Keeping it Real…

Keeping it Real… header image 2

NO to Proportional Chaos/Blackmail: There’s A BETTER Solution

October 11th, 2018 · 30 Comments

It’s too bad governments don’t really listen to the people … or even fully canvass us on critical issues like how we elect our representatives.

The referendum ballot that will soon be mailed to British Columbians will NOT be the open, fair or free discussion of possible voting changes as promised by Premier John Horgan and his NDP/Green alliance when they took power in May 2017.

At that time they said they would “CONSULT” with the people on the issue and come up with a specific particular alternative proposal.

That has NOT happened.

What we’re getting instead is a  REFERENDUM BALLOT …  to choose to keep the current first-past-the- post system  or, if not, opt for one of three convoluted proportional systems … two of which have apparently NEVER been tried anywhere in the world (although they don’t tell you that on the ballot).

Democracy is far too important to be trifled with this way.

Readers of this blog know that, looking at the referendum as now formulated, I believe it would be better to KEEP the existing first-past-the-post  system … for now.

What SHOULD then be looked at by the government … IN TRUE CONSULTATION WITH THE PEOPLE … is an idea that was broached on this blog in the latest discussions by our citizen contributors … much more simple and a lot less dangerous than any of the proportional representation proposals  the NDP/Greens are trying to force on us in the referendum.

I’m talking about a RUNOFF system.

British Columbia and Canada are rich enough entities to be able to afford an electoral system that requires each winner to carry at least 50% of the total vote in that particular riding; and, failing that, the top two candidates would then face a RUNOFF vote a few weeks later, ensuring ultimate majority support for the representative chosen to hold the seat for years.

Think about it.

That not only would give independent candidates in each riding a better chance of getting elected, as a second choice,  as those with well-funded party backings/campaigns, and it would also ensure the ultimate winner DOES capture at least 50% of the total votes cast.

Brazil is the most famous country right now in the news that uses the runoff system … and a perfect example of a benefit under that system. The  ultra far right presidential candidate failed to win 50% of the original vote … so now there will be a runoff pitting him against the second place finisher, a leftist contender.

The runoff gives VOTERS … including those who initially voted for smaller parties or independents … a second chance either unite behind the original poll leader OR unite to make sure he does not get elected and take power.

More than three dozen countries already use the runoff system… including France, Czech Republic, Austria,  Poland, Portugal …  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-round_system .

Surely that is better than our current first-past-the-post system, under which someone can “win” with 30% of the vote or even less … and it prevents the chaos and dangers (read my earlier blog on proportional representation) that the referendum ballot about to drop on your doorstep would unleash.

First … we should ALL vote to KEEP the first-past-the-post system …  period.  Leave the p.r. section of the ballot EMPTY.

And then, the government should enter into a TRUE consultative process with THE PEOPLE about the idea of having a RUNOFF system to achieve what I believe most do want:  majority representation in every riding and every government.

And that would be brought in much more simple, efficient and understandable than the chaotic, blackmail-encouraging p.r. system now proposed.

Harv Oberfeld

(If you care about this issue and feel the RUNOFF option should be considered, instead of the convoluted proportional system, feel free to send it along to others.)

Tags: British Columbia · National

30 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Jimbo // Oct 11, 2018 at 9:01 am

    I agree. Runoff election ensures majority rule. No more 40% governments -consolidates opp0sition to current first past the poster.

    (Response: I’m surprised this idea has not been given much more serious thought. Maybe it’s too simple and gives a direct say to too many citizen voters … placing the ultimate choice in tight situations in the people’s hands and beyond the reach of pressure groups, tiny parties and deal-making strategists. Let’s defeat proportional representation so we can then have a look at a much better solution: the RUNOFF. Pass it on! h.o.)

  • 2 DBW // Oct 11, 2018 at 9:07 am

    OK Harvey, I will bite again.

    Run offs are unnecessary as a ranked ballot will do the same trick without the added expense of a second election.

    As well, a run-off is not necessarily accurate. Look at how many times the third fourth or fifth candidate at leadership conventions have ended up the winner. An example in the Wikipedia article you linked used the French election of 2002.

    Centre right Chirac leads the first round (of 16 candidates) with 19%. Extreme right Le Pen is next with 16.8% and third goes to the Leftist Jospin with 16.1%. Unsurprisingly Chirac wins 82% in the run-off against Le Pen.

    Who knows what the result might have been if Jospin hadn’t alienated some of the left wing in the first round who supported other leftists instead. Chirac may still have won but it would have been much closer showing the actual support he had as President.

    So, sure Harvey, I can support a ranked ballot for electing our local MLAs. It was a big component of STV. You might look at the Rural Urban choice for this referendum.

    I could go on but it is clear that we are immoveable in our positions. However, I would like to add that proportional representation does not lead to chaos and blackmail. That is fear mongering. One of Tieleman’s ads shows a bunch of neo Nazis marching and asks if this is what we want? That picture could have been from the US or Britain for all we know.

    No country is being turned into a Nazi state because of its voting method.

    (Response: Of course, if the runoff is ONLY between the top two finishers in the initial round, then the system you warn about …where the third or fourth finisher could win would not apply. But at least it would allow their supporters to have a say … a second say … in determining who does ultimately represent their riding. Better than a convoluted calculation most voters don’t understand and should not trust to politicians or bureaucrats to interpret and apply. h.o.)

  • 3 Gene The Bean // Oct 11, 2018 at 9:07 am

    Interesting but it is hard enough to get people to vote once, let alone twice.

    The system HAS to change. So lets change it to PR and then revisit it if we have to.

    (Response: I disagree. I think a runoff system would generate real excitement and INCREASED participation, because those who support someone they know won’t likely win in the first round, could hold out hope he or she could win in the second and even if they don’t make it that far, it still gives their supporters a DIRECT voice in determining the ultimate representative for the area. Much better than the p.r. blackmail system the NDP/Greens want us to approve.ho.)

  • 4 Hawgwash // Oct 11, 2018 at 9:14 am

    I like the idea and implementation of a runoff vote.

    In my little community, nestled by the sea near Swartz Bay, the 2014 mayoral race had 5 candidates and the results were;

    C-1; 1312 votes
    C-2; 1180 votes
    C-3; 706 votes
    C-4; 674 votes
    C-5; 15 votes.

    The mayor was elected with 35% of the vote.

    It is reasonable to think a run off would have produced a different result and many here would say we have been subjected to a 4 year dictatorship that irreversibly changed our town; not for the better.

    Candidates 1 and 2 above are the only 2 running in 2018 and I do believe we will see a substantially different outcome.
    —————–
    I will be spoiling my mail in ballot with the word “Runoff” and a mark beside it.

    (Response: This is a perfect example of how a runoff system would have allowed much greater citizen participation without automatically awarding power to a candidate with 40% of the vote. h.o)

  • 5 Steve Cooley // Oct 11, 2018 at 9:27 am

    First … we should ALL vote to DITCH the first-past-the-post system … period. (not quite a quote)

    I agree that a runoff system is much simpler to understand and would be better than the first-past-the-post system. I am of the opinion that any type of proportional voting system is an improvement, including those on the ballot we will see.

    (Response: Proportional representation is almost the opposite of the much better RUNOFF system: p.r. would allow small parties to hold a gun to the head of a larger party trying to form government without a majority; the RUNOFF system would guarantee that the PEOPLE decide who ends up with more than 50% support … ie backed by a majority of those voting in any particular riding. And to get serious discussion going around that alternative, we must first DEFEAT the p.r. now being pushed on us by the NDP/Greens … contrary to what/how Horgan promised. h.o)

  • 6 e.a.f. // Oct 11, 2018 at 11:26 am

    Some may be of the opinion the consultation was done during the Campbell years, when the B.C. Lieberals looked at PR. That was a long time ago and we have a new crop of voters, either by growing into voting age or having become citizens.

    Personally I think a run off system is best. If the MLA or MP does not achieve 50% on the first vote, then there needs to be a run off. It will focus the voters and it may cause candidates to have a second look at their positions.

    When it comes time for the newly minted MLA/MP/councillor to vote, in the Leg., they are going to think about how they got there, not just the 30% of the voters but the other 30% from other parties. It may give some of our politicians pause before they tow the party line. It would also mean some politicians could survive without their parties.

    Currently, a politicians just doesn’t care if you’re from another party, and live in their constitutency. They know they can hang on to their seats by ignoring other views. If they’re in there seat because, a quarter of their votes came from one party and another quarter came from a second party, they might be more beholden to their constituents than to their party.

    A party claiming to have a majority frequently doesn’t have anywhere near a majority of the votes of the people. But the can get away with it under the current system.

    (Response: Exactly! Let’s urge everyone we know to vote to keep the first past the post system for now, defeat the convoluted and blackmail-promoting proportional representation system … so the RUNOFF alternative can get serious consideration afterwards. h.o.)

  • 7 Gary T // Oct 11, 2018 at 3:46 pm

    If we vote to keep FPTP, then our system will never change. It might be better to vote against FPTP, but leave the systems listed blank. Myself, I want FPTP gone, and would be happy with any of the three listed.

  • 8 nonconfidencevote // Oct 11, 2018 at 5:05 pm

    I’m liking the idea of a “runoff” vote!
    Way way easier to understand than that convoluted confusing crap they are trying to foist upon us with expensive “spin” and no explanation……typical govt.
    I will vote in the referendum for first past the post and write “runoff system” next to it.

    Because you know….the govt wont stop until they have another vote.

    (Response; That would ruin your ballot… and it would not count. What if p.r. passed by ONE!! 🙁 I think we should all just vote to KEEP f.p.t.p. and then, afterwards, let our MLAs know they should propose a RUNOFF system to ensure “winners” have at least 50% support … and likely that would pass. h.o)

  • 9 Harry lawson // Oct 11, 2018 at 6:33 pm

    Harvey

    Another thought provoking post.

    I agree wholeheartedly however the devil is in the details.

    Do we have another shorter campaign ?

    Financial budgets etc.

    Again a Great post

    (Response: In Brazil, the second round is three weeks after the first. In this day and age, it would not take very long to reprint ballots with only two names and the same voters lists would still apply, and the administrative setup would remain largely the same, even simpler, and in the meantime, I’d bet the newspapers, the radio, the tv stations and the blogosphere and social media would all be abuzz with the appeals by both candidates, people singing their praises and deploring their shortcomings …and it would all be so exciting, with EVERY vote counting, I’d bet the second round could draw more participation than the first….with the winner truly being able to claim to represent more than 50% of those who voted. Much better than some convoluted party’s choice or blackmail encouraging system. h.o.)

  • 10 13 // Oct 11, 2018 at 8:02 pm

    I agree 100% with keeping the FPTP. Run off to achieve a 50 % mandate also a good idea. Hell the way the NDP have lied to and screwed the Weaver crowd you never know the greens might even get to bolster the Liberals next time around.
    The NDP have dropped the ball on every file that they touch. ICBC, speculation tax (whistler exempt of course) . Imagine the chaos of 8 years of a new Eby devised voting system. Thank God the NDP will give us the details after we give them the go ahead.
    So if anyone wants to invest in a venture that I am involved in please send your cheques to HO.
    I will provide you with the details at a later date.
    8 years from now if your not happy with your investment Ill let you try another venture

  • 11 Diverdarren // Oct 11, 2018 at 10:11 pm

    Harvey, you’re right in that the first step is to stop PR from becoming a reality. The entire impetus for this push for reform is the NDPs deal with the Greens for them to prop up the NDP Government.

    Hardly a righteous birth for something as importation as how we elect a government.

    I don’t agree with your idea (supported by others) to leave the portion of the ballot asking to rank preferred PR system. The way the referendum is set up is that if 10,000 leave it blank, and one person chooses MMP then MMP is selected.

    Instead, I’d suggest every person choosing FPTP then select Rural Urban only (plump the vote) so that if PR does pass then the chances of Rural-Urban being selected as the process are increased.

    What this will help accomplish is Rural-Urban is the poorest PR system of the bunch, and it will be the hardest for PR supporters to hide the inadequacy of PR from the public. When the mandated review arrives a few years down the road the public will be sick of PR and toss it in the bin of BC failed experiments. Right on top of the Fast cats.

    As for Two Vote Run Off elections, its an interesting idea. So long as its done over two votes, not Ranked Ballot style. I want to know who the two top vote getters are before I vote for the second time.

    The adage in Two Vote Run Off is… The first vote is with your heart, the second vote is with your brain.

    I see that Wikipedia says New Zealand tried Two Vote Run Off in the early 1900s, I wonder why they dropped it?

    (Response: Very good point… although seems to me like letting someone choose their own form of execution…the outcome is still not good for the victim. But …just in case the voters choose p.r. … perhaps it would be better for voters to choose the p.r. they could tolerate best. Although I still believe it should FAIL …and then the government should examine the RUNOFF idea where the “winner” gets less than 50%. h.o)

  • 12 DBW // Oct 11, 2018 at 11:27 pm

    In you response to #9, you stated that the run off would be exciting and draw more participation.

    Let’s have a look.

    Using Wikipedia, French election 2017 the most recent run off election I am aware of.

    Eleven candidates received just over 36M votes. There were also about 1M null or blank votes for a total of 37M votes cast.

    Macron got 24%.
    Le Pen 21.3%
    Fillon 20%
    Melenchon 19.6%

    Pretty much a tie between the four but only the top two advance.

    In the second round, Macron wins with 66% of the vote. Who knows what the result would have been had they used a ranked ballot. What is the problem with listing candidates 1,2,3,,,

    As for this second round, there were only a total of 35.5M votes cast (1.5M fewer than the first round) but more interestingly there were a whopping 4M null or blank ballots.

    I just don’t see the advantage of a run off election when ranked ballots will get to an over 50% to the winner result without the added expense and time of a second election. In our small town the school board didn’t fill a vacancy because the cost of a by election was something like $20,000+. Multiply at least that by all run off elections.

    Let me be clear, while a ranked ballot is superior to a run off and definitely superior to FPTP in its present form, it is still a variation of FPTP and does not address the problems inherent in that system.

    Wish I could discuss further but it is difficult when the default position of those who oppose ProRep is fear of chaos and blackmail which is a completely unfair assessment.

  • 13 Gene The Bean // Oct 12, 2018 at 8:21 am

    13 #10 – The NDP dropped the ball at ICBC – have you been in a coma? Geez.

    The title of this blog is Keeping It Real not Conservatard Fake News.

    Blabbering outright falsehoods makes everything else you say unbelievable.

    (Response: This is how the blog goes astray off to other topics. Let’s pls get back to the topic of electoral reform. h.o)

  • 14 Jay Jones // Oct 12, 2018 at 9:04 am

    Perfect.

    Toss a few world-class parties into the mix and BC will be back to her world-class ways in just a few years.

  • 15 Lulymay // Oct 12, 2018 at 10:26 am

    There’s an old and tired joke that went something like this: “How do you know when a politician is lying?” And the answer was typically: “Because he/she’s lips are moving”. There are a huge number of eligible voters who it appears believe in the intent of this joke.

    Where are we at now in percentage of eligible voters who actually excercize that right? I think I read that around 51% of eligible voters plus or minus a few %. So, does it really matter WHAT form of voting is implemented? because the end result is that whoever gets elected is still representing less that 50% of voters.

    In this day and age of the ability of a politician to know – almost to the street address – of his or her support, this who that elected politician will focus their efforts.

    The result is that no matter the method used to determine who wins and who loses, it still seems to me that there are still nearly 50% of citizens receive no representation in any level of government.

    So how does anyone solve what I see as a significant problem? For me, it becomes a matter of gaining a measure of trust in any and all people who run for public office. That is our dilemma and I cannot see any rational way of fixing it. And that is why, precisely, I see no real advantage in changing the current system of voting.

    After all, there’s another old saying, Harvey: “Garbage in/garbage out”!

    (Response: Some countries fine people who do not vote: I don’t agree with that. I’d hate to see people voting without paying the slightest attention or intertest to who’s running or the issues. They are the very people I suspect were being sought out in that Chinese app in Richmond recently supporting certain candidates and offering $20 and free drives to the polls. We should keep fptp until we can really educate the public about the importance of voting …and give them the RUNOFF option too…not just p.r. h.o.)

  • 16 E. Johnson // Oct 12, 2018 at 10:48 am

    I have reviewed the three choices and I still don’t fully understand how they might play out in actual operation. It seems to me that the government is in a hurry to make a change and has neither consulted adequately with the people of the province nor provided a clear explanation of the options they are proposing. Therefore I will be voting no.

    (Response: I don’t think many people understand or like the options presented … and in case anyone thinks I was being alarmist in pointing to the chaos that could result …read this article in the Richmond News about a Chinese app that was backing certain candidates and offering Chinese voters $20 and a free ride to the polls: https://www.richmond-news.com/news/city-of-richmond-investigates-vote-buying-scandal-on-chinese-app-1.23461356. Just imagine the shenanigans we will see if we bring in a system giving tiny parties potentially huge powers in deciding minority governments! h.o)

  • 17 BMCQ // Oct 12, 2018 at 1:49 pm

    This Blog Topic Analysis should be reprinted in Newspapers, Broadcast and Discussed on Radio and TV and it should be a Topic of Debate in the Fall Sitting of the B.C. Legislature.

    The NDP/Weaver Coalition should have the courage to open debate immediately and there should be Transparency and Full Disclosure.

    In the meantime Voters of B.C. Should REJECT PR until that Debate can take place.

    Only then there should be a Clear and Concise Question On How B.C. Provincial MLA’s will be Elected attached to and Voted on during the next Provincial Election Vote Day so a Maximum Turnout is guaranteed. The Legislation might also include a minimum 50% YES to ensure the best possible turnout, all of that could be decided by a Committe of Members made up from all 3 Provincial Parties. Details, Details.

    I am still not 100% sure about Harvey’s and others Full Support of Run Offs but I am close to agreement but I am however sure it makes a lot of sense and must/should be considered before we Fall For the Ridiculous Trick Auestions of Horgan, Weaver, Meggs, and their Minions.

    The People of B.C. Deserve better than what Eby is Force Feeding them!

    I would also be very much interested in what Tieleman thinks of Run Offs but he may not wish to comment on that just yet.

    Again, there are some interesting comments here.

    (Response: The RUNOFF system would not cost that much more to adopt, and it would GUARANTEE that each and every MLA (and MP?) would have the support of at least 50% of those who vote. Better than the current fptp and less dangerous and convoluted than the proposed p.r. h.o)

  • 18 DBW // Oct 12, 2018 at 6:56 pm

    LOL

    A Chinese App being used to buy votes in a FPTP campaign – let me repeat that – being used in a First. Past. The. Post. campaign – is evidence of the dangers of Pro Rep.

    Furthers my point that there is little reason to discuss this issue if the default position is fear based on whatever.

    (Response: Imagine the POWER they could have under proportional representation in a minority govmt situation with large (business, billionaire, casino ) funding …. BUYING enough votes with bucks disguised as “transportation subsidies” to effect the election of one or two at-large p.r. MLAs. Couldn’t happen? Don’t BET on it! Another problem surfaced today in Surrey … RCMP reported 67 FAKE requests for mail ballots uncovered … so far. This is dangerous stuff … and would be worse if we make it EASIER for tiny parties, elected province-wide … not riding by riding … get even a few seats. h.o.)

  • 19 Gilbert // Oct 12, 2018 at 7:05 pm

    Why does the media love to say far-right and ultra-right for candidates on the right, but fail to say communist and extreme left for those on the other side of the political spectrum? Regarding Jair Bolsonaro, I think there’s little doubt he’ll win in the second round. Brazilians are tired of failed socialist policies that punish achievement and encourage dependence on the state.

    (Response: Not true… just recently saw/heard media references to “extreme left” leaders Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua and Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela…as well as far-right for Bolsonaro. And looking at ALL their human rights records … and statements , I’d say the “extreme” designations are accurate. h.o.)

  • 20 BMCQ // Oct 13, 2018 at 12:27 am

    Gilbert – 19

    When the phrase “Far or Ultra” is used in say North American or EU outlets such as CBC, CKNDP (NW), Global, BBC, CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo, any of the other Alphabet Networks I wholeheartedly agree with you. To most of those Joe Clark would be considered much like Bolsonaro!

    THe Great News here is the fact that the “Great Unwashed” have figured that out and are NOT Buying any of it and Election Results are showing that Voters are NOT quite the Low Information Dupes Media and Higher Purpose SJW Politicians thought! All we need to do is look at how the Hard Right/Far Right Ont Ford Cons and Que CAG were painted by Media. People are not being fooled and the Left is in trouble World Wide.

    Socialism Works Great Until One Runs Out of Other People’s Money!

    Tick Tock!

  • 21 13 // Oct 13, 2018 at 8:12 am

    Is it just me or has anyone else noticed just how little attention is being given to this somewhat important issue?
    You would think that the method that the current NDP government is using to change the democratic process would have media and special interest groups howling.
    Mail in fraudulent ballots
    No minimum response required
    Simple (description of supporters) majority.
    NO DETAILS up front. A snake oil promise to fill in the blanks after the vote
    Horgan Eby Weaver a list of hucksters.
    One scenario has a ranked quota system. To win a seat you might need 100 votes. You receive 105 . Heres the opportunity for larceny. The extra 5
    ballots will be checked for their second choice .
    Who gets to pick which of the 105 ballots are destined for second choice? Dont worry Eby will sort it out for you.
    All of this insanity brought to us by a minority government propped up by a special interest political party. Just a taste of how corrupt PR can be.

    (Response: As the silence about BC being ignored, abandoned and stabbed in the back over softwood lumber in USMCA by Trudeau regarding softwood testifies, our media doesn’t “howl” anymore … not even when JT was right here in BC the day after the deal was announced. There just aren’t many reporters left with the background knowledge, gumption or management direction/support to pursue tough issues/questions: much easier just to cover crime, fires, “scheduled” announcements handed to them on a plate. So to expect them to ask HARD questions about p.r., its history elsewhere, its dangers, its divisiveness, its blackmail potential for tiny parties or to raise alternatives like RUNOFFS is just asking too much. And they wonder why their ratings/readers/listeners are but a shadow of what they used to be, even though the population here has almost doubled. h.o.)

  • 22 DBW // Oct 13, 2018 at 9:16 am

    Harvey’s response to #18 has me shaking my head. You are fear mongering. Let’s keep it real.

    Yes the Chinese make up 10% of BCs population so yes under Pro Rep they could run a number of candidates hoping to get 5% and a few seats to hold some kind of power in a minority government.

    But your implication is that this group is some kind of scary, criminal, money laundering, Batman-hating organization that speaks for the majority of Chinese. An insulting stretch of the imagination.

    And consider, in Richmond, the Chinese community makes up 54% of the population. Easily enough people to win a handful of seats under our current system. Should we fear FPTP?

    Further, if this scary nefarious money laundering group is out in the open with their Batman-hating schemes isn’t that a good thing. Much better than the underground criminal activity that appears to have happened with casino money under FPTP governments.

    Sorry Harvey I just don’t buy your fringe party scare tactic. Sure there will be some “out there” groups running. We already have 27 registered parties. But the actual crazies will never reach the 5% threshold. But if a legitimate party like the Conservatives or perhaps a private sector union based party or an anti-poverty party happen to get some seats then good on them.

    You can be scared Harvey. I choose not to be.

    (Response: Never suggested that “this group” is “some kind of scary, criminal, money laundering”. Perhaps that’s in your mind … not mine. But yes, let’s keep it real and I suspect MOST of our Chinese ethnic community/voters would understand and agree there IS an element in the Chinese community (in fact, EVERY ethnic/racial/religious group) that votes …not on policies or personal integrity etc … but just on ethnicity/race/religious affiliation. Sad but true … and my point is that under fptp, they can each affect the outcome at most maybe one riding where that group is prominent … but under p.r., the nationalism/religious divisiveness in LARGE minority groups CAN be accumulated throughout the province and have a larger impact …esp if PROMOTED in ethnic newspapers/media/advertising and on social media as a chance to effect GREATER power. We should not be naive about the potential implications. First past the post protects against that. h.o)

  • 23 DBW // Oct 13, 2018 at 9:57 am

    13 @21

    If I can help alleviate the worry that there is a Horgan/Eby/Weaver/Meggs conspiracy to commit voter fraud.

    In your example all 105 ballots would be looked at. If a candidate was the second choice of the ballots then he/she would get 50% of the available votes. In your example 50% of 5 is 2.5 votes. Yes it is confusing and yes it involves decimals but we do have computers that can solve the problem rather easily.

    It was how STV was to be counted. I get that people prefer simplicity so people are likely to shy away from that method but it does work. I actually think it should be used when voting for multiple candidates like city councils, school boards, parks boards etc.

  • 24 13 // Oct 13, 2018 at 9:58 am

    HO response at 21. Harvey we are truly doomed. Your right that the msm no longer funds, hires, promotes, looks for, follows up, digs deeper, gets in public persons faces.
    If you subscribe to any variety of conspiracy theory it all makes perfect sense. Use the media to dumb down the hard working middle class. Allow them to think all things conservative are hate or racist. Promote unfettered immigration.
    Promote global trade deals. Promote week or nonexistent boarders.
    If anyone doesnt see the steady march towards one world ordered government. If anyone cant see how upset the elites are that HRC lost the election. If anyone cant see that every media outlet that can attack DJT is owned by or connected to the elites that want one world gov. THEY ARE BLIND.
    Why does NW curtail comments on their web page. Why do all msm web pages try to censor the comments on web pages. Why does the msm label the blogsphere as whacko fringe to be ignored. Why would the elites prefer a PR system that causes government chaos over a system that creates a decisive winner? Why ?
    I wonder if Bill and Hillary will sell out Rogers Arena? Give the idiot middle class an opportunity to cheer for their own demise.

  • 25 13 // Oct 13, 2018 at 10:11 am

    @DBW 23
    My take on the pundits explanation was that 100 votes were required to win the rural seat . The additional 5 ballots that the winner got would be reallocated to the urban sector.
    Good that you believe in the honesty of the list of crooks you gave. Good for you that computers and decimal points will work. Add a couple of dangling chads and your all set for a fair election

  • 26 13 // Oct 13, 2018 at 10:55 am

    GTB excuse me for forecasting. I predict that the NDP will screw up our little democracy in BC for at least 8 years and likely much longer unless we vote to KEEP FPTP.
    Devil in the details . If we knew all of the untold details in PR we might be able to predict the outcome. Same same for Ebys saving ICBC. Prediction disaster.

  • 27 Hawgwash // Oct 13, 2018 at 11:30 am

    13 @ 21;
    The reason no one is giving it any attention is because all the parties and media know it is going nowhere.

    A dud if ever there was one and they already know what their response will be to a 20% participation on a mail in ballot; “not enough to represent the majority.”

    Status quo.

  • 28 13 // Oct 13, 2018 at 5:59 pm

    Hawg@27. I hope your correct and that Eby Horgan Weaver are liars. BUT Eby set it up to pass with NO MINIMUM participation and a “simple ” majority .
    I cant see any reason that he wont stand behind that bit of treachery. With the amount of push back from the msm and the general public Eby likely feels pretty confident.
    I hope I am dead wrong and your 110% right.

  • 29 BMCQ // Oct 13, 2018 at 11:25 pm

    Speaking only for myself, it has never crossed my mind that Horgan/Weaver and their people would actually commit an Illegal Act of Voter Fraud.

    I do however feel and I believe there is enough factual evidence that the Eby Manipulative Questions On the Ridiculous Mail In Ballot is a Bold Faced Attempt to Influence the Outcome of what is quite possibly the Most Important and Cherished Freedom we have in Canadian Democracy, Our Right to a Free Vote.

    “Hey, wait a Minute”

  • 30 BMCQ // Oct 13, 2018 at 11:38 pm

    13 – 28 – sorry forgot to add

    I am very sad to say that You are 100% Correct, Eby fully understands that the NDP and others with similar views can ALWAYS Expect ang Guarantee their Base will show up for Every Kind of Election, even for a Mail In Ballot, That is why I confidentially stated in my first Post that the Democratic Voting Standard for B.C. Elections will be changed by a Mail In Ballot of less than 20% of the Eligible Voters of B.C..

    That is exactly how Horgan, Weaver, Meggs, Eby, and their Minions want it and have planned it to conclude.

    Cheap, Tawdry, Manipulative and Dishonest, Politics at it’s Best.

    How Proud they Must Be!