first past the post vs. proportional representation

[treveller]

When I described FPTP as a three hundred year old system I was referring to its use to elect an English parliament. There is probably a wide range of dates you could use for this. The important part is, there were only two candidates, a whig and a tory. And of course only male land owners could vote.

I have difficulty understanding why anyone who isn't powerful and wealthy thanks to the incompetent FPTP system would support keeping it. All the political parties, including the BC Liberals, stopped using it internally many years ago, if they ever did use it.

When you listen to Andrew Wilkinson promote FPTP you are listening to a liar and fraud who was elected as party leader using the single seat version of STV, a PR system. If the BC Liberals had used FPTP to count the ballots the BC Liberal leader would be Dianne Watts but you don't see Wilkinson stepping aside for her and FPTP.

 

[nightswhisper]

It doesn't matter what the voting system is if all the politicians suck.

This is a stupid diversion tactic.

 

[storm rider]

It doesn't matter what the voting system is if all the politicians suck.

This is a stupid diversion tactic.

Whilst I do vote Conservative my mindset is the same but much more expanded.All forms of government are wastefull with regards to tax payer money.From those elected to those appointed by them.At all levels of government
be it Civic/Provincial/Federal Canadians are saddled are saddled with a massive bureaucracy and the costs of it.From your average city garbage worker up to the highest echelons they are all pigs at the trough feeding off tax
payer money.From the perks to the pensions and even with gross negligence they cant be fired as they are unionized.


Here is a real good example.The ex CEO of Enmax Gary Holden got "fired" for taking a bribe which was an all expense paid trip to the Monaco Grand Prix.He was fired with just cause and he got a 4.5 million
severance package.The guy would have gotten fuck all in the private sector and been glad he did not get taken to court.

The list is endless about stuff like this.From one coast to the other no matter the city/province.We are saddled with a bureaucratic public sector that feeds at the trough from the bottom to the top and it has also
infected so many other needs of the public such as health care.

Slightly different tangeant and a derail of the thread but I just to RANT.

SR

 

[DangerousDan]

Pretty sure that's been happening for a long long long time now. lol. But I get your point. still I don't believe our current system is not working, when 1 party wins an election the other party is just trashing the other party the whole time and waiting for the next election. They constantly go against the current party and do anything to try and stop anything from getting done. How is it any different? If they all have some power and a say maybe they will actually work out some issues...

Because the opposite is mostly just talk and the government can pass what they want with their majority. But if policy is bad, the opposition will draw attention to it. I believe that the oppposition still has a lot of power and can influence what gets done. A good example was when the Federal Liberals balanced the budget. It was the Reform Party who championed that and the Liberals nicked that part of their agenda. They always do that and take good ideas from the left and right.

 

[treveller]

It doesn't matter what the voting system is if all the politicians suck.

I don't think so. We have been using FPTP till now because the politicians in charge suck and FPTP lets them stay in charge.

If we get a better electoral system, we get better politicians. If we keep FPTP, we keep the politicians who suck.

 

[treveller]

This is a good and short explanation, with specifics, showing how PR is better than FPTP by Seth Klein in the Vancouver Sun.

https://vancouversun.com/opinion/op...sentation-leads-to-better-government-policies

 

[nightswhisper]

I don't think so. We have been using FPTP till now because the politicians in charge suck and FPTP lets them stay in charge.

If we get a better electoral system, we get better politicians. If we keep FPTP, we keep the politicians who suck.

That's not how this works at all. Neither system hold people who make bad decisions accountable. Fever is the symptom (bad governance) and infection is the cause (bad governors)

 

[storm rider]

I don't think so. We have been using FPTP till now because the politicians in charge suck and FPTP lets them stay in charge.

If we get a better electoral system, we get better politicians. If we keep FPTP, we keep the politicians who suck.

Why is Proportional Representation a better alternative?As far as I am concearned it just makes it worse as it leads to fringe parties getting seats on the Provincial as well as the Federal level that they otherwise would not have won when it comes
down to the brass tacks of counting the votes.If the Greens get a pathetic 10% of the popular vote meaning that 1 person out of 10 believes in their fucked up just right of Communist polices then the Green party would get 10% of the seats in
the House of Parliament and in none of those ridings would they have gotten enough votes to actually win those seats.To me that is utterly FUCKED and it is participation trophy politics that they have in Europe.

Call an election and go through the hustings and Canadians VOTE for their choice.....count the votes then count the ridings and declare a winner.Last thing I would want is to have some also-ran loser Green nutjob representing me as a constituent
because the got handed a consolation prize of a seat.....you did not win but you get this anyway.

SR

 

[clu]

Why is Proportional Representation a better alternative?As far as I am concearned it just makes it worse as it leads to fringe parties getting seats on the Provincial as well as the Federal level that they otherwise would not have won when it comes
down to the brass tacks of counting the votes.If the Greens get a pathetic 10% of the popular vote meaning that 1 person out of 10 believes in their fucked up just right of Communist polices then the Green party would get 10% of the seats in
the House of Parliament and in none of those ridings would they have gotten enough votes to actually win those seats.To me that is utterly FUCKED and it is participation trophy politics that they have in Europe.

Call an election and go through the hustings and Canadians VOTE for their choice.....count the votes then count the ridings and declare a winner.Last thing I would want is to have some also-ran loser Green nutjob representing me as a constituent
because the got handed a consolation prize of a seat.....you did not win but you get this anyway.

SR

Pretty sure your questions were answered upthread.

 

[nightswhisper]

Why is Proportional Representation a better alternative?As far as I am concearned it just makes it worse as it leads to fringe parties getting seats on the Provincial as well as the Federal level that they otherwise would not have won when it comes
down to the brass tacks of counting the votes.If the Greens get a pathetic 10% of the popular vote meaning that 1 person out of 10 believes in their fucked up just right of Communist polices then the Green party would get 10% of the seats in
the House of Parliament and in none of those ridings would they have gotten enough votes to actually win those seats.To me that is utterly FUCKED and it is participation trophy politics that they have in Europe.

Call an election and go through the hustings and Canadians VOTE for their choice.....count the votes then count the ridings and declare a winner.Last thing I would want is to have some also-ran loser Green nutjob representing me as a constituent
because the got handed a consolation prize of a seat.....you did not win but you get this anyway.

SR

Some people attribute different to better.

 

[clu]

Some people attribute different to better.

Just to note: Storm Rider's summary is inaccurate. It does not describe the PR options on the ballot in BC, but that's been exhaustively discussed above.

SR: since you don't live in BC you should be endorsing this experiment. If it's really as catastrophic as you believe, your case will be made stronger by pointing to what an unmitigated disaster your provincial neighbour became after they introduced PR.

To your comment, nightswhisper, some people think that, in lieu of a better quality politician (as you note), maybe we can mitigate their shortcomings by not giving one faction too much autonomy. Not that "different is better" but that it's at least worth a shot.

 

[storm rider]

Just to note: Storm Rider's summary is inaccurate. It does not describe the PR options on the ballot in BC, but that's been exhaustively discussed above.

SR: since you don't live in BC you should be endorsing this experiment. If it's really as catastrophic as you believe, your case will be made stronger by pointing to what an unmitigated disaster your provincial neighbour became after they introduced PR.

To your comment, nightswhisper, some people think that, in lieu of a better quality politician (as you note), maybe we can mitigate their shortcomings by not giving one faction too much autonomy. Not that "different is better" but that it's at least worth a shot.

My summary of Proportional Representation is completely accurate though it does not encompass the specifics of a BC Provincial election with regards to the choice of political parties.

I would not endorse this flawed and fucked up system upon any Province not even as a science experiment.That is just as bad as electing the NDP to run the show.

SR

 

[darrelodevl]

Some people attribute different to better.

Changing from FPTP to PR will not get you better politicians. The same bozos will run for office regardless. FPTP tends to produce majority governments who can make decisions and act. If its the "wrong" decision, the government can reverse course (the current federal Liberals have done that a few times already) or you can vote them out next election. PR tends to produce minority governments or coalitions that make NO DECISION (witness the perennial collapsing coalition governments in Europe) so events are decided over time in the absence of political decisions. Which might not be bad, except that taxpayers keep paying politicians salaries while they are grid-locked and achieving nothing.

Besides, neither Horgan nor his colleagues can even explain how the three PR options on the BC ballot would actually work. Horgan says he has "faith that the people of BC can work it out", meaning he doesn't think anyone knows. Doesn't inspire confidence in PR for me.

 

[clu]

My summary of Proportional Representation is completely accurate though it does not encompass the specifics of a BC Provincial election with regards to the choice of political parties.

I would not endorse this flawed and fucked up system upon any Province not even as a science experiment.That is just as bad as electing the NDP to run the show.

SR

It really isn't, though. STV can't put a person with 10% of the vote in charge of your riding, DMP guarantees that your riding's primary rep is still the FPTP person, and MMP still gives you a FPTP candidate with a few non-geographic seats reserved to balance the people.

Please, in all sincerity, don't confuse the issue for people genuinely interested in this BC referendum by posing inaccurate objections to the particular kind of PR on the ballot when you don't actually know the mechanics of the systems being proposed.

 

[overdone]

the particular kind of PR on the ballot when you don't actually know the mechanics of the systems being proposed.

2 of which no one knows, cause they've never been used anywhere ever before

the one that has, is exactly that popular either

so talking about not knowing, is kinda the problem, your referendum is a joke

specially with no basic number of what would be required to make it pass

51% of voters? 51% of eligible voters?

10% turn out?

questions you would expect to be answered up front long before, so everyone knows how everything works, clearly

let's hope people come to their senses, like they just did in Calgary

 

[clu]

2 of which no one knows, cause they've never been used anywhere ever before

While there's a difference between understanding the proposed system and seeing it in action, I'm saying people should at least understand the specific systems being proposed before criticising it. Otherwise you run risk of criticising specific features it doesn't actually have, hence my reply.

 

[storm rider]

2 of which no one knows, cause they've never been used anywhere ever before

the one that has, is exactly that popular either

so talking about not knowing, is kinda the problem, your referendum is a joke

specially with no basic number of what would be required to make it pass

51% of voters? 51% of eligible voters?

10% turn out?

questions you would expect to be answered up front long before, so everyone knows how everything works, clearly

let's hope people come to their senses, like they just did in Calgary

I concur and I will say I am happy with the recent Olympic vote.

As for the electoral process in general that encompasses all levels of government that currently use the FPTP system...........if it aint "broke" dont "fix" it.

SR

 

[Cock Throppled]

I concur and I will say I am happy with the recent Olympic vote.

As for the electoral process in general that encompasses all levels of government that currently use the FPTP system...........if it aint "broke" dont "fix" it.

SR

It is broke, that's why we need to try out new systems.

 

[nightswhisper]

It is broke, that's why we need to try out new systems.

Democracy was never about making everyone vote and being represented. New voting systems will only mean bringing in shittier politicians because of more franchise.

 

[treveller]

2 of which no one knows, cause they've never been used anywhere ever before

I am probably repeating this from above. Too bad overdone didn't notice it the first time.

Hypocrite Andrew Wilkinson and the NO side keep talking about two of the systems having never been used before. Fair comment for DMP. On Rural-Urban, this is just short of an outright lie.

Rural-Urban is simply a mix of two well established systems, MMP and STV. Both have a long and respected history. If you doubt this just try a Google search. 80% of voters will use STV if the Rural-Urban option wins. That would be the best possible outcome.

It is unfortunate that this referendum on electoral reform may be defeated by NO voters who complain without making the simplest effort to understand.