ELECTORAL-REFORM REFERENDUM
Game show might have been better Re: “Horgan, Wilkinson clash on voting,” column, Nov. 9.
There was certainly a lot of anticipation for Thursday night’s televised debate between Premier John Horgan and B.C. Liberal Leader Andrew Wilkinson. Unfortunately, expectations were too high for some detailed information about the future, and the delivery became bogged down in the all-too-familiar making of political points by both sides.
The government-led Yes strategy hit on the “value of each vote counts” and the opposition-led No vote relied on fear of the unknown. What was sadly missing was some sense of what the electoral landscape would like in a future with proportional representation.
I also don’t think there was enough discussion of referendums as a form of democracy. I believe most people think that when we elect people to represent us, we expect them to govern and make the tough decisions.
I have serious issues with referendum votes, the main one being the absence of a quorum baseline. For example, we typically get a 50 per cent turnout and a 50-plus-one vote decides it, so effectively we could have 25 per cent of the registered electorate deciding.
What will happen if we have 30 per cent mail-in response? Will the government go forward or revert to the status quo? I still have a lot of questions.
At one point, Horgan made a quip about the quality of the debate and suggested some viewers would flip to a game show. I have to agree. Alex, I’ll take “What’s proportional representation?” for $500, please.
Len Jansen Langford Ask an owner, not the salesman Re: “Horgan, Wilkinson clash on voting,” column, Nov. 9.
The debate between Premier John Horgan and Opposition Leader Andrew Wilkinson produced much heat but little light, much noise but little useful signal.
To me, the issue is simple. If you’re looking at buying something new, don’t listen to the salesman or the competition, ask the man who owns one.
In this case, the people of New Zealand, a parliamentary democracy much like ours, have had mixed member proportional representation since 1996. They had a chance to return to first-past-thepost in 2011 and didn’t do it. I’ve talked to a few New Zealanders and they mostly like the system. Together with reading about our proposed MMP, that’s good enough for me.
The arguments made by the No side, Wilkinson in particular, are both profoundly patronizing and insulting to British Columbians. By saying that proportional representation is too confusing for us to understand, he is telling us that we are too stupid to get it. Is the typical British Columbian stupider than the typical New Zealander? I don’t believe that.
Take an hour or two to read about the various proposed systems (less time than you would spend on your tax return) and you can grasp the essentials, enough to make a decision. Alex Zimmerman Victoria
Horgan echoed Donald Rumsfeld Re: “Horgan, Wilkinson clash on voting,” column, Nov. 9.
The highly anticipated leaders’ debate on proportional representation was touted as a way to bring the electorate up to speed on three options being offered by the B.C. NDP government in the PR referendum.
Sadly, it turned out to be the exact opposite, as, despite the B.C. Liberal leader asking over and over and over for the NDP leader to explain those options, none were forthcoming. In fact, the NDP leader muddied the waters even more, by resorting to what is possibly millennial-speak when he said at one point: “If you were woke you would know that pro rep is lit.”
There are many voters who wouldn’t understand this use of modern slang language, but later when he admonished his opponent to embrace electoral reform and “be hip,” some older viewers probably realized he wasn’t talking about a hip replacement.
Anyone expecting some transparency was obviously left wanting, as history repeated itself with NDP leader sounding like former U.S. defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld. When quizzed about the Iraq invasion, he infamously said: “There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things we know that we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. These are things we don’t know we don’t know.” Rumsfeld’s ramblings perfectly summed up what the NDP leader had to say about PR, which probably stands for “pathetic rhetoric.”
Bernie Smith Parksville Tired of feeling my vote doesn’t count
I feel that we need a more democratic electoral system.
I am tired of feeling that my vote doesn’t count. In a truly democratic society, everyone’s voice should matter. When a party gets elected with the power of a majority without the majority of the votes, that is not democracy.
I am voting yes for proportional representation.
Artemis Fire View Royal PR benefits make it worth the gamble Re: “Proportional is more direct, but less fair,” comment, Nov. 10.
Three points arising from this op-ed:
1. The writer is simply wrong about “at least half of all elected members will be determined … from ranked party lists.” In at least two of the proportional representation options on the ballot, voters elect the members directly in the great majority; only MMP has significant use of appointments from party lists.
2. This is the first article I have read in this newspaper that notes that political parties are, in fact, coalitions, as members do not always share all of the positions any party holds as principles; this is my opinion also.
3. A further interference to anything like true representative democracy is the internal party discipline that requires members to vote according to party rule on almost all occasions.
PR, if accepted through this referendum, will not produce a perfect electoral system, but if open expression of the multiplicity of opinions and information is more available through it, and thus much more reasonable consensus/compromise agreements are reached, it is very much worth the gamble.
Robert MacLachlan Colwood Horgan seems to think voters gullible Re: “Horgan, Wilkinson clash on voting,” Nov. 9.
When was the last time a politician held a referendum without a completed design? Does the Dean Fortin Blue Bridge referendum come to mind? We all know how that is unfolding. Lawsuits pending and costs growing.
Presenting us with an incomplete design of a voting system clearly demonstrates how gullible Premier John Horgan perceives the voters to be.
It would be unfortunate to prove him right.
K.H. Demmler Victoria In referendum, Yes means yes Re: “Scenarios that spell uncertainty,” column, Nov. 10.
Dermod Travis suggests that even if the Yes side should win a resounding victory in the referendum, whichever proportional voting system is chosen to be implemented could be viewed as illegitimate if less than 50 per cent of voters responded to question two. Why?
Do we impose a minimum requirement on voter turnout in provincial elections for the results to be considered legitimate? No. In fact, during the most recent election, voter turnout in 10 ridings was below 50 per cent. Did anyone raise court challenges to have those results thrown out? No.
Democracy is driven by those of us who show up to vote. I hope that those who vote Yes would take the time to choose at least one of the three proportional representation options, but should they not do so, their primary vote for change must be respected.
Furthermore, if voter apathy is a concern for those of us who fully engage in our democracy, isn’t it worth trying proportional representation to see if it improves voter engagement?
Freya Keddie Victoria Referendum shows lack of planning
The proportional-representation options are too poorly defined for us to know what we are voting for. If PR is so beneficial, why has the government not laid out the rules for each proposal? In any business, when you do not define the options clearly, you are hiding something and plan to “fix” things later — for your betterment, not for others.
If PR is selected, the voter has no more say in the changes. Only MLAs will debate the numerous, important, missing details behind closed doors. Then they will approve the bill in the legislature. If voter turnout is 40 per cent and PR secures 55 per cent, with the selected option at 35 per cent, that system will represent between eight and 14 per cent of B.C. voters. How fair is it to change this fundamental building block of our parliamentary system with those numbers?
All PR options show between 87 and 95 MLAs. The referendum was supposed to be between firstpast-the-post and PR, not about increasing the number of MLAs.
Some form of PR might be worthwhile; however, this vote is too rushed. The governing coalition has produced a scenario to bamboozle voters so they can later manipulate the important details for their gain. Does that sound like buying a bridge before you have the design, specifications and responsibilities agreed to?
If it is worth making this change, do it well. This referendum shows poor planning, insufficient definition work and disdain for voters.
Robert Herbert View Royal New vote system means higher costs
There is no question that the new voting system will result in more people being elected. How many, nobody knows. The number will increase as more and more special-interest groups form their own parties.
Who pays for all this? The taxpayer. The cost of government will balloon out of control, and we all know that this means higher taxes.
Vote No to change on the referendum. Henry Fox Victoria