apparently being sent to voters.? Seems straightforward enough.

Curious thing, though.? It says that if the three PR options combined get 50%+1 of the vote, the PR system with the greatest support becomes the new system.? So theoretically, if the results were to be:

FPTP:? 49%

PR#1:? 18%

PR#2:? 17%

PR#3:? 16%

... then PR#1 would become the new system, based on being the first choice of only 18% of the electorate, while FPTP would lose despite being the first choice of 49% of the electorate.? If they wanted to be truly fair (and stay true to PR), they could have just put all four systems on a ranked ballot.

quizzical

Martin N. wrote:

I'm voting no because no matter how bad FPP is, PR will be worse. I'm interested in efficient, effective government (yeah, oxymoron) and PR will just have different hands in the cookie jar with more process and less progress.

I'm?fully prepared to pass all the power on to the new generation but, be prepared to pay for your decisions - they are not free. YOU, not me, are going to pay for all the Groper's free spending and all the BC union buddy cost over runs.

even if any of this bs wasn't, at least any cost over runs would go into workers pockets not million and billionaire money launderers and scammers feeding off the tax payer's lives.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Martin N. wrote:

I'm voting no because no matter how bad FPP is, PR will be worse. I'm interested in efficient, effective government (yeah, oxymoron) and PR will just have different hands in the cookie jar with more process and less progress.

I'm?fully prepared to pass all the power on to the new generation but, be prepared to pay for your decisions - they are not free. YOU, not me, are going to pay for all the Groper's free spending and all the BC union buddy cost over runs.

JKR

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Here's the guide that's apparently being sent to voters.? Seems straightforward enough.

Curious thing, though.? It says that if the three PR options combined get 50%+1 of the vote, the PR system with the greatest support becomes the new system.? So theoretically, if the results were to be:

FPTP:? 49%

PR#1:? 18%

PR#2:? 17%

PR#3:? 16%

... then PR#1 would become the new system, based on being the first choice of only 18% of the electorate, while FPTP would lose despite being the first choice of 49% of the electorate.? If they wanted to be truly fair (and stay true to PR), they could have just put all four systems on a ranked ballot.

That's not how the referendum is being run. The voters will be able to vote on both questions. The question about PR systems is a ranked choice vote where the winning selection will have to get over half the votes. A person could vote "no" on the first question and still vote for their preferred PR system.

NorthReport

The people against PR do not want a fair voting system

In 2017 PR would have resulted in 8 seats less for the Liberals, 6 seats less for the NDP,?13 seats more for the Greens, and a minority government

In 2013 PR would have resulted in 12 seats less for the Liberals, same number of seats for the NDP, 6?seats more for the Greens, and a minority government

In 2009 PR would have resulted in 10 seats less for the Liberals, same number for the NDP, and 7 seats more for the Greens resulting in a minority government

In 2005 PR?would have resulted in 10 seats less for the Liberals, same number of the seats for the NDP, and and 8 seats more for the Greens, resulting in a minority

In 2001 using PR would have resulted in 31 seats less for the Liberals, 15 seats more for the NDP, and 9 Seats more for the Greens

NorthReport
NorthReport
voice of the damned

@ Post 109

How does PR guarantee that women and minorities will no longer be underrepresented in government? Does PR come with some?requirement that each party will send women and minorities to the legislature in proportion to their distribution in the general population? ?

NorthReport

What guarantees are there now under first past the post?? Zero

It is up to the political parties just like it is now, and progressive political parties will take that into consideration.

The reactionary right-wing does not support a fair PR system, so I know which way to?vote which is Yes to PR.

contrarianna

Information on Prop Representation (not suppplied by the?corporate exploiters report-mill, the? Fraser Institute) can be found below.

Some organization that suppoort PR are listed at the bottom of this page:
https://www.fairvote.ca/

This page has a bibliography with active links providing much information:
https://www.fairvote.ca/resources/

FAQs/Mythbusters:
https://www.fairvote.ca/pr4bc-faqs-mythbusters/

Two major Canadian proponents who have made studies of PR systems are Dr. Dennis Pilon and Dr. Brian Tanguay:

Dr. Dennis Pilon is one of Canada’s top electoral reform experts, with two books and numerous articles and chapters on the topic. Dr. Brian Tanguay was lead author of the Law Commission of Canada’s 200 page report that was submitted to the federal Minister of Justice in March 2004 recommending Mixed Member proportional representation.

The Pro Rep Fact Checker investigates and reviews claims made frequently? in the referendum by opponents, proponents, and media columnists. The goal is to explain what the evidence actually says on each subject and how it applies in the BC context.

As Denis Pilon puts it,

"BC voters deserve to have access to a balanced and neutral evaluation of the claims being made by both proponents and opponents in this campaign. We look at the claims, compare them to the evidence from peer-reviewed studies and rate them. The Pro Rep Fact Checker will give voters the ability to confidently assess the validity of claims being made by both sides."

The Pro Rep Fact checker is live at http://www.prorepfactcheck.ca/

https://www.fairvote.ca/2018/09/21/experts-review-the-evidence-surroundi...

The?site listed, Proportional Representation Fact Checker
www.prorepfactcheck.ca/ ,? is up and running though, it had?
been taken?off?by 2 Denial of Service cyber attacks shortly after launch, as described here:

Electoral reform under attack as B.C. prepares for referendum
Linda Leon
September 26, 2018

/48f/blogs/bloggers/linda-leons-blog/2018/09/electoral-refor...

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
The question about PR systems is a ranked choice vote where the winning selection will have to get over half the votes.

Yes, that's why I said "first choices".? It's super if some PR option wins by being a lot of people's second or third choice, but what if a voter's second choice is actually FPTP?? How do they indicate that in such a way that FPTP would also receive the benefit of being a voter's second choice?

JKR

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
The question about PR systems is a ranked choice vote where the winning selection will have to get over half the votes.

Yes, that's why I said "first choices".? It's super if some PR option wins by being a lot of people's second or third choice, but what if a voter's second choice is actually FPTP?? How do they indicate that in such a way that FPTP would also receive the benefit of being a voter's second choice?

In this referendum there is no way for voters to indicate that FPTP is their second choice.

Also, the 3 PR systems will cumulatively get 100% of the first round votes in the first round of the PR vote.

Pondering

Can anyone find the general thread on proportional representation? If so can you tell me where it is please?

contrarianna

Don't be confused by?falsehoods posted previously in this thread.

If you choose Proportional Representation on the ballot and you really don't care which of the 3 options?you can,? if you wish, leave the ranking section blank--Your vote for PR still counts and the option that has the most?of votes is the one chosen.

From the BC Elections official guide:
?

If more than half the votes support
proportional representation on the first
question, the proportional system with the
most support on the second question will
be adopted.

If a proportional voting system is adopted it must be in place for provincial
elections called on or after July 1, 2021. A provincial election called before
this date would use First Past the Post.

https://elections.bc.ca/docs/referendum/2018-Referendum-on-Electoral-Ref...

In my opinion ANY of the three PR option will be much superior to FPTP:

All of the proportional systems on BC’s ballot are a huge improvement over our current system, first-past-the-post.?

All three systems share these attributes:

**Proportional results
**Retain MLA accountability to a specific geographic area (local or regional)
**Real names on the ballot – not just parties
**No region to have fewer MLAs than now
**No significant increase in number of MLAs
**5% provincial threshold to get proportional seats
**Simplicity for voters

https://www.fairvote.ca/bc-pr-systems/

The site also provides plenty of links if you want to establish a preference for one of the options.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

SO...coalition government is EXACTLY the same as fascism?

Didn't realize the anti-PR crowd actually live in Bizarro Columbia.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Didn't realize the anti-PR crowd actually live in Bizarro Columbia.

To be fair, the counter-campaign comparing Doug Ford to Geert Wilders and referring to him as a "far-right extremist" is a little loopy too.

Must be something in the water.

JKR

NorthReport wrote:

The people against PR do not want a fair voting system

In 2017 PR would have resulted in 8 seats less for the Liberals, 6 seats less for the NDP,?13 seats more for the Greens, and a minority government

In 2013 PR would have resulted in 12 seats less for the Liberals, same number of seats for the NDP, 6?seats more for the Greens, and a minority government

In 2009 PR would have resulted in 10 seats less for the Liberals, same number for the NDP, and 7 seats more for the Greens resulting in a minority government

In 2005 PR?would have resulted in 10 seats less for the Liberals, same number of the seats for the NDP, and and 8 seats more for the Greens, resulting in a minority

In 2001 using PR would have resulted in 31 seats less for the Liberals, 15 seats more for the NDP, and 9 Seats more for the Greens

I wonder why the BC Liberals are dead set against fair voting??????

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

So Doug Ford is not a right wing whack job? I guess the Center of the Universe has different definitions than the rest of Canada. So Harper was a progressive?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
So Doug Ford is not a right wing whack job?

He's both.? But that doesn't mean he's "far-right extremist".?

Quote:
So Harper was a progressive?

No.? But guess what else he wasn't?

That's right.? A "far-right extremist".

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

So Doug Ford is not a far right extremist. No wonder we agree on so little. You can't even call a kettle black. However the fact that every socialist government in the world is evil or incompetent according to your fascist world view is a least consistent.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
However the fact that every socialist government in the world is evil or incompetent according to your fascist world view is a least consistent.

Don't you mean "far-left extremist" government?

I wonder if, after tomorrow, I'd have much luck convincing a Brazilian that I, too, suffer the jackboot of a "far-right extremist" stepping on my neck?

Silly exaggerations don't help anyone.? Pretending Ford is a "far-right extremist" for the purposes of a fearmongering ad is no less absurd than equating goose-stepping soldiers with PR governments for the purposes of a fearmongering ad.

After this referendum, a lot of BC voters still won't know much about different electoral systems, but they'll know that evidently, all of them inevitably lead to Nazis.

Brian White

I think BC should opt for Rural_Urban proportional (option 3) on the paper for a? number of reasons.? Number 1 reason is that we in BC??will have an opertunity to see and participate in? 2 different proportional systems.?? This means that BC can be a testing ground.? I'm originally from Ireland where STV is the norm.?? I was protestant in the south and I believe STV helped modify politicans's behaviour enough to keep extremists out of power in the 1960's through the 1990's.? STV does that because appealing only to a faction of 15%? or 20% and turning off everyone else will not get you elected. A candidate has to get second and 3rd preferences from other candidates voters to reach the treshold and get elected. This makes compromise necessary and also helps elect canditates who are capable of compromise.??

Second reason is that STV in urban areas will mean a kind of political amalgimation.? Candidates elected from a Victoria city wide electoral area,? will have to make decisions that benifit the entire area rather than concentrate on just their stronghold.? This might help solve or mitigate our? traffic problems.?

I am not famililar with the other system in urban rural(MMP) but I do know that STV has good proportionality in 5 seat ridings while in 3 seaters, it is not so good. Rural ridings in BC will be truely gigantic so I am not sure that STV can represent them well in 5 seaters.? ?In my view,? I don't think you can really judge a system until you try it.? I voted in 5 seat ridings over the course of local, national and european elections for about 15 years.? STV conveys a lot of info to the politicians, they can see precicely where they are in relation to other politicians in the eyes of the people, and change their actions a little to garner more votes in the following elections.? 1,2,3 on the ballot paper conveys this information,? as opposed to an X in the current system that says nothing about the second and 3rd choices of the voter.??

Sorry, long winded and done.? ? Brian?

contrarianna

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

I'm voting no because no matter how bad FPP is, PR will be worse. I'm interested in efficient, effective government (yeah, oxymoron) and PR will just have different hands in the cookie jar with more process and less progress.

I'm?fully prepared to pass all the power on to the new generation but, be prepared to pay for your decisions - they are not free. YOU, not me, are going to pay for all the Groper's free spending and all the BC union buddy cost over runs.

Good pick kropotkin.

More on corporate lobbyists. and their love of? FPTP from Press Progress (Broadbent Institute)?.

Meet the Big Business Lobbyists Desperately Fighting To Stop BC’s Electoral Reform Referendum? ? ? ? ? ?British Columbia’s ‘entrenched interests’ seem very, very worried about electoral reform,? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?August 31, 2018

....This week, the BC Supreme Court threw out a request for an injunction bankrolled by the Independent Contractors and Builders Association, a big business lobby group that calls itself “the voice of BC’s construction industry.”

The ICBA is also an affiliate of Merit Canada, one of Canada’s biggest anti-union lobby groups, and a major donor to the BC Liberal Party – according to Elections BC records, the group has given over $350,000 to the BC Liberals over the last decade....

Meanwhile, “Suits and Boots,” a group that lobbies aggressively for oil and gas companies, has also kept busy attacking electoral reform.

Suits and Boots calls itself a “grassroots organization” of “business people from across Canada” looking to “defend Canada’s resource industry.”

Founded by failed federal Conservative Party leadership candidate Rick Peterson, who supported eliminating corporate taxes, and steered by former BC Liberal MLA Lorne Mayencourt, the group says it’s trying to “stop this BC electoral reform train in its tracks” because electoral reform would undermine the interests of oil and gas companies:...

See full article, links, here:

https://pressprogress.ca/meet-the-big-business-lobbyists-desperately-fig...

Lobbyists of oil interests, etc. want the security of power broking that FPTP facilitates.?Here are a few of the those who actually provided filings (This wouldn't include propaganda?supplied by operatives of?a registered "charity" such as the corporate industry funded Fraser Institute,? awash in US oil money, with its claims published without caveats in the corporate press).

Wealthy Elites are Funding the Opposition to BC’s Electoral Reform Referendum, New Filings Show

Why are BC’s wealthy elites so worried about the province’s upcoming electoral reform referendum?

September 13, 2018

.....This fall, British Columbians will cast their votes on whether the province should stick with its outdated first-past-the-post electoral system or join other countries around the world, such as Germany, New Zealand and Norway, who have relied on a proportional voting system without any problems for decades.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

According to newly published financial disclosures by Elections BC, it turns out the people who most want to stick with the status quo are BC’s rich and powerful “entrenched interests.”? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ....

Here’s a breakdown of some of the big spenders who each donated more than $1,000 to the ‘No’ campaign – as well as some of their ludicrous views and shady dealings:

....

?

Full article wirh some of the big spenders ?here:

https://pressprogress.ca/wealthy-elites-are-funding-the-opposition-to-bc...

?

Mobo2000

Thanks for bringing all this info here, Contrianna.??? I've also found this MEVC society site a good overview of PR and the various models:?

https://voteprbc.ca/get-informed/

And here is a website from the other side, basically arguing PR is too complicated, and collapsing the differences between the various models:

https://nobcprorep.ca/

?

contrarianna

From the Georgia Straight, among other thngs, on minority governments versus the stability fearmongering over Proportional Representation:

Seth Klein: Pro rep will indeed mean more minority governments—bring it on!
by Seth Klein on October 29th,

[Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives B.C. director Seth Klein points out that minority governments have brought forth some of the most important social programs in Canadian history.]

Among the fear-mongering claims of the "No" side in B.C.’s electoral reform debate, a favourite trope is that proportional representation (pro rep) will result in unstable minority governments that can’t get anything done.

The claim is unsubstantiated nonsense.

That said, one assumption from the claim is true; namely, that pro rep almost always produces minority or coalition governments. Which is great!

Minority outcomes result in more cooperation in our politics. Parties have to put together governing alliances or coalitions that, in combination, reflect the majority of voters. And they are forced to collaborate on policies that better reflect the desires of a majority. The culture, tone and practice of politics is less divisive. After all, parties cannot viciously antagonize other parties whose support they may need in order to govern.
....
In other countries, the minority governments produced under pro rep have proven to be plenty stable, with elections occurring no more often than under our current first-past-the-post (FPTP) system.

According to research by political scientist Dennis Pilon that compared the voting history of pro rep countries versus countries with FPTP systems such as ours, between the Second World War and 1998, the FPTP countries had on average 16.7 federal elections, while the pro rep countries had an average of 16. In other words, big picture, no notable difference....

Over 80 percent of OECD countries use some form of pro rep, and most are very stable. Not only do they have stable governments, but they have notably more stable policy environments, rather than experiencing “policy lurches” as power swings back and forth between false majority governments....

The complete article here:
https://www.straight.com/news/1157251/seth-klein-pro-rep-will-indeed-mea...

Other PropRep articles from the Straight:

Seth Klein and Vyas Saran: Electoral reform will not enable the far right—debunking a red herring

https://www.straight.com/news/1121841/seth-klein-and-vyas-saran-electora...

Seth Klein: How electoral reform enhances local representation

https://www.straight.com/news/1109066/seth-klein-how-electoral-reform-en...

Gurpreet Singh: Minorities need to beware of fear mongering by opponents of proportional representation
?

https://www.straight.com/news/1157056/gurpreet-singh-minorities-need-bew...

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I filled out my ballot and voted for Pro-Rep with RUP first and MMP second.

https://elections.bc.ca/referendum/voting-systems/rural-urban-proportion...

quizzical

same here.

BC Liberals are getting slammed hard for using PR to choose a leader but fear mongering against it for the rest of us, eh.

Pondering

I'm sold enough on PR that if I were asked to vote on it today I would vote yes. It doesn't mean I've become blind to the drawbacks and there are drawbacks. The drawbacks need to be acknowledged for pro-arguments to be convincing.? It also seems to be presented as the be all and end all of improving democracy when there are other equally significant moves that could dramatically increase the power of the people over politicians regardless of system.?

But not to get too off track, how is the battle for PR going in BC? Does it seem popular??

quizzical

week one went to the yes vote.?

debate this Sat on it.

no side is throwing bundles at it. Elections BC looking into 3rd party spending.

former no followers are learning BC Liberals use PR to choose a leader because fptp is not democratic. so it's just how status quo people are.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
BC Liberals use PR to choose a leader

Is the system they use for leadership races actually proportional?? And if so, why, in a race for one position?? How can one position be "proportionally" allocated the way 338 ridings can?

Who is claiming that they use a proportional system?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

The system they use is considered by some to be a form of PR.? It is similar to Trudeau's preferred system.? What is hilarious is that they could have used FPTP but they actually understand that to govern a party electing someone as leader with the backing of potentially a third or less of the membership would be disastrous. They don't seem to mind that outcome when it gives them dictatorial power over the body politic with less than a majority of voters supporting their agenda.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
The system they use is considered by some to be a form of PR

I don't think those "some" are from around here.? I seem to recall reading, many times, that ranked ballot is not, in and of itself, proportional.

I also recall people pointing this out when it became clear that it was the preferred "electoral reform" of the Liberals.

I'm not sure I see any contradictions or hypocrisy if the Liberals use the same system internally that they proposed for federal elections (but that was never adopted because nobody else supported it, in part because it's not proportional).

Again, who's claiming that the Liberals use a proportional system?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

The Liberal's claim it is a proportional system. Now you are claiming that the federal Liberal party and the BC Liberal party have the same policies and are one party. I'd put the shovel down if I were you.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
The Liberal's claim it is a proportional system.

Really?? They seem to understand that they're two different things:

Quote:

The ministerial mandate letter sent to Maryam Monsef, Canada's minister of Democratic Institutions, laid out?the tasks she?will be expected?to complete in her new role.

Among other things, she was directed to "bring forward a proposal to establish a special parliamentary committee to consult on electoral reform, including preferential ballots [and]?proportional representation." The goal is to make good on Trudeau's pledge that the 2015 federal election would be the last decided via the first-past-the-post?system.

Quote:
Now you are claiming that the federal Liberal party and the BC Liberal party have the same policies and are one party.

I'm not claiming they're one party, but in this regard -- choice of electoral model for leadership votes -- do they not share the same policy?

Still curious who's claiming that the Libs -- federal or provincial -- are actually using a proportional system for leadership votes.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

In politics it is often informative to know who is supporting which side. If you think that Howe Street parties should be able to rule dictatorially with less than 50% of the vote then you are agreeing with BC's 1%,

Earlier this fall,?PressProgress?reported that the anti-reform side’s first donor list included big-name corporate executives and right-wing power brokers.

The first list included names like mining magnate?Ross Beaty, Future Shop founder and billionaire BC Liberal donor?Hassan Khosrowshahi?as well as Suzanne Anton, former attorney general under BC premier Christy Clark.

Since then, the anti-reform side has filed 4 additional reports. The latest filings show that around two-thirds of all the No side donors are well-connected politicians and business people based in some of the most exclusive neighbours of Vancouver and Victoria.

https://pressprogress.ca/wealthy-urban-elites-are-bankrolling-the-opposi...

Pondering

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/john-horgan-i-voted-for-...

Voters can also choose to stick with the current first-past-the-post system.

That's the option chosen by former NDP?premiers?Glen Clark and Ujjal Dosanjh. Clark told Business in Vancouver?this week that he prefers the current system because "I like to vote for the person who represents me."

That's a surprise. What do you make of it?

When will the results come in? Such an important vote and I'm not seeing much if any national coverage.?

https://www.cbc.ca/news Trump is the big news. He is, but the Canadian news is sorely lacking. It's mostly clickbait stuff.?

This is a pretty historic vote I would think.?

JKR

It makes sense that Glen Clark would love FPTP since he was the leader of the BC NDP when it "won" a phoney FPTP "majority" government after coming in second place in the 1996 election. It was a classic FPTP "wrong winner" election. In the 1996 election the BC Liberals received 42% of the vote and the BC NDP received just 39% but the BC NDP won a majority government. That election the BC Liberals also split the right of centre vote with the BC Reform Party. Four years later in 2001 the right here in BC took away their support for the BC Reform Party to insure that the right of centre vote would not split again and aligned firmly behind the BC Liberals who won almost every seat here except for the two seats the NDP could hold onto. Nowadays Glen Clark works for Jimmy Pattison, BC's richest person. Clark's one of the few NDP'ers here who still support FPTP along with all of the BC Liberals here who are now counting on left of centre vote-splitting between the BC NDP and BC Greens to hand power back to the BC Liberals next election. Glen Clark is still an NDP supporter and if we stil unfortunately have FPTP next election Clark will undoubtedly tell left of centre BCers that they must not split the vote since "a vote for the BC Greens is a vote for the BC Liberals."

contrarianna

Pondering wrote:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/john-horgan-i-voted-for-...

Voters can also choose to stick with the current first-past-the-post system.

That's the option chosen by former NDP?premiers?Glen Clark and Ujjal Dosanjh. Clark told Business in Vancouver?this week that he prefers the current system because "I like to vote for the person who represents me."

That's a surprise. What do you make of it?

....

Not really? a surprise , and it is re-stated very often.

The corporate-boosted "No" side and the corporate press love to promote the illusion that "even these major NDPers think this is a bad thing".?

You would think that what is more relevant (and usually carefully omitted in the telling) is who these operators actually work for now.

Dosanjh of course is a federal Liberal MP with de facto support for Trudeau's broken promise on the referdum on PropRep.

Clark is now the Chief Operating Officer for Jim Pattison Group owned by Canada's multi-billion dollar mogul, Jim Pattison.

contrarianna

For those still intending to fill out the ballot, "Be sure to return your completed voting package so that it is received by Elections BC by 4:30 p.m. November 30".

There is a slick and informative Referendum Guide quiz available, created by Jamie Deith, if you want help narrowing down your options, or just curious how it corresponds to your choices.?

Here:
http://referendumguide.ca/lime/index.php/2018?

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Voter Turnout for BC’s Electoral Reform Referendum Exceeds Target Demanded by?Opposition

Voter turnout in British Columbia’s electoral reform referendum has surpassed the number the official No campaign said was needed in order for their side to recognize the legitimacy of the vote.

According to data released Monday morning, Elections BC had already received over 1.3 million referendum ballots by Friday’s deadline, meaning voter turnout (41%) will surpass the magic number floated by the No side in the dying days of the campaign.

That number is expected to increase further when the final referendum results are announced later this month.

In the final weeks of the referendum, the head of the No campaign repeatedly stated voter turnout needed to exceed the arbitrary number of 40% in order for his side to accept the results.

Yet Bill Tieleman, president of the No BC Proportional Representation Society, says he is not prepared to recognize the legitimacy of the vote despite turnout exceeding his own magic number.

“It would be premature to determine the legitimacy of the referendum until all results are in,” Tieleman told?PressProgress, adding that is going to wait until “all information about the vote is available.”

Despite Tieleman’s reluctance to even recognize the legitimacy of the referendum, by law?turnout does not need to meet any threshold to validate the referendum and the results will be?legally binding?regardless of what the losing side says.

Meanwhile, BC Liberal leader Andrew Wilkinson has been shifting his own goal post on the question of what he considers a “legitimate” turnout.

In November,?Ming Pao News reported Wilkinson would “question the validity of the referendum result” if turnout falls below 30%.

During a Q&A session with a chamber of commerce a few weeks later, Wilkinson upped that number to “40%,” after predicting the final turnout would only reach “15%.”

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

These clowns will use any stupid argument. What voter turnout threshold do they think a municipal government in the province should have before they are allowed to make laws. In 2018 they ranged from 17.7% to 84.7%.? Andrew represents a Vancouver riding and the voter turnout in that city was just under 40%. Since the counsel and Mayor are left leaning I guess he would be happy to say they have no legitimacy.

https://www.civicinfo.bc.ca/election

quizzical

well the no's won. i wonder if the no's who said? they wouldn't accept the results as too few voted are going to reject these results?

ya right.....

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..that's disappointing.

B.C. votes to keep first-past-the-post electoral system

For the third time, British Columbians have voted to keep the current first-past-the-post system for provincial elections.

Elections BC announced the results Thursday, saying 61.3 per cent of ballots had been cast in favour of the status quo.

quote:

In the end, 42.6?per cent of eligible voters returned their ballots in time to be counted, according to Elections B.C. A simple majority would have been enough to change the voting system for provincial elections.

A total of 1.39 million ballots were cast in the election; 2,461 were rejected.

Martin N.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

These clowns will use any stupid argument. What voter turnout threshold do they think a municipal government in the province should have before they are allowed to make laws. In 2018 they ranged from 17.7% to 84.7%.? Andrew represents a Vancouver riding and the voter turnout in that city was just under 40%. Since the counsel and Mayor are left leaning I guess he would be happy to say they have no legitimacy.

https://www.civicinfo.bc.ca/election


I suppose there are a lot more clowns in BC than there are really smart people like you, krop. You just don't get it that the clowns don't want, by a large margin they don't want, really smart people solving problems we don't have.

I am sorry if this offends you but you and the rest of the save-the-worlders are completely tone-deaf to the will of the majority, prefering to scold rather than to build consensus. Your all-or-nothing refusal to negotiate will be the cause of a coming backlash against your methods. That is sad because your ideas are sound, if a few decades premature.

JKR

Bill Tieleman and the BC Liberals are celebrating tonight. The BC Liberals are counting on FPTP vote-splitting returning them back to power in? the next election. The formal cooperation agreement between the BC NDP minority government and the BC Greens has made them both vulnerable to? FPTP vote-splitting for the foreseeable future.

Hopefully Quebec will lead the country and go ahead with electoral reform.

Pages