BC Election issues

[maryjane48]

the greens seem intent on electoral change and they seem to have a growing base that supports that . so which party seems best positiined to go ahead with that ? libs or ndp ?

[Urbane]

the greens seem intent on electoral change and they seem to have a growing base that supports that . so which party seems best positiined to go ahead with that ? libs or ndp ?

We'll see how the next few months play out. By the time the Green Party has had a far great influence than their 16.5% share of the vote deserves people may be longing for a majority government. And a majority government is far more likely with FPTP than with PR or STV.

[neilsimon]

...
We'll see how the next few months play out. By the time the Green Party has had a far great influence than their 16.5% share of the vote deserves people may be longing for a majority government.

How much influence should they have? Since the BC Liberals had 100% influence with only 44% of the vote, that would equate to the Greens having roughly 37% control of government policy. That's a lot of influence.

And a majority government is far more likely with FPTP than with PR or STV.

Maybe so, but it's still less representative of the will of the people and therefore less democratic.

[Urbane]

Maybe so, but it's still less representative of the will of the people and therefore less democratic.

Maybe but it's easy to overlook the advantages of FPTP:

1. A party can run on a platform, be elected on that platform, and carry out that platform.
2. Voters actually get to choose the government and not have to rely on backroom deals, at least in a majority situation.
3. An unpopular government, e.g. the BC NDP government in 2001, can be easily swept out of power.
4. With FPTP there is less likelihood of extremist parties as part of the mix and parties will campaign and govern reasonably near the centre.
5. The candidate receiving the largest number of votes gets elected, with no transferring of second choices to him/her, and no one elected just because a certain percentage of people in the province vote for a particular party. FPTP elects individuals and not parties.

Of course there are disadvantages to FPTP and perhaps in the end we look at a system that maintains FPTP while adding some seats taking PR into account??

Here's an example of a party campaigning on something but after the election willing to compromise on something very basic:

The New Democrats' campaign platform included putting the question of electoral reform to voters, but party leader John Horgan said Thursday he's open to compromising with the Greens, who want the change introduced without a vote.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... -1.4122921

Most of us would agree that compromise is a positive thing but it depends on the issue. Some people might have voted NDP "knowing" that there would be a referendum before there would be any change to our electoral system. It's a pretty basic issue and some who supported the NDP might not be too happy with the type of compromise Horgan is now suggesting. Regardless of the voting system, a "hung parliament" raises these thorny issues.

[hobbyguy]

neilsimon - there is a dichotomy that you are not seeing.

The party system is itself is not terribly democratic and is very hierarchical. But it does, as Urbane points out, allow you to vote based on competency, record, and platform.

The party system, whether FTPT, STV, or PR or even hybrids, is inherently such that the average person is largely shut out from participation other than being hounded for donations.

It is therefore very easy for parties to promise one thing, do another. They are not subject to constraints between elections.

PR winds up putting on too many constraints. Permanent minorities with back room negotiations lead to decisions by committee. Decisions by committee are almost always second rate decisions.

That's why I favor the citizen lottery approach. IF 10% of the seats in the legislature are allotted to "citizen representatives" selected by lottery - which any citizen may put their name into, then it would very difficult for any party to form a railroading majority. That 10% of seats would wind up being proportional and a balance of power in most scenarios. It would not be "whipped" nor under any party control, and as re-election is not an issue, the citizen representatives would most likely "vote their conscience" in most cases.

So in essence, we as voters would also be freed up to vote by platform, and far less "against" a party etc. because no party will have a majority. And the winning party would always have the constraint of what the general public wants.

[flamingfingers]

^Get rid of PARTIES entirely. Vote for an independent candidate you feel will represent you in the legislature, on committees, e.g Vicki Huntington in Delta - the 'party system' is breaking down and not truly representing their constituency on policy or other matters. Big money has had too much influence in dictating 'policy' and spending in this government. Time to get rid of the ChristyLiberals, the NDP and the Greens. Vote for independents who respect and respond to the citizens in their ridings!!!

[mr.bandaid]

^Get rid of PARTIES entirely. Vote for an independent candidate you feel will represent you in the legislature, on committees, e.g Vicki Huntington in Delta - the 'party system' is breaking down and not truly representing their constituency on policy or other matters. Big money has had too much influence in dictating 'policy' and spending in this government. Time to get rid of the ChristyLiberals, the NDP and the Greens. Vote for independents who respect and respond to the citizens in their ridings!!!

I said this last election. People voted in on merit and form a government with leadership voted in by majority and out just as easy.

[hobbyguy]

Once again, the key benefit to the party system is that you get to vote for a platform, a cohesive approach (sometimes), and competence.

In a legislature full of independents, who forms government? Who sets some sort of agenda? Very quickly alliances get formed, and that morphs into parties.

No democratic system has survived without parties. They are a naturally evolving response to a complex situation. You do see lots of independents at lower levels of government where the complexity is lower, but even in terms of cities, the big ones end up with parties - because of increasing complexity.

There are folks out there that fight against the lock step hierarchy of parties. A couple that come to mind from the previous federal government are Brent Rathgeber and Michael Chong. But it never really seems to work very well.

That's why the notion of "citizen representatives" selected at random is appealing. 10% of the seats that parties can not control, but who control the balance of power (most of the time). Statistically the lottery of citizens would provide an even better PR of views.

E.g. IF I had my druthers I would voted for a party with half of the Green platform, and half of the Liberal platform. No such party exists. But if there enough like minded individuals the statistically one or more would be a "citizen representative" from the lottery. Voting with the Greens one time, the Liberals the next.

Now wouldn't that give the politicians grey hair in a big hurry lol.

[Queen K]

Voting for the NDP in one election and theSocreds Liberals the next was the norm was it not? Before the Liberals came out to dominant. Now the Greens are going to substitute until either GB gets his dream and the NDP disband, is that it?

[hobbyguy]

The BC NDP will never disappear.

When wild Willy ruined the Socreds, the party faded away. Something new, and somewhat similar, but refreshed, emerged to take the spot the Socreds vacated.

The BC NDP unionist party has a hard core base of about 20% of the vote. To be honest, I have never run into more "tribal" folk than die hard unionists.

That's sort of why I see a potential future political split in BC that looks something like 25% NDP, 30% Green, 45% Liberal.

It is also why I see any coalition that includes the BC NDP as unworkable. Trying to reason or compromise with a diehard unionist is harder than any other endeavor. The BCTF (as opposed to teachers) has a lot of influence on the NDP - and no government (NDP, Socred, Liberal) has been able to achieve an acceptable compromise relationship with that group. That very much "my way or the highway" diehard unionist approach just doesn't work when reason needs to prevail.

Mind you, that all depends on the Green party maintaining the momentum they have generated. It is significant enough that the die hard unionists may really start attacking them. There is about 15% of the BC NDP vote share that is soft. When fighting for vote share the die hard unionists have only one approach, and that is attack, raise petty grievances, blow everything out of proportion, launch attacks that while based on a grievance, have nothing to do with anything within the control of provincial parties/government.

It will be a real test for the Greens to see if they can withstand a full on NDP unionist attack.

I actually think it would be better for the Greens if the Liberals win Coutenay-Comox and get to 44 seats. That would put the Greens in the best position to build on their momentum of holding a balance of power. They have some power now, and the best way to build power is not to exercise it.

[Hurtlander]

Trying to reason or compromise with a diehard unionist is harder than any other endeavor.

Yup, those evil uncompromising unions refused to back down while they fought and won the right to a 40 hour work week, the weekend, equality, the middle class, and most importantly, workplace health and safety standards. Just think how much better off we would all be if working conditions were turned back a hundred years or so..

[maryjane48]

the problem is a party getting less than 50 percent of the vote . if it is less than half it isnt a mandate and over half the people are not properly represented . fptp doesnt work .

[The Green Barbarian]

Yup, those evil uncompromising unions refused to back down while they fought and won the right to a 40 hour work week, the weekend, equality, the middle class, and most importantly, workplace health and safety standards. Just think how much better off we would all be if working conditions were turned back a hundred years or so..

Yup, they definitely served their purpose. Now it's time for them to get out of the way.

[George+]

Minimum living wage?

[Queen K]

Yup, those evil uncompromising unions refused to back down while they fought and won the right to a 40 hour work week, the weekend, equality, the middle class, and most importantly, workplace health and safety standards. Just think how much better off we would all be if working conditions were turned back a hundred years or so..

Yup, they definitely served their purpose. Now it's time for them to get out of the way.

Sadly I can not disagree more. I've been in meetings with union reps and without, believe me the difference is astounding.