first past the post vs. proportional representation

[clu]

Not all property owners need rent. Eg Vancouver housing crisis

Never said they did. Just said the line you draw is arbitrary. Some owners can't afford their properties without the tenant. Some non-owners contribute better to society than some owners. Some business owners aren't property owners, yet you're saying business owners bring value but property owners should have the votes. It's not a coherent model.

The notion of labour not bringing value to the table is also naive. If you've got a highly skilled labourer the business can't operate (e.g. some extreme technology specialist) without and yet the sales guy (interchangeable) owns the company, the skill isn't a key value? One could argue that the labour provides employment for the owner in that case, not the other way around. And the only thing that stood between him or her being seen as more than a resource to be exploited is how adept he or she was at negotiating their compensation package (i.e. did it include options?) The CEO could be replaced and the company would go on, but the CTO might not be replaceable. Ownership isn't an indication of who is sustaining the company.

Anyway, these are just some examples. There are definitely lots of threads to pull on to unravel this model.

Honestly I find it extraordinary that you find PR problematic and untenable but you don't see the flaws in this model.

 

[nightswhisper]

Never said they did. Just said the line you draw is arbitrary. Some owners can't afford their properties without the tenant. Some non-owners contribute better to society than some owners. Some business owners aren't property owners, yet you're saying business owners bring value but property owners should have the votes. It's not a coherent model.

Most people who own businesses and profit own property. Property ties your interest to the state. Creating intangible productivity doesn't entitle you to voting, but it entitles you to citizenship at a faster pace, which it already does in Canada.

This logic doesn't fail; If you want to vote, you must own property. If you own property, you can vote, regardless of your finances (Which is precisely the point; You should have more political power on how you can turn your finances around BECAUSE you have property).

The notion of labour not bringing value to the table is also naive. If you've got a highly skilled labourer the business can't operate (e.g. some extreme technology specialist) without and yet the sales guy (interchangeable) owns the company, the skill isn't a key value? One could argue that the labour provides employment for the owner in that case, not the other way around. And the only thing that stood between him or her being seen as more than a resource to be exploited is how adept he or she was at negotiating their compensation package (i.e. did it include options?) The CEO could be replaced and the company would go on, but the CTO might not be replaceable. Ownership isn't an indication of who is sustaining the company.

I didn't say labour had no value. I said business owners should enjoy more political power because they feed and house more employees, and create larger amount of wealth for more than one salesman.

Bill Gates created Microsoft which employees over 135,000 people. Without his individual innovation and creativity, these 135,000 may be working somewhere else, or may be unemployed. A salesman can't do this.

As I also mentioned, since you can bring money and jobs into Canada to earn your citizenship, it's already implicitly implied that Canada sees business owners as being more valuable than just skilled labourers.

The microeconomics of a company structure is unimportant. Individual parts on a car can be replaced but a brand cannot. A lot of people buy Bentley because they are famous cars, and not because it has high quality parts.

Honestly I find it extraordinary that you find PR problematic and untenable but you don't see the flaws in this model.

I don't just find PR problematic. I think modern Democracy sucks.

Anyway, these are just some examples. There are definitely lots of threads to pull on to unravel this model.

You are criticizing the values of a franchised elite while being somewhat of a franchised elite (Only Canadian / residents of an area can vote) in a system that supports this line of thinking already (I.E. Canadian immigration policies)

if you don't own a car, you shouldn't get to vote on driving laws.

 

[johnsmit]

Sound a little to much like Star Ship Trooper.

The idea that property owner should be the only ones to determine the course Off the country is exactly what exited through out most of world 150 yrs ago . Manly the rich dictated policy and they were the ones voted in to office even in the Democratic countries like England, France which had revolution to gain citizen rights.
And most of the people were not landowners.
The reality is that New World offered the opportunity for people to own land and most governments encouraged it by offering free land to expand the boarders of the country.
But still the majority of people do not own property.
Where as the average person that owns a house today has high value because of the continued inflation that happened in the housing market over the last 50 yr.
Some him in at the bottom and there $10,000. or$20,000 property is worth millions. The average house owner built there value over the yrs of buying and selling to gain the same effect . And most likely will sell it to pay for retirement. Or leave it as inheritance.
As for business owners and the rich which great and control the economy that's less then 1%.
Sorry but that 1% does control our government policy all ready .. but should not be.

Personally I think you argument is geared towards imagation and minorities. And that one was used through the centuries in every country and is rearingvit ugly head in every country again.

It has no place in North or South America. Countries where every one in them come from imagrents back ground .

That the make up of our countries is no long predomently white is disconcerting to white people of European ancestry only.

But the other people candidate For the same reason our for father's came . A better life. And yes they will vote and our country will change.
Many of them do own property and are willing work harder then the average Canadian to get that property.
According to your slant on who should vote ,they have the right .

But if the days comes,and of course it easily can, that a Canadian cant vote because they don't own property then there will be a revolt.
That if we care enough .

 

[clu]

if you don't own a car, you shouldn't get to vote on driving laws.

Ok, that's absurd for two reasons:

1. Citizens don't vote on driving laws, representatives do. What if the representative doesn't own a car but his/her constituents do?

2. If you're suggesting everything is a referendum of the entitled instead, then it still doesn't work: e.g. texting while driving is shown to increase accidents, including pedestrian and cyclist deaths. It isn't just drivers affected by the law so the input should not be restricted to drivers alone. This is actually a great example of what's wrong with your model: you are affording voting rights to only a biased subset of those impacted by the decision. This will lead to injustices. The "elite" (if they be car drivers in this example) will not be enlightened benevolent dictators. Nor would the land owners or the business owners in other cases.

All you end up with is the same self-serving bias as with the existing parties, like Republicans favouring tax cuts for their friends and the dissolution of social infrastructure, except without the balancing force of the disenfranchised eventually voting them out and swinging the pendulum the other way.

FPTP is not ideal IMHO but at least the inequities get somewhat averaged out over time, eventually. What you're proposing is even worse.

 

[nightswhisper]

Ok, that's absurd for two reasons:

1. Citizens don't vote on driving laws, representatives do. What if the representative doesn't own a car but his/her constituents do?

You're talking about HOW voting is done. I care about WHO does the voting.

2. If you're suggesting everything is a referendum of the entitled instead, then it still doesn't work: e.g. texting while driving is shown to increase accidents, including pedestrian and cyclist deaths. It isn't just drivers affected by the law so the input should not be restricted to drivers alone. This is actually a great example of what's wrong with your model: you are affording voting rights to only a biased subset of those impacted by the decision. This will lead to injustices. The "elite" (if they be car drivers in this example) will not be enlightened benevolent dictators. Nor would the land owners or the business owners in other cases.

I am for elite franchising (size of voting pool), not elitism (power of the ruling class). I am not proposing a system where separation of powers has ceased.

All you end up with is the same self-serving bias as with the existing parties, like Republicans favouring tax cuts for their friends and the dissolution of social infrastructure, except without the balancing force of the disenfranchised eventually voting them out and swinging the pendulum the other way.

FPTP is not ideal IMHO but at least the inequities get somewhat averaged out over time, eventually. What you're proposing is even worse.

The whole point of this exercise in philosophy was that I don't really believe in equality.

We as Canadian society have collectively agreed that we should be given equal opportunities - which is wonderful. But people equate equal opportunity to equal competence, in which I disagree.

 

[nightswhisper]

Sound a little to much like Star Ship Trooper.

Yes.

Personally I think you argument is geared towards imagation and minorities. And that one was used through the centuries in every country and is rearingvit ugly head in every country again.

I said nothing of the sorts.

It has no place in North or South America. Countries where every one in them come from imagrents back ground .

America is extremely elitist. Immigrants made up the country and turned it into the elitist empire it is today.

That the make up of our countries is no long predomently white is disconcerting to white people of European ancestry only.

I am Asian. But I see no reason why white people should harbour white guilt for anything. Europeans were technologically superior people who subjugated the inferior. We as a species must move forward with superior genes and ridding of the weak - It's fundamental to survival of every species on the planet.

You can't simultaneously criticize social Darwinism whilst being a product of Darwinish evolution. It's absurd.

But if the days comes,and of course it easily can, that a Canadian cant vote because they don't own property then there will be a revolt.
That if we care enough .

As it is right now, people who have everything to lose are being ruled by people who have nothing to lose.

 

[clu]

You're talking about HOW voting is done. I care about WHO does the voting.



I am for elite franchising (size of voting pool), not elitism (power of the ruling class). I am not proposing a system where separation of powers has ceased.



The whole point of this exercise in philosophy was that I don't really believe in equality.

We as Canadian society have collectively agreed that we should be given equal opportunities - which is wonderful. But people equate equal opportunity to equal competence, in which I disagree.

IMHO part of the exercise ought to be coming up with a coherent functional replacement. You need to give more thought to the minutae. This is kind of how the world ended up with Trump: it's easy to be an armchair quarterback and point out the flaws, and even say "I've got a better idea", but that's a far cry from being able to conceive a demonstrably better solution. The better ideas sound better because they haven't yet had to stand up to the same scrutiny.

 

[johnsmit]

We have had a few alternative ideas on government through the ages.. The rich. Property owners ruling and treating every one else like slaves, the people ruling and killing the rich and then being coruped in the sane way and the top party people treating everyone else as slaves.

Not sure why any body thinks just because your rich or have more then others that you are superior.
Your not ..you just had better opportunities, wanted different things then others.. And it great you got them.
Your still a minority not a superiority.

Just a side note.
It seem most of Asia was ruled by the rich land owners and treated the rest of the people like shit.
And then White colonialism came in and did the same.
And it still seems that most of those countries don't have the sane rights or opportunities that we have.
So what ever we are doing wrong still is better then many parts of the rest of the world.

Admittedly I have only seen a few parts of Europe and South America. The good and bad.
The rest I only know about from what we see on the media. But I have realized that I live in one of the best places, just have to keep it that way protecting everyone's rights.

 

[nightswhisper]

IMHO part of the exercise ought to be coming up with a coherent functional replacement. You need to give more thought to the minutae. This is kind of how the world ended up with Trump: it's easy to be an armchair quarterback and point out the flaws, and even say "I've got a better idea", but that's a far cry from being able to conceive a demonstrably better solution. The better ideas sound better because they haven't yet had to stand up to the same scrutiny.

Singapore (Benevolent Dictatorship under LKY)
Taiwan (Pre-1996) (Elite Franchising)
Jordan (Aristocracy and Enlightened Elite Franchising)
Japan (Aristocratic and Racist Elite Franchising)
S Korea (Plutocratic Elite Franchising)

In fact, the systems that employ elite franchising or benevolent dictatorship have grown at a much faster rate than those without. Note these countries all became economic powerhouses in very short amount of time after the war because only those who were intelligent or had interest to the state were allowed to vote or make decisions.

I'd throw the United Arab Emirates on that list as well if you can get past the lack of rights for women.

Canada could be a much better country if we stopped bickering over unimportant issues with the masses (a referendum about voting methods) and contended over policies that mattered (dual-tier health system).

 

[nightswhisper]

Just a side note.
It seem most of Asia was ruled by the rich land owners and treated the rest of the people like shit.
And then White colonialism came in and did the same.
And it still seems that most of those countries don't have the sane rights or opportunities that we have.
So what ever we are doing wrong still is better then many parts of the rest of the world.

Chinese communists purged the educated and landed aristocrates through the Cultural Revolution and then replaced them with lower-class peasant farmers. Almost all countries that lost their elite franchising and their upper class through purges - Russia, China, Poland, Hungary and other Eastern European countries - are corrupt or ineffective police states.

Countries where it has not happened - Canada, US, and UK countries - are well-developed and upstanding, regardless of their forms of government.

Also, there's no such thing as "white colonialism". That's just an apologist term coined to make white people feel bad over stuff they can't control.

 

[clu]

Singapore (Benevolent Dictatorship under LKY)
Taiwan (Pre-1996) (Elite Franchising)
Jordan (Aristocracy and Enlightened Elite Franchising)
Japan (Aristocratic and Racist Elite Franchising)
S Korea (Plutocratic Elite Franchising)

In fact, the systems that employ elite franchising or benevolent dictatorship have grown at a much faster rate than those without. Note these countries all became economic powerhouses in very short amount of time after the war because only those who were intelligent or had interest to the state were allowed to vote or make decisions.

I'd throw the United Arab Emirates on that list as well if you can get past the lack of rights for women.

Canada could be a much better country if we stopped bickering over unimportant issues with the masses (a referendum about voting methods) and contended over policies that mattered (dual-tier health system).

Problems with those systems aside, your proposal is only superficially related to those systems.

Also, there's no such thing as "white colonialism". That's just an apologist term coined to make white people feel bad over stuff they can't control.

What does this even mean? Colonialism is a thing. White Europeans participated in colonialism. You may as well say there's no such thing as merchants.

 

[nightswhisper]

Problems with those systems aside, your proposal is only superficially related to those systems.

These are perfectly valid example of technocratic states with elite franchising or autocracy. I merely touted one version of elite franchising, just like PR or FPTP are variations upon democracy. The voting franchise in these examples are -usually- based on blood and lineage, rather than property or citizenship. These would not apply in Canada as we are an immigrant country that is large and sparse.

Singapore under LKY went from a broken, poorer backwater country to an economic powerhouse with very high HDI in a matter of a decade. Dictatorship is efficient and effective under an elightened leader.

Taiwan, when it had limited franchise, exploited capitalistic upper class tendencies and now lead the world in electronics. Almost all modern electronics will have some part designed or manufactured in Taiwan. Asus, Acer, HTC etc. Even NVidia was co-founded by a Taiwanese engineer.

Jordan, a country that's nearly landlocked with little resources and almost no oil, was poor and underdeveloped when the Hashemites took over. Under current king, Abdullah II, who rules the country as an autocratic democracy with limited franchise, has transformed the country into one that is prosperous and most free in the Muslim and Arab world. Under his leadership, Jordanians are happier and more satisfied than ever under British parliamentary governance.

Japan, while nominally democratic, vests power in the hands of the few elites. For a country that has little landmass, it sports the third largest GDP in the world, simply because it doesn't allow votes or franchising from the average joe. If I am not wrong, the Democratic Party of Japan rigs almost every election and the country is doing fine.

South Korea is a plutocracy that is run by several elite families. Look at their pervasive auto and electronics industries. Look at all the wealthy Koreans and cultural exports they have.

The point is, they are all examples of countries where the average voter doesn't actually make a difference and they're doing great - Better than Canada. People are fine and perfectly happy being under good leadership. They don't need to vote - They need to be shown what is better.

Tell me you're happy that we elected a prime minister that threw 600 million dollars away for international women's education and can't resolve a pipeline issue. Elected by your John Q Public who preferred charms to actual skill. Meanwhile, this entire post hasn't been about WHO to vote but HOW to vote. As if changing the way you vote in morons into government is going to stop morons from governing you.

What does this even mean? Colonialism is a thing. White Europeans participated in colonialism. You may as well say there's no such thing as merchants.

Colonialism is just colonialism. It doesn't have to have a race attached to it.

The mighty conquering the weak has been tradition of mankind. The human race is one species, regardless of skin color.

 

[licks2nite]

A point missing I think is that of diminished central planning in small very successful nations even when meant to be statist either through socialism or chronyism. Taiwan and Singapore especially and even medium sized nations such as Japan and South Korea. I don't want to have to mention tiny North Korea developing nuclear weapons and intercontinental missle technology but you can get the point of how smaller populations under rule beat out style of government. Relatively tiny Saskatchewan and Sweden where western centralized health care was born continue to do well regardless of the comings and goings of any number of socialist centalizing and decentalizing conservative policical elements. On the other end of the size spectrum, conservative 20th century America easily oversaw the collapse of centalized USSR. China is currently an outlier having been admitted into the World Trade Organization and access to western intellectual property in exchange for use of cheap labour. The argument really is about the reach of whoever is in power. As Canada's population grows the reach of federal government grows that much further with all the inefficient outcomes of any centralized statist regime. Standards and authorities of taxation especially as well as labour and the environment need to be evolved down to municipal governance and the individual.

 

[nightswhisper]

A point missing I think is that of diminished central planning in small very successful nations even when meant to be statist either through socialism or chronyism. Taiwan and Singapore especially and even medium sized nations such as Japan and South Korea. I don't want to have to mention tiny North Korea developing nuclear weapons and intercontinental missle technology but you can get the point of how smaller populations under rule beat out style of government. Relatively tiny Saskatchewan and Sweden where western centralized health care was born continue to do well regardless of the comings and goings of any number of socialist centalizing and decentalizing conservative policical elements. On the other end of the size spectrum, conservative 20th century America easily oversaw the collapse of centalized USSR. China is currently an outlier having been admitted into the World Trade Organization and access to western intellectual property in exchange for use of cheap labour. The argument really is about the reach of whoever is in power. As Canada's population grows the reach of federal government grows that much further with all the inefficient outcomes of any centralized statist regime. Standards and authorities of taxation especially as well as labour and the environment need to be evolved down to municipal governance and the individual.

An excellent analysis. However efficiency can be had at all levels with effective franchise and leadership. It matters not how large a political entity is as much as how effective it is.

Ultimately, any sized population led by a smaller group of intelligent decision makers voted upon by a concerned and productive franchise is better than Moron parliamentarians voted in by highschool dropouts.

 

[rlock]

Got a last thing (or two) to say about the PR vs. FPTP issue:

What a terrible end result for BC. Another lost opportunity to create a batter sort of democracy here, and dispose of a lot of the idiotic partisanship that has sabotaged this province for decades.

The referendum process was actually a great example of why we needed to make a change, and why our politics are so corrupt and fucked up.

Basically the bad guys won by being unrepentant villains. The FPTP side lied their asses off, making no pretense of trying to challenge the issue on any intellectual level. Nope, they just deliberately sowed fear, confusion, and deceit.
And did you notice they had so much more money than the Pro-Rep side? Nothing but an endless onslaught of negative advertising, about PR, about the process of the referendum itself, and that is very expensive. Take a look at their backers and you'll see the same big money and out-of-province elite that's been running BC into the ground.

But I had misgivings about the way the government handled the issue and how the pro-PR side failed to mount an effective campaign.

First of all, a referendum is actually a terrible way to make changes like this; many pro-PR people were worried that it would turn into some partisan muckraking exercise, and that's exactly what happened. The first referendum on this in BC, the PR (pro-STV) side actually won in a real sense, but could not get past the rigged terms of that contest (needing 60% or more, not just a majority). The second referendum, as with this one, was marred by allowing the FPTP side to just run a smear campaign and never be challenged to actually tell the truth.

Second of all, it was a mistake to let the government and opposition leaders (Horgan and Wilkinson) be involved in the campaigns. It made the whole thing just a partisan bash-fest, more like a referendum on peoples' political leanings and partisan activism, instead of a real debate on what kind of democracy best suits BC's electorate. The so-called "debate" between Wilkinson and Horgan was a clusterfuck - an example of why our FPTP system has actually failed, because neither of these guys capable of giving either a straight question or a straight answer.

Third of all, the pro-PR side ran such a low-key campaign you hardly even knew it was there. They were up against the big-money pro-FPTP campaign, and so they tried to do a sort of grassroots volunteer campaign style. But the FPTP side never had canvassers or anything, just a ton of deceptive ads, and the pro-PR side had nothing to tell the truth with. No ads meant basically no impact. They played nice, they pulled their punches, and look what a shitty result it got them.

Plus when your key slogan is "Pro-rep is lit!", you should fire your media strategist. Seriously, how did anyone think that some bullshit ghetto catchphrase was going to convince people their side was serious and wise and knew what the fuck they're talking about? Failed gimmick hall of fame.

Maybe it would have been more effective if they had gone a more non-partisan route, maybe gotten people like Gordon Campbell (who once supported PR) to come out of the shadows and take part in the pro-PR campaign as well.

Because PR was never about left vs. right - but somehow the opponents turned it into that, and the supposedly pro-PR guys like Eby and Horgan were dumb enough to let them. The NDP old guard has never much liked the idea of PR, and that's why you see slugs like Tieleman on the anti-PR side every time. They want political polarization, with just two choices available. Just like the BC Liberals, they think they'll never be able to enact anything of theirs unless they can hold power alone.

It's not true, of course, but they believe it.

Well, whatever. Another failure in our broken & worthless political system - the liars win another round, because that's how the game - their game - is played.

 

[ddcanz]

Well, whatever. Another failure in our broken & worthless political system - the liars win another round, because that's how the game - their game - is played.

Yes our P system seems worthless- pretty much because most politicians always have an agenda of some sort.
Case in point- we still don't have Uber or Lift..... why?
To say the 'liars' won another round comes across as sour grapes. The referendum was stacked- 50% plus one was a joke- yet those that voted still saw FPTP as preferable to PR.
Left, right or centre...Red or Blue....BS is BS and they all sling it to their own advantage whenever they can.
Can't wait for Weaver to see the light now that PR is done and crash the whole fucking thing.
Then we'll see what 'the people' really want here.

 

[licks2nite]

An overriding theme that I found amongst contributors to this topic is that neither PR nor FPTP offered what was wanted. I'd offer that public policy as a product to be "sold" to an electorate, be that a political candidate or a policy often go forward on negativity. That is by attacking an opponent. To contrast, in the private sector an attack isn't effective upon a competitor. In the private sector, a sale is made with a cash payment or there is no sale. In politics it's all negative option billing. If you are a "swing" voter who may or may not vote nor be familiar with all the policies put forward, you get billed and are stuck with the product anyway. That is especially troubling where central planning is prevalent. The more populace a nation becomes, the more opaque and corrupt the process becomes.

That brings me full circle to the importance of "small" government that is meant to protect the populace, not turn out products. The buyer participates with a cash payment in the private sector.

 

[nightswhisper]

Got a last thing (or two) to say about the PR vs. FPTP issue:

What a terrible end result for BC. Another lost opportunity to create a batter sort of democracy here, and dispose of a lot of the idiotic partisanship that has sabotaged this province for decades.

The referendum process was actually a great example of why we needed to make a change, and why our politics are so corrupt and fucked up.

Basically the bad guys won by being unrepentant villains. The FPTP side lied their asses off, making no pretense of trying to challenge the issue on any intellectual level. Nope, they just deliberately sowed fear, confusion, and deceit.
And did you notice they had so much more money than the Pro-Rep side? Nothing but an endless onslaught of negative advertising, about PR, about the process of the referendum itself, and that is very expensive. Take a look at their backers and you'll see the same big money and out-of-province elite that's been running BC into the ground.

But I had misgivings about the way the government handled the issue and how the pro-PR side failed to mount an effective campaign.

First of all, a referendum is actually a terrible way to make changes like this; many pro-PR people were worried that it would turn into some partisan muckraking exercise, and that's exactly what happened. The first referendum on this in BC, the PR (pro-STV) side actually won in a real sense, but could not get past the rigged terms of that contest (needing 60% or more, not just a majority). The second referendum, as with this one, was marred by allowing the FPTP side to just run a smear campaign and never be challenged to actually tell the truth.

Second of all, it was a mistake to let the government and opposition leaders (Horgan and Wilkinson) be involved in the campaigns. It made the whole thing just a partisan bash-fest, more like a referendum on peoples' political leanings and partisan activism, instead of a real debate on what kind of democracy best suits BC's electorate. The so-called "debate" between Wilkinson and Horgan was a clusterfuck - an example of why our FPTP system has actually failed, because neither of these guys capable of giving either a straight question or a straight answer.

Third of all, the pro-PR side ran such a low-key campaign you hardly even knew it was there. They were up against the big-money pro-FPTP campaign, and so they tried to do a sort of grassroots volunteer campaign style. But the FPTP side never had canvassers or anything, just a ton of deceptive ads, and the pro-PR side had nothing to tell the truth with. No ads meant basically no impact. They played nice, they pulled their punches, and look what a shitty result it got them.

Plus when your key slogan is "Pro-rep is lit!", you should fire your media strategist. Seriously, how did anyone think that some bullshit ghetto catchphrase was going to convince people their side was serious and wise and knew what the fuck they're talking about? Failed gimmick hall of fame.

Maybe it would have been more effective if they had gone a more non-partisan route, maybe gotten people like Gordon Campbell (who once supported PR) to come out of the shadows and take part in the pro-PR campaign as well.

Because PR was never about left vs. right - but somehow the opponents turned it into that, and the supposedly pro-PR guys like Eby and Horgan were dumb enough to let them. The NDP old guard has never much liked the idea of PR, and that's why you see slugs like Tieleman on the anti-PR side every time. They want political polarization, with just two choices available. Just like the BC Liberals, they think they'll never be able to enact anything of theirs unless they can hold power alone.

It's not true, of course, but they believe it.

Well, whatever. Another failure in our broken & worthless political system - the liars win another round, because that's how the game - their game - is played.

Someone cooks you food, you may choose not to eat it, but it's ungrateful to call them a piece of shit. You cannot champion the light of democracy, vote in it, and then disrespect the choice made by the masses, just because you didn't get your way. You certainly do not represent the majority in the least AND most certainly do not know better than most.

This type of behavior is precisely why PR shouldn't win, because people who are in the fringe with a short temper now have license to exercise childish behavior in a public forum when they previously couldn't. (Not that FPTP is better but at least we don't have a proportionate amount of ignorance in parliament)

If you have a problem with the result, you can move to China.

Don't shit where you eat.

 

[80watts]

China by 2050 will have an economy projected to be 3 time the United States.....Its also very crowed there. So you might have to live with the results of the vote....

After 3 different votes, the voters of BC have said no........ NO means no.......

The difference between voting for horse shit and the other guys horseshit is you vote for which one you think smells better.... it all stinks....

 

[nightswhisper]

China has PR. 100 percent of the people vote for and are represented by 100 percent communists.