babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » canadian politics   » BC Citizens' Assembly designs a system

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: BC Citizens' Assembly designs a system
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 18 October 2004 11:29 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here's the news from yesterday's meeting of the BC Citizens' Assembly.

quote:
Under the MMP model the members crafted, 60% of B.C.’s 79 MLAs would be elected directly as constituency representatives. One impact would be that constituencies would be larger. The other 40% of MLAs would come from lists of names prepared by the parties, with seats allocated so that, in the end, each party's share of seats roughly mirrors its popular vote.

Voters would vote for party-list candidates drawn from their region. But list seats would be allocated based on the province-wide vote, to ensure proportionality.

Party lists would be “open”, with voters able to rank candidates on the list (as opposed to “closed” lists, where the order of candidates is determined only by the parties). And a party would have to get at least 3% of the province-wide popular vote to get any list seats.


I'll vote for that.


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Pellaken1
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7028

posted 18 October 2004 12:49 PM      Profile for Pellaken1     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
dont like 60-40, preger 75-25, but this will do
From: Gritland | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
scott
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 637

posted 18 October 2004 01:22 PM      Profile for scott   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I like the 3% threshold, but I would like the percentage of list candidates to be large enough so that the result is as nearly proportional as possible. I wonder what that level would be?

Since they are leaning towards allowing ranking of all the candidates, I wonder how this would influence results. I guess we will have to wait untill the "numbers" people jump in.


From: Kootenays BC | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874

posted 18 October 2004 02:16 PM      Profile for West Coast Greeny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
FINALLY, thank god! Will this come into effect next election or 2009?
From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
NDP Newbie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5089

posted 18 October 2004 03:12 PM      Profile for NDP Newbie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Did the Gordon Campbell government do something right?

(Incidentally, AV in the consituency seats is also great news for us, as I don't see many Greens preferring the Campbell Lieberals to us.)


From: Cornwall, ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Panama Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6478

posted 18 October 2004 03:32 PM      Profile for Panama Jack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But according to the press release, they're still deciding between the fore menetioned MMP system as well as a STV system... so it's not a done deal yet... although the majority of presentations made have been MMP'ish.

Cross your fingers for the vote next week.... I'd hate to see the anti-Campbell movement get distracted by campaigning against a STV system that possibly could intrench the right-wing in BC government, the BCL would have a field day if the NDP took (as it should) an anti-electoral reform stance with a STV yes/no referendum.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 18 October 2004 03:34 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by scott:
but I would like the percentage of list candidates to be large enough so that the result is as nearly proportional as possible.

Since the list seats would be allocated based on the province-wide vote, to ensure proportionality, I'm not too worried. Henry Milner says 40% should generally be large enough. Keep in mind that the local seats won by a party (the 60%) are subtracted from the total allocation, so that the list seats (the 40%) are used to "top-up" the local results to make them proportional to the popular vote.

That's also why AV in the constituency seats doesn't really matter much one way or the other. The composition of the Legislature and the Government is based on the popular vote. The count in the consituency seat just determines who your local MLA is.

[ 18 October 2004: Message edited by: Wilfred Day ]


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Pogo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2999

posted 18 October 2004 03:34 PM      Profile for Pogo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Next weekend is the big decision time. Will try and attend if possible. Where is our babble member for some inside scoop? How is the vote going to break down? What are the rules of this vote? It looks like there are three choices, a single transferable ballot, mixed member PR, and the status quo. Do we put the contenders for the status quo head to head first? If there is an opportunity to vote for all three, doesn't that present the possibility that some status quo people will vote one way just to ensure the go against the weaker choice?
From: Richmond BC | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Panama Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6478

posted 18 October 2004 03:39 PM      Profile for Panama Jack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Pogo:
It looks like there are three choices, a single transferable ballot, mixed member PR, and the status quo. Do we put the contenders for the status quo head to head first? If there is an opportunity to vote for all three, doesn't that present the possibility that some status quo people will vote one way just to ensure the go against the weaker choice?

From what I got from the press release, they're deciding FIRST which alternative to the status quo is best suited for BC (this week), then AFTERWORDS deciding on whether or not to recommend that alternative system or the status quo.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 18 October 2004 03:40 PM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Panama Jack:

Cross your fingers for the vote next week.... I'd hate to see the anti-Campbell movement get distracted by campaigning against a STV system that possibly could intrench the right-wing in BC government, the BCL would have a field day if the NDP took (as it should) an anti-electoral reform stance with a STV yes/no referendum.


When you say an STV system, do you mean the single-member IRV form, or the multi-member Hare-Clark form? The former would probably be bad, but the latter would be ok. I'd still prefer MMP though.

From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
NDP Newbie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5089

posted 18 October 2004 03:43 PM      Profile for NDP Newbie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Pure IRV would suck.

The last thing we need is more Socred retrogrades spewing their hate propaganda against Asians and non-Christians.


From: Cornwall, ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 18 October 2004 03:48 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mike Keenan:
When you say an STV system, do you mean the single-member IRV form, or the multi-member Hare-Clark form?

In Ireland they call their system PR/STV so no one will confuse it with a single-member system.


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tackaberry
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 487

posted 18 October 2004 04:02 PM      Profile for Tackaberry   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Isn't a natural threshold created anyway, by the number of seats? I dont see why they set a minimum different than the natural one created by the relationship b/w % of vote and seats available.

You have less IND in the proposed system, but that's not too bad a price to pay.

Seems like a lot of lists. So a list of potentially what,40-60 canidates per party (sorry I dont know how many seats BC legislature has)? Times how many parties?

I like the idea of allowing ppl to vote on open lists, but if you're going that far why not just let them rank 5-10 candidates from a master list made up of all parties?

[ 18 October 2004: Message edited by: Tackaberry ]


From: Tokyo | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 18 October 2004 04:18 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Tackaberry:
Isn't a natural threshold created anyway, by the number of seats? I dont see why they set a minimum different than the natural one created by the relationship b/w % of vote and seats available.

With 79 seats, if you had no threshold a "one-man party" could get a seat with only 1.3% of the vote. That's what the Netherlands does -- but they are about to change to MMP. Three percent of the vote will give a party two MLAs. I think a "one-man party" is facetious.

quote:
You have less IND in the proposed system, but that's not too bad a price to pay.

You could still elect a local independent like Chuck Cadman. I haven't seen their details on whether a province-wide independent would need to get 3% of the province-wide vote to get a list seat, the same as a party.

quote:
Seems like a lot of lists. So a list of potentially what, 40-60 canidates per party (sorry I dont know how many seats BC legislature has)? Times how many parties?

Again I haven't seen yet how many regions they will divide BC into. I guess each major party would nominate 47 local candidates and 32 regional list candidates. In Germany the parties have gradually found it best to nominate many of the same people both locally and regionally. Keep in mind that even the top spot on the regional list is no guarantee of election: if the party wins enough local seats to reflect its share of the popular vote, it doesn't qualify for any "top-up" seats.


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Pete Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6814

posted 18 October 2004 05:00 PM      Profile for Pete Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hmm...

They've put more detail into the MMP option than the STV so I assume it's the one they're more serious about.

48 Ridings so each would not be quite as large as the federal seat. A bit too big but probably not a deal breaker for me.

AV for the ridings, I like a lot.

31 MLAs chosen by Party hacks and put on a regional open list so the voters can reject the unelectable patronage nominees. Using the provincial total discriminates against the lesser populated areas and we too much of a Vancouver centric legislature now. I'd like to see more info on this.

3% threshold, too low - it should be 5%.

I'm pretty much on the fence on whether I prefer this to FPTP.

One consquence is that in a blowout election such as 2001, the second party's caucus would be overwhelmingly made up of list MLAs.

In 1996, the result of this system would be a Leg of 33 BC Libs, 31 NDPers, 7 Reformers and 4 PDA.

In 2001, the result of this sytem would be a Leg of 46 BC Libs, 17 NDPers, 10 Green, 3 Unity and 3 BC Marijuana Party.

Of course, had it been in place in 1996, both the Reform and PDA would have remained alive and been a more serious competitor in an election in 2000. The Lib/Ref coalition Govt would have been quite different and the Greens might have never taken off as most of their support was a reaction to the NDP Govt.

I'm not ready to walk down this one way gangplank right now and I have a feeling that they are proposing too much change and the result will like the ward referendum in Vancouver. There will be different aspects that cause different voters to vote no and the yes side won't even get a 50% +1, far short of the 60% requirment.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 18 October 2004 05:19 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Pete Smith:
31 MLAs chosen by Party hacks and put on a regional open list so the voters can reject the unelectable patronage nominees.

Chosen by party hacks? Wouldn't they be nominated by party members just as local candidates are nominated? Outside Vancouver you might use a mail-in and internet-based vote just like the method that chose Jack Layton leader, especially in the more remote regions.

And yes, if the party lists a veteran first, and the voters prefer the newer face, the voters will have the final word. As they should.

quote:
Using the provincial total discriminates against the lesser populated areas and we too much of a Vancouver centric legislature now.

Actually it's the reverse. If you used the regional totals, voters in the lesser populated areas would lose their votes if they voted for a party getting less than the effective threshold in the small region. Using the provincial total treats all regions equally.

quote:
I'd like to see more info on this.

So would I. The details should show up on this page as DELIBERATION PHASE, Weekend 3 when they're posted.


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Pete Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6814

posted 18 October 2004 05:28 PM      Profile for Pete Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Wilfred Day:

Keep in mind that even the top spot on the regional list is no guarantee of election:


Open list does mean that the voters decide on the "top spot" right?

As for regions, taking the Island as an obvious one, the 13 FPTP seats would become 8 riding seats and 5 list seats. Aside from the effect of the redistribution and the AV vote on the riding seats, it would be likely that in 2001, 8 Libs would have been elected. Perhaps Carol James would have won in Victoria with the addition of most of Vic Hillside to Vic Beacon Hill.

If I'd read this statement from the press release right, "Voters would vote for party-list candidates drawn from their region. But list seats would be allocated based on the province-wide vote, to ensure proportionality", that the list ballot would only have up to 5 names from each party ranked in order by the voters. A party could choose to put less than 5 for strategic reasons, they have not made it clear whether riding candidates could be put on the list. If so, it is not clear to me what happens when a riding candidate is successful but is also successful on the list?

In 2001, applying the provincial percentages to the Island Region, the NDP should receive 2.21 seats, the Greens 1.27, Unity .42 of a seat and the Marijuana Party .41 of a seat. First, how in the heck do they do the rounding? Should 9.75% for the Greens give an equal seat to 3.23 for Unity? Do they average it out over the Province, determine which region has preference over another by the voter support on a party list? ???


From: Vancouver | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 18 October 2004 05:34 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I like the idea of allowing ppl to vote on open lists, but if you're going that far why not just let them rank 5-10 candidates from a master list made up of all parties?

That deserves an answer.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 18 October 2004 06:21 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Pete Smith:

I'm not ready to walk down this one way gangplank right now and I have a feeling that they are proposing too much change and the result will like the ward referendum in Vancouver. There will be different aspects that cause different voters to vote no and the yes side won't even get a 50% +1, far short of the 60% requirment.

I can't imagine that a situation where a party receives seats proportional to the number of votes cast will be a bad thing for the democratic process.

However, the fear of change because I don't fully understand it crowd will likely have their vote. It's unfortunate, because there is truckloads of research and examples out there showing that proportional systems, with reasonable safeguards, are much more democratic, balanced, and stable than our current wild swings across the map.

I'd love to see a legislature based on on negotiation, compromise and balancing of options, rather than continuous rubber stamping by the majority party.

Honestly the STV or the MMPR system would be an improvement. I'd love to have a second choice, if my first one doesn't make it.

An open list can be risky (leading to party members campaigning against each other), but it would help keep the deadwood out of the 'safe' top of the list. Woe betide Gordon Campbell if he dares to go on the list...


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 18 October 2004 06:33 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

That deserves an answer.


My best guess would be that 40% of the seats is 36 seats, so 5-10 candidates might not be enough.

Also, the purpose of the list candidates would be to bring the total seats up to proportionality, not to have a separate race.

I actually realy like the MMPR system as laid out in that document. It would be unique to BC, with roots in a number of other democracies. It might work really well at balancing our definite need for regional representation with a more recently identified and definite need for representation of other 'communities of interest' that are not geographical.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 18 October 2004 06:39 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Tackaberry:
I like the idea of allowing ppl to vote on open lists, but if you're going that far why not just let them rank 5-10 candidates from a master list made up of all parties?

With MMP you have two ballots. With one, you vote for your local MLA. With the other, you vote for which party you want to see form the government. With open lists as used in Bavaria, you do this by voting either for the top name on your party's list or, I think, for a different name. Another variation on this is to either vote for the slate as nominated, or to re-rank the whole party list. Then again, you might be able to rank as many or as few as you want. But it's all on the second ballot where you are choosing the party you want to see form the government. Ranking candidates of all parties would contradict the rest of the ballot.


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Pete Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6814

posted 18 October 2004 06:50 PM      Profile for Pete Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wilfred:
Wouldn't they be nominated by party members just as local candidates are nominated?

Pete:
Oh, I hope so, I guess that would be up to each Party.


Wilfred:
Actually it's the reverse. If you used the regional totals, voters in the lesser populated areas would lose their votes if they voted for a party getting less than the effective threshold in the small region. Using the provincial total treats all regions equally.

Pete:
Ah, but it doesn't.
Let's say the 10 Northern ridings form a Region with 6/4. The vote totals are:
Lib 82,024 for 62.82% Prov%=57.62
NDP 26,315 for 19.51% Prov%=21.56
Grn 6,812 for 5.05% Prov%=9.75
Uni 6,786 for 5.03% Prov%=3.23
Mari 6,496 for 4.82% Prov%=3.22

The Parties could put up to 4 candidates on the List Ballot. Assuming the 6 ridings all went Liberal, how would the four list seats be allocated? The NDP is easy again as they clearly get 2 seats and the top two list candidates win. The Green according to the provincial % get one but if the regional % was used, there is no significant difference between the Greens, Unity or the Marijuana Party.

That's what I meant by discrimination, the voters in Vancouver are influencing who becomes a Northern MLA.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd like to see more info on this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So would I. The details should show up on this page as DELIBERATION PHASE, Weekend 3 when they're posted.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Pete Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6814

posted 18 October 2004 06:52 PM      Profile for Pete Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by arborman:

My best guess would be that 40% of the seats is 36 seats


40% of 79 is 31.6 so it would either be 31 or 32.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Pete Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6814

posted 18 October 2004 07:05 PM      Profile for Pete Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Wilfred Day:

But it's all on the second ballot where you are choosing the party you want to see form the government. Ranking candidates of all parties would contradict the rest of the ballot.


From the Press Release:
"They would vote for their constituency candidate using the Alternative Vote (AV) system

Voters would vote for party-list candidates drawn from their region. But list seats would be allocated based on the province-wide vote, to ensure proportionality.

Party lists would be “open”, with voters able to rank candidates on the list "

I may be reading this wrong but I'm assuming that we would be ranking the all the parties candidates in a region. If the North Region example in my earlier post did result in 2 ND, 1 Grn and 1 Unity, it would be the top 2 NDs elected, the first Green and the first Unity. There is no vote for a particular party in their proposal for the regional ballot, the prov % is determined by the votes cast in the riding contests.

Of course, I may be totally reading this incorrectly or I guess I'm going to attend this next week and listen to all the details that they are not making clear.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 18 October 2004 07:46 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Pete Smith:

40% of 79 is 31.6 so it would either be 31 or 32.


Ahem. Yes, what he said. Never claimed to have a head for math...


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 18 October 2004 11:05 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Pete Smith:
There is no vote for a particular party in their proposal for the regional ballot, the prov % is determined by the votes cast in the riding contests.

Of course, I may be totally reading this incorrectly . . .


A lot of details are not spelled out in the press release. One thing it does say is "Voters would have two votes on their ballots, one for a constituency member and one covering the party list vote." That's the basic idea of the MMP system. So then the provincial % is determined by the votes cast on the second (party) ballot.

It also says "A few details of the MMP model were put off until next weekend." That's fine. They're taking the time to get it right.

[ 19 October 2004: Message edited by: Wilfred Day ]


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 18 October 2004 11:17 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Pete Smith:
Open list does mean that the voters decide on the "top spot" right?

Right.

quote:
they have not made it clear whether riding candidates could be put on the list. If so, it is not clear to me what happens when a riding candidate is successful but is also successful on the list?

That commonly happens in Scotland, New Zealand and Germany. Suppose a party is entitled to five MLAs from a region. Suppose they won three local seats. Suppose the voters in the region ranked the party's list candidates in such a way that (to take a simple example) the three local winners happened to be also ranked one, two and three on the regional list. Then the two regional MLAs are numbers four and five from the regional list.

quote:
how in the heck do they do the rounding?

You now qualify as a true PR nerd. They get quite excited about the different rounding methods. I didn't used to care until I tried a few simulations, and now I'm a qualified nerd.


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Pete Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6814

posted 19 October 2004 09:11 PM      Profile for Pete Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Wilfred Day:

You now qualify as a true PR nerd. They get quite excited about the different rounding methods. I didn't used to care until I tried a few simulations, and now I'm a qualified nerd.


Re-qualified a bit. I once wrote a paper on a SNTV system used by Japan. STV but you only get one vote in a district but 4-6 candidates would be elected. This forced parties to really strategize, the Japanese Communist Party could win the occasional seat by running one candidate and hoping to finish sixth in an urban six member district. Sometimes the LDP and JSP would screw themselves up by running too many candidates and splitting their vote too much.

It looked like a fun system that was open to independents but only rewarded people with significant support, none of this 3% stuff.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 19 October 2004 11:36 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Pete Smith:
I once wrote a paper on a SNTV system used by Japan. . . It looked like a fun system that was open to independents but only rewarded people with significant support, none of this 3% stuff.

Since then, Japan has changed to the Russian system, with some seats as large as 30 members (3% threshold.)

But the real threshold debate has been in Europe. The 5% threshold (high by previous German standards) was imposed by the British occupation authorities when they created the MMP system in 1946. It was a good idea in post-war Germany. Later it sometimes caused unintended problems for the small liberal party, and it stopped the Greens from getting on the map for a while. A lot of Germans wanted to change it to 4%. When post-communist Hungary copied the German system in 1989, they used 4%. Many other European countries have a 4% threshold.

The BC Citizens' Assembly may be saying they want to keep the door open to new and diverse views: independents in local ridings, and new parties that get only 3% across the province. That sounds like BC. I can imagine other provinces sticking with 4% or 5%.

The worst recent horror story on high thresholds was the 2002 election in Turkey. In order to keep out the ethnic minority rights party (= "Kurdish party" although there are a couple more little minorities that support it too) they have a 10% threshold.

As the last Parliament was grinding to a halt (the governing coalition had fallen apart) there was a move to change it to the usual 5%. The European Union has been pushing for this anyway: the 10% rule was obviously aimed at disfranchising minorities. And the party system had splintered to the point that simple self-preservation should have encouraged the Turkish Parliament to make the change. But it voted 191 to 170 to go to the polls without changing the threshold, to cries of "we're committing suicide." Sure enough, they ALL lost.

The result was:

AK (Justice and Development Party, a new "islamic-democratic" party): 34.3%

Republican People's Party (CHP, left, secular, pro-European Union, which had fallen just below the 10% threshold in 1999): 19.4%

True Path Party (DYP, centre-right, secular, pro-European Union, led by Tansu Ciller, Turkey's only woman to be prime minister): 9.6%

Nationalist Action Party (MHP, right-wing, anti European Union, secular): 8.4%

Democratic People's Party (DEHAP, pro-Kurdish alliance): 6.2%

The Young Party (a new populist vehicle for a media baron) 7.2%

Motherland Party (ANAP, conservative, pro-European Union, secular): 5.1%

Other parties with less than 5%: 9.84%

So the German 5% threshold would have resulted in the four secular pro-European Union parties having 45.9% of the seats. They could have dominated a coalition with any one of the other three parties.

Instead, Turkey has a two-party Parliament. The (hopefully moderate) islamic-democratic party has a clear majority with only 34.3% of the vote, worse than anything we have seen in Canada. More than 46% of the voters have been disenfranchised.

All to keep out the Kurds. Not a good example of proportional representation.

But a good reason to avoid high thresholds.


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Pete Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6814

posted 20 October 2004 02:35 AM      Profile for Pete Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hi Wilfred,

Well, I don't want to assume you don't have any "on the ground" experience in BC and I don't mean to be insulting but this is a stranger place than those who haven't lived here in a political environment really understand.

A poli sci prof of mine at UVic told a new prof that "until you've been here for ten years, you won't be able to accurately comment on BC politics."

The anti-establishment factor is big here and dominates most of the swing vote, it wasn't the ideology that caused a dramatic drop in the Can Alliance vote and moved a lot of it to the NDP, it was the Liberal ads that put Mulroney's face on the CA party that stupidly put Mulroney's party name (Conservative) on the ballot.

Think about it, Randy White's comments did not move a voter who voted for Stockwell Day to the NDP camp. I've digressed here only to change the academic nature of your points to BC, the Turkish experience is not really relevent to the debate and as we saw in the wards vote, (which I'm so pissed off about that it may be tainting my thoughts here), if the people/voters think they are being manipulated they will respond in a James Dean/BC way.

The Assembly has been put in a bubble and IMHO are about to propose a model that will be rejected by BC. I watched the proceedings on TV on the weekend, I did not feel confident in the process.

In the ward vote, I agreed with the aim/model but thought they over reached themselves. I don't agree with what they're proposing, I don't think the academic "hands on the steering wheel" have considered that voters will be naturally wary of the proposal and I don't think there's any chance that electoral reform will receive 60% approval in the next election.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
captain_easychord
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1296

posted 20 October 2004 06:10 AM      Profile for captain_easychord     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
well, a hell of a time to jump in. Hi, I'm on the assembly; those of you who stop by next weekend should say hi(just pm me for my real name, though I'm sure you can figure out who i am from the website).

We've spent a lot of time concerned over whether what we recommend will be passable. There's been suggestion from within to water down our proposal for easier passage, thinking that any change is better than none. A majority view, though, is that we were tasked to build the best system for the province, and to lowball it for the sake of the referendum would be dishonest. Also, we really don't know what is passable and what isn't: there's no barometer to use. Vancouver's ward vote, IMO, would have passed had the vote not been held separately from a general election and the process not been constrained from the beginning(berger was told to justify wards, basically, and cope stacked the hearings). We've dealt with those. I'm counting on the process to help us out a lot; anyone who's been following closely won't be able to contest our legitimacy, as much as they might want to dismiss the project as a Campbell PR fest. Anti-establishment and anti-party sentiment, if translated properly, should be wholly in our favour. I mean, the whole CA concept is anti-intellectual at its core, and fairly anti-establishment too.

Right now we've got a neutral position from the gov't(though I expect many indiv. MLAs will be opposing) and a blank endorsement from the opposition parties. My hope is that the blank endorsement will hold fast even if we don't go for MMP, which the NDP and Greens are on side with.

The suggestion that we've spent more time on MMP and therefore favour it over STV is false: there are simply more details in a mixed proportional system. I honestly couldn't put a barometer on which way the assembly's leaning right now(and if I could guess, could I even tell you? *wink*) in terms of a new system. It's no shocker to say that there probably will be a referendum, but even that's still not decided.

I'm very curious as to why STV would guarantee right-wing gov'ts forever, moreso than other systems. If you've got serious numbers and arguments behind this view, please, give them to me. We've gotten a lot of that argument from Green party diehards, but it's been unconvincing, to say the least. I'm open to hearing a good argument on this.

The nasty fact is that any properly representative/proportional system would not have produced an NDP majority in '72, '91, or(obv.)'96. Given likely coalitions, we may never have seen an NDP gov't at any point. Our province simply isn't that friendly. I daresay that it is in the NDP's partisan interest to keep SMP, because it's the only way they'll win gov't in the current landscape.

I'll check this thread; sorry I'd missed it until now. I'm happy to answer what questions I can.


From: The West Beyond the West | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
captain_easychord
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1296

posted 20 October 2004 06:12 AM      Profile for captain_easychord     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I almost forgot to mention: Wilfred, you'll be happy to know that your submission has gotten a lot of positive attention, both from the assembly and from our resident political scientists. kudos.
From: The West Beyond the West | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 20 October 2004 10:05 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by captain_easychord:
We've spent a lot of time concerned over whether what we recommend will be passable.

Entirely apart from whether STV is the best system -- more below -- I'm very concerned it's not passable.

If STV should be acceptable anywhere outside Ireland, it should be for municipalities in New Zealand. They've been educated on PR. And STV is almost universally acknowledged to be a good system for municipalities, even by those who oppose it for Parliaments.

And yet, as you can see from this webpage, it has not been well received by New Zealand municipalities. Seventy-six have stayed with FPTP. Only ten have changed. Worse, of the 18 that held referendums on the issue, 15 failed to accept STV. Only 3 municipalities passed it in the referendums.

One concern about BC is the political parties. STV will be accepted only if there is a wave of anti-party sentiment.

Few political party activists really like STV, even in Ireland. It dissolves parties. Every candidate is a quasi-independent, running against each other. In Northern Ireland which I have watched closely, you had many members of Trimble's party running as pro-agreement, many others running as skeptics, some trying to sit on the fence. That's the fundamental issue in Northern Ireland. In BC, imagine a party which supports freedom of choice on abortion, or gay marriage, having some candidates trying to compete against each other by appealing, more or less subtly, to the right-to-life or anti-gay marriage voters.

STV will be seen as an oddball idea. Ireland (both north and south) adopted STV in 1920, when electoral reform ideas were new. (The North later dropped it and then went back to it.) Since 1920, no country has copied the Irish system for their House of Commons.

MMP, on the other hand, created only in 1946, is now being copied everywhere. Hungary in 1989, followed by several others, followed by New Zealand, followed by Scotland. Even established list-PR countries like the Netherlands are switching to it, in order to have MLAs more accountable. Last year an Electoral Reform Task Force in South Africa recommended they switch to MMP for the same reason, but the ANC government decided "not yet." (Pure list gives them more control within their party.) It's clearly a saleable system. That's why New Zealand, in a referendum, chose MMP over STV. Unfortunately, the BC CA doesn't have that option. You have to get it right first time.

Besides, STV favours those who can get their names known across a wider region: incumbents, rich men, populist demagogues, whatever. Mostly males.

Changing a political culture, towards a more equal voice for women, takes an effort on several fronts. One of them is the list portion of MMP. Take Germany. Years ago, the Social Democrats adopted a party policy of nominating, for every five list candidates, two women, two men, and one open choice. This 40% plus system (usually it ran over 45% women) shamed the heavily-male Christian Democrats into adopting a party rule of naming a woman to at least one of every three positions on the list. The power of example has been sufficient, without any legal quotas, and without any internal party rules for the local half of the seats, to bring Germany up to 32.2% women in their Parliament. That's 13th place in the world. Other countries have done better, like Belgium, but they needed a pure list system with a legal quota system to get there.

Granted, with open lists, there is no guarantee that the voters will endorse the ranking of list candidates as nominated by the party. But at least there is a list in the first place. That's the power of example. With STV, parties never nominate as many candidates as there are seats. It's tactically unwise, in the tactics of trying to knock competing parties' candidates off first as the count progresses. A party wants to nominate no more than one candidate more than they hope to elect. So they have to nominate their "strongest names." Incumbents and sports stars are very good.

As to whether STV will elect right-wing governments, my answer is: it's hard to say. STV can produce unpredictable results. The victory margin on the final count will likely come from the sixth choices of voters who voted for a minor party candidate or for a major party candidate with a big surplus, aided by the abstentions of some voters who only ranked their top three. It's great fun watching the count in Northern Ireland, which can take a couple of days. You never know how it may turn out. (Of course, BC would likely use computers and spoil all the fun.)

[ 20 October 2004: Message edited by: Wilfred Day ]


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 21 October 2004 09:19 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Even in Ireland, some people want to switch to MMP, including a conservative Fianna Fail cabinet minister in 2002:
quote:
My preference for an electoral system which combines single seat constituencies, directly elected, plus an element of a list system is well known . . .

Unfortunately that call has elicited the usual knee jerk reaction from opponents who have rushed out to defend the system we have and for which it is claimed that it is:

Proportionate: despite the fact that Fianna Fail got 12 seats more than their % vote would have entitled them in 1997 - Fine Gael got 8 more while the smaller parties all got less, and

Representative: despite the fact women who make up 51% of the electorate make up about 15% of the Oireachtas [Parliament], not to mention people with disabilities, travellers, young people.



From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874

posted 21 October 2004 07:29 PM      Profile for West Coast Greeny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think a good alternative to the party-list system would be to have those candidates who lost with the highest % vote in their riding fill out party ranks in a Mixed parliment, rather than have a party list system. Otherwise, like others said, we could end up with a lot of politicians in the house that the parties love, and the people hate (like having Conservative Quebecers in the House of Commons (couldn't think of a
BC example))

From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 21 October 2004 10:36 PM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, sometimes people who would make good politicians but poor candidates (not sufficiently extraverted, for instance) could get in that way.

Of course, this could be accomplished using losing candidates as well. That would also have the advantage of simplicity; on the other hand the optics could be bad if opponents of the system make a big stink about how the system lets people who were rejected by the voters get in anyhow.


From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Threads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3415

posted 21 October 2004 10:49 PM      Profile for Threads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But couldn't opponents complain about "rejected" candidates still being elected in a closed/open list system too? (The only way to avoid that would be if the electoral rules were written so that you could run either as a riding candidate or a list candidate, but not both, I think.)
From: where I stand | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 21 October 2004 11:12 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Netherlands, which is in the process of switching to MMP, had a clause in their position paper from last December requiring candidates to be either riding candidates or regional list candidates, but not both. I don't know whether that clause is still in the draft which was endorsed by their cabinet Aug. 20. If so, they aim to be the only MMP jurisdiction with such a provision.

Most MMP jurisdictions leave it up to the parties and the voters to nominate and elect whomever they want.


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
captain_easychord
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1296

posted 22 October 2004 01:24 AM      Profile for captain_easychord     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
We entertained that, called a 'best loser' option, or even 'silver winner', but decided against it, in favour of a regional list. I can't quite recall the exact reason

We opted to let candidates run on either the list or in a constituency, or even both as it suits them. This can lead to candidates winning off the list despite losing a constituency, but allows party leaders, for example, the chance to contest a constituency seat yet be guaranteed a seat if the party is small and only qualifies for list seats.

Thanks for the info, Wilfred; it's all heavily upon my mind.


From: The West Beyond the West | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
BleedingHeart
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3292

posted 22 October 2004 05:24 PM      Profile for BleedingHeart   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Maybe we should declare candidates who post personal bests elected.

quote:
Originally posted by captain_easychord:
We entertained that, called a 'best loser' option, or even 'silver winner',


From: Kickin' and a gougin' in the mud and the blood and the beer | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tackaberry
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 487

posted 15 November 2004 10:48 AM      Profile for Tackaberry   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The switch from the present to the proportional system has the strong support of the NDP and the Green party because it would give them more seats in the Commons and more leverage to get their ideologically preferred policies enacted.
Canadians who do not share these ideological views should therefore oppose the adoption of the proportional voting system

Click the link for more bad logic and some of the best examples of false dichotomies (well, since youre either with us or against us anyway) brought to you by the Fraser Institute.

[ 15 November 2004: Message edited by: Tackaberry ]


From: Tokyo | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
captain_easychord
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1296

posted 16 November 2004 04:19 AM      Profile for captain_easychord     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
See, the FI is out to lunch. There is nothing inherently ideological about any electoral system, only varying degrees of accuray is translating votes to seats. The very same system that keeps the NDP back in Ottawa gave them a majority gov't in BC, 1996 with only 39% of the pop. vote, while the opposition Liberals got 41%. ProRep at the federal level, in any form, would only be a better representation of what people actually vote for. Left wing policies would only get traction if people voted for them; the same goes for right wing policies.

If you want your viewpoint to prevail, you've got to campaign for it, and hope people agree. ProRep just means that the votes cast after that campaign aren't quite as distorted in translation. Electoral gerrymandering for any one ideology is not only dishonest, it's disingenuous; it doesn't really work.


From: The West Beyond the West | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 04 November 2008 08:49 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by captain_easychord:
Hi, I'm on the assembly. . .

A discussion which may well continue, with the second referendum next May.

From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
thorin_bane
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6194

posted 06 November 2008 04:31 AM      Profile for thorin_bane     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I wish Ontario had endorsed MMP that is the one I prefer...stupid Dave Cooke We didn't even reach 50% unlike BC. Course we don't get 40% of voters(that do vote) disenfranchised either.
From: Looking at the despair of Detroit from across the river! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 06 November 2008 06:26 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by thorin_bane:
Course we don't get 40% of voters(that do vote) disenfranchised either.

Actually we do. In last month's election 52.88% of Ontario voters were "orphan voters" whose votes elected no one, 2,725,090 voters. Arlene Switzer won the $100 prize for the closest guess.
quote:
Originally posted by thorin_bane:
I wish Ontario had endorsed MMP that is the one I prefer...stupid Dave Cooke

Indeed, for Ontario I preferred MMP because of the size of our ridings, more than twice the size of BC's provincial ridings. Although, if the Ontario Citizens' Assembly had met for another three weekends as its Chair now says they had needed, I'm fairly sure they would have taken a second look at closed province-wide lists for the 39 "top-up" MPPs, and come up with regional open lists instead.

For BC, their Citizens' Assembly preferred STV over MMP by a vote of 123 to 31, a very decisive margin.

Then they voted on whether they thought the current electoral system, often known as First Past the Post, should be retained. The vote: 142 No, 11 Yes.

Then they voted on whether the STV model they have designed should be proposed to the people. The vote: 146 Yes, 7 No.


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Benoit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15667

posted 06 November 2008 02:07 PM      Profile for Benoit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Simply, the way the citizens' assembly in British Columbia is deciding has to become the way the general population is deciding who will represent them in all other legislatures.
From: Montreal | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca