Referendum on how BC votes

[hobbyguy]

Verum, I forgot to mention that your statement about FPTP being notorious for reducing to a 2 party system is very questionable. That isn't what I said at all.

The UK - FPTP - 6 parties with seats.
Canada - FPTP - 5 parties with seats
Germany - PR - 6 parties with seats.

The average number of parties under PR is 4.4.

The data just doesn't seem to support that statement when applied to a parliamentary system, although if the US is an example, perhaps it applies to republics. Kind of complex question... context matters.

No, statistical analysis shows that FPTP systems have significantly fewer parties, tending towards two.

That's not what the above data points to at all. Where are you getting your data??? Does it apply to parliamentary systems or republics or both?

My observation is that republics have a bad habit of trending down to one or two parties, but not parliamentary systems.

[Verum]

^^^
Something to sink one's teeth into:
http://rubenson.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Anderson.pdf
I don't have the other source of stats to hand, but you can clearly see on the graph that PR countries have effectively more political parties than FPTP.

[George+]

And thus have to work together.

[rustled]

PR solves nothing, is much more expensive and less efficient way of doing things, and is far more divisive. FPTP isn't perfect, but it's better, more efficient, and has served Canada and its provinces very well for a long time.

The cost difference is tiny and essentially irrelevant in the scheme of things. FPTP has usually resulted in the representatives of a minority of the population having complete say over the majority. Do you honestly not think that is broken? Don't bother, you'll justify the tyranny of the minority, despite it not being justifiable.

You say the cost difference is tiny and essentially irrelevant? How can that be?

If we are to elect enough MLAs to properly represent the unique areas of our vast and diverse hinterland (I'll stop using "fringe" since that seems to be confusing for you), it cannot be "tiny", and I suspect you'd prefer it be irrelevant to the rest of us simply because you want PR.

As to being represented: you continue to ignore how in FPTP, to get elected you have to make a reasonable attempt to represent your entire constituency. If you're completely ignoring those who disagree with you, you're opening the door to getting the boot by someone (or a combination of someones) who are more responsive to your constituents' needs.

With PR, it is much more difficult for constituents to hold individual MLAs accountable, as is quite clearly pointed out on the engageBC website.

The problems, as I will continue to point out, are not in the electoral system, but in the party, campaign and party finance systems which are open to corruption. Quebec has a $100 limit on political party donations. Why can't we have that?

The is off topic and irrelevant to the current discussion.

It is only irrelevant if we narrowly insist on PR as a means to electoral reform. However, it is very, very relevant to those of us who want the best electoral system for all of B.C., and are interested in looking at all the options.

[Verum]

You say the cost difference is tiny and essentially irrelevant? How can that be?

If we are to elect enough MLAs to properly represent the unique areas of our vast and diverse hinterland (I'll stop using "fringe" since that seems to be confusing for you), it cannot be "tiny", and I suspect you'd prefer it be irrelevant to the rest of us simply because you want PR. Do we currently have "enough MLAs to properly represent the unique areas of our vast and diverse hinterland"? If so, there is no reason that PR requires more MLAs to do the same work. Also, I fully understand what you mean when you say "fringe" but you still haven't provided a single justification that fringe areas of people should get special treatment over other fringe groups by other shared traits or beliefs.

As to being represented: you continue to ignore how in FPTP, to get elected you have to make a reasonable attempt to represent your entire constituency. If you're completely ignoring those who disagree with you, you're opening the door to getting the boot by someone (or a combination of someones) who are more responsive to your constituents' needs. No. All they need to do is appeal to their voter base. Trying to appeal to all voters is unreasonable, but appealing to large parts of the voter base is much easier and you can just ignore the fringe areas/groups with FPTP because your opposition can't really afford to focus on them either. FPTP elects the most popular candidate, not the one who would best represent the entire voter base.

With PR, it is much more difficult for constituents to hold individual MLAs accountable, as is quite clearly pointed out on the engageBC website.More difficult? Maybe. Much more? Definitely not. That said, lets say we had a great Liberal government and the opposition parties are terrible, the election comes, and our Liberal MLA who unfortunately has been less than useless runs again. Most voters will have no real way of holding them accountable without electing a party they don't want. With STV, the Liberals could run two candidates in the election and not fear losing the seat. With FPTP, they cannot afford to do so for fear of vote splitting.

[Glacier]

Verum thinks it's great to merge half of BC into a single riding represented by a single MLA in Fort Nelson who has constituents over 1000 km away in Masset who have nothing in common with the oil patch.

Thank you for telling me what I think. Shall I make up stupid thoughts for you too?

Right now the northern ridings make up massive chunks of land. Federally it's even worse, where some ridings are as large as 25% of the entire province. You have stated (I think) that you want to combine ridings, therefore, you will have massive ridings in the north, which in my view is stupid.

[rustled]

You say the cost difference is tiny and essentially irrelevant? How can that be?

If we are to elect enough MLAs to properly represent the unique areas of our vast and diverse hinterland (I'll stop using "fringe" since that seems to be confusing for you), it cannot be "tiny", and I suspect you'd prefer it be irrelevant to the rest of us simply because you want PR. V: Do we currently have "enough MLAs to properly represent the unique areas of our vast and diverse hinterland"? If so, there is no reason that PR requires more MLAs to do the same work. Also, I fully understand what you mean when you say "fringe" but you still haven't provided a single justification that fringe areas of people should get special treatment over other fringe groups by other shared traits or beliefs.
r: Then you're not listening, or unable to comprehend that delivery of government services and industry support to Masset requires understanding how the region is different from Fort Nelson, and how both are different from Prince George. This isn't about shared ideology or shared belief, and your inability to understand this allows you to stay committed to PR, and continues to show us why your belief in the efficacy of PR is misplaced. You cannot better represent the large northern ridings needs by combining them.

As to being represented: you continue to ignore how in FPTP, to get elected you have to make a reasonable attempt to represent your entire constituency. If you're completely ignoring those who disagree with you, you're opening the door to getting the boot by someone (or a combination of someones) who are more responsive to your constituents' needs. V: No. All they need to do is appeal to their voter base. Trying to appeal to all voters is unreasonable, but appealing to large parts of the voter base is much easier and you can just ignore the fringe areas/groups with FPTP because your opposition can't really afford to focus on them either. FPTP elects the most popular candidate, not the one who would best represent the entire voter base.
r: And once again, you're conflating the needs of a region with the wants of a fringe group.

With PR, it is much more difficult for constituents to hold individual MLAs accountable, as is quite clearly pointed out on the engageBC website.V: More difficult? Maybe. Much more? Definitely not.
r: IYO. That's not what engageBC says. Given your inability to acknowledge the diversity of constituencies, I can see why you wouldn't be able to do understand what this really means for the constituencies with the most to lose.
V: That said, lets say we had a great Liberal government and the opposition parties are terrible, the election comes, and our Liberal MLA who unfortunately has been less than useless runs again. Most voters will have no real way of holding them accountable without electing a party they don't want. With STV, the Liberals could run two candidates in the election and not fear losing the seat. With FPTP, they cannot afford to do so for fear of vote splitting. r: What you're saying is that we need an even better system for holding MLAs accountable. I'm not disagreeing with that. Ashton was, IMO, a very poor choice for our riding, particularly compared to Denesiuk. If he has paid any attention to social media, he knows he has p.o.'d a lot of people who usually vote Liberal, and he'd best smarten up and quit the sleazy pandering. But I don't see how bringing in PR will fix our Ashton problem, since it clearly makes it more difficult, not easier, to hold individual MLAs accountable. I'd be interested in exploring straight-up STV for each riding, or some other option that gives us more power to show our displeasure with local reps, but I am not willing to "stick it" to the hinterland regions by bringing in electoral form that's more likely to put anyone's wants ahead of their needs.

[Verum]

You say the cost difference is tiny and essentially irrelevant? How can that be?

If we are to elect enough MLAs to properly represent the unique areas of our vast and diverse hinterland (I'll stop using "fringe" since that seems to be confusing for you), it cannot be "tiny", and I suspect you'd prefer it be irrelevant to the rest of us simply because you want PR. V: Do we currently have "enough MLAs to properly represent the unique areas of our vast and diverse hinterland"? If so, there is no reason that PR requires more MLAs to do the same work. Also, I fully understand what you mean when you say "fringe" but you still haven't provided a single justification that fringe areas of people should get special treatment over other fringe groups by other shared traits or beliefs.
r: Then you're not listening, or unable to comprehend that delivery of government services and industry support to Masset requires understanding how the region is different from Fort Nelson, and how both are different from Prince George. This isn't about shared ideology or shared belief, and your inability to understand this allows you to stay committed to PR, and continues to show us why your belief in the efficacy of PR is misplaced. You cannot better represent the large northern ridings needs by combining them. And the delivery of services to support First Nations people requires understanding of their needs and how they are different from other groups of people. And the delivery of services to support people with disabilities requires understanding of their needs and how they are different from other groups of people. Etc.

As to being represented: you continue to ignore how in FPTP, to get elected you have to make a reasonable attempt to represent your entire constituency. If you're completely ignoring those who disagree with you, you're opening the door to getting the boot by someone (or a combination of someones) who are more responsive to your constituents' needs. V: No. All they need to do is appeal to their voter base. Trying to appeal to all voters is unreasonable, but appealing to large parts of the voter base is much easier and you can just ignore the fringe areas/groups with FPTP because your opposition can't really afford to focus on them either. FPTP elects the most popular candidate, not the one who would best represent the entire voter base.
r: And once again, you're conflating the needs of a region with the wants of a fringe group.Actually, I'm not. They are essentially degrees of the same thing. The needs of a fringe group is just as valid as the needs of a similarly populated region. Neither should take precedence over the other. Arguing the needs of one group versus the wants of a second similarly sized group as a justification for discriminating in favour of the former is a false comparison and stacking the deck.

With PR, it is much more difficult for constituents to hold individual MLAs accountable, as is quite clearly pointed out on the engageBC website.V: More difficult? Maybe. Much more? Definitely not.
r: IYO. That's not what engageBC says. Given your inability to acknowledge the diversity of constituencies,[color=#BF0000]Where did I fail to do so? All I am saying is that each group of people deserves their wants or needs (which ever you pick) to be treated equally based on the size of the group. I can see why you wouldn't be able to do understand what this really means for the constituencies with the most to lose.What about those who have already been losers over decades? What about those who deserve to gain the most?[/color]
V: That said, lets say we had a great Liberal government and the opposition parties are terrible, the election comes, and our Liberal MLA who unfortunately has been less than useless runs again. Most voters will have no real way of holding them accountable without electing a party they don't want. With STV, the Liberals could run two candidates in the election and not fear losing the seat. With FPTP, they cannot afford to do so for fear of vote splitting. r: What you're saying is that we need an even better system for holding MLAs accountable. I'm not disagreeing with that. Ashton was, IMO, a very poor choice for our riding, particularly compared to Denesiuk. If he has paid any attention to social media, he knows he has p.o.'d a lot of people who usually vote Liberal, and he'd best smarten up and quit the sleazy pandering. But I don't see how bringing in PR will fix our Ashton problem, since it clearly makes it more difficult, not easier, to hold individual MLAs accountable. I'd be interested in exploring straight-up STV for each riding, or some other option that gives us more power to show our displeasure with local reps, but I am not willing to "stick it" to the hinterland regions by bringing in electoral form that's more likely to put anyone's wants ahead of their needs.

To be clear, PR covers a huge array of options and will actually allow for the current discrimination against larger populations to continue. Masset could have their very own set of MLAs and PR doesn't force this to be otherwise, but why is a vote in Masset worth more than a vote in Kelowna-West (by a lot)? Are their needs more important than yours or mine?

[rustled]

To be clear, PR covers a huge array of options and will actually allow for the current discrimination against larger populations to continue. Masset could have their very own set of MLAs and PR doesn't force this to be otherwise, but why is a vote in Masset worth more than a vote in Kelowna-West (by a lot)? Are their needs more important than yours or mine?

None of the PR options presented by engageBC for our consideration made it easier to hold MLAs accountable.

We cannot afford for Masset to have their very own set of MLAs.

A vote in Masset shouldn't be worth more than a vote in Kelowna-West. Are you able to show me how a vote in Masset is worth more than a vote in Kelowna-West (by a lot) under our current system? Are you able to show how, under our current system, the wants of people living in Masset can impact the delivery of government services and supports (i.e. needs) in other regions of the province?

ETA I just realized you'd added a bunch more to the already-too-messy bulk of the quote. All I can say is, you seem entirely unable to grasp how different the needs of First Nations and disabled people in Haida Gwaii would be from the needs of First Nations and disabled people in Osoyoos, and how different again how different those needs would be in Burns Lake. At this point, I can't imagine ever convincing you of the importance of this concept.

[rustled]

And there's this:

Arguing the needs of one group versus the wants of a second similarly sized group as a justification for discriminating in favour of the former is a false comparison and stacking the deck.

This simply defies common sense. To take it back to the school district amalgamation: a small school in fringe area was struggling to deliver basic education (need) to their students, and after the amalgamation they were competing for resources against an urban school's request for improvements to elective programs (want). What you're telling us is that it shouldn't matter which school gets the resources, because the urban school is roughly the same size or larger, and that a system designed to make sure the small school gets its needs met before the urban school gets what it wants is "discriminating" and "stacking the deck".

As a voice for PR, you've completely convinced me PR is a very, very bad idea

[Verum]

To be clear, PR covers a huge array of options and will actually allow for the current discrimination against larger populations to continue. Masset could have their very own set of MLAs and PR doesn't force this to be otherwise, but why is a vote in Masset worth more than a vote in Kelowna-West (by a lot)? Are their needs more important than yours or mine?

None of the PR options presented by engageBC for our consideration made it easier to hold MLAs accountable.

We cannot afford for Masset to have their very own set of MLAs.

A vote in Masset shouldn't be worth more than a vote in Kelowna-West. Are you able to show me how a vote in Masset is worth more than a vote in Kelowna-West (by a lot) under our current system? Are you able to show how, under our current system, the wants of people living in Masset can impact the delivery of government services and supports (i.e. needs) in other regions of the province?

Provincial Electoral Districts Populations:
North Coast - 23,055
Stikine - 20,530 - just as another example, since North Coast isn't unique
Kelowna-Lake Country - 51,600
Kelowna-Mission - 55,040
Kelowna-West - 51,958
Therefore a vote in any of the Kelowna related provincial electoral districts is voting for 1/50,000 of an MLA's representation. In Masset (in North Coast) a vote is voting for 1/23,000 of an MLA's representation. You get more than twice the bang for buck with a vote in Masset. Are their needs worth twice mine?
Also, supports and services provide for wants too, so please stop with the false comparisons. By providing for the wants/needs of those in Masset/Prince Rupert/Smithers, we use resources we cannot use to provide for the wants/needs of those living elsewhere or with other wants/needs that are not locale specific.
What we have is almost like affirmative action for districts.

[Verum]

And there's this:

Arguing the needs of one group versus the wants of a second similarly sized group as a justification for discriminating in favour of the former is a false comparison and stacking the deck.

This simply defies common sense. To take it back to the school district amalgamation: a small school in fringe area was struggling to deliver basic education (need) to their students, and after the amalgamation they were competing for resources against an urban school's request for improvements to elective programs (want). What you're telling us is that it shouldn't matter which school gets the resources, because the urban school is roughly the same size or larger, and that a system designed to make sure the small school gets its needs met before the urban school gets what it wants is "discriminating" and "stacking the deck".That is not at all what I said in the least. If the small school is not getting adequate representation and funding, in proportion to their size, there is a problem with the system and one certainly unlikely to be fixed with FPTP. In fact PR would be more likely to benefit the small school in this system. But there is another issue here. School funding is essentially per student course (about $10,000 per year for a student with a full course load). A student in a small school is funded the same as a student in a large school. Essentially the schools can usually spend in proportion to the number of students they have (with certain special conditions). The large school isn't taking funding away from the small one when it provides electives, unless the school district reallocates funds "earned" by the small school and directs them to the large school. What tends to happen in any school district I've worked with is that the funds usually go the other way, from the large to the small, to prop it up. The problem is that when a school gets too small, it cannot support the range of courses needed to properly provide the basic courses needed for graduation. In these cases, without being subsidised, often heavily, the school will have to close or find creative solutions, using the likes of blended learning, distance learning, split classes, etc. Sadly, the school system if rather inflexible, especially with certain groups involved and it can be very difficult to find a student focused solution. For some school districts, many in the North, the student population is declining, which is a huge problem as it will require school closures if systems are not made much more flexible. I won't get into the politics of this, but I have a lot of first hand experience with this stuff and honestly, it has made me a bit of a misanthrope.

As a voice for PR, you've completely convinced me PR is a very, very bad ideaAs you have convinced me that this current form of blatant discrimination must stop.

[rustled]

Provincial Electoral Districts Populations:
North Coast - 23,055
Stikine - 20,530 - just as another example, since North Coast isn't unique
Kelowna-Lake Country - 51,600
Kelowna-Mission - 55,040
Kelowna-West - 51,958
Therefore a vote in any of the Kelowna related provincial electoral districts is voting for 1/50,000 of an MLA's representation. In Masset (in North Coast) a vote is voting for 1/23,000 of an MLA's representation. You get more than twice the bang for buck with a vote in Masset. Are their needs worth twice mine?
Also, supports and services provide for wants too, so please stop with the false comparisons. By providing for the wants/needs of those in Masset/Prince Rupert/Smithers, we use resources we cannot use to provide for the wants/needs of those living elsewhere or with other wants/needs that are not locale specific.
What we have is almost like affirmative action for districts.

Okay, I get it.

In your world, the likelihood of PR making it easier for the wants of some regions to trump the needs of others isn't a problem worth considering, because a) wants and needs can be combined and treated with equal deference and b) it's all just a false comparison, which means I'm

I'm off to do something more productive with my time.

[Verum]

Provincial Electoral Districts Populations:
North Coast - 23,055
Stikine - 20,530 - just as another example, since North Coast isn't unique
Kelowna-Lake Country - 51,600
Kelowna-Mission - 55,040
Kelowna-West - 51,958
Therefore a vote in any of the Kelowna related provincial electoral districts is voting for 1/50,000 of an MLA's representation. In Masset (in North Coast) a vote is voting for 1/23,000 of an MLA's representation. You get more than twice the bang for buck with a vote in Masset. Are their needs worth twice mine?
Also, supports and services provide for wants too, so please stop with the false comparisons. By providing for the wants/needs of those in Masset/Prince Rupert/Smithers, we use resources we cannot use to provide for the wants/needs of those living elsewhere or with other wants/needs that are not locale specific.
What we have is almost like affirmative action for districts.

Okay, I get it.

In your world, the likelihood of PR making it easier for the wants of some regions to trump the needs of others isn't a problem worth considering, because a) wants and needs can be combined and treated with equal deference Not what I am saying at all and b) it's all just a false comparison, which means I'm

I'm off to do something more productive with my time.

[hobbyguy]

Verum - I see the false equivalency argument of the "value of a vote" versus representation.

If you follow that line of reasoning, there should be no ridings at all, and the diverse interests of the rabbit warren that is the Vancouver-Victoria complex would tell everyone else what to do, and ignore their interests. All that would happen in your PR fantasy is that a vote in Masset or Cranbrook would become nigh on to useless, they would have no representation at all.

Our FPTP system has been designed so that everyone gets representation. It has worked well. Wars have been fought over notions like "no taxation without representation".