|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 18, 2018 21:17:26 GMT
The NDP proposal for the referendum is heavily BIASED to reach a MMP result!
- The referendum is BIASED to result with a PR system - With only a single non-PR system (FPTP) and three PR system as options. With only FPTP as the only non-PR system we will be unable to determine if the VOTERS are supporting PR or voting AGAINST FPTP. There needs to be more non-PR options so there is a clear result in what the VOTERS actually support.
If we really want to know what the VOTERS honestly supports we need to offer the VOTERS more non-PR options. Even the New Zealand's referendum offered the VOTERS the option of "preferential ballot" as another non-PR option besides the FPTP option. This resulted in a clear result of the VOTERS' support. This referendum in the Fall of 2018 will be the THIRD such referendum in BC since 2005. This demonstrates a strong VOTER desire against our current FPTP system. In the desire to be rid of FPTP and with no other non-PR system to choose the VOTER is left with some form of PR, even if the VOTER may not support PR. We can easily end up with a PR system that the VOTERS may not truly support, but actually voting to get rid of FPTP.
A BIASED OUTCOME!
- The referendum is BIASED to result with MMP - The 3 PR options (MMP, DMP, and Rural-Urban PR) is obviously titled towards MMP. Out of these 3 options, only MMP has been used with other countries. The other 2 options are purely based on THEORY and have no practical experience with.
In the world today there are 3 types of PR used in other countries - MMP, STV, and Party-List PR. These systems have been tested for many decades in other countries. These 3 PR systems have a record on how they work and the results they produce.The many different concocted forms of PR, such as DMP and Rural-Urban PR, are designed to better SELL PR to the VOTERS. There is NO EXPERIENCE with any of them to know what we are getting with such created systems. Adding such options will only improve the chance of MMP being the end result. If we want a true measurement of VOTER support for PR there needs to be the choice of the ESTABLISHED PR systems - MMP, STV, and Party-List PR. With only a single established PR system as an option it heavily titles the result to MMP.A BIASED MMP OUTCOME!
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 19, 2018 9:18:38 GMT
A fair and honest referendum on Electoral Reform would be with 4 options - FPTP, IRV, STV, MMP. These 4 systems have a substantial record and established electoral systems. FPTP and IRV represents 2 non-PR systems, STV and MMP represents 2 PR systems. These 4 systems need a minimal explanation to the VOTERS.
I - FPTP: First-Past-The-Post is our current system. Everyone knows this system very well.
II - IRV: Is a fine adjustment to our current system. The only adjustment is that the VOTER ranks the candidates on the ballots. There are no other changes to our current system. Very little explanation required.
IRV has been used in BC Provincial Elections in the past. IRV has also been used for over 30 years (1920 - 1950) in both Alberta and Manitoba.
IRV is also used in the Australia Legislature to elect representatives. It is the Australia Senate that uses STV and has the problems.
III - STV: STV has been considered by the BC Voters twice already. 2005 the voters were 58% in support of STV, in 2009 the voters were 39% in support of STV. The BC voters know the STV system and from the previous referendums have a mixed feeling about STV. However, very minimal further explanation is required.
IV - MMP: MMP is new to the voters and will need considerable explanation, specially the details. MMP is used by many different countries and is a established PR system.
These 4 options would give the VOTERS full options were they can select another non-PR system or one of the 2 PR systems if the voter does not support FPTP. It would also be extremely informative if the VOTERS were able to RANK the 4 systems. The system that the MAJORITY of voters support would be a solid and clear choice.
It would also mean that the MMP would be the only option that needs to have substantial explanations. A lot easier to explain than the details of 3 completely new and unknown systems.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 19, 2018 16:59:15 GMT
The NDP proposed referendum is just that "PROPOSED", the referendum final version can still be altered. Elections BC is responsible for making sure the referendum is "FAIR" and not BIASED.
With enough PUBLIC FEEDBACK that the proposal is - UNFAIR & BIASED - Elections BC can require changes to be made.
The proposed referendum is not yet the FINAL version and alterations can still be made. We can promote the addition of IRV.
History of IRV in Canada and the current use of IRV in other political systems - link.
|
|
