Electoral Reform 2 of 6
The NDP/Green collaboration is trying to sell the claim that changing the electoral process is about improving the electoral system…
….although they have not provided any facts or evidence to support their assertion. Instead, to accomplish this assumed ‘improvement’ they are rushing into changing how we elect politicians and governments with a process mind boggling in its slipshod recklessness.
A process that sees citizens voting on non-binding direction for the politicians who will write the legislation. Even if the 3 choices were binding they are so vague, confusing and misleading politicians could interpret the direction given in any manner they chose.
Once the politicians have finished writing the legislation setting out the process by which politicians get elected voters do not get to accept or reject the legislation. Talk about the fox guarding the hen house.
Apparently the NDP/Green feel that non-binding direction given by choosing among three vague, confusing and misleading options is all the democracy required to make fundamental change to our democracy and its electoral process.
I say Cave Politicuset Dona Ferentis [beware the politician bearing gifts]. Particularly when said gift benefits the politicians with unknown costs and consequences for citizens.
While repetition of the NDP/Green spin by politicians and media may have people ignoring facts and evidence and believing the oft repeated fable, neither the facts or the consequences of this slipshod headlong rush will change.
Caveat Emptor Cave Politicus Cave Politicuset Dona Ferentis
Given the potential consequences and costs it behoves citizens to BEWARE; to focus on facts and not any fables the politicians or media are selling.
So why are the NDP/Greens irushing pell-mell into election reform?
Assuming that not even the NDP and Green politicians are so feckless and incompetent that they would come up with the process they have, unless motivated to ignore common sense to meet an overriding need for haste. It is not that I doubt the ability of the NDP/Greens for fecklessness and incompetence as they have demonstrated that ability. It is that this extraordinary a level of feckless incompetence would appear to require special motivation.
The words, actions and behaviours of the leaders of BC’s NDP, Green and Liberal parties have made it clear that good governance, solid financial management and positioning BC to provide a solid quality of life for all BC citizens in the short, medium and long term are not goals for any of the leaders or their parties.
Rather, the words, actions and behaviours make it clear that the driving purpose is power; the power found in being the government.
Politics is currently all about winning; nothing else matters; no consideration, consequences or costs are allowed to interfere with winning.
Thus the question for the NDP/Green collaboration on electoral change is not about whether the consequences for the citizens of BC will be good, bad or ugly, but whether the proportional representation they are selling will secure the grip of the NDP/Green on power.
Between 1991 – 2001, when the NDP was winning and forming the government under our ‘first past the post’ electoral system, the NDP showed no interest in electoral reform. Hardly surprising given that in the 1996 election 39.45% of the popular vote gave them a majority government.
Electoral reform and proportional representation did not became the holy grail for the NDP until ‘first past the post’ saw the Liberals win majority governments in the 2001 [with 57.62% of the popular vote the Liberals would have won a majority government even under proportional representation – but not 77 out of 79 seats], 2005, 2009, 2013 elections.
| Year | NDP | Green | Total |
| 2017 | 40.28% | 16.84% | 57.12% |
| 2013 | 44.13% | 8.15% | 52.28% |
| 2009 | 42.15% | 8.21% | 50.36% |
| 2005 | 41.52% | 9.17% | 50.69% |
A review of the results from recent provincial elections [Appendix A] shows that under proportional representation a NDP/Green Collaboration would have been the government since 2005 and that there would have been no need in 2017 to find a member of the Liberal Party who could be suborned with the Speaker of the Legislator position.
Assuming that a change involving proportional representation will not have negative, perhaps seriously negative, effects and consequences may be a very politician/political party thing to do…….but it is not a very intelligent or wise behaviour for voters who will, as per usual, bear the consequences and foot the bill for the actions of politicians and politics.
Tell the politicians that if they want electoral change they must go about seeking change properly and thoughtfully by saying NO to proportional representation, voting NO to Electoral Change.
