How will you vote in BC Electoral Reform Referendum?

[hobbyguy]

It's time that BC fell into line with other provinces in Canada:

With B.C. moving forward, that leaves only Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador and Prince Edward Island as provinces that allow unlimited union and corporate donations.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenie ... -1.4298577

You mean the 9 other provinces that don't allow the theft of taxpayer $$$ to pay for incompetently run and bankrupt excuses for parties like the BC NDP/LEAP?

Why does the incompetent BC NDP/LEAP need 4-5 times as much money per vote to lose an election than Notley's "working people's" NDP needs to actually win an election??

Quebec is the gold standard for proper campaign finance. $100 limit. Much lower per vote subsidies.

Why does wee Johnny think he needs the $1,200 limit? And milions and millions stolen from the taxpayers??

It locks out independents, it locks out smaller parties, and there are lots of them. The whole big lie by Horgan on campaign financing is just that - the lying smirker rigged campaign finance in favor of the soylent Greens and BC NDP/LEAP by stealing taxpayer $$ after he said he wouldn't. Disgusting!! Big money needs to be taken out of politics - not institutionalized by money grubbing pols!

[flamingfingers]

^^What a rant when a per vote subsidy in a year costs way less than a Starbucks latte that you have no problem forking out every day!!

[mikest2]

^^What a rant when a per vote subsidy in a year costs way less than a Starbucks latte that you have no problem forking out every day!!

I choose to buy an Americano, I do not have Big brother force me to buy a latte that I don't want.

[hobbyguy]

^^What a rant when a per vote subsidy in a year costs way less than a Starbucks latte that you have no problem forking out every day!!

Nope, I'm not a latte swilling dilettante like Avi Lewis. I don't waste my hard earned money on such nonsense - I make my own coffee.

Wrong is wrong. You know it - what the BC NDP/LEAP are doing on campaign finance is just theft. Theft to pay fat salaries to the old time NDP insider families who run the party itself - the Sihotas and the Sanfords.

You also know that the set up means independents don't have a snowballs chance, nor do any party not on the BC NDP/LEAP "approved" list.

Explain please why Rachel Notley and the real "working people's" NDP don't need all that money to actually win an election.

The combination of the lying BC NDP/LEAP campaign finance shenanigans and PR as dreamed up by Eby will shut out independents, smaller parties (some of whom have, in the past, actually won elections in BC) and start up parties.

It is a complete anti-democratic disgrace!

[Nelson345]

Regarding campaign funding for the Electoral Reform Referendum, you will recall that all interested groups were invited to apply to be the 'official' proponent and opponent. One was selected for each side. Any notion of money theft should have been reported to the police. The two groups selected were thought to best represent the two sides on this issue. It would be interesting to read more of an information based discussion than a series of rants - something to promotes understanding of both sides, so we may vote based on knowledge.

[hobbyguy]

Regarding campaign funding for the Electoral Reform Referendum, you will recall that all interested groups were invited to apply to be the 'official' proponent and opponent. One was selected for each side. Any notion of money theft should have been reported to the police. The two groups selected were thought to best represent the two sides on this issue. It would be interesting to read more of an information based discussion than a series of rants - something to promotes understanding of both sides, so we may vote based on knowledge.

Deflection nonsense again by red hat dippers.

The context matters. The BC NDP/LEAP are trying to pervert our democracy to their ends. It won't work, but it is plain to see.

1. Keep big money in politics. Nobody wants that, whether it be private or public. In this case it is flat out theft of taxpayer $$$ after the Horgan the prevaricator specifically said they would not do that.
2. Set up the public funding so that no other party or independent candidate can access it. Not the Conservatives. Not the Communist party of BC. Not the Libertarians. Not the Vancouver Island party - etc.
3. Cook the rules for the PR referendum so that the BC NDP/LEAP excuse for a cabinet decides what happens after the referendum. Yup, the referendum will be nothing more than another "study" by the BC NDP - which as they are doing with almost all the myriad "studies" - they will ignore and go their ideologically constipated and partisan way.
4. Set the referendum so that only one system, MMP, is used anywhere in the world. Set the referendum so that STV is excluded - because STV is the only PR system that does not use "party lists". BC NDP insiders like Eby, who is in big trouble in his own riding, will duck away from the wrath of his constituents and hide on the "party list" - possibly being "appointed" to represent somewhere like Ft. St. John - which he would be lucky to be able to find on a map.

Under the old campaign finance wild west, the other parties like the Conservatives, the Vancouver Island party, they would stand a better chance under PR - but with the new campaign finance theft and gerrymander regime that the liar Horgan came up with - they have no chance.

British Columbians wanted real campaign finance reform and a real PR referendum set up. The cynical and petty little thieves in the BC NDP/LEAP have perverted that into a massive gerrymandering scheme.

I might vote for STV under a decent campaign finance structure, but nobody should vote for this massive BC NDP/LEAP fraud! It is nothing more than a Southern US style gerrymandering attempt.

Shame on the BC NDP/LEAP for perverting the will of BC residents to have a better democracy into this gigantic scam!

[Urbane]

What we can learn from Denmark's experience with proportional representation:

To be included in the Folketing, a party (there are currently 10 recognized political parties) must garner two per cent of the popular vote. In the 10 districts, each party may have several candidates. In any given district there may be as many as 80 candidates on the ballot, running for the 10 parties.

The result is that no one party ever holds a majority in parliament. (The last majority government was in 1903.) This means that every government is a coalition, with the horse trading and deal-making that goes with it.

What is the downside? First: Danish taxes are extraordinarily high in order to pay for these “free” social programs. Personal income taxes average 45 per cent; sales tax is 25 per cent; church tax is two per cent; tax on new cars is a whopping 180 per cent; electricity prices are the highest in Europe.

Full article: https://vancouversun.com/opinion/op-ed/ ... ns-for-b-c

[hobbyguy]

The article about Denmark is quite interesting. The Legatum index ranks Canada, FPTP, mostly majoritarian governments, as 2nd in the world for personal freedom. Denmark is ranked 14th. Canada actually ranks 1 notch better than Denmark on the environment. Overall, Denmark ranks 7th in the world, Canada 8th in the world. The only obvious place where Denmark is better - security - yup, easier to achieve in a tiny country where the government pokes their nose into everything ... not a trade off that I personally think is a good one.

And yes, empirical data does show that coalition governments are much more expensive, run bigger deficits, and tend to run up national debts.

PR advocates will talk endlessly about how at the point of election results, PR produces a better match to the consensus of the people's desires. They are correct, that is generally the case.

What PR advocates never want to touch on is what follows from that point. The horse trading and backroom deals to form a coalition government, which immediately pushes the coalition government away from that consensus - and very often into a mix of policies that conflict with each other. Empirical data shows that majoritarian governments may indeed start out a bit more distant from the consensus voters want, but very rapidly, because they are able to balance policy and be more responsive, adjust to follow that consensus more closely for the period of governance, especially when the public consensus shifts.

STV is the form of PR that does produce a lot of majoritarian governments, and gives even independents a chance at getting elected.

Unfortunately that isn't what the BC NDP/LEAP + Greens set out to gerrymander. They want only systems that include party lists, so that party insiders, like Eby (in big trouble in his own riding) can hide from the voters. They also clearly want a system that shuts out independents, smaller parties, and start up parties. This is one of the few areas where they showing any competency, trying to gerrymander our systems so that the BC NDP politburo can control who forms government... I guess the motto is: if you can't win fairly, cheat like heck!

I could vote for STV in a decent context, but it isn't an option, and this isn't a decent context.

There is no choice for those who believe in democracy but to vote against this BC NDP+Green gerrymandering scam that is perverting the desires of those who want to improve democracy.

[burnedatstake]

if "consensus" at the moment means that the liberals can overpay donors or have a blind eye on money laundering with no compunction because opposition has no real impact - then im all for consensus and accountability during a mandate under a PR system.

[hobbyguy]

if "consensus" at the moment means that the liberals can overpay donors or have a blind eye on money laundering with no compunction because opposition has no real impact - then im all for consensus and accountability during a mandate under a PR system.

Thompson's Theorem applies to that comment.

This is not a partisan issue. Guarantee you that if the BC NDP/LEAP were against PR you would be against it too.

Like I said, I have no problem with STV in the context of proper campaign finance laws, and proper restrictions on third parties. That context is NOT there.

The BC NDP/LEAP perverted the desire for proper campaign finance laws and proper lobbying/third party laws into a gerrymandered farce that allowed them steal taxpayer $$$ to pay for their incompetently run and bankrupt excuse for a party. That is real fact. Right in front of your face after the bald faced liar Horgan said they would NOT steal taxpayer $$$ to fund political parties.

Absolutely nothing the BC NDP/LEAP have done on the file of improving our democracy has been that, it is all a massive gerrymandering scam.

The PR referendum choices should have included STV - but noooo - the Bc NDP/LEAP gerrymandering scam needs to have the stinky party list systems, so they can hide insiders like Eby from the wrath of voters. How is that democratic? The Citizen's Committtee in past referendums chose STV as the best PR system for BC. But nooo! What do the people know? It isn't the people's democracy that the BC NDP/LEAP want, they want the "Demokratik Banana Republik of Dipper Land". Putin style.

I don't care if it was the Rhinoceros party that was diddling around with such an obvious attempt to gerrymander our systems - I would be against such thieving shenanigans.

The referendum set up is entirely an exercise in gerrymandering. Even if PR wins, nobody knows what they are voting for. The BC NDP/LEAP set it up so the final decisions on any PR system (and yes any system that includes party lists, and not STV) rests not with "us", it rests with the merry little band of thieves in the BC NDP/LEAP cabinet. How is THAT democratic?

How is it democratic that the BC NDP/LEAP set the threshold much lower than the threshold for changes within their own party? - an did not even allow any debate on that threshold?? Nope, it isn't. The BC NDP/LEAP wanted a gerrymandering situation right from the start, not an improvement in our democracy.

This crass gerrymandering attempt by the BC NDP/LEAP is all set up to funnel taxpayer $$$ to their incompetently run and bankrupt excuse for a party, and to allow BC NDP insiders to permanently milk the public purse for fat $alaries and fatter pen$ions.

Yes, we could certainly use some improvements to our democracy - but what the BC NDP/LEAP are up to is not that - it is just a Trojan horse.

The Alberta NDP set per vote expenditure caps at about $.75 per voter. Why does the BC NDP/LEAP have it set for 4 times that amount - simple greed in robbing the public purse. Alberta banned corporate and union political donations, and did so without stealing taxpayer $$$ for political parties. Why couldn't the BC NDP/LEAP? Because unlike the "working people's" NDP in Alberta, the BC NDP/LEAP are sticky fingered pretenders.

In that context PR can't help us, let alone the dog's breakfast that Eby gerrymandered. The gerrymandered finance systen the BC NDP/LEAP shuts out all but 3 parties - and one of those was given status only by the jiggery pokery of changing the threshold law. The BC NDP/LEAP have shut out all the other parties, from the Conservatives through to the communist party of BC. Yup, and forget running as an independent.

The BC NDP/LEAP are just trying gerrymander the whole system - top to bottom - in their favor. That's manure -and it is entirely and obviously crooked as all get out.

No matter how you slice it, we could use a few reforms in our political processes, but this rubbish from the BC NDP/LEAP ain't that. All we have to do is look at what Rachel Notley and the "working people's" NDP did for contrast.

There is no choice but to vote against this ugly mess if you believe in democracy.

It is a travesty that the BC NDP/LEAP have squandered this opportunity for real campaign finance improvements and real improvements to our democracy, but they have, their greed overcame them. Better, as staunch NDPer Bill Tieleman believes, to reject this mess and try again in the future than to go down this obvious rabbit hole of corruption.

[burnedatstake]

i agree itn isnt exclusively partisan. but i am. and the liberals malfeasance was simply the nearest example of the need for PR. after all....the 90's is a long time ago. kids born then are adults now. if people wanna keep the NDP in check as well then vote for PR. if the ndp wanna rig the system in their advantage - im all for it. i never wanna see liberal clowns in power ever again.

[Urbane]

if the ndp wanna rig the system in their advantage - im all for it. i never wanna see liberal clowns in power ever again.

At least you admit it and that's what the poorly named "electoral reform" is all about. Rigging the system to help the NDP and hurt the Liberals. Thanks for that.

[mikest2]

i agree itn isnt exclusively partisan. but i am. and the liberals malfeasance was simply the nearest example of the need for PR. after all....the 90's is a long time ago. kids born then are adults now. if people wanna keep the NDP in check as well then vote for PR. if the ndp wanna rig the system in their advantage - im all for it. i never wanna see liberal clowns in power ever again.

All for rigging the system ? If that's the case, then Eby would be in a conflict of interest, given his fear of voters in his riding.

[burnedatstake]

At least you admit it and that's what the poorly named "electoral reform" is all about. Rigging the system to help the NDP and hurt the Liberals. Thanks for that.

now if only you would be honest about your bias instead of being a wolf in sheeps clothing all the time.

[burnedatstake]

All for rigging the system ? If that's the case, then Eby would be in a conflict of interest, given his fear of voters in his riding.

so prove that then....