Electoral Reforms

[Lover Fighter]

Originally Posted by NetMapel

Really ? I thought, somehow, FPTP gives us something like 61 MLAs. Forgot where I read that from though. If that's the case, I guess I was wrong about that point.

Up until this election we had 79 ridings, but last year they redrew the riding boundaries giving us 85. STV combines ridings so that there are multiple MLA candidates per riding, but the same total of 85 MLAs.

[waves]

With the balance of power precariously dangling between all three parties this past election AND with the Greens saying that one of their primary focuses for creating a coalition government is electoral reform, I thought I would revive this thread.

What do you all think might be the best form of PR if FPTP has to go?
The dual vote that happened in France for the presidential election really intrigued me - What kind of system is that?

I was interested in seeing how the results of this 2017 election might have looked had we been in STV. I choose to look at the North Shore-Sea to Sky District that would elect 4 members. You can see the district boundary on page 25 of this document:

http://142.34.128.33/docs/rpt/BCEBC-...s/Part_4-6.pdf

I had to make a number of assumptions and simplifications but I think it does a good job at illustrating what a result might look like. The list below shows the MPs that would have been elected and the order in which they would have won in an STV system.

1) Bowinn Ma BC NDP
2) Michael Rene Charrois BC NDP
3) Ralph Sultan BC Liberal Party
4) Jane Ann Thornthwaite BC Liberal Party

The 5th candidate who wouldn't have been elected would have been Dana Moore Taylor of the BC Green Party.

This is compared to the FPTP candidates who did win in order of largest margin of win over the second candidate to smallest margin of win:

1) Ralph Sultan BC Liberal Party
2) Jane Ann Thornthwaite BC Liberal Party
3) Jordan Sturdy BC Liberal Party
4) Bowinn Ma BC NDP

So even though the final results of my exercise were not all that different it is interesting to see just how proportional representation in an STV system would change the "safeness" of a particular seat.

If you want to add to it and refine my results, or use my spreadsheet to try out a calculation for another riding, you can see the spreadsheet here:

https://1drv.ms/x/s!AjWWltw_HSwzhbRJdM4ed16AxwDIfw

[misher]

Honestly I'm confused about the new systems as they seem to favor parties over independent candidates?

Am I wrong in thinking that we'd be voting between parties rather than for individual candidates under the new system which squeezes out any independent?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by misher

Honestly I'm confused about the new systems as they seem to favor parties over independent candidates?

Am I wrong in thinking that we'd be voting between parties rather than for individual candidates under the new system which squeezes out any independent?

Yes I think it's a bit harder on independents, but they aren't really a thing at the provincial level. The only way independents show up is when they quit a major party after getting elected. If they run again and they are popular enough, they'll still get in.

[misher]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Yes I think it's a bit harder on independents, but they aren't really a thing at the provincial level. The only way independents show up is when they quit a major party after getting elected. If they run again and they are popular enough, they'll still get in.

I honestly hate the american system where it’s between two parties and don’t feel it’s true democracy, here it would become three parties. I strongly support incdependent candidates because they truly represent what democracy should be, an elected leader that represents the people that voted for him rather than the party that put him in power. It’s ridiculous that candidates have to vote according to their party rather than their own beliefs. I think we all agree that we'd prefer a leader that represented our region/neighborhood rather than one the party we like assigns to us.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by misher

I honestly hate the american system where it’s between two parties and don’t feel it’s true democracy, here it would become three parties. I strongly support incdependent candidates because they truly represent what democracy should be, an elected leader that represents the people that voted for him rather than the party that put him in power. It’s ridiculous that candidates have to vote according to their party rather than their own beliefs. I think we all agree that we'd prefer a leader that represented our region/neighborhood rather than one the party we like assigns to us.

I don't think a legislature full of independents is a realistic form of government. We have a far better system than the US. It's a complete gong show down there, we are witnessing the unraveling of their system right before our eyes.

Our party system is more healthy because parties can get completely decimated without simply meaning that the "other guys" get in. New parties can form and grow to a level of success where they run government (see: CAQ in Quebec). Guys like Bernier, love him or hate him, aren't forced to tow the CPC line.

Proportional Rep will only help that. The BC Greens got 16.8% of the vote and 3.4% of the seats. How fair is that? And how many people didn't vote Green because they (correctly) perceived it as throwing a vote away.

We routinely get majority governments with less than 40% of the vote. How does that justify them ramming down their policies 100% of the time (see: Rob Ford).

Forcing people to work together is a better way, IMO. We should at least give it a chance.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by misher

Honestly I'm confused about the new systems as they seem to favor parties over independent candidates?

Am I wrong in thinking that we'd be voting between parties rather than for individual candidates under the new system which squeezes out any independent?

Taking a wild guess. I'd say most people already vote based on the Party and not the individual that is running for election in a riding. The only people that might vote based on the individual are those that tend to change their votes from election to election based on how they feel.

The good majority of people though will vote for the same party each election or if that party no longer exists a similar party with similar beliefs.

[djmk]

Originally Posted by misher

here it would become three parties.

It will quickly become 4 parties. The BC Libs are basically a coalition. An upstart populous right wing party will get traction especially in small cities in the interior like Kamloops.

Drive past Hope and the politics in province swings wildly in the other direction compared to "the coast".

[misher]

Originally Posted by djmk

It will quickly become 4 parties. The BC Libs are basically a coalition. An upstart populous right wing party will get traction especially in small cities in the interior like Kamloops.

Drive past Hope and the politics in province swings wildly in the other direction compared to "the coast".

I figured maybe the Conservatives would give things a shot? Probably the interior just wants lower taxes and more jobs as opposed to the social+environmental support thats wanted in the cities.

[cornholio]

My support would be behind a BC separatist party so long as competent people got involved with it. Its one of the several reasons though why all the cards will be played to ensure this vote fails and the status quo remains. But with proportional representation they would as they should exist and be in power. And with some luck one day gain enough seats to have a referendum on separation. The next step would be separation or a deal with the unites states of america...

[djmk]

Originally Posted by cornholio

The next step would be separation or a deal with the unites states of america...

the first half of that sentence seems to conflict with the second part.

And a separatist party failed in Alberta and they are way more likely to separate than BC.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by misher

I honestly hate the american system where it’s between two parties and don’t feel it’s true democracy, here it would become three parties. I strongly support incdependent candidates because they truly represent what democracy should be, an elected leader that represents the people that voted for him rather than the party that put him in power.

Fun fact: said American system literally started out as just that, a series of independent candidates - less than two years later, every single congressman had joined either Jefferson's Democrats or Hamilton's Federalists.

Like it or not, factionalism is a key part of getting things done. Just look at the Mayors' Council to see how well the "go it alone" model performs.

Originally Posted by misher

It’s ridiculous that candidates have to vote according to their party rather than their own beliefs. I think we all agree that we'd prefer a leader that represented our region/neighborhood rather than one the party we like assigns to us.

Which is why we need prop rep, so that we end up with smaller parties with less seats and (hopefully) get the same "crossing the aisle" effect that America has.

Originally Posted by cornholio

My support would be behind a BC separatist party so long as competent people got involved with it. Its one of the several reasons though why all the cards will be played to ensure this vote fails and the status quo remains. But with proportional representation they would as they should exist and be in power. And with some luck one day gain enough seats to have a referendum on separation. The next step would be separation or a deal with the unites states of america...

If future BC decides to leave Canada, it should be as an independent country. The last thing we should ever do is get annexed by the United "Shatshe" - at best, we help Washington and Oregon secede and join them instead.

[misher]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

If future BC decides to leave Canada, it should be as an independent country. The last thing we should ever do is get annexed by the United "Shatshe" - at best, we help Washington and Oregon secede and join them instead.

I was thinking this too. Back when America got a trillion in debt. Let’s take the places with hugely booming economies and resources (BC, Alberta, Washington, maybe Alaska, Cali or Oregon and you have an economic+tech powerhouse with huge trade and resource power. Plus you’d leave all the federal debt behind, leave the black holes that are the maritime and Quebec behind, be able to renegotiate the First Nations treaties or just end them entirely, actually manage to ban guns, get rid of French, etc. We'd become the China of the West.

[CivicBlues]

Originally Posted by misher

I was thinking this too. Back when America got a trillion in debt. Let’s take the places with hugely booming economies and resources (BC, Alberta, Washington, maybe Alaska, Cali or Oregon and you have an economic+tech powerhouse with huge trade and resource power. Plus you’d leave all the federal debt behind, leave the black holes that are the maritime and Quebec behind, be able to renegotiate the First Nations treaties or just end them entirely, actually manage to ban guns, get rid of French, etc. We'd become the China of the West.

Fuck, do you not think housing prices are not high enough as it is? Wait till 40 million Californians are knocking down our door because the border is erased.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by misher

I was thinking this too. Back when America got a trillion in debt. Let’s take the places with hugely booming economies and resources (BC, Alberta, Washington, maybe Alaska, Cali or Oregon and you have an economic+tech powerhouse with huge trade and resource power. Plus you’d leave all the federal debt behind, leave the black holes that are the maritime and Quebec behind, be able to renegotiate the First Nations treaties or just end them entirely, actually manage to ban guns, get rid of French, etc. We'd become the China of the West.

I see you are as deluded as the average Quebec separatist.

[misher]

Originally Posted by CivicBlues

Fuck, do you not think housing prices are not high enough as it is? Wait till 40 million Californians are knocking down our door because the border is erased.

Aren't San Fran and Silicon Valley housing prices higher than ours?

Also don't most Canadians want to live in Vancouver because we have some of the best weather in Canada? Imagine if moving south was easier, maybe it would decrease demand. People would get vacation homes down south where its cheaper with better weather.

I see you are as deluded as the average Quebec separatist.

Independent Quebec would become a nation surrounded by other nations with little in the way of tech, natural resources, or trade. Also Quebec relies heavily on Federal support and equalization payments being our biggest "have not province". BC and Alberta are "have" provinces that contribute to the federal coffer.

On the other hand the Western Union would become an economic powerhouse with ocean trade routes, technology centers (Amazon, Microsoft, etc.), a large chunk of the world's gas supply & natural resources, etc. Energy wise we'd basically be like Saudi Arabia if we combined BC+Alberta+Alaska already. Add in Seattle for the tech, trade, investment capital, and workers, (basically a Japan) and cha ching. We'd be so rich that America would have accuse us of weapons of mass destruction to invade us out of jealousy.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by misher

Aren't San Fran and Silicon Valley housing prices higher than ours?

Also don't most Canadians want to live in Vancouver because we have some of the best weather in Canada? Imagine if moving south was easier, maybe it would decrease demand. People would get vacation homes down south where its cheaper with better weather.

These two statements would seem to contradict each other. Also, Cali is both content on staying in the Union and culturally American; the idea behind WA/OR joining is that they have more in common with BC than with the rest of either country.

[waves]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Yes I think it's a bit harder on independents, but they aren't really a thing at the provincial level. The only way independents show up is when they quit a major party after getting elected. If they run again and they are popular enough, they'll still get in.

One of the systems proposed Rural Urban Proportional uses STV which means the results are proportional at the local level, rather than DMP which makes results local at the provincial level, and MMP which is in-between. Since, RUP is highly proportional at the local level, it makes it easier for independents to be elected. Ireland uses STV and has a number of independent MPs.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by waves

One of the systems proposed Rural Urban Proportional uses STV which means the results are proportional at the local level, rather than DMP which makes results local at the provincial level, and MMP which is in-between. Since, RUP is highly proportional at the local level, it makes it easier for independents to be elected. Ireland uses STV and has a number of independent MPs.

True, and I expect with an STV system there might be a better chance of high profile candidates running as independents, as I'd see them having a better chance than under the current system.

[jawagord]

Perhaps if we could just have a proportional vote on electoral reform we could get proportional representation to pass?

For the third time, British Columbians have voted to keep the current first-past-the-post system for provincial elections.

Elections BC announced the results Thursday, saying 61.3 per cent of ballots had been cast in favour of the status quo.

Elections B.C. aims to have electoral reform ballots counted before Christmas
Fewer than half of ballots returned so far in B.C.'s electoral reform referendum
The deadline for all ballots to be received in the mail-in referendum passed on Dec. 7.

Voters were asked whether they would prefer to keep the existing first-past-the-post system or move to one of three forms of proportional representation. Mixed-member proportional representation (MMP) received the most support, with 41 per cent of ballots listing it as the first preference.

About 41 per cent of eligible voters returned their ballots in time to be counted, according to Elections B.C. A simple majority would have been enough to change the voting system for provincial elections.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...cted-1.4954538