Referendum on how BC votes

[PocoGirl]

In the mail today was a flyer to take a questionnaire by Feb 28 to help shape how BC votes. Currently, we have the First Past the Post system and the alternative would be a system of Proportional Representation. Anyone have input on the pros and cons of the respective system?

engage.gov.bc.ca/howwevote

[Glacier]

I've had people tell me that we need proportional representation because it's more democratic. This is not true in the slightest. If you truly believe that we more democratic system is ideal, then you'd be advocating for direct democracy like they have in Switzerland because you actually get the wishes of the people without self-serving politicians getting in the way.

[Merry]

Whatever system we choose, I wish we could build in a bit more accountability. Because when Government's are caught lying about the state of the books, or hiding information that ought to be public, or a committing a myriad of other "sins", there ought to be a way for the Public to demand some form of recompense. How about fining the political party that the Government represents? I bet that would get them to think twice about some of their more "questionable" actions.

[CapitalB]

It depends who you ask.

If you ask someone who has traditionally voted for federal conservatives, and provincial liberals they'll say that first past the post is a great system.

If you ask people who vote for parties that haven't been winning a lot of them will say they would like to see a system that doesn't waste their votes.

So I guess it depends if you want a fair system for everyone or a system that generally only serves a smaller portion of the population at one time.

I'd suggest watching this video series to get a nice (fun) run down of how various voting systems work minus the bias myself and other people bring to the table.

[Catri]

It depends who you ask.

If you ask someone who has traditionally voted for federal conservatives, and provincial liberals they'll say that first past the post is a great system.

If you ask people who vote for parties that haven't been winning a lot of them will say they would like to see a system that doesn't waste their votes.

So I guess it depends if you want a fair system for everyone or a system that generally only serves a smaller portion of the population at one time.

I'd suggest watching this video series to get a nice (fun) run down of how various voting systems work minus the bias myself and other people bring to the table.

I've never voted for a Tory or a BC Liberal in my life, but I support the FPTP status quo because I believe that it's the best, simplest system. If you present people with a more convoluted system, that they actually have to figure out before voting, fewer people will be bothered to show up at the polls. Fewer people voting = less democracy, not more.

[CapitalB]

I've never voted for a Tory or a BC Liberal in my life, but I support the FPTP status quo because I believe that it's the best, simplest system. If you present people with a more convoluted system, that they actually have to figure out before voting, fewer people will be bothered to show up at the polls. Fewer people voting = less democracy, not more.

Our voter participation rates have been hitting record lows 'because' people feel like their votes don't count.

People are always dragging out the its too complicated argument like its hard to read a one sentence description and write a series of consecutive single digit numbers.

[Catri]

We definitely need to find ways to motivate people to vote, but making voting more complicated is not one. You're welcome to disagree and say I'm "dragging out" an argument you've heard before, but that doesn't make the argument invalid.

[twobits]

No voting system is going to change the fact that the majority of those legally eligible to vote will actually be informed voters. It is just a reality of an apathetic population who only care about their immediate sphere of personal consequence. Anything beyond that and you get a blank stare cuz they are just not interested in big picture if it will not change their personal lives as they understand it.
I have a problem with the notion that people don't vote because they think their vote won't matter anyway. That is a defeatist and failed excuse for laziness in paying attention to their own personal outcomes and economic well being. It is a cop out excuse to not devote 10 minutes a day to news events and actually be an informed voter.
Thinking proportional representation will change that is folly. It will just further confuse the already disengaged to be less likely to participate, and if they do, it will be an even less informed than a Keno ticket selection.
Despite it's flaws, and low voter participation, at least first past the post represents a representable sample of voters that do try to be informed and thus by extrapolation, includes the majority of the population in how the gov't should govern for a four year term. Four years is not the end of the world. After that, boot em out if they failed. The alternative with proportional rep is perpetual minority govt's where we are subject to never ending squabbling for 4 yrs and nothing ever gets done. This NDPG coalition is not even close to that reality of dysfunction as Weaver doesn't have a set of stones represented by MLA's to challenge the NDP for fear of losing the closest whiff of power he has ever seen. Weaver is pushing for proportional more than the NDP and if he manages to leverage that into reality, BC will be forever fcked with a coalition gov't that will never get anything done except the cosmetic. IMO, that is a worse scenario than a bad gov't that can push thru Legislation with a majority and 4 yr mandate and be booted if the policies don't work. I would much rather prefer a failed four yr experiment of governance than live with ineffectiveness in perpetuity.

[Cactusflower]

Just go to 'engage.gov.bc.ca/howwevote' and complete the cotton-pickin' questionaire!

[PocoGirl]

Just go to 'engage.gov.bc.ca/howwevote' and complete the cotton-pickin' questionaire!

I don’t disagree with you. I was just interested in hearing opinions about pros and cons. Triggered easily?

[Cactusflower]

Just go to 'engage.gov.bc.ca/howwevote' and complete the cotton-pickin' questionaire!

I don’t disagree with you. I was just interested in hearing opinions about pros and cons. Triggered easily?

I was speaking in general terms, not directing my comment at you personally. I took the flyer home with me (unlike others who left them at the P.O.), went on the government website, took the questionaire and read the information provided about the different types of PR. Thanks to that information, I know exactly how I'm going to vote in the referendum.

[Verum]

No voting system is going to change the fact that the majority of those legally eligible to vote will actually be informed voters. It is just a reality of an apathetic population who only care about their immediate sphere of personal consequence. Anything beyond that and you get a blank stare cuz they are just not interested in big picture if it will not change their personal lives as they understand it.
I have a problem with the notion that people don't vote because they think their vote won't matter anyway. That is a defeatist and failed excuse for laziness in paying attention to their own personal outcomes and economic well being. It is a cop out excuse to not devote 10 minutes a day to news events and actually be an informed voter.
Thinking proportional representation will change that is folly. It will just further confuse the already disengaged to be less likely to participate, and if they do, it will be an even less informed than a Keno ticket selection.
Despite it's flaws, and low voter participation, at least first past the post represents a representable sample of voters that do try to be informed and thus by extrapolation, includes the majority of the population in how the gov't should govern for a four year term.Actually it doesn't include the majority of the population in most instances. Most BC governments have less than 50% of the vote and therefore cannot be seen to represent the majority of the population at all. Four years is not the end of the world. After that, boot em out if they failed.What if they have succeeded for the 40% who voted for them, but failed the 60% who voted between 2 other parties? They won't get voted out without tactical voting and so again we would end up with a government representing a minority of the population with little incentive to represent the ideas and will of the majority. The alternative with proportional rep is perpetual minority govt's where we are subject to never ending squabbling for 4 yrs and nothing ever gets done.Except stuff does get done, but by consensus rather than by a minority imposing their will on the entire population. The myth of minority governments being ineffective is just not supported by the facts and ultimate results in other countries. This NDPG coalition is not even close to that reality of dysfunction as Weaver doesn't have a set of stones represented by MLA's to challenge the NDP for fear of losing the closest whiff of power he has ever seen. Weaver is pushing for proportional more than the NDP and if he manages to leverage that into reality, BC will be forever fcked with a coalition gov't that will never get anything done except the cosmetic.That's just your opinion, but evidence elsewhere tends to point to a very different reality. Consensus governance tends to work quite well elsewhere. IMO, that is a worse scenario than a bad gov't that can push thru Legislation with a majority and 4 yr mandate and be booted if the policies don't work.Again that assumes that policies work equally well for everyone. Those that benefit the core voters for that party will keep it in power, even if they are bad for the majority. I would much rather prefer a failed four yr experiment of governance than live with ineffectiveness in perpetuity.

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

[Verum]

I've had people tell me that we need proportional representation because it's more democratic. This is not true in the slightest. If you truly believe that we more democratic system is ideal, then you'd be advocating for direct democracy like they have in Switzerland because you actually get the wishes of the people without self-serving politicians getting in the way.

I don't know why you are bringing in direct democracy into the equation, but Switzerland has a mix of direct democracy and PR, so maybe that's a model we should follow.

Also, true direct democracy has been proven to be somewhat impractical and problematic.

And yes, PR is more democratic if democracy means representing the largest number of people and their wishes and there is plenty of evidence to back this up.

[seewood]

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

[JagXKR]

Our voter participation rates have been hitting record lows 'because' people feel like their votes don't count.

People are always dragging out the its too complicated argument like its hard to read a one sentence description and write a series of consecutive single digit numbers.

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.