BC Liberal leader - 2 months to go!!

[Verum]

Verum, it was a closed and straight up STV, not a PR dog and pony show. Can't conflate the two, much as you would like too.

You might want to look up what STV is, since it is actually a form of PR. I now understand why you are so against PR though, you just don't actually understand what it is.

[Verum]

It was the very worst system of PR. I'm sure British Columbians will choose a better one when they vote on the referendum.

STV is actually a rather good system by most measures. Even though the Liberal leadership version is a little strange, it's not a bad system and it would be a huge improvement over FPTP, especially if we have multi seat constituencies.

[rustled]

STV is actually a rather good system by most measures. Even though the Liberal leadership version is a little strange, it's not a bad system and it would be a huge improvement over FPTP, especially if we have multi seat constituencies.

The only thing people should have found strange was the weighting. How the ballots themselves were used is pretty straightforward. If I'd voted 1.Sullivan, 2. De Jong, 3. Watts, 4. Lee, 5. Stone, 6. Wilkinson, my ballot would have been counted for Sullivan until he was eliminated, then for De Jong until he was eliminated, and then Watts. The final count wouldn't have reflected my personal preference, but it would reflect the preference of most voters because most had placed Wilkinson before Watts on their ballot.

I think what confused people was the weighted system they used to ensure the ridings were well represented. If they hadn't done a good job recruiting Liberal party members in, say, their Kootenay ridings, they would still want to be confident the members in the Kootenays felt the party's choice of leader would properly reflect the needs of that particular area of the province.

It seems to me this "weighting" would force everyone vying for leadership to pay attention to every part of the province, not just the ones they are already familiar with, not just the ones they feel they have already won over. No riding gets ignored. It may be strange, particularly to those who have always lived on the urban side of BC's urban/rural divide, but I tend to think it's a good thing.

[Gone_Fishin]

I think what confused people was the weighted system they used to ensure the ridings were well represented. If they hadn't done a good job recruiting Liberal party members in, say, their Kootenay ridings, they would still want to be confident the members in the Kootenays felt the party's choice of leader would properly reflect the needs of that particular area of the province.

It seems to me this "weighting" would force everyone vying for leadership to pay attention to every part of the province, not just the ones they are already familiar with, not just the ones they feel they have already won over. No riding gets ignored. It may be strange, particularly to those who have always lived on the urban side of BC's urban/rural divide, but I tend to think it's a good thing.

Agreed. Of course, the NDPers on here might not understand it, as they just aren't very smart. They could look at what their own party did in 2017 for an example, as Horgan didn't venture past Hope in the election, and of course only got 2 seats from 95% of BC's land mass as a result.

[Verum]

STV is actually a rather good system by most measures. Even though the Liberal leadership version is a little strange, it's not a bad system and it would be a huge improvement over FPTP, especially if we have multi seat constituencies.

The only thing people should have found strange was the weighting. How the ballots themselves were used is pretty straightforward. If I'd voted 1.Sullivan, 2. De Jong, 3. Watts, 4. Lee, 5. Stone, 6. Wilkinson, my ballot would have been counted for Sullivan until he was eliminated, then for De Jong until he was eliminated, and then Watts. The final count wouldn't have reflected my personal preference, but it would reflect the preference of most voters because most had placed Wilkinson before Watts on their ballot. Good, concise explanation of STV, showing that it can basically be explained in a single relatively simple sentence. Anyone who finds it too confusing probably struggles to know which end of a pencil is used to make a mark. The weighting is a bit stupid since it ultimately gives greater power to certain voters and all votes should count equally, but that's a problem we have with our current outdated system anyway.

I think what confused people was the weighted system they used to ensure the ridings were well represented. If they hadn't done a good job recruiting Liberal party members in, say, their Kootenay ridings, they would still want to be confident the members in the Kootenays felt the party's choice of leader would properly reflect the needs of that particular area of the province.

It seems to me this "weighting" would force everyone vying for leadership to pay attention to every part of the province, not just the ones they are already familiar with, not just the ones they feel they have already won over. No riding gets ignored. It may be strange, particularly to those who have always lived on the urban side of BC's urban/rural divide, but I tend to think it's a good thing. It certainly is for those in constituencies with fewer eligible voters. It's basically a form of pandering to a minority. Sort of like affirmative action, but based on location rather than anything really worthwhile. But as usual, people are quite happy to disenfranchise "urban" voters for the benefit of "rural" ones.

[rustled]

...
It seems to me this "weighting" would force everyone vying for leadership to pay attention to every part of the province, not just the ones they are already familiar with, not just the ones they feel they have already won over. No riding gets ignored. It may be strange, particularly to those who have always lived on the urban side of BC's urban/rural divide, but I tend to think it's a good thing. It certainly is for those in constituencies with fewer eligible voters. It's basically a form of pandering to a minority. Sort of like affirmative action, but based on location rather than anything really worthwhile. But as usual, people are quite happy to disenfranchise "urban" voters for the benefit of "rural" ones.

Well now, isn't this interesting?

I say ensure the fringes are also heard and understood and acknowledged by the party leader, and you, a stalwart proponent of proportional representation, hear "pander to a minority" and "disenfranchise 'urban' voters for the benefit of 'rural' ones".

Surely you're not suggesting the needs of the fringes should be subjugated to the wants of the masses, although that's certainly the way it sounds to me. Coming from you, this doesn't inspire confidence that proportional representation would give everyone a voice, ensure everyone's needs would be considered.

Leaders are responsible to all British Columbians, whether they're the premier or the opposition. Not just British Columbians in their own riding, nor just in the ridings they're familiar with, nor just in the the urban or just in the rural, nor just in those ridings primarily reliant on agriculture, or primarily reliant on forestry, or primarily reliant on mineral resources, or primarily reliant on tourism, or primarily reliant on governing. Not just the wealthiest ridings, and not just the poorest, not just those in the middle. British Columbians in all ridings. Using a weighted ballot makes good sense to me.

[Cactusflower]

^^Seems to me that by electing Wilkinson as their leader, the BC Liberals are pandering to the wealthiest ridings. A candidate who was down near the bottom of the list after the first ballot but ended up at the top after 4 subsequent ballots sounds very suspicious to me. And are you implying that the other 5 candidates are now simply 'fringe politicians'?

[Buckeye19]

^^Seems to me that by electing Wilkinson as their leader, the BC Liberals are pandering to the wealthiest ridings. A candidate who was down near the bottom of the list after the first ballot but ended up at the top after 4 subsequent ballots sounds very suspicious to me. And are you implying that the other 5 candidates are now simply 'fringe politicians'?

Wilkinson was near the bottom after the first ballot?

This is why people don't take you seriously.

[Cactusflower]

^^Seems to me that by electing Wilkinson as their leader, the BC Liberals are pandering to the wealthiest ridings. A candidate who was down near the bottom of the list after the first ballot but ended up at the top after 4 subsequent ballots sounds very suspicious to me. And are you implying that the other 5 candidates are now simply 'fringe politicians'?

Wilkinson was near the bottom after the first ballot?

This is why people don't take you seriously.

Okay, I'll bite......where was he after the first ballot? Number one? No. Number two? No. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he, Todd Stone and Mike deJong were almost tied for last place.

[rustled]

^^Seems to me that by electing Wilkinson as their leader, the BC Liberals are pandering to the wealthiest ridings. A candidate who was down near the bottom of the list after the first ballot but ended up at the top after 4 subsequent ballots sounds very suspicious to me. And are you implying that the other 5 candidates are now simply 'fringe politicians'?

Implied nothing of the sort. Fringe ridings are not at all the same thing as fringe politicians, but as always your interpretations are a result of your perceptions, not mine.

[George+]

The others lost because...
The Liberals did not want a woman, again.

The old guard did not want renewal.

Tough image for Wilkinson to overcome
And all the Liberals lies.

[rustled]

Okay, I'll bite......where was he after the first ballot? Number one? No. Number two? No. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he, Todd Stone and Mike deJong were almost tied for last place.

You're wrong, although it wouldn't surprise me if those using NDP math might interpret these results to suit their own narrative:

FIRST ROUND RESULTS
(total points: 8,700; points needed for victory: 4,351)
Dianne Watts: 2,135 points – 24.54%
Michael Lee: 1,917 points – 22.03%
Andrew Wilkinson: 1,591 points – 18.29%
Todd Stone: 1,483 points – 17.05%
Mike de Jong: 1,415 points – 16.27%
Sam Sullivan: 158 points – 1.82%
http://www.timescolonist.com/news/local ... 1.23164040

The rest of the rounds are there as well.

[Buckeye19]

The others lost because...
The Liberals did not want a woman, again.

The old guard did not want renewal.

Tough image for Wilkinson to overcome
And all the Liberals lies.

Nice try, George.

[Verum]

Well now, isn't this interesting?

I say ensure the fringes are also heard and understood and acknowledged by the party leader, and you, a stalwart proponent of proportional representation, hear "pander to a minority" and "disenfranchise 'urban' voters for the benefit of 'rural' ones". The fringes should be heard in proportion to their size, and not disproportionately. I'm surprised I have to spell that out for you, but I really shouldn't be. Rural voters should have, individually, no more input than urban voters. Democracy should treat everyone and every vote as equal.

Surely you're not suggesting the needs of the fringes should be subjugated to the wants of the masses, although that's certainly the way it sounds to me. Coming from you, this doesn't inspire confidence that proportional representation would give everyone a voice, ensure everyone's needs would be considered. Of course the wants of the fringes should be less important than the needs of the masses. That's simple PR for you. Everyone should have an equally loud voice. How is this hard for you to understand?

Leaders are responsible to all British Columbians, whether they're the premier or the opposition. Not just British Columbians in their own riding, nor just in the ridings they're familiar with, nor just in the the urban or just in the rural, nor just in those ridings primarily reliant on agriculture, or primarily reliant on forestry, or primarily reliant on mineral resources, or primarily reliant on tourism, or primarily reliant on governing. Not just the wealthiest ridings, and not just the poorest, not just those in the middle. British Columbians in all ridings. Using a weighted ballot makes good sense to me.So you are in favour of discriminating against people based on where they live. Again, it shouldn't really surprise me. It shouldn't matter if it's someone in Terrace or Richmond, Kelowna or Vancouver, each and every voice should have equal weight in our democracy and it is somewhat tyrannical to do otherwise.

Do you really not like Democracy so much that you would push for some votes to be worth more than others?

[Urbane]

The others lost because...
The Liberals did not want a woman, again.

The old guard did not want renewal.

Tough image for Wilkinson to overcome
And all the Liberals lies.

So ironic. Christy Clark resigned on her own whereas Carole James was forced out by the NDP.