BC Political Discussion - BC Election 2017 May 9th

[a very long weekend]

^ man, do you ever stop? i try to read this page for info, not for your - totally unconvincing - propaganda. political science is a joke and not a science at all, quant coming out of it is mostly useless, your experts don't know very much except inside shit, and nobody cares about insider shit on a website that's mostly frequented by people in the building trades/engineering, real estate, planners, architects and attorneys.

anyway, even if a pro-infrastructure party like the ndp doesn't take power, as an outsider, it seems to me to me that it's not so bad for the government to be a a liberal party scaled back to its resource-rural and chinese/wealthy suburb rump and completely reliant on the greens to keep themselves in power. more money to the cities, less money on weird road projects.

reading up on it, the one great tragedy about the ndp's close loss is that if the liberals had been ousted, the ndp could have exposed their books to the public.

[Stingray2004]

Haha. Yeah. I remember you... from Kamloops. Now in SF. Your previous moniker herein was "Flight from Kamakura". BTW, why did ya change same?! You have been a hardcore NDPer for well over a decade on that left-wing website Babble.

You're also the same fella that was hoping for the far-left Syriza party to win the Greek elections a couple of years back.

Sorry man... far-left & far-right political parties are...

PS. In terms of folk "frequenting this site"... I have a background in 2 professions that ya mentioned. Just sayin'.

[Bcasey25raptor]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Haha. Yeah. I remember you... from Kamloops. Now in SF. Your previous moniker herein was "Flight from Kamakura". BTW, why did ya change same?! You have been a hardcore NDPer for well over a decade on that left-wing website Babble.

You're also the same fella that was hoping for the far-left Syriza party to win the Greek elections a couple of years back.

Sorry man... far-left & far-right political parties are...

PS. In terms of folk "frequenting this site"... I have a background in 2 professions that ya mentioned. Just sayin'.

Just worth pointing out that despite your rhetoric, the NDP is FAR from being a far left party, the NDP is Centre-Left but does have a left wing caucus since left wing Canadians don't really have anywhere to go. The NDPs main upper levels are much closer to the centre.

LIke christ, if you think Dix in 2013 and Horgan this year's campaign promises were "far left" than you have an extremely warped view of what constitutes far left and it's one based on fear of anything equal to what other developed countries enjoy.

Also keep attacking the party that gave Canada universal healthcare, great strategy.

edit: furthermore despite where weaver and yourself claim the greens fall on the political scale, their platform was the most left wing I've seen peddled in this province and in Canada period in my life. Sure i'm young and in my early-mid 20s, but enough with this "greens are moderates" bullshit, no one but you and a select few pundits actually believe it, where a party campaigns from and gets their ideas from matters far more than where they say they fall.

The Greens in BC based on their platform are FAR left of the provincial NDP and if they join the BC Liberals and keep them in power for another 4 years, the greens as a party will be eviscerated come 2021.

[Bcasey25raptor]

for the record I have a LOT of friends who actually ran for the greens and they hold privately some very very left wing beliefs.

Also how in gods name you can call a party that ran Joey Shithead "centrist" is beyond me.

[a very long weekend]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Haha. Yeah. I remember you... from Kamloops. Now in SF. Your previous moniker herein was "Flight from Kamakura". BTW, why did ya change same?! You have been a hardcore NDPer for well over a decade on that left-wing website Babble.

forgot that i know you from JC's class.

anyway, i was never from kamloops, i just adopted it as a sort of joke in classes and for that summer, basically because of the aboriginal history. and if you did end up with a law degree (uvic i assume), it's good for you, can't begrudge you that. i ended up with one too down here.

i haven't known about BC politics for almost 15 years but, like i said, your transparent anti-NDP position is too obvious. and the most important thing is economic development that's transit oriented. and, unless you've changed, you're living in langley or surrey, driving every day...

edit: and that's to one side of the fact that if you'd have done an science or econ degree or any serious grad level quant, you'd know that you're relying on just a bunch of bogus numbers to make your stand.

[dreambrother808]

“58% of British Columbians tell us they prefer the Green Party support a government on a vote by vote basis over a coalition. At the same time, 57% say they would approve of a coalition between the NDP and the Greens, just 27% would approve of a coalition between the Greens and the Liberals. Interestingly, 40% of Liberal voters would disapprove of a Green-Liberal coalition.”

http://www.mainstreetresearch.ca/vot...red-coalition/

[Sheba]

Crucial vote-counting starts Monday

The fate of B.C.’s next government hangs in the balance as 179,380 absentee ballots are counted, and likely recounted, starting Monday.

Elections B.C. will begin its crucial “final count” process on Victoria Day. Normally, it’s a process that attracts little attention. But with no party winning a clear majority in the May 9 election, and several close races decided by only a handful of votes, the next government will likely be decided by the outcome.

First, Elections B.C. will recount the preliminary votes in Courtenay-Comox (where the NDP won by nine votes) and Vancouver False-Creek (where the Liberals won by 560 votes). The independent elections agency previously rejected recount requests in four other ridings.

The district electoral officer in each of the 87 ridings will then start tallying the ballots not counted May 9. This includes absentee votes (from voters who voted outside their assigned district, or in advance), mail-in ballots, and special ballots collected by mobile voting teams in hospitals, isolated communities and logging and fishing camps.

The entire process could take until Wednesday.

[Stingray2004]

Even a week after the BC election am still digesting the results and implications of same. The more I review the 2017 results... the more that I am drawn back to a similar minority BC gov't situation back in 1952 - 65 years ago. A good starting point thereto.

As a background, prior to the 1952 BC election, a "Coalition" gov't comprising both BC Liberals as well as BC PCs had governed since 1941. That "Coalition" had disintegrated by the time of the 1952 BC election was held. Both the BC Liberals and BC PCs ran as separate political parties during the 1952 BC election. The then BC Socreds were an unknown upstart without any member of the BC Legislature.

1952 BC election results:

Socred: 19 seats;
CCF (NDP predecessor): 18 seats
Liberal: 6
PC: 4
Ind. Labour - Tom Uphill (long-time BC poli history): 1

As the Socreds won the most seats (under WAC Bennett), they were first in line to form a gov't - a critical matter as if they are unable to have confidence of the house and are defeated, the Lieutenant-Governor requires evidence from another party that they would have the confidence of the house in order for the L-G to grant them authority to form gov't. Otherwise, the L-G has no alternative but to order a new election.

However, the then Socreds were all poli neophytes and the CCF actually slightly won the 1952 popular vote share over the Socreds. Moreover, Ind. Labour candidate Tom Uphill was expected to side with the CCF - resulting in an equal draw. And that was the argument that the then CCF leader brought to the L-G to have a first shot at forming gov't back in 1952. IOW, a 19 Socred + 18 CCF + 1 Ind. Labour equaled a tie.

The additional combined 10 Liberal/PC seats was not material in terms of the L-Gs decision.

WAC Bennett was well aware that the Ind. Labour candidate, Tom Uphill, was extremely unhappy that the CCF ran a candidate against him and that Uphill barely won by 9 votes in the election. WAC Bennett not only foresaw same but also obtained Uphill's agreement that he would support Social Credit's bid to form the government, which evidence was presented to the L-G. IOW, the Socreds had a 2-seat margin over the CCF, aside from the 10 Liberal/PC seats.

Even if the Ind. Labour candidate Tom Uphill had side with the CCF, since the Socreds had a 1-seat majority over the CCF, they still would have been called upon by the L-G to form gov't as the Socreds had the most seats back in 1952. Parliamentary tradition.

9 months later, the combined CCF, Liberals, and PC opposition voted down the Socred minority gov't on a confidence motion (which Socreds fully anticipated). The CCF then went to the L-G stating that Tom Uphill had now backed them to form gov't. To no avail. The L-G dissolved the 1952 BC Legislature and called a new election. The Socreds won a majority gov't with the voters punishing the CCF, Liberals, and PCs.

3 Key takeaways from 1952 BC election aftermath:

1. L-G will always ask the political party with most seats to attempt to form gov't;

2. If gov't defeated, L-G will not grant next party, with most votes in house, to form gov't... unless it has confidence of entire house;

3. Voters will punish any political party that attempts to bring down gov't in short term causing another election;

Fast forward to 2017 assuming that Courtenay-Comox riding does not flip from NDP (9-vote win) to Liberals next week in final count (with ~1,500 - 2,000 absentee/special ballots);

We have:

43 Liberals
41 NDP
3 Greens

Akin to 1952, the Liberals have first opportunity to form gov't due to having most seats. If the minority Liberal gov't is defeated in a subsequent confidence motion, another party has the opportunity to plead to the L-G that they have the "confidence" of the house - a much higher level "test". The key word here is "confidence". IOW, that they will have majority of votes in the house aside from Speaker.

And in BC's current dynamic of a 43 - 43 split (aside from Speaker), the L-G views the Speaker as an independent officer of the legislature (approved by majority legislative support even though elected MLA). Again, if the Liberals are defeated, the L-G views both the Liberals and NDP/Greens as having 43 seats each in the house a "tie". Ergo, the NDP/Greens will not have "confidence of House" to replace Liberals - eg. majority vote (Speaker not relevant here) from the L-Gs perspective..

Completely corroborates constitutional expert Prof Ron Cheffins (who has advised 5 L-Gs) analysis that if the Liberals are defeated in a confidence motion... the L-G will order a new election.

Bottom Line? Either Liberal minority gov't or a new election forthwith and voters typically punish political parties that bring fresh elections in the aftermath of a recent election based upon British Parliamentary history.

PS. Startling that BC media are all focused upon what the Greens can obtain from NDP/Liberals in terms of "comprises". At end of day... all a moot point. Nevertheless, Weaver pointed out today that the Liberals will still need their support for stable gov't if Liberals win the 44th seat (Courtenay-Comox) for bare minimum majority. Good point.

[Sheba]

The number of certification envelopes to be considered at final count in each electoral district is available here.

[Waders]

NDP lead grows to 13 votes following recount in Courtenay-Comox.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by Sheba

The number of certification envelopes to be considered at final count in each electoral district is available here.

Absentee balloting commenced today. Absentee ballots ballots have historically always typically trended BC NDP and 2017 is no exception.

After a recount today in the close riding of Courtenay-Comox, BC NDP lead has increased from 9 votes to 13. Another ~2,000 absentee et al votes will be counted tomorrow. Highly likely a BC NDP hold. (BCCP candidate surprisingly had ~2,000 votes here).

Likely a 43 Lib - 41 NDP - 3 Green final outcome. And then the uncertainty begins. Likely we will be back at polls much sooner than anyone thought.

[Bcasey25raptor]

Anyone been watching the results? Whats happening? Where can I get live results?

[csbvan]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

Anyone been watching the results? Whats happening? Where can I get live results?

Elections BC updates the numbers on their website. It doesn't look like any seats will flip. NDP now up 101 with half the Courtenay Comox absentee ballots counted. The biggest change will likely be the popular vote. NDP lost on election night by 18000 votes, after tonight the margin will likely be 1500. A virtual tie.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

Anyone been watching the results? Whats happening? Where can I get live results?

I've been keeping half an eye on it. Elections BC is posting regular count updates.

[madog222]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

Anyone been watching the results? Whats happening? Where can I get live results?

NDP are leading Courtenay-Comox by 101 votes, Liberals had been leading by 3 votes this afternoon. None of the other close results have flipped from election night. Some ridings are still in progress and the final official results will be released tomorrow.

Results here:
http://electionsbcenr.blob.core.wind...Candidate.html

[csbvan]

Originally Posted by madog222

NDP won Courtenay-Comox by 101 votes, Liberals had been leading by 3 votes this afternoon. None of the other close results have flipped from election night. Some ridings are still in progress and the final official results will be released tomorrow.

Results here:
http://electionsbcenr.blob.core.wind...Candidate.html

They haven't finished counting. Still about 40% of the ballots outstanding in Courtenay-Comox

[madog222]

Originally Posted by csbvan

They haven't finished counting. Still about 40% of the ballots outstanding in Courtenay-Comox

AHH, I read 'Final voting results - Complete' for the riding above, thanks.

[Sheba]

Here's a list of all the ridings listed as "In Progress". I also did easy math and added the ballots still to be counted to the number for the second place party - the starred ones are the only ones that could flip (it doesn't mean that they will).

Burnaby-Lougheed - NDP
Courtenay-Comox - NDP *
Kamloops-North Thompson - LIB
Langley-East - LIB
Maple Ridge-Mission - NDP *
Nanaimo - NDP
North Vancouver-Lonsdale - NDP *
North Vancouver-Seymour - LIB *
Oak Bay-Gordon Head - GRN
Richmond South Centre - LIB *
Vancouver-Fairview - NDP
Vancouver-False Creek - LIB *
Vancouver-Kensington - NDP
Vancouver-West End - NDP

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

We will have:

43 Liberals
41 NDP
3 Greens

Akin to 1952, the Liberals have first opportunity to form gov't due to having most seats. If the minority Liberal gov't is defeated in a subsequent confidence motion, another party has the opportunity to plead to the L-G that they have the "confidence" of the house - a much higher level "test". The key word here is "confidence". IOW, that they will have majority of votes in the house aside from Speaker.

And in BC's current dynamic of a 43 - 43 split (aside from Speaker), the L-G views the Speaker as an independent officer of the legislature (approved by majority legislative support even though elected MLA). Again, if the Liberals are defeated, the L-G views both the Liberals and NDP/Greens as having 43 seats each in the house a "tie". Ergo, the NDP/Greens will not have "confidence of House" to replace Liberals - eg. majority vote (Speaker not relevant here) from the L-Gs perspective..

Completely corroborates constitutional expert Prof Ron Cheffins (who has advised 5 L-Gs) analysis that if the Liberals are defeated in a confidence motion... the L-G will order a new election.

Interesting footnote. Australian fed gov't was re-elected in 2016 with a "1-vote majority" - 76/150 seats - the incumbent gov't. The Speaker was selected from the incumbent gov't benches. Again, the Speaker is considered an independent officer of the legislature. A Speaker only votes to break a tie in a legislature - a rare occurrence. Typically known as a "casting vote" in a "division of the house".

Speakers rarely break ties, but when they do, it's in order to keep the "status quo", which does not necessarily mean status quo gov't. Speakers can even vote against the incumbent gov't on rare occasions as well

The Speaker of the Australian House from a few weeks ago:

Speaker vows not to use casting vote to give Coalition a majority in lower house

‘If in the final vote there is not a majority, you don’t vote to give it one,’ says Tony Smith, who says he takes the impartiality of his role seriously.

The Speaker of the House of Representatives, Tony Smith, has signalled he will not use his casting vote to hand the Turnbull government a majority on legislation if the government fails to command a working majority on the floor.

In an interview with the Guardian’s Australian Politics Live podcast, Smith says he would apply the same principle – don’t manufacture a majority that isn’t there – if there was ever a no-confidence motion moved against the government.

In a parliament where the government of the day commands the chamber by a substantial working majority, the Speaker’s casting vote is an irrelevancy.

But in this parliament, the Turnbull government has a majority of one, which puts Smith’s casting vote in play

https://www.theguardian.com/australi...in-lower-house

Important in light of the likely 43 Lib/41 NDP/3 Green legislature. Again, if the NDP/Greens bring down the incumbent gov't in the subsequent vote on the Throne Speech... they will have a combined 1-seat majority before a Speaker is appointed from their ranks.

They would also require to provide concrete evidence (written accord) to the LG that they will have the "Confidence of the House" (majority) providing house "stability", which won't be the case after a Speaker is appointed... and have said confidence of the house over a reasonable period of time. (perhaps 1 1/2 - 2 years). Just can't see same happening. (Read: 1985 ON elxn and LGs reasons thereto).

Nevertheless, a major advisor to the BC Greens - Norman Spector (early 1980's Socred gov't advisor/ 1980's Mulroney fed PC advisor) begs to differ with Prof. Ron Cheffins who, again advised 5 BC LGs and his advice to the current LG:

Lieutenant-Governor could force new election if Clark loses confidence motion
JUSTINE HUNTER
VICTORIA — The Globe and Mail
Published Sunday, May 21, 2017
.....

Mr. Cheffins’ advice – should Ms. Guichon ask – would be to dissolve the freshly-elected Legislative Assembly and launch another election. “There is an alternative, a defensible, constitutional alternative,” he said. “But don’t get into the mess – let the electorate decide.”

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ticle35077695/

Again, Green advisor Norman Spector disagrees with that constitutional opinion. In that regard, Spector has stated about Ron Cheffins:

He's (Cheffins) very much in the minority among the current generation of advisers IMO

Another constitutional expert, Philippe Lagassé, agrees with Spector thereto.

I have had some personal interaction with both Spector and Lagassé on these matters trying to feel them out. I have had some step back from Lagassé but not from Spector.

My hunch? Let's see how everything unfolds with the Greens (politically they should not align with any party for their long-term electoral prospects)... but I would not be surprised if we have another election in the offing after the next sitting of the BC legislature.

Interesting times.

[Sheba]

Now it's down to this - no flips.

Burnaby-Lougheed - NDP
Courtenay-Comox - NDP *
Langley-East - LIB
North Vancouver-Lonsdale - NDP *
North Vancouver-Seymour - LIB *
Oak Bay-Gordon Head - GRN
Vancouver-False Creek - LIB *
Vancouver-Kensington - NDP