No Matter Your Political Stripe, Proportional Representation will NOT be better – For The Things You Care About
British Columbians have an opportunity to reject outright a new proportional representation electoral system, forever.
A couple of quotes to start us off
Premier John Horgan – ““If you were woke you would know prop rep is lit.” – Gee John did Andrew suggest that?
MLA Linda Larson – “If this is confusing just vote NO..”
A couple of questions for you Andrew
- Was this not voted on by electors in BC twice before and it failed
- What state, province or district in Mexico, USA or Canada is using this “funny” system. .
- Germany and New Zealand used as examples by Andrew.
- Are we to reject the system that elected Dave Barrett, Mike Harcourt and Glen Clark, WAC Bennett or his son William the junior?
Ok lets bite into this conundrum.
Who wants this? Green, socialists – who??
FPTP has been good for the NDP. The party of three people that runs BC at the moment wants this new system to gain strength. This idea must be defeated. If John Horgan won a majority I could support it. If Christy Clark had won a majority I could support it. If Mr. Weaver ever wins a majority I could support it.
The truth is the Liberal Party of BC got the highest level of public support in the last election but has been “snafu”ed by a 3 member party of tree huggers hell bent on getting their way. And they are doing just that. Until the government falls, the numbers change or the 4 year mandate is up – we are stuck with this craziness.
We need a clear choice of a majority government.
Andrew Frank talks to who is supporting the NO side. Let’s talk to who is supporting the YES side. Same $$ limits under the law of the land and supervision of Elections BC.
You can say big business is against this and bigger Labour is for this or… or… or.
Notice the comments here – no big business indicated just people totally against something new, never tested here.
AND if adopted by 10 percent of the eligible voters. Then the government of the day will proclaim it as godly served. This can be changed with a 50% plus 1 of the eligible voters.
Different strokes for different folks
I will quote my self – our present system is the best in the world and used by most democracies. It was good for Kennedy, it was good for Churchill. Why not me? Why not you?
Jim Bowering says
With the follow-on referendum to decide if we want to keep it, I don’t see what people are frightened by. Where’s the harm in giving it a try?
Carolyn Tipler says
Exactly, just another example of some people not reading carefully or having very poor comprehension skills. I am surprised, or maybe not by the “clear as mud” claims
Publisher says
Carolyn: If you agree with Jim – I know where you come from.
1. Referendum did not need to be days following municipal elections
2. Question to electorate could be more succinct – yes it is “clear as mud” – incoherent, silly, confusing, misunderstood and not getting much attention by the returns so far
3. How many times will citizens be asked this or similar questions (2005-2009-2018) as I sense and see no indication from the masses that we need a change
4. What we need is an election to clear the muddy waters and elect a majority government of ANY stripe.
5. I personally hope this initiative is lost and we never speak the words PRO Rep ever again.
6. One side says try the new burger and fries – you will not get indigestion – the sanity side says why add kale to the burger when lettuce is so good for you.
7. I am tired of the debate, studying options, is not what I want to do while wrapping Christmas presents.
8. 7.4 percent of the population has voted. No change in a structure should be made until 50% plus 1 have voted.
Jim Bowering says
You say that more than 50% of people must vote, so I assume that the majority government you mentioned in point 4 would have to have more than 50% of the vote, right? And I guess more than 50% of people would have to vote to make it a valid election, too. What’s good for the goose …
I’m sorry you’re tired, Jack, but democracy isn’t always easy.
Publisher: Who said this was democratic? The people of BC have voted down this type of proposal twice in the last 13 years. This will be the third time I hope that this is defeated.
My point exactly Jim is that any change to a structure of how elections should be decided should demand a 50 plus 1 majority. Don’t try to sneak your agenda into my thinking.
Rob Hopkins says
If pro rep wins, the electorate will have an opportunity to reinstate FPTP after 2 elections as stated in the PR literature. Don’t see how it is possible to screw over the province to the extent that the Liberals did over the past 16 years in that time period.
Dave drought says
I don’t see mentioned anywhere that the PR, if acceptable, will be reviewed in 6 or so years to see if it is applicable on a permanent basis. If not, back to FPTP. Why no mention of that? Haven’t heard anything about this, especially from BC Liberal supporters. Inadvertent, or what?
Donna Morgan says
Really? MLA Linda Larson – “If this is confusing just vote NO..”
If something is confusing, shouldn’t a person do some research? whether it is online, by talking to people who might know, other investigations, then think through results/responses and decide what is best for them/their community
To just vote NO when you don’t understand is not responsible…and voting is everyone’s responsibility…
Take the time to think this through without emotion….then vote…before 30November….
Carolyn Madge says
I watched the debate on TV very, very closely. In my opinion, I believe strongly that it is the responsibility of the government in power to ensure the voting public knows and understands every nuance of this choice they are expected to make intelligently. There was never a moment during the debate that I ever felt any honest attempt was made to explain “the question”. Mr. Horgan was evasive at best and I wasn’t alone in noticing his rather smirkish smile while he word-smithed his way around Mr. Wilkinson repeatedly. The package and ballot we received was laughable. Articles are rampant on the internet and depending on what you read and what you can believe isn’t good enough. Mr. Wilkinson asked civil and straight forward questions and it may have made the world of difference if Mr. Horgan had answered them so that the electorate could make sense of the mess the government has made trying to explain a radically different system of voting. No; there are far too few people who really grasp the wording of the ballot and shamefully, the opportunity was very clearly there for the one person who professes to know all about proportional representation, Mr. John Horgan, to explain it. It is important that all of us get out and vote to make sure our voices are heard whether in favour or against. Mrs. Larson is right — why would any person vote yes to a question that is as clear as mud.
Carolyn Tipler says
Well said Donna Morgan, do the research and engage the brain then vote for what you think will be the best. Too many people need someone to tell them what to do rather than figuring it out themselves Then there are those who have no idea what this is all about and just chucked what came in the mail in the recycling because they never vote anyway but they sure can complain about the government whichever party is in power.
Rob Hopkins says
Good points Andrew. Bottom line is that the B.C. Libs will probably never again win an election with a majority using pro rep as 50% of voters are not foolish enough to vote for them, and that truly scares the bejesus out of their supporters. Why on earth would anyone call 39% of the vote a majority. If people can not figure out what pro rep is about, maybe they should just abstain from voting as they will just cancel out a vote of someone who knows what is going on. Pro rep is democracy in action, FPTP is just an anachronism like the monarchy that many people still cling to.
Pat Hampson says
The ‘Royal Anachronism’ to which you refer is a system where the Monarch does nothing to interfere with political matters and has no political position. BUT she is the Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and is a Monarch who has done more for her country than many before her regardless of the political party in power.
I am now a Canadian Citizen and proud of it; however I still cling to the Monarchy and FPTP because it is the best system compared to systems designed by mental midgets.
Ken Hagen says
Strange how the politicians who have benefited from the FPTP system are loudest in their opposition.
In the last election, Ms. Larson received less than 45% of the votes – hardly a “majority”.
Maybe it is time to try something new for us an see how well it works.
Publisher: Your comments do not add up……
Larson held 9,174 votes.
NDP Colleen Ross had 6,941 votes,
Popular local independent Dr. Peter Entwistle received 3,028 votes
Green Party Vonnie Lavers had 2,145 votes.
About 50 percent of the eligible voters took no interest.
To me the stats indicate that the popular doctor took many votes away from other candidates and skewed the results
Note that the Green Party person – those who like Proportional Representation were last on the ballot
Stuart Syme says
May I re-phrase your opening statement?
Strange how the politicians who have not seen success in a FPTP system are the loudest in their support of proportional representation.
Do I want someone who cannot at least garner the largest minority to sit in the hallowed halls and steer this ship?
No.
Perhaps a word or two about democracy is in order. The origin of the word is from the two words for ‘people’ and ‘strength’. The earliest form of democracy was exercised by randomly selecting citizens to fill the administrative and judicial offices and by allowing all citizens to participate in all governmental debates and votes.
Such is an unwieldy model for today – demographics, geography, economics, culture – so instead we use a representative model.
That is, those who stand to serve are willing and those who choose from among them are seeking those who are most able. Those chosen then sit is service to the people at the will of the people representing the people.
I can live with that. I can accept representative democracy.
The issue is therefore simple: What is the best way for the people to express their choice of the most able from among those who are willing?
For me, FPTP is more efficient – that is, both more effective and cheaper – than proportional representation. PROREP in my opinion is neither effective nor cheap.
Ken Hagen says
My comment does add up. 55% of those who voted wanted someone other than Larson.
I would also suggest that the USA is an example of how FPTP doesn’t work – Clinton received a majority of the popular vote and still lost to Trump.
Pat English says
If it was a true democracy none of the above won once again.
Publisher: Tempted to agree with you Pat. Write in ballots should be allowed as well – so people could express their will not just the prescribed party types.
Andrew Frank says
Thanks for your rebuttal Jack.
My students taught me what “lit” means a couple of years ago, but I can’t claim credit for Mr. Horgan’s one-liner during the debate (I’m not that hip : ).
To your questions, Mexico does use a form of proportional representation for one of its chambers, but more importantly, a majority of the world’s developed democracies use some form of proportional representation. We really are outliers in Canada, sticking with a system that was developed in the late 1800’s.
Re: previous referendums on proportional representation, the first one (2005) was supported by a majority (57.7%), higher than the vote share of any elected party in BC’s history, except in the election of 1949).
fairvote.org has useful articles for those hoping to learn more about electoral systems used around the world, and I encourage everyone to check them out.
I’m also happy to chat about this further with anyone who is interested: andrew.frank@kpu.ca
Regardless of your position on the referendum, make sure you send in your ballot well before Nov. 30th!
Publisher says
You did not mention Britain, France or the USA – the three best examples of democracy in action and how those countries are linked by it.
I point I missed in my rant: This idea is a sop to the Green Party and its present leverage on the NDP. I think the NDP do not really support it or if they do why not pose an easier
question on the ballot rather than assuming the population likes confusing choices. I think the NDP want it to fail by the lack of clarity and understanding of PR even by NDP cabinet ministers.
You have an answer – but where is the problem?
Hélène Godin says
The president and vice-president of the USA are elected by a College of Electors, most time very skewed to one party or another. I would not called the US the best democracy in the world at the moment…
Publisher: All elections produce flawed people. The USA did elect a man of colour to be president and before that a Catholic. All at times when religion and colour seem to be used to prevent progress.
Andrew Frank says
I laid out the problem in my commentary: polarization, seesawing government, the loss of common sense policy-making that is supported broadly etc. I should have added political disengagement as well.
A former Socred MLA has an excellent piece in the Province right now. Google “Nick Loenen” and “Reasons for voting for proportional representation”. He underlines the problems and the opportunities very well. Among other examples, he compares Norway (where they have proportional representation) and Alberta (where they don’t), and contrasts the resource wealth saved by the Norwegians ($1 trillion in their sovereign wealth fund from oil revenue and counting) with Alberta’s (not much $ left in their Heritage Fund). He believes proportional representation results in better long-term planning in the interests of all citizens…hard to argue with that.
Again, what do we have to lose?
The US and Britain are not shining examples of First-Past-the-Post (our existing system) at the moment.
Glad to keep this discussion going.
Maureen Bott says
I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with Jack, that is your choice We should all take this opportunity to make our voice heard. However it is very important that your vote be counted.. Please make sure that your ballot is there by the deadline. If you are concerned by the Canada Post dispute, then drop your ballot off at the Service BC office located in Room 101 – 583 Fairview Road, Oliver. They will be open until November 30th. The office hours are 8:30am until 4:30 pm, Monday through Friday. However they are closed between 12:30pm and 1:30 pm each day. THIS IS AN IMPORTANT DECISION FOR THIS PROVINCE – MAKE YOUR VOTE COUNT – VOTE SOON.