Should Layton call on BC NDP voters to support Pro Rep in the upcoming referendum?
Olivia Chow called on Carole James to voice support for a yes vote in the coming referendum on STV but James refused to do so. I do not think she even responded.
Part of the reason the NDP coalition attempt failed is because first past the post can give Iggie a majority on much less than 40% and he decided to fold and wait. Pro Rep federally would treat the NDP much better, the false majority governments would end for good, and coalition containing the NDP would be normal and a regular occurance.
The NDP would get significantly more seats in Pro Rep too. But if it is defeated in BC, Pro rep is likely dead for a generation or 2 federally.
That means no chance for the 3rd largest party.
I think a direct call to the voters from Layton is needed.
Pro rep IS NDP policy. The NDP should be one national party, very short term local interests should not thrump the long term national interest.
Lets have Support for it.
Brian
Comments
There don't seem to be any "green votes" to alienate in the first place. There were two provincial byelections in late October that were right splat in the middle of the "granola belt" of Vancouver and the green leader even ran in one of them - and what did they get? A derisory low single digit percent of the vote. If there really were so many so-called green voters who really were so passionately in favour of the carbon tax and so passionately in favour of lower the threshold for STV from 60% to 50% - they had a GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY to express those sentiments by voting green in these low-stakes provincial byelections. But they BOMBED indicating to me that they are totally irrelevant to the election.
As far as ballot issues go, PR is near the bottom for most people. I would suggest that those who find PR to be the most important issue organize amongst themselves and go out and convince VOTERS, rather than expecting political parties to do their work for them. The BCNDP has a perfectly coherent position, including the commitment to put MMP before the people of BC should STV fail. To expect much more is frankly absurd - why would the BCNDP taint the referendum process by turning it into a partisan debate?
Nancy emailed James about this issue. The one clear thing about the email back is that there is no "commitment" to MMP. If STV loses this time, thats it for pro rep in BC.
Um, Carol James' response is in this very thread, Brian. Read. It says :
I am firmly committed to implementing STV if the referendum passes. And, if it does not pass, I remain committed to offering British Columbians the opportunity to vote on MMP.
Sincerely,
Carole James, Leader
Official Opposition
So, you know, you're wrong.
The BCNDP has a perfectly coherent position, including the commitment to put MMP before the people of BC should STV fail.
Claiming that 50%+ support is a 'failure' when its much more than the NDP or any of our governments receive-is coherently hypocritical.
I've always been intrigued by the people who can't stand FPTP, but think 50+1 is enough to change the entire way in which we vote! I think the onus SHOULD be on the proponents of changing the current system.\
But whatever. It appears that the whole point of this thread is to bash the BCNDP for having a reasonable, coherent position on an issue which will not be anywhere near the first thing on the minds of voters in the upcoming election.
It's still not clear. What is a "pass"? 50%+1 or 60%+1? If 59% vote YES to STV and the NDP wins does that mean we get MMP? And how many decades will we have to wait for the NDP to design a system, considering that it has been party policy for a decade already but there has been no progress on a design yet?
The overwhelming impression that I get fron discussing this issue with NDP members and candidates is a disturbing lack of clarity.
__________________________________
One struggle, many fronts.
I've always been intrigued by the people who can't stand FPTP, but think 50+1 is enough to change the entire way in which we vote!
Well, its not surprising or intriguing that proponents of FPTP think 40% is a mandate for the NO side. And 50%+ is good enough to break up the country, i fail to see why it isn't good enough to change our voting system from one that creates phony majorities.
I've always been intrigued by the people who can't stand FPTP, but think 50+1 is enough to change the entire way in which we vote!
Well, its not surprising or intriguing that proponents of FPTP think 40% is a mandate for the NO side. And 50%+ is good enough to break up the country, i fail to see why it isn't good enough to change our voting system from one that creates phony majorities.
The concept of "supermajority" votes is well grounded in parliamentary procedures, usually to deal with more substantial issues. Argue, if you will, that this issue doesn't need a "supermajority." You may well have a case. I suspect that if it only got 40 per cent, a lot of the proponents would be on here arguing that it needs to be voted on again, because it's clear that a substantial part of the population is voting for change - IMO that's an argument in favour of a supermajority requirement.
That's neither here nor there, though. The bill implementing the 60/60 requirement passed the legislature, was part of the original referendum and is in place now.
What I wish one of the proponents of STV would please do is explain exactly how a government would go about implementing STV if it got between 50 and 60 per cent. Can any of you folks foresee any ramifications of implementing a voting strategy in the face of a statutorily failed referendum? Anyone?
The standard BC referendum law uses 50/50 as a figure, which is quite appropriate. IE it requires both an overall majority as well as a regional majority.
The 60/60 rule was passed by the 79-2 BC Liberal Government originally and was an exception to the normal referendum law. The 60% of popular vote was really designed to raise the bar above and beyond what would normally be considered democratic and the number was intentionally picked out of the air months after the Citizens' Assembly process has already began. The result of a caucus decision, I have been told.
Super majority rules are common within parliaments bit never within in referendums. Even by International standards, the EU recognized 55% as the acceptable number for a countries succession.
The idea of a supermajority within a parliament (or even per say the US senate) is that legislation should have a broader *regional support.* It requires majority support in 2/3s of the area. This is the same reason the US had traditionally used the electoral college. This is to ensure any legislation that passes is good for all of the areas.
However, the popular vote quota is raised from 50%-60%, this is purely a systematic barrier to prevent change and could allow a minority to block it for self interest rather than real concerns about regional fairness.
From a practical side, it is unfortunate that 60/60 is now being considered a precedent by others attempting to bring in initiatives and hoping they will fail.
The reality is that the voting system is determined by a government.
British Columbia previously changed our system by legislative acts a number of times. Most notably in the 1980s when dual member constituencies were eliminated, most notable when IRV was introduced (single member STV) in 1952 and 1953.
STV was used in ALberta and Manitoba from the 1920-1950s, (only in the cities) when the government eliminated it, mainly to block the progressive labour party (which was marxists) from getting seats. This was done without a vote.
Internationally, New Zealand used 50% for their referendum to bring in an MMP system there. Scotland used 50% to bring in STV at local elections.
How is it coherent for the fed ndp to support pro rep and the provincials to not support it?
I mean, clearly they are not argueing for it, are they? They are acting like they have been duct taped across the mouths. And if they do bring in a MMP referendum, they are going to keep the 2 votes beating 3 votes thing.
And that is bullshit. If they get a majority, they could bring in MMP next election with a bill in the house.
And where in your mind is this, the minority has a veto, thing goin on? In a referendum, the winner is supposed to win, not the loser. New Zealand would not have MMP right now if your wonderful logic prevailed.
In a couple of years, we are going to see some dictator in africa use your perverted logic to piss on his people. And he will say "the democratic canadians use this procedeure to prevent change, why can't we?"
Are you ok with that?
I am not. And I am not just bashing the ndp. The BC libs are a pack of hyprocritical lieng shits on this issue too. But at least they do not pretend to be social democrats.
I've always been intrigued by the people who can't stand FPTP, but think 50+1 is enough to change the entire way in which we vote! I think the onus SHOULD be on the proponents of changing the current system.\
But whatever. It appears that the whole point of this thread is to bash the BCNDP for having a reasonable, coherent position on an issue which will not be anywhere near the first thing on the minds of voters in the upcoming election.
Additionally, all the BC Referendum act says is that a 60% vote is binding on the government. So the only way a government would be prevented from enacting electoral reform is if the vote falls below 40%.
Who told you we think 40% is a mandate for anything? The international standard for referenda is 50% +1 vote. It is based in logic and mathematics. It is also based on democratic values. It is simply undemocratic to have 2 votes for one choice equal to 3 votes for the other choice in a referendum. It is absurd.
STV got a majority in every riding in bc except for 2 in kamloops. (They were not ndp ridings). Isn't that meeting the standard you speak of?
"The concept of "supermajority" votes is well grounded in parliamentary procedures, usually to deal with more substantial issues".
Guys who get elected to parliament to vote in those "parliamentary procedeures" do NOT have to get 60% in every riding, so your little example is quite flawed. THANK YOU
STV got 77 of 79 which equates to 97% in your "parliamentary procedeure" example.
I've always been intrigued by the people who can't stand FPTP, but think 50+1 is enough to change the entire way in which we vote!
Well, its not surprising or intriguing that proponents of FPTP think 40% is a mandate for the NO side. And 50%+ is good enough to break up the country, i fail to see why it isn't good enough to change our voting system from one that creates phony majorities.
The concept of "supermajority" votes is well grounded in parliamentary procedures, usually to deal with more substantial issues. Argue, if you will, that this issue doesn't need a "supermajority." You may well have a case. I suspect that if it only got 40 per cent, a lot of the proponents would be on here arguing that it needs to be voted on again, because it's clear that a substantial part of the population is voting for change - IMO that's an argument in favour of a supermajority requirement.
That's neither here nor there, though. The bill implementing the 60/60 requirement passed the legislature, was part of the original referendum and is in place now.
What I wish one of the proponents of STV would please do is explain exactly how a government would go about implementing STV if it got between 50 and 60 per cent. Can any of you folks foresee any ramifications of implementing a voting strategy in the face of a statutorily failed referendum? Anyone?
Brian, I'm going to ignore your comments about the federal NDP/BCNDP. the fact that the relationship is not what you wish it to be has been explained to you ad nauseum; if you are going to ignore simple reality, I'm not going to explain it to you any further.
And as you have now officially jumped the shark by blaming the BCNDP for future totalitarian abuses on other continents, I think I'm done with this thread.
The standard BC referendum law uses 50/50 as a figure, which is quite appropriate. IE it requires both an overall majority as well as a regional majority.
The 60/60 rule was passed by the 79-2 BC Liberal Government originally and was an exception to the normal referendum law. The 60% of popular vote was really designed to raise the bar above and beyond what would normally be considered democratic and the number was intentionally picked out of the air months after the Citizens' Assembly process has already began. The result of a caucus decision, I have been told.
Super majority rules are common within parliaments bit never within in referendums. Even by International standards, the EU recognized 55% as the acceptable number for a countries succession.
The idea of a supermajority within a parliament (or even per say the US senate) is that legislation should have a broader *regional support.* It requires majority support in 2/3s of the area. This is the same reason the US had traditionally used the electoral college. This is to ensure any legislation that passes is good for all of the areas.
However, the popular vote quota is raised from 50%-60%, this is purely a systematic barrier to prevent change and could allow a minority to block it for self interest rather than real concerns about regional fairness.
From a practical side, it is unfortunate that 60/60 is now being considered a precedent by others attempting to bring in initiatives and hoping they will fail.
The reality is that the voting system is determined by a government.
British Columbia previously changed our system by legislative acts a number of times. Most notably in the 1980s when dual member constituencies were eliminated, most notable when IRV was introduced (single member STV) in 1952 and 1953.
STV was used in ALberta and Manitoba from the 1920-1950s, (only in the cities) when the government eliminated it, mainly to block the progressive labour party (which was marxists) from getting seats. This was done without a vote.
Internationally, New Zealand used 50% for their referendum to bring in an MMP system there. Scotland used 50% to bring in STV at local elections.
This is cogent and easily defensible. It's moot, however, considering the 60/60 is what's statutorily required.
What's being argued is that the BC NDP is somehow against proportional representation because it won't agree to enact STV if it earns between 50 and 60 percent. I'm stil curious to hear someone explain how that would be accomplished without any ramifications whatsoever.
Right. The BCNDP is supposed to claim it will violate the terms of the duly constituted referendum. Duh.
Its sad that Social "Democrats" are now actually arguing that the vote of people who supoort democratic reform should be worth less than those supporting a system which gives us ridiculously phony majority governments and usually extremely right wing reactionary ones at that. Why not just shorten the party's name to the 'New Party'?
scott makes very good points as well, I've got nothing against MMP but its very hard to take the BC NDP seriously with their record. When do we get to see their proposal or vote on it and is it going to require 60%+ as well?
The only way the BC NDP is going to wake up is if they have yet another dismal election result, I wouldn't be surprised if they get that opportunity.
I am glad that you are done with the thread. I see no reason that the federal NDP (which supports democracy and who i vote for) should not comment on this stunning rejection of democratic standards by their childling the BC NDP.
As Nancy stated, you cannot join the feds without also joining the bcndp. BUT they diverge a LOT. Someone needs to do quality control and bring the bcndp back into line with their voters and NDP ideals. By supporting 2 votes beating 3 votes (and seing nothing wrong with it) the BCNDP IS helping to create a wonderful new tool that tyrants WILL use to assault their people and stay in power longer. Before Campbells brilliant stroke, referenda were decided by the will of the majority just about everywhere in the world.
Now the dictator just needs 40% support to WIN. Totally new rules. Thanks to gordo and James and you coyote. For defending them.
Brian, I'm going to ignore your comments about the federal NDP/BCNDP. the fact that the relationship is not what you wish it to be has been explained to you ad nauseum; if you are going to ignore simple reality, I'm not going to explain it to you any further.
And as you have now officially jumped the shark by blaming the BCNDP for future totalitarian abuses on other continents, I think I'm done with this thread.
Yeah, why not hide behind an invisible figleaf?
You can find a million reasons to justify why your no vote should be worth 1.5 times my yes vote. I can find only one reason that all votes should be equal. Fairness.
Why not promote some kind of open ballot system instead? I've proposed one exmple in the following thread already:
http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/your-thoughts-pyramidal-open-ballot
But certainly someone here might have an even better idea. With modern technology, I believe that an open-balot system should be relatively easy to implement. Why are we rejecting the help of technlogy and choosing to limit ourselves to closed ballots? This is part of the problem as it limits our voting options considerably. Should we not be free to vote for whom we want?
I'm going to ask it again: please explain to me how a government (any party) would implement STV if it failed to meet its statutory requirement without any ramifications whatsoever.
I'm not holding my breath. I get the sense this is just another cudgel being used by Greens to bash the NDP. Wrapping themselves up in the cloak of democratic ideals can't hide what's really happening.
I'm going to ask it again: please explain to me how a government (any party) would implement STV if it failed to meet its statutory requirement without any ramifications whatsoever.
If the NDP came out and said they would consider a 50%+ vote a mandate to proceed with implementing STV, what do you perceive as being the horrible ramifications you keep alluding to? Nasty editorials in the Province? The BC Liberals who will be well below 50% of the vote themselves (and who have supporters that support STV) whine about everyone's vote in the referendum counting the same? You'll have to be specific about what you are so terrified of, to me it looks like the kind of opposition a party with social democratic principles should be able to not only destroy but benefit from. On what basis do you think it is impossible to implement democratic reform with 58% of the population endorsing it in a non-binding referendum?
And I'm not a Green but I am thinking about becoming one, provincially anyways, I can't respect the NDP's position on this and in the long game its going to hurt the people they claim to be looking out for, I hope Cambell loses but it has been our shoddy democratic system that has allowed him to do as much damage as he has, and if it isn't changed, history will repeat itself.
I'm still scared that with STV it will mean perpetual rightwing coalitions in BC between the BC greens (who are very rightwing and pro-Campbell) and the BC Liberals. Be careful about wishing for something - it might happen.
Your fear is based on flawed information. BC Greens are either ex NDP or environmentalists which in my experience tend to be left. Although you can't control who your supporters are, few Greens are on the right. A few market based policies do not a Liberal make. Exit polls from previous elections show that the NDP is the most popular second choice for Green voters.
BC dippers are fools not to support STV because they would do better under that system:
BC-STV Referendum 2009 (Part 3)
__________________________________
One struggle, many fronts.
If you look back at the three elections the NDP has ever won in BC - if STV had been in place, the rightwing parties would almost certainly have banded together to keep the NDP out of power. In 1972, the NDP won with 40% of the vote - under STV the Socreds, Liberals and PCs would have happily formed an anti-NDP coalition under Wacky Bennett. In 1991, the Socreds and the BC Liberals would have happily done the same and let's not forget 1996 where the BC Liberals actually had more votes than the NDP plus another 10% voted for the far right BC Reform Party.
Stockholm, supporting STV or other forms of PR is not about helping to NDP form a government. It's about improving democracy to make it better represent the will of the people. If we believe in democracy, we should support it even it hurts the party. If we don't believe in democracy we may as well talk about how we can manlipuate elections or take power by force.
I agree and I have always supported proportional representation. I'm just saying that people should not assume that PR is going to guarantee more progressive government. In many cases it will have the opposite impact. That doesn't mean that it isn't still better in principle but it is not a panacea.
We're just tired of the phony-majority panaseeyas. It'll be a good day for democracy when one person equals one vote.
I am glad that you are done with the thread. I see no reason that the federal NDP (which supports democracy and who i vote for) should not comment on this stunning rejection of democratic standards by their childling the BC NDP.
As Nancy stated, you cannot join the feds without also joining the bcndp. BUT they diverge a LOT. Someone needs to do quality control and bring the bcndp back into line with their voters and NDP ideals. By supporting 2 votes beating 3 votes (and seing nothing wrong with it) the BCNDP IS helping to create a wonderful new tool that tyrants WILL use to assault their people and stay in power longer. Before Campbells brilliant stroke, referenda were decided by the will of the majority just about everywhere in the world.
Now the dictator just needs 40% support to WIN. Totally new rules. Thanks to gordo and James and you coyote. For defending them.
Gah! I'm responsible for dictatorship! the horror! the horror!
I have truly seen the light. Now and forever, every time you are wrong you are right. I bow to your ability to ignore all facts and press on with your talking points.
Carry on.
If the NDP become the government, they can impliment STV for the next election if they wish. All they need to do so is to pass a bill in the ledge.This type of bill has been done before. The " statutory requirement" is made up bullshit and there was a court challenge to it but I think it ran out of money. It might still be winding its way through the courts.
A lawyer writing in common ground was sure the 60 60 threshold was illegal, (but proving it takes years) and the damage it does is instant.
I'm going to ask it again: please explain to me how a government (any party) would implement STV if it failed to meet its statutory requirement without any ramifications whatsoever.
I'm not holding my breath. I get the sense this is just another cudgel being used by Greens to bash the NDP. Wrapping themselves up in the cloak of democratic ideals can't hide what's really happening.
You are not responsible for them but you do make their lives easier. If yoy (with nothing to gain from the lie) can lie to yourself and say that 40% can beat 60%, the dictator (with everything to gain from it) can happily lie to hisself too. A couple of years down the road Canada can complain aboutsome referendum where people will be turned awayat gunpoint. But Canada CANNOT complain when the same dictator makes 40 votes equal to 60. "Look mom, no guns, and I still get to fuck my people over!" "I thank gordo and Carole for legitimising this and making it easier for me"
As far as I am concerned, anyone who talks ibn favour of the 60 percent thing is a vote thief. That includes Carole James and Gordon Campbell and Coyote.
.
Gah! I'm responsible for dictatorship! the horror! the horror!
I have truly seen the light. Now and forever, every time you are wrong you are right. I bow to your ability to ignore all facts and press on with your talking points.
Carry on.
Please tell me if this is useful. Bill Tieleman claims that charts are not useful in the debate. David Schreck might find the charts useful too. (He is busy explaining the Schreck Doctrine in the bcstv thread at the moment!) why it was GOOD that the ndp got reduced from government party to just 2 seats in 2001 and other good stuff! 
That's true. I'm just saying that Torontonians who think democratic reform is a non-issue in BC, really don't know what they are talking about and if they want to set up a scavenger hunt to prove them wrong they should provide prizes. The Federal NDP's weak BC campaign in the last election is not that relevant to this thread although Anderson's article does suggest that the Other Side isn't blind to this soft spot in the party's heel. 
That means no chance for the 3rd largest party.
The Bloc?
Is it 4:20 yet?
The provincial sections are not beholden to the federal party on policy matters; nor is the federal party beholden to provincial sections. Both have the right to take positions in their areas of jurisdiction.
Not every New Democrat, nor every progressive, is convinced that proportional representation is necessary or desirable in all jurisdictions. I happen to believe that it makes far more sense in the federal context than it does in smaller jurisdictions like, for example, Nova Scotia or Saskatchewan.
Regardless, the provincial sections, and provincial leaders, are not junior partners answerable to their federal cousins.
Has anyone seen this?
http://www.nostv.org/NoSTV_Leaflet.pdf
So they are not allowed to talk and voice concerns?
Then why did Chow do it?
And if your dogma is correct, why is the fed ndp working for pro rep?
The provincial sections are not beholden to the federal party on policy matters; nor is the federal party beholden to provincial sections. Both have the right to take positions in their areas of jurisdiction.
Not every New Democrat, nor every progressive, is convinced that proportional representation is necessary or desirable in all jurisdictions. I happen to believe that it makes far more sense in the federal context than it does in smaller jurisdictions like, for example, Nova Scotia or Saskatchewan.
Regardless, the provincial sections, and provincial leaders, are not junior partners answerable to their federal cousins.
The federal party is advocating for proportional representation for parliament. I am certain more than a few federal MPs agree with Chow that BC should also have proportional representation.
What I am suggesting is that the BCNDP is in no way beholden to the federal party's position. Not in law, not in the party's constitution, and not in practice.
Ms Chow has the absolute right to her opinion, and to express it. I might suggest, however, that the federal party should concentrate on federal matters and leave the BCNDP to decide what decisions it will take on matters pertaining to BC.
I think it would be an unwelcome intrusion- and I support STV!
How is it unwelcome? The federal NDP is a national party that want to govern all of canada.
Since when are opinions intrusions anyway? Sorry, thats completely Daft.
I think politics is totally screwed up here. You would probably have to torture any BC LIB or NDP mla at the moment to get an opinion out of them on the referendum.
WHY is this? Surely it is because of an internal BC party gag order.
The life blood of politics is opinions. Why are we not hearing them?
You can blame canadian politenes but I think it is a much deeper sickness.
When you think about it, is this thread proof that, without someone with a big important name to follow, people (canadians) just freeze and stop thinking? I mean it is a straightforward question. Very few people have opinions, it seems. Maybe because your favorite editorial writer writes your opinion too?
People would think Jack naughty if he was to call for a yes vote!
What is the big deal? We have federal NDP MP's living here, are they supposed to button their lips too? I mean, before long, they will not be able to talk about anything!
In the referendum, you are either for stv (pro rep) or you are for first past the post. It is that simple.
Actually Pro Rep is something that the NDP in general claim to aspire to.
" Not every New Democrat, nor every progressive, is convinced that proportional representation is necessary or desirable in all jurisdictions"
You use the word progressive out of context there. Where is Pro Rep not desirable?
The provincial sections are not beholden to the federal party on policy matters; nor is the federal party beholden to provincial sections. Both have the right to take positions in their areas of jurisdiction.
Not every New Democrat, nor every progressive, is convinced that proportional representation is necessary or desirable in all jurisdictions. I happen to believe that it makes far more sense in the federal context than it does in smaller jurisdictions like, for example, Nova Scotia or Saskatchewan.
Regardless, the provincial sections, and provincial leaders, are not junior partners answerable to their federal cousins.
What is the NDP "in general"? If you mean the federal party, then absolutely the NDP is in favour of proportional representation, which is a big part of the federal party's policy in regards to reforming parliament.
If you mean there is a consensus among NDP sections, you are wrong. The BCNDP, remember, is not beholden to the federal party positions on federal issues; nor is the federal party beholden to BNDP postions on provincial issues.
You seem to be having difficulty with the notion that provincial sections and the federal party may disagree. They always have, and always will.
And if you are convinced that prop rep is a unqualified good in all instances, good for you. It doesn't matter to the argument about the propriety of the federal leader intervening in provincial issues.
Some people cite Tommy Douglas'repeated provincial victories, in which
the CCF won parliamentary majorities without winning a majority of the popular vote, as an argument for opposing STV or any other pr proposal.
Is that necessarily still a valid argument?
And is what happened in Saskatchewan sixty years ago worth passing up a chance to create a system in which, in all liklhood, there would never again be an all-out federal right wing government in Canada?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________ Our Demands Most Moderate are/ We Only Want The World! -James Connolly
We can easily have an all-out federal rightwing government under PR. All that has to happen is for over half the voters to vote Liberal or Conservative and as we have seen this week - when push comes to shove, those parties are more than happy to govern together.
Pro rep IS NDP policy. The NDP should be one national party, very short term local interests should not thrump the long term national interest.
I think, Brian, that some of the resistance to your position generally is that this comment misrepresents the structure and functioning of the NDP. It suggests that the provincial NDP (here the BC NDP) should somehow submit to the federal NDP, rather than that the provincial parties exists as co-equals with the federal party.
It is entirely appropriate for individual MPs to comment on political issues facing the provincial parties. While it would be acceptable for the federal leader to also comment, I would suggest that there are more important things upon which the federal leader should focus his attention.
MUCH more important things, grey.
I don't know whether Layton should speak up -- BC babblers please respond -- but I very much hope federal NDP MPs from BC will do so.
Many provincial MLAs may choose to stay silent in order to keep electoral reform a non-partisan issue, on the theory that the voting system belongs to the people, not the politicians -- which is very true. Also, a few BC New Democrats give priority to their self-interest in forming a government with a manufactured majority, and an MLA who speaks up for democracy might sound naive to some of his or her more cynical militants.
However, the federal NDP needs a win for proportional representation in BC in order to keep the issue on the table across Canada. Federal NDP MPs in BC can safely say our undemocratic voting system needs improvement, and they should.
I'm not complaining about their silence to date -- the drama in Ottawa obviously took priority -- but I hope they are now free to speak up.
I don't know whether Layton should speak up -- BC babblers please respond -- but I very much hope federal NDP MPs from BC will do so.
I am OK with federal MPs speaking up. Several NDP MPs have spoken up in favour of pro-rep, but I haven't heard any advocate for BC-STV yet. Let the lobbying begin.
This is a reasonable position if the threshold was 50% +1, but with a 60% threshold choosing to stand aside from the decision is the same as a NO vote, because an effort must be made for it to pass. Sadly I think that this is the majority opinion among BC-NDP leaders, They want STV to fail, but want to appear in favour on pro-rep as a matter of principle, so they stans aside from the decision. Among rank and file members the level of knowledge on the issue is very low, which leads me to belive that here has been no discussion within the party.
Bingo. I think this position is short sided though. The NDP stands to benefit from STV in the sense that they will recieve a net benefit from Green vote transfers. I think that many dippers believe that if pro-rep is defeated that the Green Party will collapse and that the BC-NDP will recieve the green votes. I don't think that this willl happen, given Green polling over the last 20 years.
I will be looking forward to hearing from them.
__________________________________
One struggle, many fronts.
I think most of the resistance is knee jerk. Remember that Carole James claims to support MMP PR. You really support it, make it part of your platform.
The cure for NDP twin personality disorder is to remove one of the personalities. People are much more likely to vote for you at all levels if you are consistant. If the provincials are saying "fuck the federal ideals, cos it does not suit us today" it does not bring good optics. You understimate the power of idealism. The poor voters, (the ones you depend on more than the other parties do) will just see you as just another shower of self serving bastards if you do not live up to your ideals. And it takes very little to make a poor voter stay at home on election day.
All sections of the NDP should support Pro Rep. Because it is fairer than first past the post. You have one side of the NDP being good and moral and another side trying to undo what the good ones are trying to build.
The federal NDP also needs to design a fair MMP system to put to the people federally (and provincially if they wish). I know Wilf would be happy to help. There are many MMP systems out there and it hinders their adoption because some are good and some bad .
Currently the NDP can work at the attack ads on iggie. I am in favour. But thats half of it. Making themselves more consistant and proclaiming themselves as the party for managing the government as opposed to the corporate raders of the other partys would pay dividends too.
I think, Brian, that some of the resistance to your position generally is that this comment misrepresents the structure and functioning of the NDP. It suggests that the provincial NDP (here the BC NDP) should somehow submit to the federal NDP, rather than that the provincial parties exists as co-equals with the federal party.
It is entirely appropriate for individual MPs to comment on political issues facing the provincial parties. While it would be acceptable for the federal leader to also comment, I would suggest that there are more important things upon which the federal leader should focus his attention.
No, it is none of the federal NDP's business.
___________________________________________________________ "watching the tide roll away"
Which some people can't grasp.
I think Jack is far too cognizant of his position to make this mistake.
I guess it is necessary to have a firewall between the federal and provincial branches of the NDP. It is the only way that they can hold opposite positions on the same issues.
But do they hold opposite positions? The BC-NDP endorsed MMP officially. But how is opposing STV part of the pathway to implementaion of MMP?
__________________________________
One struggle, many fronts.
Am a BC resident and have been trying to get clarification on the BC NDP's position. Ugh. It's like pulling deeply-rooted teeth.
Here's an excerpt from Part 3 (my third email to the party) of my most recent political adventure:
...You have stated the following (to the BC Citizens' Assembly):
"The NDP reaffirms its position that electoral reform should emerge from an open and democratic process of public consultation culminating in a provincial referendum. In that process, political parties should take a back seat to citizens. We therefore reaffirm our support for the independence of the Citizens' Assembly and express our confidence that it will succeed in offering for public approval an electoral system that meets the aspirations and best interests of British Columbians."
Given this statement, what "open and democratic process" would you propose to follow "to work for an electoral system that is fair and balanced"?
I understand that support for STV is going to be part of the BC Greens' election platform.
When Ontario had its farcical vote on PR in 2007, parties were effectively forbidden to participate. Howard Hampton (Ontario NDP leader) referred to this as part of a Liberal plan to set the initiative up for failure. I can't find any reason to disagree.
Proportional Representation is a political issue. The idea that parties should not take positions is just dumb.
The question of Jack Layton's involvement is another matter entirely.
It is not strictly correct to say that federal and provincial New Democratic Parties are completely separate. Although their corporate structures must be operated separately under Canadian law, you cannot belong to one without belonging to the other. For the most part, provincial parties are paid to look after federal affairs in their neck of the woods under contract from the federal party. Other parties do it differently, but that's the NDP way.
What this means, however, is that a federal leader messing with a provincial leader's issues has implications for the federal party on the ground. If Jack says anything but squat on this issue, it will be because he was asked to say something.
And I'm curious about the details of where and when Olivia Chow said what. Anybody got a link?
It is not strictly correct to say that federal and provincial New Democratic Parties are completely separate. Although their corporate structures must be operated separately under Canadian law, you cannot belong to one without belonging to the other.
This is what prevented me from becoming a member of the federal NDP many years ago. I'd gone so far as to download the membership form but then saw I'd be made a member of the BC NDP too. Applicants were given no choice but to be a member of both parties or neither. I chose neither.
I don't know what she has said since May 31, 2008, but I was there when she spoke to the Fair Vote Canada annual general meeting in Toronto. She not only re-affirmed the party's support for proportional representation, but specifically referred to the BC-STV referendum, said she hoped it would pass, and said she realized how important it was for the rest of Canada that it should pass. I cannot quote or link to anything that would show whether she said "we" or "I" support it, but it didn't sound like a merely personal view.
I think the trouble is that BC-STV threatens the provincial party establishment. Long-term, under STV, we might see the BC Liberals and BC NDP fall apart or become smaller factions alongside a few other parties that represent voters' interests more finely. I'd predict the BC Greens would pick up seats, and that some additional party would splinter the Gordo Liberal-Conservative alliance.
Personally I would be perfectly happy to see this. I have little party loyalty, and I would not hesitate under STV to vote other candidates higher than NDP if they deserve it.
But for the parties, it's scary. Everything they have believed in and worked for has been within the party structure. To welcome outsiders at their own expense is a tough choice to make.
Those sort of splits might happen. Or not. It depends on the voters.
Tasmania, for example, has a left party (Labor) and a right party (Liberals), plus a small Green Party. That's it. It hasn't elected even one independent in the past three elections.
One thing that helps party solidarity in Tasmania is their ballot: each party's candidates are listed in a separate column. Easy for lazy voters to follow. By contrast, Ireland lists them all alphabetically.
BC-STV will use the Tasmanian ballot, the Citizens' Assembly decided. Not really an anti-party group.
IMHO, the BC Federal MPs can speak up if they wish. They are locals. I also despise Carole James' practice of whipping votes and setting out what appears like a gag rule on certain issues that should be free votes/issues within the party. Since the 2005 election, the party has been so power-hungry they're behaving like Liberals.
It is kinda funny that several NDP and BC Liberal MLA,s were raving supporters of STV last time round but I hear nothing at all from them now.
It is pretty clear that before campbell repealed his gag law, he and James had the old "I will pull out your fingernails if you speak in favour of this" private talks with their underlings. I also find it strange that all MLA's from both partys can bring themselves to support making 2 no votes equal to 3 yes votes. That just stuns me. 79 people allowed themselves to be soo badly corrupted. Surely they were not standing on guard for anybody when they did that.
How can you even say democracy after doing a thing like that?
From a blog post I wrote today:
Dear Chrystal Ocean,
As I wrote before, I think this crucial debate is too important to get mired in partisan politics, so I will not be commenting on STV prior to the referendum.
However, I am firmly committed to implementing STV if the referendum passes. And, if it does not pass, I remain committed to offering British Columbians the opportunity to vote on MMP.
Sincerely,
Carole James, Leader
Official Opposition
My legitimate questions concerned what James' party would do about the following issues if it formed the government:
BC voters have a right to know the NDP's answers to these and other questions I asked in my follow-up email BEFORE we vote in the election and referendum. Waving the flag of false concern for "partisan politics" to weasel out of answering them doesn't cut it.
I'm curious what answer would have satisfied you.
(Full disclosure: I voted against STV last time, because I think it's flawed and I much prefer a system like MMP. I will probably vote in favour of it this time, because I suspect that if it fails, we will be stuck with the current system, which is patently unfair.)
A complete answer.
Did you read the two emails I'd sent? Links to Parts 1 to 3, which include the emails and James responses, are provided on the blog. The above was taken from Part 4.
So Carole James is not opposed to PR. I'm glad that's at least clear.
Don't think that's clear at all.
Had MMP been the choice of the BCCA, likely James & Co. would have been strongly in favour of STV.
The NDP is opposed to PR, period. The party cannot say so since many of its supporters would be taken aback by such a position. Instead, it engages in complicated contortions and deceptions and is largely successful because its supporters, lacking alternatives, keep on voting NDP.
Had MMP been the choice of the BCCA, likely James & Co. would have been strongly in favour of STV.
The NDP is opposed to PR, period. The party cannot say so since many of its supporters would be taken aback by such a position. Instead, it engages in complicated contortions and deceptions and is largely successful because its supporters, lacking alternatives, keep on voting NDP.
This is libellous horsehit. Fuck off.
As far as I can gather from this distance, there are several trends among BC New Democrats:
1. Most NDP voters will vote for STV, as the only form of PR on the table, and as the model designed by the independent and diligent Citizens' Assembly.
2. The official party position has for years been to support PR without specifying a model. That's the position Carole James took at the Citizens' Assembly hearing.
3. Some leaders will remain neutral to prevent partisan politics costing STV votes. (In Ontario PR sometimes looked like an NDP initiative, costing it support from other parties' supporters).
4. Some of the old-guard like Dave Barrett opposed the party's decision to support PR, and are still opposed to it. They want to keep playing the only game they know, the winner-take-all game of trying to game the vote splits into a manufactured majority of seats. They do not speak for the NDP, although they get lots of publicity.
5. One woman I know genuinely thinks STV is worse than winner-take-all, while sincerely supporting MMP. She seems to be unique.
The NDP is opposed to PR, period.
They want to throw a fuck into the NDP in a province where the NDP stands a chance of winning by phony majority. It's nothing more complicated than that.
They want to throw a fuck into the NDP in a province where the NDP stands a chance of winning by phony majority. It's nothing more complicated than that.
Who are they?
This conversation is getting absurd.
Politics is about consensus, and nobody ever gets everything they want from any political party. People vote NDP because the party comes closest to what their preferences are, when they compare them to the Liberals. Emphasis on the word closest. The NDP come closer to what NDP supporters want in a government. If you think Campbell best represents what you want in a government vote Liberal.
It appears that neither political party is, or will be, taking a position for or against STV.
Peter, you are a jerk. The provincial ndp could have MMP in their platform. They do not. They are too damn lazy to design a real right now mmp system, which they MUST do before they put mmp to the electorate. Being too lazy, all they have to do is contract out the job to Wilf Day who can probably design a good fair one for BC. The ONLY other reason that they do not support pro rep is because they are content in the knowelege that fptp fucks up occasionally and gives us an undiserved ndp majority government. The problem with this tired old formula is that the population is aging (getting more conservative). It will not work any more. The NDP should cut their losses NOW and go for pro rep. As our bc population ages and right wing retirees move in, there will never be a ndp false majority again. But there will be constant bc lib false majoritys on 40 to 43% of the vote. Under stv, the ndp can still govern with the greens as junior partners MOST of the time.
That is WAY better than one election in 10 in the future under first past the post.
Carole James CANNOT think outside the box that campbell built for her. A revolution must happen from below. That is possible! The green party members forced adrienne carr to change her stance. The ndp members MUST rebel against 3 votes been beaten by 2 and the whole "lets not talk about the referendum" conspiracy that the bc ndp and bc libs are indulging in. Carole James IS lieing, she does not want pro rep, she does not want mmp or stv.
Be honest and admit it. Get a yes or no from her. Does she support one person one vote in referendums? The answer is a CLEAR no if she supports the "supermajority". The supermajority allows 40 votes to beat 60 votes. How on Gods green earth is that compatible with democracy?
You know why I am up in arms about the "supermajority"? Because it gives evil bastards in south america, africa and asia, (where referenda are often held) one more tool to keep their people under their heels. You want to help evil dictators?, then keep quiet about the wrongness of the whole supermajority concept.
I think the mla's who accept campbells and james 60% supermajority are spineless cowards. They are going to hurt a lot of people. Are you going to stand by too?
Had MMP been the choice of the BCCA, likely James & Co. would have been strongly in favour of STV.
The NDP is opposed to PR, period. The party cannot say so since many of its supporters would be taken aback by such a position. Instead, it engages in complicated contortions and deceptions and is largely successful because its supporters, lacking alternatives, keep on voting NDP.
This is libellous horsehit. Fuck off.
BOTH political parties have taken an INCREDIBLY powerful position against pro rep. When they count votes at the referendum, 2 votes for first past the post will be worth 3 votes for stv. They had to throw away democratic values to do that. It sickens my stomach. Remember they had to change the referendum act to do this. People should be up at arms over this. it is totally wrong.
This conversation is getting absurd.
Politics is about consensus, and nobody ever gets everything they want from any political party. People vote NDP because the party comes closest to what their preferences are, when they compare them to the Liberals. Emphasis on the word closest. The NDP come closer to what NDP supporters want in a government. If you think Campbell best represents what you want in a government vote Liberal.
It appears that neither political party is, or will be, taking a position for or against STV.
Sadly, I think regardless of how people vote on the STV referendum, the BC NDP's support for PR will entirely depend on whether they get hurt by vote splits with the Greens.
The strange thing is that Carole James actions are designed to alienate the green votrers. She is against the carbon tax which pushes them away. And she supports first past the post which means that with 10% of the vote they get no seats. If she supported 50% as a win in the referendum, a lot of greens would vote ndp this time. (And stv could still lose).
I mean, if she owned a grocery store, she couldnt get customers in because she stocks the wrong products. (That even includes her own loyal supporters!). Exit polls in the last referendum showed that ndp voters STRONGLY supported STV.
In my opinion, only a thick headed dimwit would take positions that are gauranteed to lose her votes. I guess the rarified air up there in leadership does not allow enough oxygen to the brain.
quote=melovesproles]Sadly, I think regardless of how people vote on the STV referendum, the BC NDP's support for PR will entirely depend on whether they get hurt by vote splits with the Greens.