B.C. election: Carole James concedes defeat as Campbell rides to a third term

http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/www.vancouversun.com/business/election+carole+james+concedes+defeat+campbell+rides+third+term/1589774/1589886.bin

The good news for NDP leader Carole James is that she has won her riding. That's more than Jane Sterk, the leader of The Greens, did. The bad news is the Liberals have run away with another B.C. election.

Liberal Premier Gordon Campbell won a rare third majority government Tuesday night, giving him a mandate to lead British Columbia through the recession and ensuring he’ll be premier during the 2010 Olympic Games.

Campbell’s Liberals were leading or elected in 49 ridings Tuesday night, compared to 36 for Carole James’ New Democratic Party.

Shortly before 10 p.m. Tuesday, Carole James conceded defeat to Premier Gordon Campbell and told supporters she plans to keep his feet to the fire.

"A few moments ago I talked to Premier Cambell and offered my congratulations for his victory this evening," said James, "and assured him the New Democrats will work for the betterment of this province we all call home. As we all realize, the results aren't what we hoped for, but the views of our constituents will be very well represented by New Democrats elected tonight."

In claiming victory in his riding of Vancouver-Point Grey, Gordon Campbell gave thanks to his support team, saying, "One of the things I say to everybody is, you don't get to be premier if you don't get to be an MLA."

Campbell welcomed James' concession. "I appreciated her call, it was done in the right spirit, and it recognizes a lot of the problems we have in B.C. transcend political boundaries .... We have to listen to one another and learn from one another and I vow to do that as leader."

"We took the steps people told us not to take," said Campbell. "They weren't easy to take politically, but they were right to take. They can be done, they must be done and they will be done for the sake of our children."

"I appreciate the thousands and thousands of British Columbians who took the time to vote, whoever they decided to vote for," he added.

With a Liberal win, Campbell became the first B.C. premier in 26 years to win three consecutive elections. Former Social Credit leader Bill Bennett was last to pull off the feat, winning in 1975, 1979 and 1983.

The win also gives Campbell a mandate to push ahead with policies like his carbon tax, and the plan to keep the minimum wage at $8 per hour until economic storm clouds clear.

As of 9:45 p.m., B.C. Elections data shows 49 Liberal candidates in today's B.C. election to be leading in their ridings, while 36 NDP candidates have a break on their opponents. No Green candidates looks likely to pick up a victory.

In the popular vote, the Liberals have racked up 45.8 percent of votes counted, while the NDP is sitting on 42.1 percent. The Greens have polled 8.1 percent, indicating a fair-sized swing of former Green voters shifted to the NDP camp. The Conservatives sit on roughly 2.1 percent of the vote, with other parties struggling to grab enough votes to merit a mention.

In the referendum on electoral reform, British Columbians dealt what is likely to be a fatal blow to the Single Transferrable Vote system, appearing reject the idea for the second time in a row. At press time, only 39 per cent had voted for STV, well below the 60 per cent it needed to pass.

In the hotly contested seat of Delta South, Liberal star Wally Oppal has a one-vote vote break on independent Vicki Huntington with over half the ballot boxes counted.

Jenn McGinn of the NDP took a fall against Liberal Margaret McDiarmid in Vancouver-Fairview, with a 15 percent gap going to McDiarmid with a significant piece of the count locked away.

In what may be Carole James' sole consolation on the night, the NDP looked to tighten its political grip on Vancouver Island as the party battled provincial Liberal and Green contenders in traditionally strong New Democrat territory.

Results as of 9:30 p.m. showed the NDP with an early hold on most of Vancouver Island’s seats, however, several of the ridings were close battles separated by only a handful of votes.

In Cowichan Valley, where there was no incumbent, NDP candidate Bill Routley was declared winner over Cathy Basskin of the Liberals and Simon Lindley of the Greens.

NDP incumbent Maurine Karagianis was declared winner in Esquimalt-Royal Roads — she had a wide lead over Liberal Carl Ratsoy after initial polls were reported.

For the Green Party, the election meant going backwards. Green Party of B.C. Leader Jane Sterk, who was hoping to win the first legislative seat for the Greens, was trailing third in results, behind both Karagianis and Ratsoy.

At press time, the party had no seats and just over 8 per cent of the popular vote.

Sterk said she had hoped that her reputation as a former Esquimalt municipal councillor would win her seat, but NDP incumbent Maurine Karagianis surged ahead.

“I’m not surprised on one level. It was a long shot,” Sterk said.

Sterk said during the campaign she was forgoing a provincial leader’s tour this time to focus on winning her riding of Esquimalt-Royal Roads.

"We have a very strategic campaign, given the fact that we are not elected and we need to get people elected into the legislature," Sterk during the campaign.

"I don't have the luxury as the leader, like the other two do, where I can leave my riding for extended periods of time and assume that I'm going to win my seat," she added.

Sterk got 17 per cent of the vote in her riding Tuesday night.

Tuesday’s election returned many of Campbell’s top ministers from his previous cabinet including Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation Mike de Jong, Health Minister George Abbott and Finance Minister Colin Hansen.

John van Dongen, who had to resign during the campaign as solicitor-general because his license was suspended, also won.

“I think things have been very positive,” said van Dongen Tuesday night.

Van Dongen admitted there have been some jokes about his tickets but said people have been “very supportive.”

“They know I’ve worked very hard for the riding for the last 14 years,” he said.

In Kootenay East, Minister of Tourism Culture and the Arts Bill Bennett beat held on to secure the southeastern riding that many thought might swing to the NDP.

“It’s quite humbling to have such a strong show of support with people who live in this rural riding,” said Bennett, who won in 2005 with fewer than 700 votes.

“When it comes to election time, you’re not always rewarded,” the three-term MLA said. “This is a swing riding. It swings to the NDP more than it swings to us.”

Despite those who held on, there were some cabinet ministers who looked in trouble.

Liberal cabinet ministers Ida Chong and Murray Coell faced tough battles in the ridings of Oak Bay-Gordon Head and Saanich North and the Islands, from NDP candidates Jessica Van der Veen and Gary Holman. The ridings were too close to call around 9:30 p.m.

While some ministers were in trouble, Campbell did see new faces that many have speculated could hold cabinet potential.

Kash Heed, who some are touting as a possible solicitor-general, won his Vancouver Fairview riding.

Moira Stilwell also carried her riding of Vancouver-Langara.

Regional breakdowns also played a key role Tuesday night.

Surrey voters appeared to stick to the status quo, with six incumbents leading in eight ridings.

In Surrey-Tynehead, Liberal incumbent Dave Hayer maintained a narrow lead over NDP rival Pat Zanon for most of the evening.

At press time, Hayer had 1,579 votes, about 200 more than the NDP’s Debbie Lawrance at 1,355 with 43 out of 125 polls reporting.

Hayer was left vulnerable after a recent shift in electoral boundaries added a swath of NDP-friendly Surrey-Whalley to his riding, but appeared to be hanging on.

In the newly-created riding of Surrey-Fleetwood, the race was also neck and neck, with NDP veteran Jagrup Brar holding on to a slight lead of less than 300 votes over Liberal upstart Jagmohan Singh.

Brar, who represented Surrey-Panorama Ridge in 2005, but jumped to the Fleetwood Riding after distribution, had 1,465 votes compared to Singh’s 1,187 at press time with 28 out of 138 ballot boxes reporting.

In Surrey-Panorama, Liberal candidate and political newcomer Stephanie Cadieux appeared headed to Victoria after pulling away with 60 per cent of the votes compared to NDP candidate Debbie Lawrance’s 34 per cent early on.

“I’m feeling pretty good, very anxious to see the final results,” said a cautiously-optimistic Cadieux, who was watching results slowly trickle in at her campaign office.

The Liberals maintained their hold over most of the North Shore Tuesday, with party candidates sweeping to victory in three of four ridings.

At press time, only two of the four crucial Burnaby ridings appeared to be decided, with Liberal Harry Bloy leading in Burnaby-Lougheed and NDP Raj Chouhan leading in Burnaby-Edmonds.

At press time, both Burnaby-Deer Lake and Burnaby North were too close to call.

On Vancouver Island, the NDP held its political grip Tuesday night. Results as of 9:30 p.m. showed New Democrats elected or leading in 10 of 14 Island ridings.

"It's been such an honour for me to work with thousands of British Columbians throughout this campaign through their struggles and successes.... To NDP workers, you've put in incredible hours, working phones, knocking on doors, putting up signs, thank you for your incredible hard work," said James.

"I've always said that politics and community service is a noble cause, and I believe that to this day. I urge you all to continue to speak out between elections because democracy isn't something that happens every four years."

For James, the election result will prompt countless post-mortems on her campaign, and will have some within the party questioning her political future.

James was elected leader of the NDP in November 2003, promising a modern vision for the party and a new relationship with unionized labour.

In 2005, James led the party to 33 seats from the three it had before. The Liberals took 46 seats in that election.

This time, new electoral boundaries have added six seats to the Legislature, meaning there are a total 85 seats up for grabs.

On Tuesday night, James’s party was leading or elected in 36 seats, which meant it gained seats from the 34 it had going into the election -- a factor that is sure to allow James a strong argument she should stay on as leader.

"I think we're all going to sit down and take a look and reflect on the results tonight, and I'll always do what's best for the party and for British Columbians," she said

James paid respect to Gordon Campbell for winning a third term; "It's a great accomplishment, he deserves congrats for his service to British Columbia and continued service as premier. We'll be going in as a stronger voice, we've got some new members in the legislature. I think we ran a very strong campaign, clearly the economy was a strong concern for people and they were looking at not changing horses in a tough time."

The Liberals nearly swept every seat in the 2001 election, winning 77 of 79 ridings. Cuts and layoffs leading up to the 2005 election led to a more balanced government with 46 Liberals and 33 NDP Members of Legislative Assembly.

jfowlie@vancouversun.com

-- With files from Doug Ward and Canwest News Service
Source: Vancouver Sun, CanWest Media

HELL YEAH !!!!!!!

is it true that BC's liberals are actually conservatives?

^ yes, but nowhere near as Conservative as the party in Alberta. They are the only sane choice British Columbians have as the NDP is far too left of centre, fringy, and is the puppet of unions.

so is there a Conservative party at the provincial level in BC? the article didn't mention one, so i'm guessing no?

Excellent. Hopefully this will bury the proportional representation movement in this country once and for all. The PR people really should have gotten the hint long ago that people simply aren't interested in their cause.

^^ you mean that people don't understand their cause. i don't know how it worked in BC, but in Ontario the MMP question was tacked onto a general election and most people checked NO because they didn't know what it meant and didn't bother to learn about it.

they should have had a separate referendum to see what the people really wanted.

FPTP is for those that can't wrap their feeble little minds around superior systems. If their minds weren't so feeble, they'd realize that FPTP is inappropriate for a political environment with more than 2 parties.

^^ you mean that people don't understand their cause. i don't know how it worked in BC, but in Ontario the MMP question was tacked onto a general election and most people checked NO because they didn't know what it meant and didn't bother to learn about it.

they should have had a separate referendum to see what the people really wanted.

"People don't understand" is such a ridiculous excuse, yet it's the same garbage that the PR people bring up every single time they get defeated. It's tiring, and honestly it's insulting to voters. After being defeated in BC and Ontario and everywhere else, it's time to end the nonsense.

If people are just not interested in an idea, then it doesn't matter how hard or how long the proponents try to "educate" people about it. For example, it doesn't matter how hard you try to introduce me to some no-name alternative Scandinavian rock band. I'll politely nod and smile, but I'm not going educate myself all about the band's history and artistic influences and everything, because I simply don't care enough about this stupid band to bother. I have better things to do with my time, and I'm fine with the songs on my iPod. You may think they're the greatest band ever and think you have superior musical taste compared to everyone else, but not everyone agrees.

The PR people have been "educating" people for years and years. If their message isn't getting through, then maybe it's time to accept that people just don't want to hear about it. A dumb idea is going to get rejected no matter how many times it's proposed.

And for the record, I consider myself a political junkie that is very well educated on STV, MMP and all sorts of systems. I believe FPTP to be the superior system for Canada. In 2007, I happily voted for FPTP in Ontario along with a overwhelming majority of Ontarians. Yet according to the PR people, I and others were too uneducated because we didn't vote the way they wanted.

:hahaha: FPTP a superior system.
There is no reason to support FPTP unless you belong to one of the two biggest parties that stand to lose from it.
Don't act like you're an authority figure, no one that knows how the system works would support FPTP, unless they're a plant by the Libs or Cons. Most telling is your argument that it is a superior system without giving any reasons as to how it is superior. FPTP is a sham, has been ever since there were more than 2 real parties. There are enough examples throughout Canadian political history to prove it's a sham in 3+-way races. Ironically, Bob Rae's Ontario NDP victory is a prime example.

^^ Sounds more like you're a supporter of the NDP/Green/other fringe party that supports PR for the obvious reasons. There's nothing "sham" about FPTP, except from the perspective of some fringe party trying to become relevant.

So tell me, after yet another resounding defeat, when are the proportional representation people going to get the message that people just don't want it?

^^ Sounds more like you're a supporter of the NDP/Green/other fringe party that supports PR for the obvious reasons. There's nothing "sham" about FPTP, except from the perspective of some fringe party trying to become relevant.

So tell me, after yet another resounding defeat, when are the proportional representation people going to get the message that people just don't want it?
I support votes being counted, and that a candidate be required to break 50% to win a seat, rather than 20% as is the case currently in Quebec. And you don't support votes being counted, and believe that 20%+1 is enough to win a seat. That's all that it comes down to. You're selfishness leads you to support the unjust practices of an outdated voting mechanism from the late 1800s. And you still have no argument whatsoever to defend your empty claim that the sham FPTP system is superior.

If you think that getting 10% of the popular vote is irrelevant and doesn't deserve getting a seat, which is the philosophy of current system, then you have no sense of integrity, equality, or morality. You believe in depriving people of their representation in government just to suit your own selfish agenda.

Most people do want it, btw. In the election before this one, BC voted in FAVOUR of a better system by 58%. But because the government, aware that it would hurt its own seat count, deliberately set out to sabotage it by setting the bar at 60% instead of 50%+1, the will of the people was ignored. This is the kind of deplorable tactics your ilk sinks to.

I support votes being counted, and that a candidate be required to break 50% to win a seat, rather than 20% as is the case currently in Quebec. And you don't support votes being counted, and believe that 20%+1 is enough to win a seat. That's all that it comes down to. You're selfishness leads you to support the unjust practices of an outdated voting mechanism from the late 1800s. And you still have no argument whatsoever to defend your empty claim that the sham FPTP system is superior.

If you think that getting 10% of the popular vote is irrelevant and doesn't deserve getting a seat, which is the philosophy of current system, then you have no sense of integrity, equality, or morality. You believe in depriving people of their representation in government just to suit your own selfish agenda.

Most people do want it, btw. In the election before this one, BC voted in FAVOUR of a better system by 58%. But because the government, aware that it would hurt its own seat count, deliberately set out to sabotage it by setting the bar at 60% instead of 50%+1, the will of the people was ignored. This is the kind of deplorable tactics your ilk sinks to.

Funny, you just proved my point that this has nothing to do with voter education. With so much more education and awareness than four years ago, voters have decided overwhelmingly to reject a proposal they knew little about four years earlier. After all this you still insist that "most people do want it"? Either you are very hackish or you are in Fantasyland.

The only support behind electoral reform has always been from the die-hard loyalists to random fringe parties that stand to benefit from it. Most people are happy to spend their time talking about real issues like taxes and foreign affairs.

Please don't falsely hide your argument behind terms like justice or democracy. There is nothing more or less democratic about PR or FPTP, they are just different ways of interpretation. This has nothing to do with democracy. You are welcome to vote for any party you want, in the privacy of a voting booth, and your vote will get counted by unbiased election officials. If you and 12 other people decide to vote for some random fringe party, that's your choice and the vote is counted like everyone else's.

You might know that Canada's parliament is based on the Westminster system, which is very much rooted in the concept of a government party vs. opposition party, and representation through constituencies. Hence the Westminster parliament is naturally designed to work with a complementary FPTP electoral system. Using PR in a Westminster parliament is totally ignoring the mechanics of government.

I rather keep our FPP system. Other than the Greens, our election results pretty much match the popular vote standings. The only reason STV had a chance the last referendum is because we had an extreme majority the election before it, where BC Liberals took all except 2 seats. People then felt it wasn't representative... at least those who supported the NDP.

It really doesn't matter how BC changed the referendum now. 61% of all votes supported FPP. That's what matters.

If we look at the election results, Greens have lost a lot... 2 percentage points and personally, they have no one to blame but themselves.

I like the election results... something that won't be achieved with STV. Majority governments are important to get things moving and running. I'm not a fan of extreme majority... but this is nice.

Funny, you just proved my point that this has nothing to do with voter education. With so much more education and awareness than four years ago, voters have decided overwhelmingly to reject a proposal they knew little about four years earlier. After all this you still insist that "most people do want it"? Either you are very hackish or you are in Fantasyland.58% voted to ditch FPTP in BC 4 years ago.

The only support behind electoral reform has always been from the die-hard loyalists to random fringe parties that stand to benefit from it. Most people are happy to spend their time talking about real issues like taxes and foreign affairs.58% voted to ditch FPTP in BC 4 years ago.

Please don't falsely hide your argument behind terms like justice or democracy. There is nothing more or less democratic about PR or FPTP, they are just different ways of interpretation. This has nothing to do with democracy. You are welcome to vote for any party you want, in the privacy of a voting booth, and your vote will get counted by unbiased election officials. If you and 12 other people decide to vote for some random fringe party, that's your choice and the vote is counted like everyone else's. FPTP is far less democratic than other PR methods. That's irrefutable, as people are elected with less than 1/3, on occasion in Quebec even less than 1/4 support, and you are clearly ignorant by making such absurd statements as FPTP is no more nor less democratic than other systems. This has everything to do with democracy because democracy becomes a useless exercise if people believe their votes don't count... which is the case with FPTP, the majority of votes don't count because the majority of votes don't end up translating into anything representative. Again, Bob Rae's election in Ontario is a prime example. In theory, every seat could go to one party with as little as 1/3 popular support or less (as long as it is more than 1/4). That's not democratic at all, that's a system that fails to perform the function it was intended. It was fine when Liberal and Conservative were the only parties. There's 4 parties now, 5 in Quebec. Anybody with an ounce of intelligence and familiarity with the subject can tell that clearly the environment of politics has changed and the mechanics of voting have failed to keep up with those changes in the political environment.

Ever noticed the low voter turnout? It's because our current voting system is a failure, nobody believes their vote makes a difference because the majority of votes do not count.

You might know that Canada's parliament is based on the Westminster system, which is very much rooted in the concept of a government party vs. opposition party, and representation through constituencies. Hence the Westminster parliament is naturally designed to work with a complementary FPTP electoral system. Using PR in a Westminster parliament is totally ignoring the mechanics of government.
Irrelevant. We're free to change this as we see fit since Canada is a sovereign nation, we're not bound to use the Westminster system for eternity. Do you have any arguments that are not absurd? Because you still haven't contributed ANYTHING to support your ridiculous assertion that FPTP is the superior system. 58% voted to ditch FPTP in BC 4 years ago. Obviously they don't think FPTP is superior.

STV is by far the superior system, when will people learn?

I rather keep our FPP system. Other than the Greens, our election results pretty much match the popular vote standings. The only reason STV had a chance the last referendum is because we had an extreme majority the election before it, where BC Liberals took all except 2 seats. People then felt it wasn't representative... You contradicted yourself.

I like the election results... something that won't be achieved with STV. Majority governments are important to get things moving and running. I'm not a fan of extreme majority... but this is nice.
Majority governments are not important, in fact, minority governments are important because it ensures accountability. Majority governments allow abuses of power to happen and there's nothing that can be done when that happens until the next election. BC Rail is a great example.

58% voted to ditch FPTP in BC 4 years ago.



58% voted to ditch FPTP in BC 4 years ago.

Exactly, four years ago, which is why I said you just proved my point. PR supporters like you blamed the defeat four years ago on uneducated voters. And now four years later, much better educated voters overwhelmingly reject the same proposal from four years before. There is no more excuse. Thanks for proving my point again, twice.


FPTP is far less democratic than other PR methods. That's irrefutable, as people are elected with less than 1/3, on occasion in Quebec even less than 1/4 support, and you are clearly ignorant by making such absurd statements as FPTP is no more nor less democratic than other systems. This has everything to do with democracy because democracy becomes a useless exercise if people believe their votes don't count... which is the case with FPTP, the majority of votes don't count because the majority of votes don't end up translating into anything representative. Again, Bob Rae's election in Ontario is a prime example. In theory, every seat could go to one party with as little as 1/3 popular support or less (as long as it is more than 1/4). That's not democratic at all, that's a system that fails to perform the function it was intended. It was fine when Liberal and Conservative were the only parties. There's 4 parties now, 5 in Quebec. Anybody with an ounce of intelligence and familiarity with the subject can tell that clearly the environment of politics has changed and the mechanics of voting have failed to keep up with those changes in the political environment.

Ummm... really faulty logic here. Somehow you claim that more proportional == more democratic? What kind of logic is that? Irrefutable, how so? Proportionality does not mean the same thing as democracy. FPTP and PR are just different electoral systems for the same democratic society. Everyone is free to vote as they wish without intimidation or oppression. Just because the fringe party you support didn't get the most votes and therefore didn't win, doesn't mean you can blame the system for being "undemocratic". Please, cut out the righteous talk.

Irrelevant. We're free to change this as we see fit since Canada is a sovereign nation, we're not bound to use the Westminster system for eternity. Do you have any arguments that are not absurd? Because you still haven't contributed ANYTHING to support your ridiculous assertion that FPTP is the superior system. 58% voted to ditch FPTP in BC 4 years ago. Obviously they don't think FPTP is superior.

Maybe you don't understand, it will still be a Westminster system after adoption of PR. Except it will be a disaster since the mechanics of the Westminster system is designed to work with FPTP, not PR. This has nothing to do with being sovereign nation. If you don't get this you should study government mechanics a bit more.

Exactly, four years ago, which is why I said you just proved my point. PR supporters like you blamed the defeat four years ago on uneducated voters. And now four years later, much better educated voters overwhelmingly reject the same proposal from four years before. There is no more excuse. Thanks for proving my point again, twice.
You said it had always been a fringe issue, and I proved that this was factually inaccurate, because if the majority had supported it before, then obviously it isn't "always." Thanks for proving that you can't read... twice. :lol:

You're also clearly unaware of the gag law this time around, nevermind the low turnout.

Ummm... really faulty logic here. Somehow you claim that more proportional == more democratic? What kind of logic is that? Irrefutable, how so?It's not democratic if the seat distribution in the legislature/parliament as formed by election results in individual ridings are not ensured to reflect the way people actually voted both locally and across board, then it isn't democratic, because it is not representative of the population's preference. If Liberals get 40% of the vote, they should get 40% of the seats, not a majority government! If the Green Party gets 7% of the national vote, they should get 7% of the seats, not be shut out entirely and leave a huge swath of the population completely unrepresented. Sorry, at 7% you're on the radar, not a fringe party like the Marajuana Party and Sex Party. You clearly don't know the political environment. Proportionality does not mean the same thing as democracy.They're directly related, a vote has to be proportional to be truly democratic. I keep bringing up the example of Bob Rae because it is a good example. He should never have had a majority government. That was an incredible failure of the system. There was only 5% difference between Rae's NDP and Peterson's Liberals in popular vote... yet Rae's NDP had twice as many seats. That's not democratic. FPTP and PR are just different electoral systems for the same democratic society.No, they have a dramatic influence on how democratic the society actually is... and if it isn't very democratic, people lose faith in the system, hence, low voter turnouts these days. Everyone is free to vote as they wish without intimidation or oppression.That's not the sole component of Democracy. You should read up on it. A vote has to count if people are going to be interested in casting a ballot. Most people don't believe their vote counts because the system is inadequate. Just because the fringe party you support didn't get the most votes and therefore didn't win, doesn't mean you can blame the system for being "undemocratic". Please, cut out the righteous talk. How about you actually defend your position instead of spewing useless rhetoric, and recognize that a party that gets 7% of the vote deserves 7% of the seats. Fringe parties get less than 1%, and they shouldn't be entitled to anything. But any party that can crack 5% deserves seats. 5% is clearly on the radar and must be recognized as 1 in every 20 people have voted for this party, a significant number when you have a population in the 10s of MILLIONS. Get off your high horse, you're just an ignorant snob.



Maybe you don't understand, it will still be a Westminster system after adoption of PR. Except it will be a disaster since the mechanics of the Westminster system is designed to work with FPTP, not PR. This has nothing to do with being sovereign nation. If you don't get this you should study government mechanics a bit more.
This is based on nothing but your imagination. We are free to change the system as we see fit, because we are a sovereign nation, and that has plenty to do with it because as a sovereign nation we can decide how we run this nation. These mechanics of voting are studied before they let the referendums happen. They wouldn't allow it to happen if they thought for a second it would be a disaster. You're just delusional and absurdly hyper-partisan and spit in the face of all Canadians whose votes are not counted because of the inadequate mechanics plaguing our democratic infrastructure. Don't tell me to study, you're the one that's stuck in the 1800s.

so is there a Conservative party at the provincial level in BC? the article didn't mention one, so i'm guessing no?

Yes, theres a provincial Conservative party in BC, but its so small that nobody would pay any attention to them.

The PR people really should have gotten the hint long ago that people simply aren't interested in their cause.

"What good fortune for governments that the people do not think." -Adolf Hitler

This biggest problem with democracy is that the people who have the power don't know how to use it. Because people don't understand how proportional representation works, they don't support it. It is likely that if they did understand, they would. Sadly, no one today bothers to understand what they're voting for. They just do what advertisements tell them to do. When put up to a vote, the status quo usually wins, good or bad. Unless, of course, the people think, and make the right decision.

A system where the voices of millions of people go unrepresented is not democracy.

You're also clearly unaware of the gag law this time around, nevermind the low turnout.

Ah yes... more garbage excuses. You'll need something better than that to explain a lopsided defeat of that magnitude. If that kind of margin is not enough, what will it really take for you to accept that voters just don't want PR?


It's not democratic if the seat distribution in the legislature/parliament as formed by election results in individual ridings are not ensured to reflect the way people actually voted both locally and across board, then it isn't democratic, because it is not representative of the population's preference. If Liberals get 40% of the vote, they should get 40% of the seats, [B]

Again, proportionality in the narrowest, strictest sense is only one of the many possible ways of allocating seats. Despite what you seem to think, it's by no means the only democratic way, and it's definitely not the ideal way in a Westminster system.

The only absolute true democracy is direct participation, where all 30 million Canadians decide every issue together. Anything else that involves electing representatives, be it FPTP or PR, will never be truly democratic and will never completely represent the entire population. PR and FPTP are just two different ways to create less-than-perfect representation.

Assuming there are 2 or more other parties in your example, 40% of the vote is a clear and convincing indication of popularity. A party with 40% probably has won at least 50% or more of the ridings, and in a Westminster parliament, it should naturally have 50% or more of the seats. That's perfectly democratic and justifiable.


If the Green Party gets 7% of the national vote, they should get 7% of the seats, not be shut out entirely and leave a huge swath of the population completely unrepresented. Sorry, at 7% you're on the radar, not a fringe party like the Marajuana Party and Sex Party.

7% of national vote is one thing, 7% and last place in virtually every riding of the country is hardly impressive. FPTP is able to prevent fringe parties from getting seats based on a sprinkle of votes here and there. Sorry if you voted Green, but they rightfully received zero seats based on last election's result. The Greens will need a whole lot more support before they deserve to be in the league of the Liberals or Conservatives, or even the NDP for that matter.


They're directly related, a vote has to be proportional to be truly democratic. I keep bringing up the example of Bob Rae because it is a good example. He should never have had a majority government. That was an incredible failure of the system. There was only 5% difference between Rae's NDP and Peterson's Liberals in popular vote... yet Rae's NDP had twice as many seats. That's not democratic. No, they have a dramatic influence on how democratic the society actually is... and if it isn't very democratic, people lose faith in the system, hence, low voter turnouts these days. That's not the sole component of Democracy. You should read up on it. A vote has to count if people are going to be interested in casting a ballot. Most people don't believe their vote counts because the system is inadequate. How about you actually defend your position instead of spewing useless rhetoric, and recognize that a party that gets 7% of the vote deserves 7% of the seats. Fringe parties get less than 1%, and they shouldn't be entitled to anything. But any party that can crack 5% deserves seats. 5% is clearly on the radar and must be recognized as 1 in every 20 people have voted for this party, a significant number when you have a population in the 10s of MILLIONS. Get off your high horse, you're just an ignorant snob.

There is no magical PR electoral system that will inspire everyone to vote. Who said most people don't believe their vote counts? And who said low turnout because the electoral system is inadequate? Again all these are false claims spun out of wishful thinking. If people really wanted a new system so badly, they would have voted for it long ago.


This is based on nothing but your imagination. We are free to change the system as we see fit, because we are a sovereign nation, and that has plenty to do with it because as a sovereign nation we can decide how we run this nation. These mechanics of voting are studied before they let the referendums happen. They wouldn't allow it to happen if they thought for a second it would be a disaster. You're just delusional and absurdly hyper-partisan and spit in the face of all Canadians whose votes are not counted because of the inadequate mechanics plaguing our democratic infrastructure. Don't tell me to study, you're the one that's stuck in the 1800s.

After reading this it's clear to me that you don't really understand the Westminster system, because otherwise you would not repeatedly bring up sovereignty which has zero relevence to the government mechanics. :lol: The Westminster system is modeled after but not dependent on the British, so there's no sovereignty issue. It is however designed to work with FPTP, not PR.

Because people don't understand how proportional representation works, they don't support it. It is likely that if they did understand, they would. Sadly, no one today bothers to understand what they're voting for.

Again, there is no evidence to suggest that PR was defeated because of lack of understanding. On the contrary, there is much greater awareness and understanding this time compared to four years ago, yet PR failed miserably this time. A better explanation is that the more people know about PR, the less they like it.

It's not surprising that a bad idea gets rejected yet again. The real question is whether the PR supporters will ever get a hint.

So people actually think FPTP is a better system?

Again, there is no evidence to suggest that PR was defeated because of lack of understanding. On the contrary, there is much greater awareness and understanding this time compared to four years ago, yet PR failed miserably this time.
How did you come to this conclusion? It was my impression that most people at the polls didn't understand STV at all and voted against it or spoiled their ballot (which was essentially a vote against it).

The failure of STV rests on the proponents of STV themselves, the system was far too complicated to understand for an electorate that barely cared enough to vote at all under FPTP.

lol, 49% turnout

Ah yes... more garbage excuses. You'll need something better than that to explain a lopsided defeat of that magnitude. If that kind of margin is not enough, what will it really take for you to accept that voters just don't want PR?What will it really take for you to accept that voters do want PR, because they voted 58% in favour 4 years ago, it's almost a perfect mirror of the results this time around, only turnout was higher 4 years ago. The only garbage in this thread is coming from you.


Again, proportionality in the narrowest, strictest sense is only one of the many possible ways of allocating seats. Despite what you seem to think, it's by no means the only democratic way, and it's definitely not the ideal way in a Westminster system.What's ideal for the Westminster system is irrelevant because we are not bound to the Westminster system. If decided by referendum, we're free to overhaul it. Proportionality is the only fair way to allocating seats. Otherwise, it's not democratic because it is not representative. A vote in PEI is four times as powerful as a vote in Toronto. That's not democratic by a mile.

The only absolute true democracy is direct participation, where all 30 million Canadians decide every issue together. Anything else that involves electing representatives, be it FPTP or PR, will never be truly democratic and will never completely represent the entire population. PR and FPTP are just two different ways to create less-than-perfect representation.It's an irrefutable fact that PR delivers seat allocations far closer to the actual vote results, and is therefore far more democratic. It is impossible to argue otherwise because to do so means you condone millions of votes not being counted... and that's not democratic.

Assuming there are 2 or more other parties in your example, 40% of the vote is a clear and convincing indication of popularity. A party with 40% probably has won at least 50% or more of the ridings, and in a Westminster parliament, it should naturally have 50% or more of the seats. That's perfectly democratic and justifiable.No, it isn't. If you win 40% of the vote, you get 40% of the seats, not 50%. If you get 40% of the vote, democracy is supposed to give you ~40% of the seats. Otherwise, it's a sham. Your so-called logic is nothing shy of absurd. Why should any party get an extra free 10%? Why should Bob Rae's Ontario NDP party get an extra 25% (or whatever huge margin it was)? It's far from democratic and totally unjustifiable. You're insane and clearly very poorly versed in this subject.



7% of national vote is one thing, 7% and last place in virtually every riding of the country is hardly impressive. FPTP is able to prevent fringe parties from getting seats based on a sprinkle of votes here and there. Sorry if you voted Green, but they rightfully received zero seats based on last election's result. The Greens will need a whole lot more support before they deserve to be in the league of the Liberals or Conservatives, or even the NDP for that matter.You're a joke to think that 7% deserves 0 seats. You're also completely ignorant on this issue, because Greens came in second and third in many ridings. 7% of the vote entitles a party to 7% of the seats.



There is no magical PR electoral system that will inspire everyone to vote. Who said most people don't believe their vote counts? And who said low turnout because the electoral system is inadequate? Again all these are false claims spun out of wishful thinking. If people really wanted a new system so badly, they would have voted for it long ago.It's a well-established fact that people have little faith in the system as is. There is a relationship to the mechanics and the turnout because part of the low turnout is due to far too many people believing their vote isn't going to mean anything as it won't impact the result of their riding. There's nothing false about it, the only thing false is your belief that you know what you're talking about.



After reading this it's clear to me that you don't really understand the Westminster system, because otherwise you would not repeatedly bring up sovereignty which has zero relevence to the government mechanics. :lol: The Westminster system is modeled after but not dependent on the British, so there's no sovereignty issue. It is however designed to work with FPTP, not PR.
Sovereignty does have plenty to do with it. You obviously don't have a clue about the history of this country. We started off as a British Colony. Ever heard of the Commonwealth? It's not a coincidence we started with Westminster. :lol: What a farce.

It's pretty patronizing to say that everyone who voted against the BC-STV proposal is ill-informed or uneducated about it.

I spoke with many people before the election, and, for the most part, people understood the proposal and had well thought out reasons for how they would vote, be it for or against the proposal.

For the record, I voted to keep First Past the Post. Yes, I think it's a good system, and I'm not insane.

After what the Liberals did after the 2005 election, I won't be surprised if they decided to implement STV anyway. It will be for the better.

Still NOBODY has given a single reason HOW FPTP is superior. If you're so sure it is superior, prove it with an argument. Otherwise, it isn't an informed opinion and thereby is also uneducated and/or insane. FPTP's shortcomings have been explained at length. Nobody's explaining what strengths it has, if any, and are just making empty and unsupported claims of it being superior.

Still NOBODY has given a single reason HOW FPTP is superior. If you're so sure it is superior, prove it with an argument. Otherwise, it isn't an informed opinion and thereby is also uneducated and/or insane. FPTP's shortcomings have been explained at length. Nobody's explaining what strengths it has, if any, and are just making empty and unsupported claims of it being superior.

Umm... and you haven't outlined any strengths for PR, aside from giving more seats to the little fringe parties. Again, FPTP is better because it works better with Canada's Westminster parliament.

And for the last time, as far as democracy is concerned, FPTP is every bit as democratic as PR; they're just two different ways of interpretation. You are still confusing proportionality with democracy; maybe there can be a real debate when you no longer falsely equate the two.

If you actually understand the political theory you'd know that democracy depends on providing access and protection of rights, not the particular electoral system that is used. Every time you insist that one electoral system is somehow "more democratic" than another, you sound just like the kid who insists green M&Ms taste better than blue M&Ms. :lol:

In any case, voters in different provinces have repeatedly and overwhelmingly rejected PR. PR is dead, and the rest of the country has moved on to the real issues long ago.

Then maybe what we should be voting on is whether or not to continue following the Westminster model of parliament.

FTP

Family of 5 each gets a vote on where to go for family vacation
3 vote for disneyland (stupid kids)
2 vote for Paris (parents)

Outcome family goes to disneyland (3-2) and some people not happy

PR
Family of 5 each gets a vote on where to go for family vacation
3 vote for disneyland (stupid kids)
2 vote for Paris (parents)

Outcome Kids get shipped to disneyland, parents escape to Paris (ideal)
Outcome everyone argues all summer long and no one goes anywhere (reality) :cheers:

That's why you have coalition parties. The Liberals, NDP and Greens would be the left coalition, the Conservatives and Bloc would both be on their own. Minor parties would be out of the picture, they don't even get enough votes nationwide to win a single riding.

Umm... and you haven't outlined any strengths for PR, aside from giving more seats to the little fringe parties.Don't confuse your inability to read for an absence of points made. I pointed to the greater similarity between popular vote and seat distribution, the greatly reduced odds of a majority government being granted where not justified (i.e. if any party gets less than 50% of the popular vote, they won't get a majority, fair and square), as well as the increased public perception of the fairness of the democratic institution which would yield improved voter turn out as more people believe that their vote actually counts. If you don't read, don't post. Again, FPTP is better because it works better with Canada's Westminster parliament. Whether or not it works with the Westminster system is completely irrelevant, as you've been told many times over already, but you have the mind of a 3-year old and can't wrap your mind around the reality that we are by no means bound, in part nor in whole, to the Westminster system. The Westminster system is irrelevant, as we can choose our system as a sovereign nation. What the British gave us eons ago no longer matters. Get with the program, and learn something about your country.

And for the last time, as far as democracy is concerned, FPTP is every bit as democratic as PR; they're just two different ways of interpretation. You are still confusing proportionality with democracy; maybe there can be a real debate when you no longer falsely equate the two. Democracy must be proportional to be fair and respectable to the population it is intended to serve. If 1/3 of the people vote for one party and that party gets 2/3 of the seats, which is about what happened in 1990 with Bob Rae's NDP in Ontario, then the system is a farce and doesn't do its job. It's not democratic to the people. You accuse me of being a leftie when I repeatedly point to the example of the FPTP system undemocratically giving the leftie a majority government in Ontario as proof the system doesn't work. You are obviously compromised in your reading comprehension to keep missing this. :lol:

If you actually understand the political theory you'd know that democracy depends on providing access and protection of rights, not the particular electoral system that is used. Every time you insist that one electoral system is somehow "more democratic" than another, you sound just like the kid who insists green M&Ms taste better than blue M&Ms. :lol: If you think that democracy is not based on fair representation that properly and proportionally reflects the will of the people, then you don't have any understanding of what the whole point of having a democratic system in the first place. FPTP achieved this goal long ago when there were only 2 parties. What you are too immature and uneducated to realize is that times have changed and we have more than 2 real parties now.

Access and protection of rights has to do with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, not the political mechanisms of our society.

In any case, voters in different provinces have repeatedly and overwhelmingly rejected PR. PR is dead, and the rest of the country has moved on to the real issues long ago.

58% in 2005. Learn some history, and you wouldn't make such inaccurate and embarrassing comments. They have not repeatedly and overwhelmingly rejected PR, they have voted in favour of it in 2005, which means that people obviously want it. PR will continue to be a real issue because Canada is not as democratic as it should be until PR is implemented.

It actually does work with the Westminster system, New Zealand (which has a Westminster model parliament) uses it. They don't have a senate, but since we don't elect ours, that part of the comparison doesn't matter. And if you look to Australia, you can see how an elected senate works with the Westminster model as well.

Still NOBODY has given a single reason HOW FPTP is superior. If you're so sure it is superior, prove it with an argument. Otherwise, it isn't an informed opinion and thereby is also uneducated and/or insane.

OK, I'll give it a shot. You might want to tone down the rhetoric though, it doesn't exactly encourage open and well reasoned discussion when you start calling people "immature", "uneducated", "mind of a 3-year old", etc.

Let's take a step back, what is the goal we're trying to achieve with our political system? I'd say that the purpose is to run our society in a way that everyone can be happy with. The problem is that there is an incredible variety of people and diversity of opinion on how the government should run things. There's no way anyone could govern in a way that could make everyone happy on all issues. It's far more complex than the simple right/left political spectrum, most people are all over the map depending on the specific issue, and the level of interest also varied widely (ie, some people may care deeply about a specific social issue, but not be too concerned with the economy, other people may not worry about social issues, but be very concerned about specific economic issues).

One way to approach this problem is for one sub-group of society to take control and run things as they think best. Doing this, you and up with some sort of authoritarian system like fascism or communism. The path we've chosen, as a liberal democracy, is to choose moderation and compromise. Basically satisfy as many people as possible without pissing anyone off too much. The problem with this is that no-one will be completely happy with all the choices made. The advantage is that society can function, and we all live together without killing each other.

So how does my long-winded intro relate to First Past The Post vs Proportional Representation? Basically it comes down to how the compromises are decided. Under PR, you can vote for a party that closely matches your political views, and be represented by that party in parliament. Because people's political views are so diverse, though, PR systems typically end up with about 5-10 significant parties represented, with none holding more than 20-25% of the seats. These parties will then engage in negotiations and bargaining to come up with the compromises needed to cobble together some sort of coalition government. The problem with this is that it's difficult to predict in advance what compromises will be made, or which parties will form the government.

With FPTP, usually there are only two or three viable parties, and these parties try to appeal to a broad spectrum of people. Basically, in order to attract as as many votes as possible, the parties will choose a set of compromises in that appeal to a broad cross-section of society. The problem with this is that no-one will be completely happy with any one party, and you have to choose a "lesser of evils". The advantage, however, is that you know in advance which set of compromises you're choosing should that party form a government, thus making the effect of your vote more predictable.

There are all kinds of other pros and cons of the various electoral systems, but for me that is what it boils down to. I think that the idealism of PR proponents is somewhat misguided, and the fundamentals of human nature mean that people will never be completely satisfied, no matter what system is chosen, but that the current FPTP system leads to moderation and compromise. And that's a good thing.

Don't confuse your inability to read for an absence of points made. I pointed to the greater similarity between popular vote and seat distribution, the greatly reduced odds of a majority government being granted where not justified (i.e. if any party gets less than 50% of the popular vote, they won't get a majority, fair and square), as well as the increased public perception of the fairness of the democratic institution which would yield improved voter turn out as more people believe that their vote actually counts. If you don't read, don't post. Whether or not it works with the Westminster system is completely irrelevant, as you've been told many times over already, but you have the mind of a 3-year old and can't wrap your mind around the reality that we are by no means bound, in part nor in whole, to the Westminster system. The Westminster system is irrelevant, as we can choose our system as a sovereign nation. What the British gave us eons ago no longer matters. Get with the program, and learn something about your country.

Democracy must be proportional to be fair and respectable to the population it is intended to serve. If 1/3 of the people vote for one party and that party gets 2/3 of the seats, which is about what happened in 1990 with Bob Rae's NDP in Ontario, then the system is a farce and doesn't do its job. It's not democratic to the people.

If you think that democracy is not based on fair representation that properly and proportionally reflects the will of the people, then you don't have any understanding of what the whole point of having a democratic system in the first place.

And once again, all those so-called "strengths" of PR are based on your confusion that somehow more proportional automatically equals more democratic. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. This almost feels like talkng to a wall. Please come back for a real debate when you finally stop confusing the two.

And do you even realize that voting for PR is not the same thing as removing the Westminster system? Even if PR were approved in this vote, the Westminster system would stay. The question therefore is whether FPTP or PR works better with Westminster system, and the answer is clearly FPTP, for which the system was designed.

You accuse me of being a leftie when I repeatedly point to the example of the FPTP system undemocratically giving the leftie a majority government in Ontario as proof the system doesn't work. You are obviously compromised in your reading comprehension to keep missing this. :lol:

Find the exact line in which I called you leftie. Honestly I have no clue where you got that from. It's funny that you should accuse anyone but yourself of having compromised reading comprehension. :lol:


FPTP achieved this goal long ago when there were only 2 parties. What you are too immature and uneducated to realize is that times have changed and we have more than 2 real parties now.
Let's see ... the Liberals and Conservatives are real parties. An what else... the NDP? ... the Greens? Yeah right. Canadian politics is a two-party system. Why doesn't your Green Party just work to supplant the Liberals or Conservatives as one of the two big parties? It's better than wasting your time complaining about the electoral system.


Access and protection of rights has to do with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, not the political mechanisms of our society.

Do you realize you've just contradicted everything you said earlier? This was the exact point I was making. I don't think you even understand what you're arguing for anymore. Democracy depends on access and protection of rights, not the electoral system itself.

58% voted to ditch FPTP in BC 4 years ago.



58% voted to ditch FPTP in BC 4 years ago.


they have voted in favour of it in 2005, which means that people obviously want it.

Wow, your selective memory is both amazing and hilarious. You keep recalling BC's 2005 vote but don't remember what happened there just 72 hours ago? PEI 2005 was also just a bad dream? And Ontario 2007 was all in our imagination? After being rejected by more than 60% in all those places you still think people want PR. Just wow. PR is dead, get over it.

There are all kinds of other pros and cons of the various electoral systems, but for me that is what it boils down to. I think that the idealism of PR proponents is somewhat misguided, and the fundamentals of human nature mean that people will never be completely satisfied, no matter what system is chosen, but that the current FPTP system leads to moderation and compromise. And that's a good thing.

I agree with this completely. Short of direct democracy, all forms of representative democracy are imperfect. FPTP is just as democratic as PR, and they're just two different ways to create less-than-perfect representation.

OK, I'll give it a shot. You might want to tone down the rhetoric though, it doesn't exactly encourage open and well reasoned discussion when you start calling people "immature", "uneducated", "mind of a 3-year old", etc.When someone is repeating the same immature and uneducated arguments, effectively behaving like a 3-year old, they're not encouraging well-reasoned discussion, and deserve to be shot down to make way for those that can actually support their arguments, as you made an effort to do.

Let's take a step back, what is the goal we're trying to achieve with our political system? I'd say that the purpose is to run our society in a way that everyone can be happy with. The problem is that there is an incredible variety of people and diversity of opinion on how the government should run things. There's no way anyone could govern in a way that could make everyone happy on all issues. It's far more complex than the simple right/left political spectrum, most people are all over the map depending on the specific issue, and the level of interest also varied widely (ie, some people may care deeply about a specific social issue, but not be too concerned with the economy, other people may not worry about social issues, but be very concerned about specific economic issues).I don't disagree with what you're saying, but I disagree that this is the same topic. We're not talking about how an elected government governs, but how a government is elected by the people.

One way to approach this problem is for one sub-group of society to take control and run things as they think best. Doing this, you and up with some sort of authoritarian system like fascism or communism. The path we've chosen, as a liberal democracy, is to choose moderation and compromise. Basically satisfy as many people as possible without pissing anyone off too much. The problem with this is that no-one will be completely happy with all the choices made. The advantage is that society can function, and we all live together without killing each other.I'd disagree here, as urban populations get extremely pissed off with the system almost every time. The system is structured to make urban residents far under-represented. Urbanites' votes count less. Their MPs don't have as loud a voice as they should be entitled to (compare populations per riding to see how bad it can get). The system is designed to basically allow urban areas to be almost ignored. When urban areas are ignored, society doesn't function. Urban areas are the core of society, but the current system doesn't recognize this because it wasn't significant in the 1800s, nor in the early 1900s either. By the time WWII had rolled around, things started to change in a more dramatic way.

So how does my long-winded intro relate to First Past The Post vs Proportional Representation? Basically it comes down to how the compromises are decided. Under PR, you can vote for a party that closely matches your political views, and be represented by that party in parliament. Because people's political views are so diverse, though, PR systems typically end up with about 5-10 significant parties represented, with none holding more than 20-25% of the seats. These parties will then engage in negotiations and bargaining to come up with the compromises needed to cobble together some sort of coalition government. The problem with this is that it's difficult to predict in advance what compromises will be made, or which parties will form the government.You act like this is a bad thing. I wouldn't call that a problem at all. I would call it healthy. The advantage is that a supreme majority of votes count towards something in some form in the shape the government takes. This promotes stronger faith in the system as the system generates a more accurate reflection of the will of the people in the government formed. Each party getting less than 1/3 or even 1/4 of the seats isn't a bad thing at all. There's no disadvantage in that as long as it is an accurate reflection of the people's will. This promotes more meaningful dialogue and debate on legislation, and helps to try to keep the government from going to any extremes.

With FPTP, usually there are only two or three viable parties, and these parties try to appeal to a broad spectrum of people. Basically, in order to attract as as many votes as possible, the parties will choose a set of compromises in that appeal to a broad cross-section of society. The problem with this is that no-one will be completely happy with any one party, and you have to choose a "lesser of evils". The advantage, however, is that you know in advance which set of compromises you're choosing should that party form a government, thus making the effect of your vote more predictable.Except it isn't two or three parties, it's four or five parties now, depending on which province you live in. You also neglect the far greater likelihood of wasted votes under the FPTP model, which is going to piss off more people, and damage faith in the system.

There are all kinds of other pros and cons of the various electoral systems, but for me that is what it boils down to. I think that the idealism of PR proponents is somewhat misguided, and the fundamentals of human nature mean that people will never be completely satisfied, no matter what system is chosen, but that the current FPTP system leads to moderation and compromise. And that's a good thing.
It doesn't compromise though, that's the problem. It gives majorities to parties that don't earn them, and that leads to actions that are authoritarian, like fascism or communism. The government doesn't have to take debate on legislation seriously when in a majority government. They just do whatever the hell they want regardless of what other people, regardless of party, may think. They whip their own party members to tow the party line. It's a dictatorship in disguise. PR's prevention of majority governments forming is a benefit, not a handicap. It's only minority governments that are obligated to compromise.

Canadian politics is a two-party system.

:hilarious If Canadian politics is a two-party system, how has the Bloc been official opposition in the past? How has the NDP been elected to form the Provincial government before in Saskatchewan, Ontario, and other provinces? :yes: And The PQ? You're a total ignoramus on this subject and there's no point in you posting any more drivel in this thread. You're not capable of discussion with any substance. You're just a farce.

Canadian politics is a no party system up north. Probably the only effective governments we have.

I'd disagree here, as urban populations get extremely pissed off with the system almost every time. The system is structured to make urban residents far under-represented. Urbanites' votes count less. Their MPs don't have as loud a voice as they should be entitled to (compare populations per riding to see how bad it can get).

Yes, I agree that unequal representation between urban/rural ridings and between certain provinces (Ontario being under-represented, etc.) is a problem. This can be solved by simply adjusting riding boundaries and adding seats to Provinces as needed to even out the ridings. You don't need to go to a PR system to solve this problem.

You act like this is a bad thing. I wouldn't call that a problem at all. I would call it healthy. The advantage is that a supreme majority of votes count towards something in some form in the shape the government takes. This promotes stronger faith in the system as the system generates a more accurate reflection of the will of the people in the government formed. Each party getting less than 1/3 or even 1/4 of the seats isn't a bad thing at all. There's no disadvantage in that as long as it is an accurate reflection of the people's will. This promotes more meaningful dialogue and debate on legislation, and helps to try to keep the government from going to any extremes.

In real countries that actually have PR, do the people have "stronger faith in the system"? It seems to me that most places that actually have PR, tend to be susceptible to unstable coalitions, and have all kinds of political grandstanding and smaller parties holding the government to ransom. As far as I can tell, people are just as jaded about politics everywhere, whether they have PR systems or not.

Except it isn't two or three parties, it's four or five parties now, depending on which province you live in. You also neglect the far greater likelihood of wasted votes under the FPTP model, which is going to piss off more people, and damage faith in the system.

There's really a maximum of three significant parties in any region. Regional parties will sometimes develop in response to specific and unusual issues, like the Bloc in Quebec. Even there, though, only the Bloc, Liberals, and Conservatives are significant federally.

In general, FPTP systems encourage the formation of large, broad-based parties. The joining of the PC party and the Reform party is a good example of this. I would contend that this resulted in more moderate party platform than would have otherwise existed. Under a PR system, this never would have happened. And as the Conservatives continue to strive towards a majority, they will be forced to become even more moderate and inclusive to attract enough votes.

It doesn't compromise though, that's the problem. It gives majorities to parties that don't earn them, and that leads to actions that are authoritarian, like fascism or communism. The government doesn't have to take debate on legislation seriously when in a majority government. They just do whatever the hell they want regardless of what other people, regardless of party, may think. They whip their own party members to tow the party line. It's a dictatorship in disguise. PR's prevention of majority governments forming is a benefit, not a handicap. It's only minority governments that are obligated to compromise.

My point though, is that the parties themselves become more moderate under our system. Also, the problem of party "whips" is far more severe under PR systems where the party has far more power over the individual members. It's a bit of a stretch to say that Canadian governments have even come close to approaching fascism, communism, or dictatorship.