Fall referendum looks anything but a fair, open process.

[Urban Cowboy]

They've also fixed it so Metro Van gets to decide for the entire province.

The fix is in and people should see right through it. Sadly, a number of NDP'ers on here seem to be quite alright with a process that is anything but fair and transparent.

They see the secret and undemocratic process as something that will help move the province to the left in the future so for them the end justifies the means. Ironically, if this referendum passes it's doubtful that NDP'ers will ever see a majority NDP government again like the Barrett government of 1972-75 and that's one of the points that NDP'er Bill Tileman makes.

So they may be disappointed when they see the end result, should the referendum pass, but either way they should be championing fairness and transparency rather than turning a blind eye to the terribly flawed process.

One might come to view it as poetic justice, if the NDP wound up shooting themselves in the foot, with their Green Party PR conspiracy.

After all they have a track record of destroying themselves, with little help from the opposition.

That would be one repeat I can wrap my head around.

[Urbane]

Keith Baldrey on this tawdry process:

The NDP/Green party alliance that governs B.C. wants to change the system of how we elect governments in this province, but they don’t want the voters to pick an alternative to the one we use currently.

Rather, they want to allow unelected so-called “experts” of the NDP government’s own choosing (presumably with input and sign-off from the Green party caucus members) to determine the actual model of proportional representation should voters reject the current first-past-the-post model.

In other words, the NDP and Greens are advocating that a sitting government be able to determine a new system of voting, likely to ensure it remains in power.
http://www.nsnews.com/opinion/columnist ... 1.23295836

[rustled]

However, there are many kinds of proportional representation models, with the single transferable vote and mixed member PR systems two of the more commonly used ones, and there are others.

Supporters of one PR model can be vehement opponents of another model.
...
Essentially, the NDP-Green alliance is proposing to allow unelected “experts” of the NDP government’s own choosing to help set the rules for how the NDP government can be re-elected, with the NDP cabinet having the final say.

One has to wonder whether the two caucuses have someone like Vladimir Putin on speed-dial.

The caucuses’ submission is rather breathtaking in its brazen assault on fundamental democratic values. In addition, it arrogantly suggests that hand-picked “experts” know so much more than the average voter, and can be trusted to do the proper thing (as long as it leads to more New Democrats and Green candidates being elected).

This is the nanny state approach to governing gone rogue.

Whether we switch to proportional representation is one thing. Letting a government set the rules on how it is or is not elected is quite another.

The NDP government has already been accused of stacking the deck to ensure the referendum defeats the current system. It is being secretive about the process, and an online survey designed to weigh public views on voting system was heavily skewed to ensure there was ample pro-PR feedback.

That was precisely my experience: they'd set it up to get the answers they wanted. It wasn't crafted to get an in-depth, honest opinion. It was a sales pitch to get us to select what they wanted us to select. Blech.

Funny (and sad) that anyone can disregard this:

Now it appears the government caucus – in collusion with the tiny Green caucus – wants to ensure the fix is in come the next election as well.

[hobbyguy]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/british-columbia/article-ndps-proportional-representation-referendum-proposal-steers-clear-of/

Mr. Martin said British Columbians should not be asked to vote on proportional representation without knowing exactly what type of system would be put in place.

“If they end up accepting this joint submission, people are going to be asked to vote for a great unknown, they’ll have no idea what it is they’re supporting,” he said.

SNIP

"Genevieve Fuji Johnson, a political-science professor at Simon Fraser University, said she supports informed democratic processes and more detail would be preferred. But she said there is an argument to be made for having a straightforward question as a starting point.

“If [British Columbians] feel that that isn’t transparent enough, that they need more, that they actually don’t trust the government to follow through on having a broader consultation process with an advisory group … then they can decide to vote against that and stick with the status quo,” she said in an interview."

Trust? This group in Victoria? Don't make me laugh. Given the lies that both Horgan and Weaver pushed out about political process during the election, not a chance.

Weaver wants a pure party list system so his little band of tail waggers never have to win a riding - just permanently be in a position to monkeywrench things. My guess is that a lot of the BC NDP/LEAP want that too, so they can hide from the public and never get booted.

PR systems favor party insiders even more than what we already have. Just what we need, more control by party insiders. Yuck!

[hobbyguy]

A little update on Italy - strange bedfellows may form a government after all. The populist 5 Star party and the right wing League.

The strangest part of their plans? A mix of a "flat tax", a guaranteed minimum income, and lower retirement age (they just upped it to 65 for women and 66 for men).

The net result will be add at least $122 billion euros (about $171 billion CAD) to Italy's already nasty deficit, and keep their national debt mushrooming (it is at 135% of GDP now).

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44104086

"But basic income is set to cost €17bn and lowering the retirement age would cost a reported €15bn more, while a flat tax would dramatically lower Italy's tax revenues by an estimated €80bn a year."

Yikes! That just reinforces the point made by many that PR governments wind up being fiscally irresponsible.

[Urbane]

Are the BC NDP trying to sabotage the electoral reform to ensure a defeat or are they just inept?

B.C.’s NDP are sabotaging electoral reform

Gary Mason National affairs columnist
Updated May 15, 2018

Does B.C.’s New Democratic Party government secretly want an impending referendum on electoral reform to fail?

It would seem a perfectly reasonable supposition, given its atrocious handling of this matter. How the public could view the run-up to the fall plebiscite as anything more than a fix-is-in sham is difficult to imagine.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion ... al-reform/

[Urban Cowboy]

Inept simply goes without saying.

[Urbane]

Another short excerpt from the Gary Mason column:

By any definition this is absurd and can’t be allowed to stand. This is a democracy, not some tin-pot dictatorship. The NDP and the Greens are displaying the same level of arrogance and political tone deafness they once regularly accused the previous Liberal regime of exhibiting.

In the past election, Mr. Horgan promised a straightforward ballot question with a yes or no answer on a particular form of proportional representation. Well, not since George Bush Sr. said: “Read my lips, no new taxes” has there been a greater public policy U-turn. Mr. Horgan has gone from letting the public decide on a new electoral system to endorsing having it done by an unelected committee of academics and hand-picked members of the public.

How does Horgan get away with it? All you have to do is read what some of his loyal supporters are saying on here and you'll have your answer. I urge everyone to read Gary Mason's entire column.

[Urbane]

Vaughn Palmer on the affront to democracy - short excerpt:

So to put the proposal into plainer language: “Frankly most people are too stupid to choose among the options for electoral reform. So we’ll get them to write us a blank cheque, let their betters chose the system, then impose it on them.”

Incredible that such an elitist approach would come from the party of a premier who styles himself as a populist.
http://vancouversun.com/opinion/columni ... heque-vote

[Carrs Landing Viking]

I believe this referendum will be challenged as unconstitutional, and rightly so.

I don't think anyone will see this as in any way a democratic process.

[Urbane]

I believe this referendum will be challenged as unconstitutional, and rightly so.

I don't think anyone will see this as in any way a democratic process.

Horgan seems to like being in court so this may well give him another opportunity.

[rustled]

Mason:

I have written in favour of electoral change. I think there are better voting systems to ensure everyone’s vote counts, as opposed to the winner take-all approach we have now. However, I could not support reform based on the way in which this referendum is being conducted. It is just so badly flawed, so poorly conceived; any outcome will be rendered defective and in violation of the fundamental tenets of democracy. If the NDP government wants to hold a referendum on electoral reform it needs to halt the current process that’s under way and institute changes to make it more democratic – even if it means having to put off the vote until next year.

Now, not all New Democrats are persuaded electoral reform is a good idea. Some believe fervently that it will hurt the party’s chances of ever forming government again. Perhaps these forces of doom have made inroads with Mr. Horgan and his brain trust.

In which case, the New Democrats couldn’t be doing a better job of sabotaging their own referendum and ensuring the public wants no part of changing the status quo.

Yep, inept.

I'd suggest a forensic audit of the timeline on this would show:

1. The NDP promised electoral reform to woo voters, but didn't bother to do their homework and therefore didn't understand the consequences.

2. The Green Party knew theNDP didn't understand the consequences of PR, and took advantage of the NDP's ignorance and lust, wooing them with promises of power and access to taxpayer $$. "We'll be great together!" The NDP fell hard. ("You had me at "access to taxpayer $$".")

3. Once the honeymoon was over and the NDP got busy figuring out how to ensure the best electoral reform for the NDP (you know, that homework thingy they'd been too busy for), they realized this wasn't a match made in heaven after all, but more along the lines of a deal with the devil.

4. After the heady rush of romance, the NDP experience a Rosemary's baby moment, if you will. (No, not saying Weaver's the devil, he's the hapless husband who sold poor naive Rosemary out for his own selfish interests.) Now it's "Oh, dear, this PR baby is going to ruin the NDP's chances of ever earning a majority mandate. And that dang "husband" of mine sure can't be trusted."

5. They get to work with backroom machinations to determine what's in their own best interest now. And that's appearing to give the husband what he asked for, but making sure it fails.

Interesting the NDP's support base here is pretty quiet about this. Makes one wonder if there really is a little orange book: "We just won't talk about that, because we're not sure what outcome's in our best interest. Might have to let this one die on the vine."

[hobbyguy]

Aside from the fact that I disagree with Gary Mason that PR would improve our democracy, he get's is wrong when he states:

"This is a democracy, not some tin-pot dictatorship."

In terms of the BC NDP/LEAP and their sleazy back room deal with the Green party to usurp power - it is a tin-pot dictatorship. The tin-pots got together and denied Canadian parliamentary traditions to usurp power, and it was and is especially odious as Weaver and crew had advised the voters that they would support the party with most seats.

The BC NDP/LEAP and the little Green toads are desperately trying to subvert our democracy, and if stealing taxpayer $$$ to pay for their incompetently run and bankrupt little gang of thieves isn't enough, they want to rig the system in their favor.

Not too worried though as we can count on a few factors that will sort the whole mess out:

1. The BC NDP/LEAP are incompetent, barely able to play checkers. Every day of this debacle of pretenders loses them more potential votes.

2. Not really having a plan is a hallmark of the BC NDP/LEAP. So what would a straight up proportional representation vote look like in BC? Pretty good indication here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_2015

35% Liberal, 30% Conservative, 25.9% NDP, 8.2% Green.

Now that was with a serious, thoughtful and middle of the road NDP leader in Mulcair. The NDP have veered a little LEAP ever since and their federal support is down about 3% and the Greens are up 3%. Pretty good indication then that the 2015 election gives us a good picture of the true proportional caps for the parties in BC.

The most likely scenario in a PR system is that the big winners would be the Conservative party of BC, while the Liberals veer a little left toward federal Liberal positioning.

My opinion is that Horgan has shown a real incompetence both in party leadership and in pretending to be premier. The LEAP dominance of the BC NDP is killing them with working people, their traditional base. That would put the BC NDP/LEAP at about 18%. Ya, the Greens will pick up a few points, maybe as high 12% But that still puts them out in the political wilderness.

3. History. You would think that the BC NDP with their dominant flavour of liberal arts degrees would know a little about history. The last time BC experimented with a PR system, the BC NDP got absolutely smoked, and it brought in the long dominance of the Socred party. And that was when unionization was much, much greater in BC.

So politically, I am not concerned one way or the other. The BC NDP/LEAP ill flounder under any system, but just not as badly as under FPTP when their last tin-pot debacle ended 77-2. The BC NDP/LEAP are in fact very, very good at doing one thing, and one thing only - sowing the seeds of their own destruction.

Too bad we are once again along for the ride.

[Urban Cowboy]

Interesting the NDP's support base here is pretty quiet about this.

That's their standard response to being caught with their pants down. "Crickets"!

[Urbane]

Aside from the fact that I disagree with Gary Mason that PR would improve our democracy, he get's is wrong when he states:

"This is a democracy, not some tin-pot dictatorship."

In terms of the BC NDP/LEAP and their sleazy back room deal with the Green party to usurp power - it is a tin-pot dictatorship. The tin-pots got together and denied Canadian parliamentary traditions to usurp power, and it was and is especially odious as Weaver and crew had advised the voters that they would support the party with most seats.

The BC NDP/LEAP and the little Green toads are desperately trying to subvert our democracy, and if stealing taxpayer $$$ to pay for their incompetently run and bankrupt little gang of thieves isn't enough, they want to rig the system in their favor.

Not too worried though as we can count on a few factors that will sort the whole mess out:

1. The BC NDP/LEAP are incompetent, barely able to play checkers. Every day of this debacle of pretenders loses them more potential votes.

2. Not really having a plan is a hallmark of the BC NDP/LEAP. So what would a straight up proportional representation vote look like in BC? Pretty good indication here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_2015

35% Liberal, 30% Conservative, 25.9% NDP, 8.2% Green.

Now that was with a serious, thoughtful and middle of the road NDP leader in Mulcair. The NDP have veered a little LEAP ever since and their federal support is down about 3% and the Greens are up 3%. Pretty good indication then that the 2015 election gives us a good picture of the true proportional caps for the parties in BC.

The most likely scenario in a PR system is that the big winners would be the Conservative party of BC, while the Liberals veer a little left toward federal Liberal positioning.

My opinion is that Horgan has shown a real incompetence both in party leadership and in pretending to be premier. The LEAP dominance of the BC NDP is killing them with working people, their traditional base. That would put the BC NDP/LEAP at about 18%. Ya, the Greens will pick up a few points, maybe as high 12% But that still puts them out in the political wilderness.

3. History. You would think that the BC NDP with their dominant flavour of liberal arts degrees would know a little about history. The last time BC experimented with a PR system, the BC NDP got absolutely smoked, and it brought in the long dominance of the Socred party. And that was when unionization was much, much greater in BC.

So politically, I am not concerned one way or the other. The BC NDP/LEAP ill flounder under any system, but just not as badly as under FPTP when their last tin-pot debacle ended 77-2. The BC NDP/LEAP are in fact very, very good at doing one thing, and one thing only - sowing the seeds of their own destruction.

Too bad we are once again along for the ride.

Excellent analysis HG. NDP'er Bill Tieleman is fighting hard against the PR referendum and I believe he knows it could backfire for his party. Perhaps Horgan and Eby know that as well and they are in fact trying to deliberately sabotage the process. It's hard to believe that a majority of voters will give a blank cheque to the GDP to come up with a new voting system. While some of the NDP'ers on here are, sadly, in "the end justifies the means" camp I know there are many honest NDP'ers out there who will rebel against this anti-democratic process.