Referendum on how BC votes

[Cactusflower]

I completed the questionnaire the other day. I felt the questions were manufactured by a NDP/Green political wonk.
I still prefer fptp system.

Please go on to explain why you thought the questionaire was not fair, and what you thought about the information provided about the various methods of voting.

[JagXKR]

http://www.businessinsider.com/economis ... ies-2018-1
Best Democracies in the World:
1. Norway - PR
2. Iceland - PR
3. Sweden - PR like
4. New Zealand - PR
5. Denmark - PR
6=. Ireland - PR
6=. Canada - FPTP

Yes, we have the best FPTP democracy in the World, after 6 PR countries
It's time we moved into the 20th century and ditched the antiquated and backward FPTP

Could you have picked a more Caucasian-country based study? Other than NZ they are very very white. Are you saying the whiter a country the better the democracy? One could slant the results that way, but I won't do that.

[Verum]

http://www.businessinsider.com/economis ... ies-2018-1
Best Democracies in the World:
1. Norway - PR
2. Iceland - PR
3. Sweden - PR like
4. New Zealand - PR
5. Denmark - PR
6=. Ireland - PR
6=. Canada - FPTP

Yes, we have the best FPTP democracy in the World, after 6 PR countries
It's time we moved into the 20th century and ditched the antiquated and backward FPTP

Could you have picked a more Caucasian-country based study? Other than NZ they are very very white. Are you saying the whiter a country the better the democracy? One could slant the results that way, but I won't do that.

I strongly doubt that the study was biased to favour Caucasian majority countries. They are also all very well known for their standards of living, freedom and not having great weather. The fact is that 6th is a good result, just not as good as we could do with PR

[Glacier]

I strongly doubt that the study was biased to favour Caucasian majority countries. They are also all very well known for their standards of living, freedom and not having great weather. The fact is that 6th is a good result, just not as good as we could do with PR

Correlation does not imply causation. Did countries move up or down after switching their voting systems? Given the fact that there are only 3 countries in the world with FPTP, it's actually pretty impressive that even one of the nations would crack the top 6, so there's not even any correlation let alone causation. The average position of a FPTP country is 14th place. The average position of a proportional country is something like 40th, so using your logic, FPTP is actually a better system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

[CapitalB]

Disagree. People don't care because they see the same unaccountably regardless of party. Scandals, lies and no recourse when they outright lie. Politicians who, at a whim, jump ship. Hopelessness that confronts the voter knowing that the right thing will not be done due to other powers pulling the strings of everyone on the ballot. The vote does count but only to elect the eunuch politician who once in office is basically towing a single dogma that gets watered down by outside influences.

Oh accountability is absolutely the biggest problem faced by canadian politics. I don't see that coming up on the agenda in the next decade though. What has come up is PR, which will have the net effect of giving the government less absolute power by having it consist of more smaller parties who have to compromise with each other and be more transparent. Since I don't see government accountability happening anytime soon less ability to do things they need to be held accountable for seems like a good system patch to get us through in the meantime.

As an added bonus a small group campaigning on a platform of government accountability would have a much greater chance of success under a PR style government.

[Verum]

I strongly doubt that the study was biased to favour Caucasian majority countries. They are also all very well known for their standards of living, freedom and not having great weather. The fact is that 6th is a good result, just not as good as we could do with PR

Correlation does not imply causation. Did countries move up or down after switching their voting systems? Given the fact that there are only 3 countries in the world with FPTP, it's actually pretty impressive that even one of the nations would crack the top 6, so there's not even any correlation let alone causation. The average position of a FPTP country is 14th place. The average position of a proportional country is something like 40th, so using your logic, FPTP is actually a better system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

There are well more than 3 countries with FPTP for some elections: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting#List_of_current_FPTP_countries
They just tend to be the less well developed countries. Correlation yes, causation, maybe.
There are 2 FPTP countries which classify as full democracies from the Democracy Index you posted and the remaining 50+ FPTP countries are all less than full democracies.

A number of countries have switched from FPTP and I can't think of a single country with established PR which then switched to the antediluvian FPTP. PR is a step in the right direction for any real democracy, just ask New Zealand who used to be FPTP.

[Glacier]

There are well more than 3 countries with FPTP for some elections: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting#List_of_current_FPTP_countries
They just tend to be the less well developed countries. Correlation yes, causation, maybe.
There are 2 FPTP countries which classify as full democracies from the Democracy Index you posted and the remaining 50+ FPTP countries are all less than full democracies.

A number of countries have switched from FPTP and I can't think of a single country with established PR which then switched to the antediluvian FPTP. PR is a step in the right direction for any real democracy, just ask New Zealand who used to be FPTP.

I stand corrected. I guess that when the person on the radio stated that the US, Canada, and the UK were the only nations using FPTP (so let's switch because all the cool kids are doing it), they were only talking about western nations or first world nations or something like that.

Did switching help New Zealand? I know that you understand the correlation does not imply causation. You have to actually have to look at how nations like New Zealand changed once switching. I think we can all agree that there are good arguments for FPTP, but there are also good arguments for proportional representation.

Obviously you think the arguments for PR are better than the arguments for FPTP, but I'm not convinced. During the last referendum on electoral reform in BC the majority voted to keep FPTP, but that was up against a system that might not have been the best alternative to FPTP, although STV did a great job of eliminating one of my main concerns with PR: that it might become less democratic because it becomes harder to vote people out of office. ie. If there's a really bad politician that's appointed by the party, it's the party that gets the final say, not the voters.

[Omnitheo]

Anyone saying that other systems are too complicated is making a mockery of your intelligence. Even a 5 year old can number things in order of what they like more.

And the nice thing is, if that’s too complicated for you, you can still just choose one like in the current system. Meanwhile the rest of us will choose our second and third choices as well.

[Glacier]

Anyone saying that other systems are too complicated is making a mockery of your intelligence. Even a 5 year old can number things in order of what they like more.

And the nice thing is, if that’s too complicated for you, you can still just choose one like in the current system. Meanwhile the rest of us will choose our second and third choices as well.

I agree with you on this one. The "it's too complicated" is the dumbest FPTP argument out there.

[CapitalB]

I stand corrected. I guess that when the person on the radio stated that the US, Canada, and the UK were the only nations using FPTP (so let's switch because all the cool kids are doing it), they were only talking about western nations or first world nations or something like that.

Did switching help New Zealand? I know that you understand the correlation does not imply causation. You have to actually have to look at how nations like New Zealand changed once switching. I think we can all agree that there are good arguments for FPTP, but there are also good arguments for proportional representation.

Obviously you think the arguments for PR are better than the arguments for FPTP, but I'm not convinced. During the last referendum on electoral reform in BC the majority voted to keep FPTP, but that was up against a system that might not have been the best alternative to FPTP, although STV did a great job of eliminating one of my main concerns with PR: that it might become less democratic because it becomes harder to vote people out of office. ie. If there's a really bad politician that's appointed by the party, it's the party that gets the final say, not the voters.

I think a small part of the issue with the debate going on here is that (my impression) a lot of PR supporters don't see most of the benefits of FPTP listed there as being benefits. They're benefits in a first past the post system because they are its only redeemable qualities, if you were selling the two systems from scratch to me though I'd feel like you were selling me a trickle down voting system. Again this is just my impression and other PR supporting people may disagree.

Lets me know who to blame. Does it matter if the only thing that comes out of that is;

We vote the bums out. So we frequently get governments so bad we have to torpedo the entire party over it?

It keeps the queen out. Don't really have an argument against this though I'm pretty sure we could design safeguards into a new system to minimize royal involvement.

Its not fair but... Nope stop there. Giving enough power to fix the stupid blunders of the last government is not a feature.

149 years without a revolution. Is that because of our government? Or is it because we live in one of the most developed, lowest population density, nations, in one of the most affluent eras in human history? I think they just needed another bullet point.

New ideas eventually get picked up by bigger parties. Here they describe a system that has no room for small parties but sometimes if the people want what they were selling enough the big parties pick it up sometimes. This seems like big spin to make something negative sound almost like a good thing.

Fascist proof. Because denying people a voice is the best way to silence their cause.

[Merry]

I'm really torn on this issue, because I can see pros and cons to both.

On the one hand, I really do hate it when a Government gets into power with a minority of citizen support, and they then start to impose their overly partisan views on everybody. When that happens I usually wish for two things, first that more folks would get out and vote, and secondly that there was some way to make the Government more willing to listen to and consider opposing views, and then be willing to compromise a bit. FPTP doesn't encourage that.

But on the other hand, I hate it when the majority of citizens vote for one of two main parties, and a tiny party that only represents a very small number of citizens is in a position to have more influence on the Government than their level of citizen support warrants. And I fear PR could lead to more, not less of that situation. But as we currently have that situation anyway with a FPTP system, maybe it's foolish to allow fear of same to put me off PR.

I'd be more willing to give PR a try if the Government follows through with legislation to ensure that we get a second referendum on the issue 8 years later, to give us a chance to revert to FPTP if we decide we don't like the reality of PR.

[Urbane]

There is something of a myth being spread that somehow the "majority" will be represented by PR. Au contraire. What you have with PR is a conglomeration of minorities getting together, after each election, to form a surprise majority. I say "surprise" because who knows what that majority will look like?

We have a system now that's imperfect but it works. An unpopular government can be swept out of office quite easily and replaced with a new government. A party can make election promises and if it receives a majority it can be held accountable for those promises. With PR all bets are off.

[Glacier]

There is something of a myth being spread that somehow the "majority" will be represented by PR. Au contraire. What you have with PR is a conglomeration of minorities getting together, after each election, to form a surprise majority. I say "surprise" because who knows what that majority will look like?

BINGO! You will likely have a small party propping up the majority (as you can sometimes get in FPTP too), and this small party which maybe 5 or 10% voted for will have a lot more say than merely the 5 or 10% of the vote they received. There's no evidence that PR is any more democratic (in that it actually produces a more representative of the people's wishes). Also, there's no such thing as a wasted vote. I voted Green last time to send a message that the Liberals were not doing their job right. It didn't matter because the Okanagan always leans right, so my vote only sent a message without hurting the outcome. If we had PR, I would have probably voted for the BC Liberals because it would help keep the socialist hordes behind the gates of hell where they belong (that reminds me, I miss Al Czervic).

[Verum]

There is something of a myth being spread that somehow the "majority" will be represented by PR. Au contraire. What you have with PR is a conglomeration of minorities getting together, after each election, to form a surprise majority. I say "surprise" because who knows what that majority will look like? Whatever the government looks like, it will almost certainly have been voted for by the majority of voters, unlike our current system, which rarely results in a government voted for by the majority of voters. This is a major problem and frankly not how democracy is supposed to work.

We have a system now that's imperfect but it works.I say it works very poorly and the evidence is that we rarely end up with a government voted for by the majority of voters An unpopular government can be swept out of office quite easily and replaced with a new government.Except there are circumstances where a government can continually appeal to a minority and remain in government for long periods of time by doing so because they know they don't need majority popular support to govern. A party can make election promises and if it receives a majority it can be held accountable for those promises.Lol! The belief that you can't hold your representative to accountability with PR is just absurd. If anything you can punish bad representatives much more effectively with the likes of STV because you can rank all other candidates ahead of them, making your vote a "vote for anyone but ___". With PR all bets are off.

[Merry]

We have a system now that's imperfect but it works.

You say that now because we've had 16 years of Government by the Party you voted for. But would you feel the same way if we'd just had 16 years of the Party you didn't vote for?