And they're off...

[rustled]

Seems to me there's gotta be a better way. A policy supported by a modest minority may be of vital importance to the health and well-being minority, and only seen as a "bad idea" by those who wouldn't benefit themselves.

Yes, and since PR basically takes level of preference into account, it allows for strong preferences to get more traction than weak ones.

Governing by majority cannot guarantee the genuine needs of the minority are being considered, much less met.

True, but governing by minority will basically guarantee that the genuine needs of the majority are not being considered, much less met. As bad as PR is, FPTP is worse in pretty much every way, except for simplicity and count times. PR is still very simple, so much so that I have understood it, in detail, since I was 8 and as did my entire class in school.

A more cooperative, less divisive form of government would be welcome.

This is basically what PR gives us. Divisive politicians can't get enough broad support to be elected, resulting in lots of cooperation across party lines. Even when divisiveness does creep in, it tends to get removed at the next election. Basically, it means that the majority are not slaves to a minority.
Another benefit of PR is that it makes tactical voting relatively pointless. Especially with single transferable vote, you can put whoever you want at the top of your ballot and be sure that it will not be just a wasted vote, unlike FPTP where it is hard to vote for a better fit candidate if they are not as likely to get elected as a slightly less good fit candidate. Hence all of the not splitting the vote discussion.

There's no reason opposition has to oppose. Weaver seems to get that. MP Dan Albas does, too.

The opposition should oppose anything which is unlikely to get support from those who did not vote for the incumbent. Their job is to be the voice for those whose votes did not count. In PR, especially with STV, there is less need for this as the elected representatives more fully represent the voters.

Here's where we disagree (my bold). Every elected official's job is to represent their entire constituency. Every elected official's job should be to focus on best outcomes for all. That's why you see Dan Albas support something Trudeau has done when he sees it as the best thing for Canadians, instead of attacking it for the sake of party politics. Any politician should be able to look at any piece of policy and judge it on its merits alone.

I'd like to see a whole lot more of "yes, this is a good idea, but can we make this part of it better?" and a whole lot less "what'll get me re-elected next term?"

But as you can see in these threads, the electorate would rather engage in outrage and hyperbole and mudslinging than in cooperation. Our politicians see this, and respond with BS nonsense like keeping schools open and tossing school boards under the bus rather than doing what's right.

Politicians need to rise above our crap, instead of emulating it. Currently, there's little incentive for that. If PR's truly the answer, I say "bring it", but I'd no more believe the NDP are sure to make it happen than I believed the federal Liberals would. Today, it's still just a simplistic promise to appeal to specific voters, but it's not thought through and presented in its entirety. To me, this isn't the deciding factor in who to vote for this time around.

[neilsimon]

Here's where we disagree (my bold). Every elected official's job is to represent their entire constituency. Every elected official's job should be to focus on best outcomes for all. That's why you see Dan Albas support something Trudeau has done when he sees it as the best thing for Canadians, instead of attacking it for the sake of party politics. Any politician should be able to look at any piece of policy and judge it on its merits alone.

I'd like to see a whole lot more of "yes, this is a good idea, but can we make this part of it better?" and a whole lot less "what'll get me re-elected next term?"

But as you can see in these threads, the electorate would rather engage in outrage and hyperbole and mudslinging than in cooperation. Our politicians see this, and respond with BS nonsense like keeping schools open and tossing school boards under the bus rather than doing what's right.

Politicians need to rise above our crap, instead of emulating it. Currently, there's little incentive for that. If PR's truly the answer, I say "bring it", but I'd no more believe the NDP are sure to make it happen than I believed the federal Liberals would. Today, it's still just a simplistic promise to appeal to specific voters, but it's not thought through and presented in its entirety. To me, this isn't the deciding factor in who to vote for this time around.

Yes, in an ideal world, each and every politician should represent all of their constituents equally. If that were the case, you would find any newly elected government would be adopting the policies of the opposition parties in some proportion to that party's support. This would be ideal, but it just doesn't happen. The BC Liberals will not start pushing policies touted by the BC NDP, and of course, visa-versa. In light of the reality we have, which is "winner takes all", we cannot reasonably expect the opposition to behave in a manner different to the government. To expect them to adopt and cooperate with the policies of the government would be to abandon the very policies and ideals that many people voted for, but which the government does not wish to implement.

PR does, to some degree, attempt to solve this through giving compromise voices a better chance. That said, like you, I am sceptical that the BC NDP will bring it in if elected, but for our sake, and the future of BC, it is very important that we try for it. I particularly view Trump and Brexit as the result of FPTP style elections and Marine Le Pen as a result of more PR style elections. It is only a matter of time before BC has it's own Trump moment and I believe that PR is the best defence against such an outcome.

[Urbane]

FPTP is far from perfect and maybe there's a system out there that would be better. Still, FPTP has many advantages. A government can run on a particular platform and have a good chance of forming a majority government and actually enacting that platform. FPTP makes it relatively easy, if the electorate is in the mood for change, to sweep out an old, tired government and elect a new one. FPTP is relatively simple and easily understood. Just saying that there are some benefits.

[neilsimon]

FPTP is far from perfect and maybe there's a system out there that would be better. Still, FPTP has many advantages. A government can run on a particular platform and have a good chance of forming a majority government and actually enacting that platform.

I would personally only consider this a benefit if the government had a significant majority mandate. Any time a government formed by people receiving less than 50% of the vote enacts their promised platform, they are pushing the will of the minority on the majority. This is undemocratic. It would be better that they essentially be forced to find compromise with the other elected representatives and enact a compromise platform. It may not be as quick at making decisions, but at least the decisions have broad support.

FPTP makes it relatively easy, if the electorate is in the mood for change, to sweep out an old, tired government and elect a new one.

So does PR. In fact, PR makes it harder for the old tired government to stack things in their favour.

FPTP is relatively simple and easily understood. Just saying that there are some benefits.

Yes, the relative simplicity is probably the single biggest benefit of FPTP and honestly, we are all smart enough to grasp PR. It's really not that hard.

[Urbane]

I would personally only consider this a benefit if the government had a significant majority mandate. Any time a government formed by people receiving less than 50% of the vote enacts their promised platform, they are pushing the will of the minority on the majority. This is undemocratic. It would be better that they essentially be forced to find compromise with the other elected representatives and enact a compromise platform. It may not be as quick at making decisions, but at least the decisions have broad support.

I have an open mind on the issue but before I support a new voting system I want to make sure that it's really better than what we have now. PR, or a similar system, might possibly increase the percentage of people voting (I'm not sure) but as things stand now it's pretty well impossible to receive majority support of all eligible voters. Receiving majority support of those voting isn't that easy either. I would say that if a majority government doesn't compromise and doesn't do things that most people want they're raising their chances of losing. Don't you think?

I'd also say that if Party A receives 45% of the vote, Party B receives 30% of the vote, and Party C receives 25% of the vote then Party A's platform has the support of more people than the other two parties. Compromise, yes. But we have to consider the fact that while Party A fell short of a majority Parties B and C fell even further short of a majority. Anyway, if governments were to listen more to the opposition parties and if opposition parties were more receptive to not just opposing but working for improvements we'd be better off.

[neilsimon]

I have an open mind on the issue but before I support a new voting system I want to make sure that it's really better than what we have now. PR, or a similar system, might possibly increase the percentage of people voting (I'm not sure) but as things stand now it's pretty well impossible to receive majority support of all eligible voters. Receiving majority support of those voting isn't that easy either.

Certainly not easy, but definitely not necessary. The idea that we should avoid coalition governments is antiquated and actually damaging. A Liberal/Green government would be far more representative for the people of BC than a Liberal or Green government. It might result in some infighting but the end result would be a much more representative, democratic government working for the majority of the Province and not just a large minority.

I would say that if a majority government doesn't compromise and doesn't do things that most people want they're raising their chances of losing. Don't you think?

Not necessarily. Especially if they are constantly against a fragmented opposition. They may never grow in support, but so long as they remain the single largest party in terms of support, they are unlikely to lose.

I'd also say that if Party A receives 45% of the vote, Party B receives 30% of the vote, and Party C receives 25% of the vote then Party A's platform has the support of more people than the other two parties.

True, though if the other parties have very similar platforms, their combined platform may be much more popular, even to the point of having majority support, were it possible to run as a combined platform.

Compromise, yes. But we have to consider the fact that while Party A fell short of a majority Parties B and C fell even further short of a majority.

They have individually fell further short, but combined were actually a majority and therefore the combination of B and C is better than A alone.

Anyway, if governments were to listen more to the opposition parties and if opposition parties were more receptive to not just opposing but working for improvements we'd be better off.

Very true, but voters seem to be easily polarised and in this way, we get the government we deserve.

[rustled]

Here's where we disagree (my bold). Every elected official's job is to represent their entire constituency. Every elected official's job should be to focus on best outcomes for all. That's why you see Dan Albas support something Trudeau has done when he sees it as the best thing for Canadians, instead of attacking it for the sake of party politics. Any politician should be able to look at any piece of policy and judge it on its merits alone.

I'd like to see a whole lot more of "yes, this is a good idea, but can we make this part of it better?" and a whole lot less "what'll get me re-elected next term?"

But as you can see in these threads, the electorate would rather engage in outrage and hyperbole and mudslinging than in cooperation. Our politicians see this, and respond with BS nonsense like keeping schools open and tossing school boards under the bus rather than doing what's right.

Politicians need to rise above our crap, instead of emulating it. Currently, there's little incentive for that. If PR's truly the answer, I say "bring it", but I'd no more believe the NDP are sure to make it happen than I believed the federal Liberals would. Today, it's still just a simplistic promise to appeal to specific voters, but it's not thought through and presented in its entirety. To me, this isn't the deciding factor in who to vote for this time around.

Yes, in an ideal world, each and every politician should represent all of their constituents equally. If that were the case, you would find any newly elected government would be adopting the policies of the opposition parties in some proportion to that party's support. This would be ideal, but it just doesn't happen. The BC Liberals will not start pushing policies touted by the BC NDP, and of course, visa-versa. In light of the reality we have, which is "winner takes all", we cannot reasonably expect the opposition to behave in a manner different to the government. To expect them to adopt and cooperate with the policies of the government would be to abandon the very policies and ideals that many people voted for, but which the government does not wish to implement.

PR does, to some degree, attempt to solve this through giving compromise voices a better chance. That said, like you, I am sceptical that the BC NDP will bring it in if elected, but for our sake, and the future of BC, it is very important that we try for it. I particularly view Trump and Brexit as the result of FPTP style elections and Marine Le Pen as a result of more PR style elections. It is only a matter of time before BC has it's own Trump moment and I believe that PR is the best defence against such an outcome.

(My bold) I'm not making myself clear. That's not what I'd see as ideal.

We shouldn't expect our MLAs, or our MPs, to implement any policy based on either party or popular lines. We should expect all MLAs and MPs to make the best decisions they can with the information at hand. That sometimes means bringing in the HST when the federal government offers a deal right after a provincial election because that's what's actually in the best interests of British Columbians, and not making it a political football. It means approaching issues like school closures with what's best for British Columbians in mind, instead of turning the issue into a political football at our expense. It means not making a bunch of unsound campaign promises, and then following through regardless of new information.

IMO, we need more politicians to do what so few posters here are willing to do: say "Yes, that's what I said, and I'm sorry: I got it wrong. Here's the information I hadn't considered when I said what I did."

IMO, politics is far too much of about taking sides in a popularity contest and winning, and far too little about good governance.

I'm not sure PR would yield a better result. I'm open to the possibility, but I'm not convinced.

[George+]

Unfortunately, the current govt. is a stark example of not compromising.

[Urbane]

Unfortunately, the current govt. is a stark example of not compromising.

And if you believe Andrew Weaver, and I do, the NDP opposition is just into opposing rather than taking the constructive route. Christy Clark and Andrew Weaver seem to get along well. The two of them can sit down and have a civil conversation and that's good. No one exploding on anyone.

[George+]

I am really looking forward to Weaver, the intellectual
Trying to work with Clark, the non intellectual.

It should provide a great deal of comedy relief?

His environmental policies are terroristic compared to the weak ones of the Lieberals.

[The Green Barbarian]

It should provide a great deal of comedy relief?
.

also as much as the posts of the NDP gang here. It's been classic comedy. And the NDP saying Clark is a non-intellectual. Talk about pot meet kettle.

[Rwede]

I think Weaver would have a better time working with Christy than trying to get a positive response from Angry John.

Weaver: Hey John, how about we look to help these folks in Golden attract a few new doctors to the city?

Horgan:

[George+]

Now there is IS a non intellectual posting
That matches Clark precisely.

[The Green Barbarian]

Now there is IS a non intellectual posting
That matches Clark precisely.

Yes, this one:

[ferri]

Back on topic please.