Fair Voting BC Requests Further change to Referendum Criteria
Victoria, BC - Fair Voting BC welcomes the Premier's recognition that the criteria for a second referendum on electoral reform, set out in the September 2005 Throne Speech, require a second look.
"I spoke to the Premier the weekend before this announcement", said FVBC President Bruce Hallsor, "and urged him to re-think the November 2008 referendum date for a variety of reasons." He added "Fair Voting BC was concerned about the lack of time between that date and the next provincial general election. It was our considered opinion that the short transition time from the current system to a new system would have made it difficult to implement, and would have provided the No side with a powerful argument against a Yes vote"
"We have also reminded the Premier of our continued concern with the 60% threshold, and ask that he review this matter as well", Hallsor added. "This government acknowledged in it's Throne Speech that the last referendum did not decisively deal with this issue, precisely because the threshold was set too high. A clear majority of British Columbians voted for electoral reform, and in a two way race between STV and first past the post, STV was the overwhelming choice of voters in all regions of the province."
It is disappointing enough that the wishes of the majority of British Columbians are going to be ignored for the 2009 election. It will be even worse if a majority votes in favour of STV a second time, but the government fails to implement it because of an artificial threshold. If democracy is to be served the 60% threshold must be reconsidered.
5) Further information is available at:
a) BC's Electoral Boundaries Commission has a web site at: http://www.bc-ebc.ca
b) The NB Commission on Legislative Democracy has a web site at http://www.gnb.ca/0100/index-e.asp. They have a lot of material there including quite a list of publications at http://www.gnb.ca/0100/pub-e.asp .
c) New Brunswick's reply to the commission's report is described in a press release at http://www.gnb.ca/cnb/news/ex/2006e0794ex.htm .
d) Further information on Premier Lord's announcement at the Fair Vote Canada site: http://fairvotecanada.org/date_set_for_NB_referendum
Prepared by Wendy Bergerud, June 2006
******************
Jacob's comment: While British Columbia has been pulling towards STV, New Brunswick wants MMP (which in my humble opinion, is a much better and more democratic electoral system). I do not know what Ontario will come up with - does anybody have an idea?
And these are all on the provincial level; wish that this would overflow into the federal realm!!
Note: http://www.bc-ebc.ca
http://www.gnb.ca/0100/...
http://www.gnb.ca/0100/...
http://www.gnb.ca/cnb/n...
http://fairvotecanada.o...
Proportional Representation, Anybody?
Posted on Friday, July 07 at 12:31 by JacobContributed By
Topic
Article Rating
(0 votes)
Options
Stumble It!Comments
view comments in forum
Page 1
system is. we're too 'human based' (no i'm not a green party, i'm following my <br />
indigenous traditions). truth is found in nature....if we're to have 'ridings' the <br />
boundaries would be based on forest districts and watersheds. when will we <br />
understand that nature comes first and our place in it second?<br />
<br />
TRUE DEMOCRACY=the iroquois constitution. <a href="http://www.angelfire.com/folk/">http://www.angelfire.com/folk/</a><br />
sovereignty/constitution.html
---
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
(Albert Einstein)
<br />
• Until I saw this information I was not even aware that we were going to have a vote on electoral reform (in Ontario) let alone that there was a debate about the threshold for the plebiscite to take effect. There is no doubt that we are due for some changes in both Provincial and Federal representation, how long that will take and what form will finally emerge remains to be seen. A purely PR system would tend to hurt minorities including rural areas however most PR systems are a combination of both. The New Zealand model seems to be the one most widely offered as an example and it is worth following the links below to understand what sort of reforms may be proposed for our system. The ability to select the best LOCAL candidate and the best PARTY platform separately would put more balance in our representation and would probably result in more minority or coalition governments, which in my opinion is not a bad thing. <br />
<br />
The New Zealand model of voting<br />
<a href="http://www.elections.org.nz/mmp/two_ticks_too_easy.html">http://www.elections.org.nz/mmp/two_ticks_too_easy.html</a><br />
<br />
Details of how it works (the calculations)<br />
<a href="http://www.elections.org.nz/mmp/sainte_lague.html">http://www.elections.org.nz/mmp/sainte_lague.html</a><br />
<br />
<br />
As a comparison to see what difference it would make I have used the last FEDERAL election results and calculated the results using the New Zealand model of MMP.<br />
<br />
As it stands now…..<br />
Block 51 seats 10.5% of popular vote<br />
Conservatives 124 seats 36.6% of popular vote<br />
Liberal 103 seats 30.2% of popular vote<br />
NDP 29 seats 17.55% of popular vote<br />
Green 0 seats 4.5% of popular vote<br />
Other 0 seats 0.65% of popular vote<br />
<br />
Total seats = 307<br />
<br />
Under the New Zealand model………<br />
Step one – throw out results below 5% & recalculate percentages and seats<br />
Block 34 seats 11.1% of eligible votes<br />
Conservatives 118 seats 38.4% of eligible votes<br />
Liberal 98 seats 32% of eligible votes<br />
NDP 57 seats 18.5% of eligible votes<br />
<br />
Step two – add extra seats for individuals elected over and above popular vote<br />
Block 34 + 19 = 51 seats<br />
Conservatives 118 + 6 = 124 seats<br />
Liberal 98 + 5 = 103 seats<br />
NDP 57 + 0 = 57 seats<br />
<br />
Total seats =330<br />
<br />
It can bee seen from this that it would be much more representative of the popular vote and although the Green party did not cross the 5% threshold it would probably do so when voters had the choice of voting for the party and the candidate separately and could also directly obtain a seat if winning a riding irregardless of the 5% rule. The big question will become what system of representation will be proposed for the electorate to consider, will it be explained and understood sufficiently for an informed decision and will the question be clear and unambiguous.<br />
<br />
<p>---<br>When you are up to your ass in alligators it is difficult to remember that the initial objective was to drain the swamp
It is more than a decade ago that the book "Democracy, eh?" was published, a good reference to many PR electoral systems. New Zealand produced a good system but it took a lot of effort. I guess the situation must become ridiculously bad before the people will start to revolt - as a grassroots movement.
by John Deverell & Greg Vezina (ISBN 1-895854-15-6) copyright 1993.
Robert Davies Publishing, P.O. Box 702, Outremont, QC H2V 4N6
In the dedication of the book, it states:
"To Brian Mulroney, Bob Rae and all the other first ministers who made us wonder why, in a country that calls itself a democracy, politicians with so little public support have so much power."
If we keep Single Member Representation, where everyone is actually represented (read non-partisan), and we use an IRV or better ballot to get it ... there will be half a chance at effective representation. The other half of the chance is to be found in the vote on party that parties (as gatekeepers) insist on having us take.
I suggest that other vote doesn't need to put a Party in Power. It should be an election wide vote for a Party's election platform. Another IRV ballot here AND we get Representation of the People combining with an unsplittable "Will" of the People ... making for a democracy that almost everyone can be happy with.