Vancouver Canucks Messageboard

Per wrote: ↑Tue Oct 23, 2018 9:56 pm

Topper wrote: ↑Tue Oct 23, 2018 2:53 pm First Past the Post or Proportional Representation

I believe in being an informed voter and making an informed choice so I have looked at both side of the debate, but the most telling info comes the official Elections BC publication explaining the systems.

Here is where my mind was made up.

"If a proportional representation voting system is adopted, the government has said that after the referendum:
* a legislative committee will determine how some aspects of the new system will work

* an independent electoral boundary commission will determine the number and boundaries of electoral districts and regions represented in the legislature.

* the total number of Members of the Legislative Assembly in the legislature will be between 87 and 95 (currently there are 87)"

In other words, if you vote for proportional representation, you have no idea what you are voting for. The system will be altered as none of the three choices have been finalized. The size, shape and makeup of ridings will change. The number of representatives will change.

You have no idea what you are voting for if you vote for Proportional Representation.

Not taking sides; there are pros and cons with both systems, but it is only logical that ridings must change if you switch to a proportional system. In a first past the post system, each riding elects one representative. In a proportional system each riding elects several representatives. Thus the ridings in the proportional system must be much larger, unless you want to increase the number of representatives.

Topper wrote: ↑Tue Oct 23, 2018 10:14 pm

Per wrote: ↑Tue Oct 23, 2018 9:56 pm

Topper wrote: ↑Tue Oct 23, 2018 2:53 pm First Past the Post or Proportional Representation

I believe in being an informed voter and making an informed choice so I have looked at both side of the debate, but the most telling info comes the official Elections BC publication explaining the systems.

Here is where my mind was made up.

"If a proportional representation voting system is adopted, the government has said that after the referendum:
* a legislative committee will determine how some aspects of the new system will work

* an independent electoral boundary commission will determine the number and boundaries of electoral districts and regions represented in the legislature.

* the total number of Members of the Legislative Assembly in the legislature will be between 87 and 95 (currently there are 87)"

In other words, if you vote for proportional representation, you have no idea what you are voting for. The system will be altered as none of the three choices have been finalized. The size, shape and makeup of ridings will change. The number of representatives will change.

You have no idea what you are voting for if you vote for Proportional Representation.

Not taking sides; there are pros and cons with both systems, but it is only logical that ridings must change if you switch to a proportional system. In a first past the post system, each riding elects one representative. In a proportional system each riding elects several representatives. Thus the ridings in the proportional system must be much larger, unless you want to increase the number of representatives.

But leave the mysterious gerrymandering til after the vote?

Topper wrote: ↑Tue Oct 23, 2018 10:14 pm

Per wrote: ↑Tue Oct 23, 2018 9:56 pm

Topper wrote: ↑Tue Oct 23, 2018 2:53 pm First Past the Post or Proportional Representation

I believe in being an informed voter and making an informed choice so I have looked at both side of the debate, but the most telling info comes the official Elections BC publication explaining the systems.

Here is where my mind was made up.

"If a proportional representation voting system is adopted, the government has said that after the referendum:
* a legislative committee will determine how some aspects of the new system will work

* an independent electoral boundary commission will determine the number and boundaries of electoral districts and regions represented in the legislature.

* the total number of Members of the Legislative Assembly in the legislature will be between 87 and 95 (currently there are 87)"

In other words, if you vote for proportional representation, you have no idea what you are voting for. The system will be altered as none of the three choices have been finalized. The size, shape and makeup of ridings will change. The number of representatives will change.

You have no idea what you are voting for if you vote for Proportional Representation.

Not taking sides; there are pros and cons with both systems, but it is only logical that ridings must change if you switch to a proportional system. In a first past the post system, each riding elects one representative. In a proportional system each riding elects several representatives. Thus the ridings in the proportional system must be much larger, unless you want to increase the number of representatives.

But leave the mysterious gerrymandering til after the vote?

How the seats are distributed in the Riksdag
The Swedish electoral system is a proportional one. This means that the number of seats any one party obtains in the Riksdag is proportional to the number of votes the party received in the election. There are 349 seats in the Riksdag altogether. Once the county administrative boards have counted the votes, the seats should be distributed as fairly as possible among the parties.

Threshold rule for small parties

Any one particular party must receive at least 4 per cent of the votes to be assigned a seat. This results in there being fewer small parties in the Riksdag. Any party receiving at least 12 per cent of the votes in any one constituency can participate in the allocation of seats in that particular constituency.

Seats are distributed in several steps

The 349 seats consist of 310 fixed constituency seats and 39 adjustment seats. The number of fixed constituency seats in every constituency is based on the number of people eligible to vote in the constituency. The distribution of these seats reflects the election results in each constituency.

The Election Authority allocates the fixed seats among the parties using a method known as the adjusted odd numbers method. In broad terms, the method allows the number of votes for each party to be divided by a series of numbers until all of the 310 seats are allocated.

The purpose of the 39 adjustment seats is to make sure that the distribution of seats between the parties over the whole country should be as proportional in relation to the number of votes as possible. The whole country is viewed as it were a single constituency and is then compared with the distribution of votes in the 29 constituencies. The adjustment seats are allocated first according to party and then according to constituency.

Blob Mckenzie wrote: ↑Tue Oct 30, 2018 6:34 pm Do the Liberals have a chance in that Nanaimo byelction?

Reefer2 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 4:06 pm Good reason to vote NO

https://vancouversun.com/opinion/op-ed/ ... t-the-post

The opponents of PR also contend that coalition governments created under PR are less stable, and elections are more frequent. Italy is an often-cited example with many governments composed of many different coalition partners. However, Italy has had an unusual and complicated mix of FPTP and PR since 1993, so it is not an appropriate candidate for measuring the stability of PR.

5thhorseman wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 6:00 pm

Reefer2 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 4:06 pm Good reason to vote NO

https://vancouversun.com/opinion/op-ed/ ... t-the-post

Really Reef? It's just a fluffy opinion piece. If they really wanted to make a point about stability of governments under different electoral systems, the writers should have presented something more unbiased, such as stats that compared all countries in a PR system vs. those in FPTP, instead of just cherry-picking the Italians.

Not saying this is the final word on the matter, but even a simple google search finds different opinion in Wikepedia:

The opponents of PR also contend that coalition governments created under PR are less stable, and elections are more frequent. Italy is an often-cited example with many governments composed of many different coalition partners. However, Italy has had an unusual and complicated mix of FPTP and PR since 1993, so it is not an appropriate candidate for measuring the stability of PR.

Aaronp18 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 8:54 pm

5thhorseman wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 6:00 pm

Reefer2 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 4:06 pm Good reason to vote NO

https://vancouversun.com/opinion/op-ed/ ... t-the-post

Really Reef? It's just a fluffy opinion piece. If they really wanted to make a point about stability of governments under different electoral systems, the writers should have presented something more unbiased, such as stats that compared all countries in a PR system vs. those in FPTP, instead of just cherry-picking the Italians.

Not saying this is the final word on the matter, but even a simple google search finds different opinion in Wikepedia:

The opponents of PR also contend that coalition governments created under PR are less stable, and elections are more frequent. Italy is an often-cited example with many governments composed of many different coalition partners. However, Italy has had an unusual and complicated mix of FPTP and PR since 1993, so it is not an appropriate candidate for measuring the stability of PR.

Wasn't Reef implying its a good reason to vote NO on Proportional Representation?

Aaronp18 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 8:54 pm

5thhorseman wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 6:00 pm

Reefer2 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 4:06 pm Good reason to vote NO

https://vancouversun.com/opinion/op-ed/ ... t-the-post

Really Reef? It's just a fluffy opinion piece. If they really wanted to make a point about stability of governments under different electoral systems, the writers should have presented something more unbiased, such as stats that compared all countries in a PR system vs. those in FPTP, instead of just cherry-picking the Italians.

Not saying this is the final word on the matter, but even a simple google search finds different opinion in Wikepedia:

The opponents of PR also contend that coalition governments created under PR are less stable, and elections are more frequent. Italy is an often-cited example with many governments composed of many different coalition partners. However, Italy has had an unusual and complicated mix of FPTP and PR since 1993, so it is not an appropriate candidate for measuring the stability of PR.

Wasn't Reef implying its a good reason to vote NO on Proportional Representation?

Per wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 9:53 pm

Aaronp18 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 8:54 pm

5thhorseman wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 6:00 pm

Reefer2 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 4:06 pm Good reason to vote NO

https://vancouversun.com/opinion/op-ed/ ... t-the-post

Really Reef? It's just a fluffy opinion piece. If they really wanted to make a point about stability of governments under different electoral systems, the writers should have presented something more unbiased, such as stats that compared all countries in a PR system vs. those in FPTP, instead of just cherry-picking the Italians.

Not saying this is the final word on the matter, but even a simple google search finds different opinion in Wikepedia:

The opponents of PR also contend that coalition governments created under PR are less stable, and elections are more frequent. Italy is an often-cited example with many governments composed of many different coalition partners. However, Italy has had an unusual and complicated mix of FPTP and PR since 1993, so it is not an appropriate candidate for measuring the stability of PR.

Wasn't Reef implying its a good reason to vote NO on Proportional Representation?

Yes, he was. And then 5th pointed out the article was crap.

5th did not offer up an opinion on the vote itself, but went on to explain that the article was heavily biased, cherry picking examples, and no good basis for how you should decide to vote.