Most of the people posting here will take the time to understand what they will be voting for in November. Unfortunately these people will make up a very small portion of a very small portion of people who bother to vote. Proponents of PR will claim "its time for a change". This claim will appeal to the uninformed voters who, like I mentioned above, bother to vote. They will vote for "change" without realizing what the ramifications of "change" will be as in Brexit and the last US election.
Shaun - 6 years ago
Daryl Sturdy:
Your response to the fact it’s been defeated recently twice is “So?” and then give excuses as to why it was defeated. Haha, and you have the nerve to tell others their arguments are petty? .... I’ll answer your so. In a DEMOCRACY where the province has voted NO twice its time to listen! You may need to go back to your encyclopedia britannica to review how democracies function. My guess is we will get yet another no and the NDP will make excuses and in 20 years, when people forget how inept the NDP are and vote for them again, we will repeat this waste of time and money again.
Wally - 6 years ago
@Daryl Sturdy
All the people you attack are entitled to their opinions. Just so you know I voted NDP last election but have sure learned my lesson. Was hoping for a less corrupt govt but was I ever wrong.
Daryl Sturdy - 6 years ago
@ Wally -
You said, "There’s nothing simple about this." What don't you understand.
You said, "It doesn’t involve math but does involve a con job. I smell a rat. Eby can’t be trusted." Another ad hominem response. your tactic? Throw mud and hope it sticks.
You said, " It’s already been defeated twice provincially & recently abandoned by the Feds." So? The first time in was up against an unreasonable high threshold. The second time was too long after the initial discussion with the Citizen's Assembly and was defeated by a high power, concerted media campaign, based on fear mongering, by a handful of party hacks and political insiders. And, how many time was the abolition of slavery, or universal suffrage up for a vote before it passed?
Look at the mess other countries are in that have this system. Taking over 500 days to form a govt, poor decision making beca
Nadya - 6 years ago
It's literally: "Do you want change? Yes / No. If yes, do you want option A, B, or C?" It's pretty hard to imagine the question being easier to understand than that. Some basic research is required to understand options A, B, and C, as well as the status quo but, again, that's not difficult provided voters are given reliable information. Newspapers should now regularly publish academic experts describing the options (including First Past the Post). I'm much less interested in what politicians, with their obvious conflicts of interest, have to say on the topic.
Daryl Sturdy - 6 years ago
Despite all the outcry and protestations by the BC Liberals who have benefited for many election cycles from an unfair, undemocratic electoral system, we have at last a chance to move into the 21st century and take our place beside the vast majority of successful OECD nations that use some form of PR.
Opponents of PR attack the process, which is easy to do, you don't have to present any facts, just accusations.
What it all come down to is, do you want a more democratic electoral system as defined by Encyclopedia Britannica - "The case for [PR] is fundamentally the same as that for representative democracy. Only if an assembly represents the full diversity of opinion within a nation can its decisions be regarded as the decisions of the nation itself."
What this means is that no longer will 40% of voters be able to elect a government that tells the 0ther 60% what will be. No longer will parties e.g. The Green be relegated to 3% of the seats with 17% of the vote.
No longer will Liberal voters in an NDP or Green riding be throwing their votes away. No longer will NDP voters in Green or Liberal ridings be throwing their votes away.
All the arguments about process etc. pale beside the one essential aspect of PR, it is a true expression of democracy and you can't argue against that.
@ Mike Bertucci. Great way to argue. I think it's called argumentum ad hominem, the last refuge of someone who has nothing of substance to say.
@ Larry Sterling. You said, "Andrew Weaver is so hungry for power that he will do anything to get fat on the public purse." Another ad hominem response. And, is it possible that you are the one so hungry for your party to be in power that you will use any and all tactics to maintain your'party's grip on power. And you might recall that your pary, in a desperate attempt to stay in power, voted unanimously for electoral reform among all the other Green/NDP policies.
You said, "We need to make sure that the questions asked on the ballot for PR are clear and without trickery." How could they be any clearer than a yes/no and a choice between 3 options which you will come to understand in the fullness of time.
You said, " The surprising thing about this is that both these leaders got there leadership positions by the first past the post system." That's not surprising. What is surprising is that with PR, they would have together had many much more that a one seat lead. It is your party that handicapped them with FPTP. Not that they had any choice in the matter. BTW, why did the Liberal leadership race not use a simple FPTP process to elect Wilkinson? Too complicated? Or?
Wilf - 6 years ago
Luckily voters have until November to understand the choices. You should have asked "do you intend to learn what they are?" And you might have added "we plan to explain them to you."
David Pearce - 6 years ago
It is easy to understand. I will vote yes " to change the system because I want more choice at the ballot box. I have voted since 1965 and have NEVER been truly represented. I want to end the unfair 2 party duopoly which serves to strangle all new ideas and approaches. I will also vote MMP, but that is less important.
J Hoeppner - 6 years ago
Your question is misleading and disingenuous. I find it hard to believe that 83% of respondents don't understand the difference between maintaining the status quo and changing to a voting system using the principle of Proportional Representation. The 2nd question is relevant only if the first one results in a choice of PR and any one of the choices offered will result in a fairer legislature. It's like asking someone out for dinner and discussing which restaurant to go to before they've even said yes!
Besides, expecting readers to understand the ramifications of the various systems offered the day after they've been introduced is totally unfair. Would you expect anyone to understand the difference between 3 in the tree, 4 on the floor and an automatic without having some experience with the subject or time to do some research? I think not! Elections BC will no doubt have information soon regarding the various choices. Let them do their job!
Edon Smith - 6 years ago
Seems to me if you spent the money getting 100% of the people out to vote you wouldn't have to con people into changing the system.
Mike Bertucci - 6 years ago
Seems to me that everytime the NDP get into power they seem to find a way to screw every British Columbian one way or another..and now it’s even worse cause they have the Green Party backing up all of there unfortunate party ways...it’s been 16 plus years since they came back to power...God help us all if they get in again .. people seem to have very short memories...I’m sure once there term is up our province will be in total chaos again ... it will take 20 years to fix what they royal screw up again...
Here we go again. The EB and ZEB show. We cannot trust the current Provincial Government. Andrew Weaver is so hungry for power that he will do anything to get fat on the public purse. John Horgan is being the puppet for Andrew Weaver. We need to make sure that the questions asked on the ballot for PR are clear and without trickery. I hope the liberals step up and make sure the members in each riding are informed and able to vote with confidence. The surprising thing about this is that both these leaders got there leadership positions by the first past the post system. Poor comedy at best.
Wally - 6 years ago
There’s nothing simple about this. It doesn’t involve math but does involve a con job. I smell a rat. Eby can’t be trusted. It’s already been defeated twice provincially & recently abandoned by the Feds. Look at the mess other countries are in that have this system. Taking over 500 days to form a govt, poor decision making because of small radical parties, uncertainty for investors....
Bruce - 6 years ago
It’s simple math folks ..... sick and tired of majority governments that often have less than 50% of the popular vote!
Most of the people posting here will take the time to understand what they will be voting for in November. Unfortunately these people will make up a very small portion of a very small portion of people who bother to vote. Proponents of PR will claim "its time for a change". This claim will appeal to the uninformed voters who, like I mentioned above, bother to vote. They will vote for "change" without realizing what the ramifications of "change" will be as in Brexit and the last US election.
Daryl Sturdy:
Your response to the fact it’s been defeated recently twice is “So?” and then give excuses as to why it was defeated. Haha, and you have the nerve to tell others their arguments are petty? .... I’ll answer your so. In a DEMOCRACY where the province has voted NO twice its time to listen! You may need to go back to your encyclopedia britannica to review how democracies function. My guess is we will get yet another no and the NDP will make excuses and in 20 years, when people forget how inept the NDP are and vote for them again, we will repeat this waste of time and money again.
@Daryl Sturdy
All the people you attack are entitled to their opinions. Just so you know I voted NDP last election but have sure learned my lesson. Was hoping for a less corrupt govt but was I ever wrong.
@ Wally -
You said, "There’s nothing simple about this." What don't you understand.
You said, "It doesn’t involve math but does involve a con job. I smell a rat. Eby can’t be trusted." Another ad hominem response. your tactic? Throw mud and hope it sticks.
You said, " It’s already been defeated twice provincially & recently abandoned by the Feds." So? The first time in was up against an unreasonable high threshold. The second time was too long after the initial discussion with the Citizen's Assembly and was defeated by a high power, concerted media campaign, based on fear mongering, by a handful of party hacks and political insiders. And, how many time was the abolition of slavery, or universal suffrage up for a vote before it passed?
Look at the mess other countries are in that have this system. Taking over 500 days to form a govt, poor decision making beca
It's literally: "Do you want change? Yes / No. If yes, do you want option A, B, or C?" It's pretty hard to imagine the question being easier to understand than that. Some basic research is required to understand options A, B, and C, as well as the status quo but, again, that's not difficult provided voters are given reliable information. Newspapers should now regularly publish academic experts describing the options (including First Past the Post). I'm much less interested in what politicians, with their obvious conflicts of interest, have to say on the topic.
Despite all the outcry and protestations by the BC Liberals who have benefited for many election cycles from an unfair, undemocratic electoral system, we have at last a chance to move into the 21st century and take our place beside the vast majority of successful OECD nations that use some form of PR.
Opponents of PR attack the process, which is easy to do, you don't have to present any facts, just accusations.
What it all come down to is, do you want a more democratic electoral system as defined by Encyclopedia Britannica - "The case for [PR] is fundamentally the same as that for representative democracy. Only if an assembly represents the full diversity of opinion within a nation can its decisions be regarded as the decisions of the nation itself."
What this means is that no longer will 40% of voters be able to elect a government that tells the 0ther 60% what will be. No longer will parties e.g. The Green be relegated to 3% of the seats with 17% of the vote.
No longer will Liberal voters in an NDP or Green riding be throwing their votes away. No longer will NDP voters in Green or Liberal ridings be throwing their votes away.
All the arguments about process etc. pale beside the one essential aspect of PR, it is a true expression of democracy and you can't argue against that.
@ Mike Bertucci. Great way to argue. I think it's called argumentum ad hominem, the last refuge of someone who has nothing of substance to say.
@ Larry Sterling. You said, "Andrew Weaver is so hungry for power that he will do anything to get fat on the public purse." Another ad hominem response. And, is it possible that you are the one so hungry for your party to be in power that you will use any and all tactics to maintain your'party's grip on power. And you might recall that your pary, in a desperate attempt to stay in power, voted unanimously for electoral reform among all the other Green/NDP policies.
You said, "We need to make sure that the questions asked on the ballot for PR are clear and without trickery." How could they be any clearer than a yes/no and a choice between 3 options which you will come to understand in the fullness of time.
You said, " The surprising thing about this is that both these leaders got there leadership positions by the first past the post system." That's not surprising. What is surprising is that with PR, they would have together had many much more that a one seat lead. It is your party that handicapped them with FPTP. Not that they had any choice in the matter. BTW, why did the Liberal leadership race not use a simple FPTP process to elect Wilkinson? Too complicated? Or?
Luckily voters have until November to understand the choices. You should have asked "do you intend to learn what they are?" And you might have added "we plan to explain them to you."
It is easy to understand. I will vote yes " to change the system because I want more choice at the ballot box. I have voted since 1965 and have NEVER been truly represented. I want to end the unfair 2 party duopoly which serves to strangle all new ideas and approaches. I will also vote MMP, but that is less important.
Your question is misleading and disingenuous. I find it hard to believe that 83% of respondents don't understand the difference between maintaining the status quo and changing to a voting system using the principle of Proportional Representation. The 2nd question is relevant only if the first one results in a choice of PR and any one of the choices offered will result in a fairer legislature. It's like asking someone out for dinner and discussing which restaurant to go to before they've even said yes!
Besides, expecting readers to understand the ramifications of the various systems offered the day after they've been introduced is totally unfair. Would you expect anyone to understand the difference between 3 in the tree, 4 on the floor and an automatic without having some experience with the subject or time to do some research? I think not! Elections BC will no doubt have information soon regarding the various choices. Let them do their job!
Seems to me if you spent the money getting 100% of the people out to vote you wouldn't have to con people into changing the system.
Seems to me that everytime the NDP get into power they seem to find a way to screw every British Columbian one way or another..and now it’s even worse cause they have the Green Party backing up all of there unfortunate party ways...it’s been 16 plus years since they came back to power...God help us all if they get in again .. people seem to have very short memories...I’m sure once there term is up our province will be in total chaos again ... it will take 20 years to fix what they royal screw up again...
Here we go again. The EB and ZEB show. We cannot trust the current Provincial Government. Andrew Weaver is so hungry for power that he will do anything to get fat on the public purse. John Horgan is being the puppet for Andrew Weaver. We need to make sure that the questions asked on the ballot for PR are clear and without trickery. I hope the liberals step up and make sure the members in each riding are informed and able to vote with confidence. The surprising thing about this is that both these leaders got there leadership positions by the first past the post system. Poor comedy at best.
There’s nothing simple about this. It doesn’t involve math but does involve a con job. I smell a rat. Eby can’t be trusted. It’s already been defeated twice provincially & recently abandoned by the Feds. Look at the mess other countries are in that have this system. Taking over 500 days to form a govt, poor decision making because of small radical parties, uncertainty for investors....
It’s simple math folks ..... sick and tired of majority governments that often have less than 50% of the popular vote!