BC Lib leader contender publicly lies about electoral reform

[Urban Cowboy]

^^As it stands right now, a government can have a majority with only 39% of the popular vote, and that has to change.

Why is it that I get the overwhelming feeling, that if the NDP were constantly winning majority governments, we wouldn't even be having this conversation?

"has to change" because the NDP keep losing no doubt, just as they concocted a plan for us to fund the NDP publicly, because they are too inept to raise their own funds, and manage them properly.

Any system that makes it hard for the NDP to achieve power, must be functioning perfectly as far as I'm concerned.

[maryjane48]

ots not to change for a party its to change for us the people. we need more regional say on different issues . its why i loved the rhino party, they were us and not for anything else

[Urban Cowboy]

ots not to change for a party its to change for us the people. we need more regional say on different issues . its why i loved the rhino party, they were us and not for anything else

Just a thought, but how about you apply the same level of skepticism you use anytime it involves Liberals, to the NDP, and tell us honestly, if their plan to have tax payers fund the political parties, is in the best interests of "us the people" or in the best interests of the NDP, who are incapable of raising funds for their party, and managing them properly.

Do you seriously believe that plan is best for us the people?

What would your response be if this were the Liberals unable to raise party funding, and coming up with a plan for your tax dollars to support them? Would you feel it's best for us the people?

[hobbyguy]

^^As it stands right now, a government can have a majority with only 39% of the popular vote, and that has to change.

FPTP has its flaws, but the plus side is you get to vote for the most competent representatives. It has also served Canada very well throughout our history. The best bonus to FPTP is that parties come and go, and it avoids the kind of situation where a fixed ideology never goes away.

The downside to our political system, not the electoral system, is the undemocratic nature of political parties. Trying to get a grass roots initiative up through political apparatchiks is like pulling teeth.

PR does absolutely nothing to solve that, in point of fact it makes it worse because of "party lists". Fine, there are say 100 seats, Party A wins 15 seats with 30% of the vote. That means Party A gets to select 15 MLAs with NO public input - so half of the MLAs are now undemocratically appointed by party apparatchiks. Part B wins 30 seats with 30.2% of the vote. They get 0 seats to appoint, so their MLAs are ALL democratically selected. Party C gets 20% of the vote, and win one seat. Party C then appoints 19 MLAs from their party list, so 19 of their MLAs are undemocratically appointed. Party D wins zero seats, but got 9.8% of the vote, so they get to appoint 10 MLAs from their party list, so all 10 of their MLAs are undemocratically appointed.

In that scenario, 15+19+10 seats are undemocratically appointed MLAs - appointed by party apparatchiks, not by merit, not by any public vote. 44% of the MLAs would be appointed by party brass and apparatchiks, not by the voters. (That is not unusual for PR systems.)

You could easily have a scenario where Party D turns out to be a racist, misogynist, person neo-Nazi party. In the most recent German election, the AfD far right party won only 3 constituency seats, but got to appoint 91 more far right members from their party list. Merkle's CDU won 185 constituency seats, but only got to appoint 15 seats from their party list. It gets really skewed!

So what is the solution?

I would be fine with permanent minority governments. That prevents any party from becoming a runaway train after an election. So IF you want to change the electoral system, you can guarantee that, and a better voice for common folk, by having 15% of the seats selected by lottery (every eligible citizen who puts up their name). Statistically that 15% would be fully representative of the range of views of society, AND those 15% of seats would virtually guarantee that no party could ever achieve a majority, AND all parties would have to "play" to the center of that 15% in order to get anything done - without being able to "whip" them, or threaten their future status (they would be locked in for a full term).

So doing it that way, you free up ridings to select the best representative while ensuring no party can become a "steamroller".

Then to top it off, you don't fund parties. Giving taxpayer money to political apparatchiks invites corruption, and is in fact a corrupt practice (we don't get to decide who those apparatchiks are, so we should not pay for them!). What you do is you fund elections, expand Elections BC. Every candidate gets access to "x" platforms of expression during a campaign. That's it. Then $100/year maximum individual political party donation - no corporations, no unions, no lobby groups may donate to political parties.

That's a formula for getting as close as possible to "one citizen, one vote".

PR is just a deflection while the crooked NDP steal taxpayer $$$ to cover for their party's fiscal ineptitude. The BC Liberals are correct in taking PR on full tilt! It is a pickpocket's scam.

[Cactusflower]

^^As it stands right now, a government can have a majority with only 39% of the popular vote, and that has to change.

FPTP has its flaws, but the plus side is you get to vote for the most competent representatives. It has also served Canada very well throughout our history. The best bonus to FPTP is that parties come and go, and it avoids the kind of situation where a fixed ideology never goes away.

The downside to our political system, not the electoral system, is the undemocratic nature of political parties. Trying to get a grass roots initiative up through political apparatchiks is like pulling teeth.

PR does absolutely nothing to solve that, in point of fact it makes it worse because of "party lists". Fine, there are say 100 seats, Party A wins 15 seats with 30% of the vote. That means Party A gets to select 15 MLAs with NO public input - so half of the MLAs are now undemocratically appointed by party apparatchiks. Part B wins 30 seats with 30.2% of the vote. They get 0 seats to appoint, so their MLAs are ALL democratically selected. Party C gets 20% of the vote, and win one seat. Party C then appoints 19 MLAs from their party list, so 19 of their MLAs are undemocratically appointed. Party D wins zero seats, but got 9.8% of the vote, so they get to appoint 10 MLAs from their party list, so all 10 of their MLAs are undemocratically appointed.

In that scenario, 15+19+10 seats are undemocratically appointed MLAs - appointed by party apparatchiks, not by merit, not by any public vote. 44% of the MLAs would be appointed by party brass and apparatchiks, not by the voters. (That is not unusual for PR systems.)

You could easily have a scenario where Party D turns out to be a racist, misogynist, person neo-Nazi party. In the most recent German election, the AfD far right party won only 3 constituency seats, but got to appoint 91 more far right members from their party list. Merkle's CDU won 185 constituency seats, but only got to appoint 15 seats from their party list. It gets really skewed!

So what is the solution?

I would be fine with permanent minority governments. That prevents any party from becoming a runaway train after an election. So IF you want to change the electoral system, you can guarantee that, and a better voice for common folk, by having 15% of the seats selected by lottery (every eligible citizen who puts up their name). Statistically that 15% would be fully representative of the range of views of society, AND those 15% of seats would virtually guarantee that no party could ever achieve a majority, AND all parties would have to "play" to the center of that 15% in order to get anything done - without being able to "whip" them, or threaten their future status (they would be locked in for a full term).

So doing it that way, you free up ridings to select the best representative while ensuring no party can become a "steamroller".

Then to top it off, you don't fund parties. Giving taxpayer money to political apparatchiks invites corruption, and is in fact a corrupt practice (we don't get to decide who those apparatchiks are, so we should not pay for them!). What you do is you fund elections, expand Elections BC. Every candidate gets access to "x" platforms of expression during a campaign. That's it. Then $100/year maximum individual political party donation - no corporations, no unions, no lobby groups may donate to political parties.

That's a formula for getting as close as possible to "one citizen, one vote".

PR is just a deflection while the crooked NDP steal taxpayer $$$ to cover for their party's fiscal ineptitude. The BC Liberals are correct in taking PR on full tilt! It is a pickpocket's scam.

I really like your solution, HG, but how are we going to implement it? You might run it by Andrew Weaver. I don't think the BCLP or the NDP would go for it or they would have passed that legislation long ago.

[flamingfingers]

From the BC Lib leader contender who says that PR defeat is 'her #1 priority':

Laila Yuile‏Verified account
@lailayuile
18m18 minutes ago
More
Eye opener comment just came my way from a 'former' Watts supporter in the valley...he says 'she's too much like Christy. All talk,no plan.' #bcpoli

[hobbyguy]

From the BC Lib leader contender who says that PR defeat is 'her #1 priority':

Laila Yuile‏Verified account
@lailayuile
18m18 minutes ago
More
Eye opener comment just came my way from a 'former' Watts supporter in the valley...he says 'she's too much like Christy. All talk,no plan.' #bcpoli

That's rich coming from Laila the certified person Marxist.

Laila supports the the NoDangPlan party and the grinning fool.

[flamingfingers]

hobbyguy wrote:

That's rich coming from Laila the certified person Marxist.

Laila supports the the NoDangPlan party and the grinning fool.

I guess you didn't understand what she wrote, hg. She did not say what you thought she said. The post the quoted came from a FORMER Dianne Watts supporter - not Laila.

But your post is typical of a blind and prejudiced BC Liberal supporter.