Pro-rep gives power to the parties, not the people. You vote for a party, and they decide who will represent your district. If a member leaves, they will appoint another one, with no say from the people. No bi-elections! Take a look at Europe where Pro-Rep has allowed the rise of extremist parties. In Sweden, Neo-nazi parties received 18 percent of the vote! Could you imagine if the Liberals and NDP tied in the future, and the balance of power went to a Neo-Nazi group??? With the current FPTP system, a Neo Nazi group could never get in. With Pro-rep, they only need 5% of the vote across the entire province to succeed. In past federal elections, I was always amused at the Communist parties running, kind of joking that they would never get in. However, under a Pro-rep system they could. And if they only received one seat, could hold the balance of power in a tie. Too risky for me. FPTP leads to stable governments that can get things done, with local representation by people that you are familiar with and voted for. Ironically, when you look at how much money the current NDP/Green coalition has spent promoting pro-rep, I see nothing but vote Yes Pro-rep posters in Universities and schools, thousands of vote Yes signs and they delayed the debate on the electoral reform until November 8th, well after 1/3 of the province will have already mailed in their ballots, you kind of have to wonder who's got the most to gain from this! Vote for FPTP.
Stephanie - 5 years ago
I’m voting FPTP. There is way too much in the “we’ll let you know the details later” column. Huge red flag.
Jimmy - 5 years ago
If we went with PR
Could it be modified to disclose all candidates
If we went with PR
We would need some legislation or charter rights to allow reversal
Bruce - 5 years ago
Your votes don't matter in PR if you live outside of the lower mainland. They are the ones who will decided our government. Just doesn't make sense. I'll stick with FPTP. I'm voting NO to PR.
Chris Blann - 5 years ago
First, this method of determining how BC could choose its future governments is nothing more than a confusing sham. The threshold of 50%+1 is too low, especially with the anticipated low mail in ballot return and the choices do not include STV. It should be clear to all, this process and choices Eby has dreamed up is nothing other than preventing the NDP getting bombed similar to the 77-2 debacle in another general election. If the NDP presented a costed platform the majority of voters wanted, this PR vote would be an afterthought.
The mention of having another go in two election cycles will be swept under the rug if BC ends up with 4-6+ parties in government. A MLA has a decent remuneration with perks.
I can see increased taxes if the fringe parties want their pet projects implemented to support a government.
FPTP as mentioned years ago is the best of the worst choices in providing a government. If you don't like what they have to offer, boot them out in 4 years.
On another note, I believe it is the cities responsibility to provide zoning, infrastructure and housing for the lower economic population. Province may provide repayable funding, but that should be about it.
Riley - 5 years ago
Reforming the system is important to crafting strong, effective policy. Every government in FPTP is inefficient in that they are continually undoing the work of the previous government, re living the same tired issues over and over.
We need to move forward. We can do it by creating policy crafted from a legislature that reflects a majority of the electorate instead of the largest richest minority.
Lets move forward, and experience a system crafted for present day BC, instead of a system crafted for 1870’s great britain. After experiencing two election cycles, we have another referendum to decide if we want to keep it. There are no countries considering to adopt FPTP, that says it all. Choose PR, find out how it can work for BC by experiencing it yourself.
Shane - 5 years ago
Bigger Government = Bigger Costs = Higher Taxes. The Vote is NO!
David - 5 years ago
Imagine PR with 17 MLAs from the Green Party. There would be no LNG development in the province providing jobs and government revenue. There would be no Site C dam and its clean energy for the next generation, and stable prices for electricity. Those are the projects that Andrew Weaver has spoken against. His party would probably stall or block most resource development. Is that what we want?
I will vote for FPP. I want stable government without fringe parties wielding power. .Do we really want the tail to wag the dog?
Michaela - 5 years ago
It is dismaying that so many people would rather complain about our current system than work to improve it. There are no perfect electoral systems but our current system (FPTP) seems to attract candidates with good intentions only to find them get sucked into the vortex of supporting their party or its leader at all costs; after all, they will be disciplined if they dared support an idea, even a excellent one, that came from another party's MLA. Moreover, none of the 3 PR options eliminate FPTP as that is still how the riding's representative is elected. The difference is that there is additional representation based on the popular vote that serves to moderate the excesses of false majorities and the governing party's belief that it can do anything as it has all the power. Then again, people would rather continue to complain about government than do anything to improve it. We should be electing "governance," not fighting to win a horse race where everyone but the winner no longer matters.
Dean - 5 years ago
The elegance of the percentage of voters matching the legislature is not the only thing to consider.
Most MLAs are nobodies 50 yards outside the legislature.
We're picking a government and that requires we consider other issues such as how easy it is to get parties out of government and preventing party elite from dominating decision making. FPTP is the best system for doing that as has been proven over time.
Brian - 5 years ago
I don’t understand how people can be so against pro-rep. Under FPTP, the elected party only has to please its dedicated base (think Trump) and can ignore the wills and needs of the rest of the country. Sure, it might be slower to enact policy under PR, but in my opinion it makes far more sense for our government to debate and compromise to reach a conclusion that will satisfy the majority of the voters. Under FPTP, majority government Conservatives/Liberals can enact policies that purely benefit their party, base, and donors. If there is dissatisfaction, the opposite side of the political spectrum typically gets voted in and spends a large amount of time and resources merely reversing the decisions of the other. How is that a good way to run? Why not have all the parties have a voice (some bigger or smaller than others) to represent the true voters? Compromises can lead to much better policies overall. Think of a relationship, if one partner makes all the decisions sometimes the other will develop a resentment and dissatisfaction and the relationship is worse off than if both parties were able to come to compromises that ensure a better stability to the relationship, even though it make take time to get there. It doesn’t make sense to me for a party that only receives votes from half the voters to receive full control over decisions for the duration of their term, only to have many of them undone by the following government. Vote Pro-Rep!
Jorin - 5 years ago
The current NO side fear mongering advertisements that the BC Liberals and their big money pal's are flooding the air waves with should be enough to help you make a decision. It's clear that Andrew Wilkinson and his cronies are scared and willing to do WHATEVER IT TAKES to ensure every vote does not count. Enough with creating divisive issues and taking attention away from the issues that actually need it. VOTE PR.
Terry Bradshaw - 5 years ago
1. Use the last Ontario election as an actual test case. Ontarian's wanted to be rid of the liberals and their policies and in the election the liberals were decimated going from a majority government to 7 seats. Under PR, the liberals would hold the balance of power and would have formed a government with the NDP. All of their hated policies would have been intact with the NDP. That is the real downside of PR. An inability to fire politicians who do not represent the will of the people. Under PR, Wynn would have been able to appoint 7-8 more MPP's giving her the balance of power. Nothing would have changed.
2. Under PR, a few popular candidates in a few ridings campaigning on a single localized issue could spawn 15 or so MPP's that the rest of the province could care less about. That is not democracy.
3. Weaver is supporting Horgan despite NDP policies Greens cannot stomach, solely to have PR voted on. That's really all anyone needs to know. A complete sellout in a lust for power. Greens are only able to elect a few MPP's but under PR would have 15-17. Marginal parties such as the Green would have influence well beyond their actual appeal and abilities. BC would be well on the way to the $1,000/month utility bills that Ontarian's cannot afford.
FPP works. Why change it?
Ron P Robinson - 5 years ago
For me, it's all about real representation; giving parties their share of power in proportion to their support from all of us. There needs to be more focus on policy development that best fits the big picture.
Dave - 5 years ago
When a politician says we will work out the details later that is not good enough. Vote FPP
Garry - 5 years ago
doesn't it make you a bit suspicious that the only people opposed to a Pro Rep system are;
---the current Prime Minister who won an election with the promise that they would bring in a Pro Rep system and then within a year changed his mind when he figured the Liberals would lose their lifetime throne of government
---the current leader of the BC Liberal party who promises to do whatever it takes to defeat Pro Rep
---high profile ex Liberal MLA's who campaign against anything new
---the ex CEO of the largest forest products company in Canada who has spent thousands of his own dollars in robo calls advocating folks to vote no
---a paid lobbyist who previously has worked for progressive changes but now works to build his ego or pocket book.
A FEW GOOD REASONS TO VOTE IN FAVOUR OF PRO REP---DONALD TRUMP, DOUG FORD, STEPHEN HARPER, CHRISTY CLARK---ALL ELECTED WITH LESS THAN 50% OF THE VOTE BUT 100% OF THE POWER
We must stay with first past the post system. I cannot get a straight answer as to how this will work if PR is voted in next month. The first thing that scares me is there could be as many as 95 MLA's if that system comes about. A 10 percent increase over the 87 MLA's we have now. The first red flag. Also I cannot see how anything will get passed in the legislature. To many cooks spoil the soup. I sincerely hope that the people of BC have enough self respect to turn down the PR experiment. That is all it is, an experiment.
Judi Bennett - 5 years ago
It is not a given that parties will cooperate in PR. If they compromise too much they will be punished at the polls next time. Also PR results in behind the scenes political manoevering for candidates to get on party lists. FPP retains a direct voter/elected representative relationship for accountability. Vote FPP.
Judi Bennett - 5 years ago
It is not a given that parties will cooperate in PR. They must retain their supporters for the next election; if they compromise too much they will be punished at the polls next time. They can only afford to compromise to a point. Also PR results in behind the scenes political manoevering for candidates to get on party lists. FPP retains a direct voter/elected representative relationship for accountability. Vote FPP.
James - 5 years ago
No Doug Ford's in BC please. Vote PR!
Wally - 5 years ago
I’m not ready to take Horgan’s “leap of faith”
Greg - 5 years ago
With FPP everyone knows who/what party is making the decision. And who to blame or praise. A coalition camel will spend way more time sorting out which way to go, and accomplish very little.
Brian - 5 years ago
Fed up with majority governments with fewer popular votes than the opposition gets !!!! Vote PR !!
Pro-rep gives power to the parties, not the people. You vote for a party, and they decide who will represent your district. If a member leaves, they will appoint another one, with no say from the people. No bi-elections! Take a look at Europe where Pro-Rep has allowed the rise of extremist parties. In Sweden, Neo-nazi parties received 18 percent of the vote! Could you imagine if the Liberals and NDP tied in the future, and the balance of power went to a Neo-Nazi group??? With the current FPTP system, a Neo Nazi group could never get in. With Pro-rep, they only need 5% of the vote across the entire province to succeed. In past federal elections, I was always amused at the Communist parties running, kind of joking that they would never get in. However, under a Pro-rep system they could. And if they only received one seat, could hold the balance of power in a tie. Too risky for me. FPTP leads to stable governments that can get things done, with local representation by people that you are familiar with and voted for. Ironically, when you look at how much money the current NDP/Green coalition has spent promoting pro-rep, I see nothing but vote Yes Pro-rep posters in Universities and schools, thousands of vote Yes signs and they delayed the debate on the electoral reform until November 8th, well after 1/3 of the province will have already mailed in their ballots, you kind of have to wonder who's got the most to gain from this! Vote for FPTP.
I’m voting FPTP. There is way too much in the “we’ll let you know the details later” column. Huge red flag.
If we went with PR
Could it be modified to disclose all candidates
If we went with PR
We would need some legislation or charter rights to allow reversal
Your votes don't matter in PR if you live outside of the lower mainland. They are the ones who will decided our government. Just doesn't make sense. I'll stick with FPTP. I'm voting NO to PR.
First, this method of determining how BC could choose its future governments is nothing more than a confusing sham. The threshold of 50%+1 is too low, especially with the anticipated low mail in ballot return and the choices do not include STV. It should be clear to all, this process and choices Eby has dreamed up is nothing other than preventing the NDP getting bombed similar to the 77-2 debacle in another general election. If the NDP presented a costed platform the majority of voters wanted, this PR vote would be an afterthought.
The mention of having another go in two election cycles will be swept under the rug if BC ends up with 4-6+ parties in government. A MLA has a decent remuneration with perks.
I can see increased taxes if the fringe parties want their pet projects implemented to support a government.
FPTP as mentioned years ago is the best of the worst choices in providing a government. If you don't like what they have to offer, boot them out in 4 years.
On another note, I believe it is the cities responsibility to provide zoning, infrastructure and housing for the lower economic population. Province may provide repayable funding, but that should be about it.
Reforming the system is important to crafting strong, effective policy. Every government in FPTP is inefficient in that they are continually undoing the work of the previous government, re living the same tired issues over and over.
We need to move forward. We can do it by creating policy crafted from a legislature that reflects a majority of the electorate instead of the largest richest minority.
Lets move forward, and experience a system crafted for present day BC, instead of a system crafted for 1870’s great britain. After experiencing two election cycles, we have another referendum to decide if we want to keep it. There are no countries considering to adopt FPTP, that says it all. Choose PR, find out how it can work for BC by experiencing it yourself.
Bigger Government = Bigger Costs = Higher Taxes. The Vote is NO!
Imagine PR with 17 MLAs from the Green Party. There would be no LNG development in the province providing jobs and government revenue. There would be no Site C dam and its clean energy for the next generation, and stable prices for electricity. Those are the projects that Andrew Weaver has spoken against. His party would probably stall or block most resource development. Is that what we want?
I will vote for FPP. I want stable government without fringe parties wielding power. .Do we really want the tail to wag the dog?
It is dismaying that so many people would rather complain about our current system than work to improve it. There are no perfect electoral systems but our current system (FPTP) seems to attract candidates with good intentions only to find them get sucked into the vortex of supporting their party or its leader at all costs; after all, they will be disciplined if they dared support an idea, even a excellent one, that came from another party's MLA. Moreover, none of the 3 PR options eliminate FPTP as that is still how the riding's representative is elected. The difference is that there is additional representation based on the popular vote that serves to moderate the excesses of false majorities and the governing party's belief that it can do anything as it has all the power. Then again, people would rather continue to complain about government than do anything to improve it. We should be electing "governance," not fighting to win a horse race where everyone but the winner no longer matters.
The elegance of the percentage of voters matching the legislature is not the only thing to consider.
Most MLAs are nobodies 50 yards outside the legislature.
We're picking a government and that requires we consider other issues such as how easy it is to get parties out of government and preventing party elite from dominating decision making. FPTP is the best system for doing that as has been proven over time.
I don’t understand how people can be so against pro-rep. Under FPTP, the elected party only has to please its dedicated base (think Trump) and can ignore the wills and needs of the rest of the country. Sure, it might be slower to enact policy under PR, but in my opinion it makes far more sense for our government to debate and compromise to reach a conclusion that will satisfy the majority of the voters. Under FPTP, majority government Conservatives/Liberals can enact policies that purely benefit their party, base, and donors. If there is dissatisfaction, the opposite side of the political spectrum typically gets voted in and spends a large amount of time and resources merely reversing the decisions of the other. How is that a good way to run? Why not have all the parties have a voice (some bigger or smaller than others) to represent the true voters? Compromises can lead to much better policies overall. Think of a relationship, if one partner makes all the decisions sometimes the other will develop a resentment and dissatisfaction and the relationship is worse off than if both parties were able to come to compromises that ensure a better stability to the relationship, even though it make take time to get there. It doesn’t make sense to me for a party that only receives votes from half the voters to receive full control over decisions for the duration of their term, only to have many of them undone by the following government. Vote Pro-Rep!
The current NO side fear mongering advertisements that the BC Liberals and their big money pal's are flooding the air waves with should be enough to help you make a decision. It's clear that Andrew Wilkinson and his cronies are scared and willing to do WHATEVER IT TAKES to ensure every vote does not count. Enough with creating divisive issues and taking attention away from the issues that actually need it. VOTE PR.
1. Use the last Ontario election as an actual test case. Ontarian's wanted to be rid of the liberals and their policies and in the election the liberals were decimated going from a majority government to 7 seats. Under PR, the liberals would hold the balance of power and would have formed a government with the NDP. All of their hated policies would have been intact with the NDP. That is the real downside of PR. An inability to fire politicians who do not represent the will of the people. Under PR, Wynn would have been able to appoint 7-8 more MPP's giving her the balance of power. Nothing would have changed.
2. Under PR, a few popular candidates in a few ridings campaigning on a single localized issue could spawn 15 or so MPP's that the rest of the province could care less about. That is not democracy.
3. Weaver is supporting Horgan despite NDP policies Greens cannot stomach, solely to have PR voted on. That's really all anyone needs to know. A complete sellout in a lust for power. Greens are only able to elect a few MPP's but under PR would have 15-17. Marginal parties such as the Green would have influence well beyond their actual appeal and abilities. BC would be well on the way to the $1,000/month utility bills that Ontarian's cannot afford.
FPP works. Why change it?
For me, it's all about real representation; giving parties their share of power in proportion to their support from all of us. There needs to be more focus on policy development that best fits the big picture.
When a politician says we will work out the details later that is not good enough. Vote FPP
doesn't it make you a bit suspicious that the only people opposed to a Pro Rep system are;
---the current Prime Minister who won an election with the promise that they would bring in a Pro Rep system and then within a year changed his mind when he figured the Liberals would lose their lifetime throne of government
---the current leader of the BC Liberal party who promises to do whatever it takes to defeat Pro Rep
---high profile ex Liberal MLA's who campaign against anything new
---the ex CEO of the largest forest products company in Canada who has spent thousands of his own dollars in robo calls advocating folks to vote no
---a paid lobbyist who previously has worked for progressive changes but now works to build his ego or pocket book.
A FEW GOOD REASONS TO VOTE IN FAVOUR OF PRO REP---DONALD TRUMP, DOUG FORD, STEPHEN HARPER, CHRISTY CLARK---ALL ELECTED WITH LESS THAN 50% OF THE VOTE BUT 100% OF THE POWER
We must stay with first past the post system. I cannot get a straight answer as to how this will work if PR is voted in next month. The first thing that scares me is there could be as many as 95 MLA's if that system comes about. A 10 percent increase over the 87 MLA's we have now. The first red flag. Also I cannot see how anything will get passed in the legislature. To many cooks spoil the soup. I sincerely hope that the people of BC have enough self respect to turn down the PR experiment. That is all it is, an experiment.
It is not a given that parties will cooperate in PR. If they compromise too much they will be punished at the polls next time. Also PR results in behind the scenes political manoevering for candidates to get on party lists. FPP retains a direct voter/elected representative relationship for accountability. Vote FPP.
It is not a given that parties will cooperate in PR. They must retain their supporters for the next election; if they compromise too much they will be punished at the polls next time. They can only afford to compromise to a point. Also PR results in behind the scenes political manoevering for candidates to get on party lists. FPP retains a direct voter/elected representative relationship for accountability. Vote FPP.
No Doug Ford's in BC please. Vote PR!
I’m not ready to take Horgan’s “leap of faith”
With FPP everyone knows who/what party is making the decision. And who to blame or praise. A coalition camel will spend way more time sorting out which way to go, and accomplish very little.
Fed up with majority governments with fewer popular votes than the opposition gets !!!! Vote PR !!