You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Vancouver Off-Topic / Current EventsThe off-topic forum for Vancouver, funnies, non-auto centered discussions, WORK SAFE. While the rules are more relaxed here, there are still rules. Please refer to sticky thread in this forum.
Such a conundrum, I think the ideology is good, but the reality is it is difficult to implement properly. Much like Communism, it looks good (great even) on paper, but in reality it doesn't work.
Increasing the number of seats and parties would definitely cost us taxpayers a lot of money.
Also, voter turn out is already bad, once you see the ballots, I think it would turn people off even more.
Such a conundrum, I think the ideology is good, but the reality is it is difficult to implement properly. Much like Communism, it looks good (great even) on paper, but in reality it doesn't work.
Increasing the number of seats and parties would definitely cost us taxpayers a lot of money.
Also, voter turn out is already bad, once you see the ballots, I think it would turn people off even more.
On the other hand, you may in fact encourage greater voter turnout as a greater number of parties will equate to there being more options for voters to choose from. As a result, more voters will feel inclined to vote because they will feel that there is finally a party that is catering to the issues that matter to them.
For the record, I'm in support of PR. I believe more options is not only beneficial for the reason stated above, it is also good for the political process as it will force different parties to work together in order to get stuff done. A greater number of "fingerprints" can lead to greater accountability as more political party's reputations are at stake.
A common argument against PR is that it opens the door to "fringe" parties (far-left-,radical left, far-right, radical-right...). The answer to that is thresholds. In order to be elected, a party must acquire a minimum of 5% (average percentage) of total votes.
Just my view on things (which could be completely wrong ... or right for that matter)
People whom are for PR are optimists. They believe people will work together, and their voices will be heard.
People who vote for the status quo are realists. They believe that radicals will dictate policy, and the larger party will give in to concessions to not lose power.
I am against PR. more gov't is never a good thing.
Just my view on things (which could be completely wrong ... or right for that matter)
People whom are for PR are optimists. They believe people will work together, and their voices will be heard.
People who vote for the status quo are realists. They believe that radicals will dictate policy, and the larger party will give in to concessions to not lose power.
I am against PR. more gov't is never a good thing.
This is one of the biggest stances for PR. People say that because there are more parties voted into government, no one party can dictate the agenda. All parties at the table must work together to make decisions. Sounds really good in theory, but can it work here in BC?
Under our current system, one party gets voted in, and there is full accountability on who is running the province. Whether or not they are who you voted for, you know who is in power. PR will introduce continual minority governments, similar to what we currently have with the NDP propped up by the Greens. The benefit to PR is that there are definitely more checks and balances to keep power-hungry politicians in place.
I'm not advocating for one or the other... simply because there are positives and negatives for both systems. I believe New Zealand has PR, so if you want to do more research, you can look into how other countries have dealt with PR, and their outcomes.
My view on the whole thing is a fairly pessimistic one and I have been for PR for a while (but moreso at a federal level)
Every government has essentially fucked me. More taxes, higher ICBC rates, giving people who don’t work more money or people who have put themselves into their current situation (read:unsustainable child care, having too many kids to house, social housing, etc)
I feel like I’ve necer been positively impacted by any party, period. So on that note I have to say fuck everyone else, I don’t care about you. I care about my SO and my immediate family.
So if somone from my riding was enabled to be voted in due to PR on a basic platform such as they are going to increase garbage pickup, or clean the streets more frequently, they would instantly get my vote. They have MY interests in mind in MY riding. Not some convoluted bullshit about the greater good that never comes to fruition.
Hell, even if whatever my elected official is backing never gets done, but he goes to parliament every day and says “Clean X streets more!!!” Id still vote for him because he’s actually listening to his constituents and having their interests in mind.
__________________
Dank memes cant melt steel beams
From some initial research my conservative ideology is taking over.
With PR
- Higher chance of minority government, which means there is less efficiency in government, which costs us more money
- Will have to increase the amount of MLA's in each riding = pay for more MLA's = pay for more pensions = not happy about that
Like carisear says, more government is never a good thing. In my eyes, more government means more money spent and more time waste.
I'll keep looking into this some more, but for now, i'm against PR.
Thanks for that video, PR is pretty darn confusing at first glance too. There's no way my parents are going to understand PR, even with that video. Which means, the average person voting for PR will have no idea what they're voting for. I had to pause and rewind a good number of times to get what PR actually means.
So, like anything, people will just vote with their emotions and not with an educated opinion, because PR, at least superficially, is too confusing.
The biggest downside I see is that it adds complication, and it seems like a lot of people can barely understand how to vote as it is. Discouraging idiots from voting may not be a bad thing though.
What isn't clear is what the total number of MLA's ends up being with each scenario. Right now we have 87, and I get that PR may add a few, but if it adds a lot then that just seems like pointless bloat.
__________________ 1991 Toyota Celica GTFour RC // 2007 Toyota Rav4 V6 // 2000 Jeep Grand Cherokee
1992 Toyota Celica GT-S ["sold"] \\ 2007 Jeep Grand Cherokee CRD [sold] \\ 2000 Jeep Cherokee [sold] \\ 1997 Honda Prelude [sold] \\ 1992 Jeep YJ [sold/crashed] \\ 1987 Mazda RX-7 [sold] \\ 1987 Toyota Celica GT-S [crushed]
Quote:
Originally Posted by maksimizer
half those dudes are hotter than ,my GF.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RevYouUp
reading this thread is like waiting for goku to charge up a spirit bomb in dragon ball z
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good_KarMa
OH thank god. I thought u had sex with my wife. :cry:
reads most threads with his pants around his ankles, especially in the Forced Induction forum.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 10,645
Thanked 2,191 Times in 1,131 Posts
Failed 929 Times in 340 Posts
Bringing more people working together who all have different goals/objectives in mind won't work. It will just be one big party where everyone disagree and in the end little to nothing gets done. Things only get done when everyone involve have a similar goal in mind, not everyone is running gun and want something different.
IE having one party who wants to put more bike lanes vs another party who does not want more bike lanes. What do you do?
This sums it up pretty well.
I guess if you're voting for a big party, you want to vote NO to PR.
Considering there are no BC Conservatives, I hope no one voted for them... haha
BC Conservatives are pushing for PR with ads on Youtube. According to the ad I watched, 85,000 people voted for them in the last election, with 0 elected.
Bringing more people working together who all have different goals/objectives in mind won't work. It will just be one big party where everyone disagree and in the end little to nothing gets done. Things only get done when everyone involve have a similar goal in mind, not everyone is running gun and want something different.
This guy's got it figured out. Get rid of voting and bring in a dictator.
So if somone from my riding was enabled to be voted in due to PR on a basic platform such as they are going to increase garbage pickup, or clean the streets more frequently, they would instantly get my vote. They have MY interests in mind in MY riding. Not some convoluted bullshit about the greater good that never comes to fruition.
Hell, even if whatever my elected official is backing never gets done, but he goes to parliament every day and says “Clean X streets more!!!” Id still vote for him because he’s actually listening to his constituents and having their interests in mind.
The thing with PR, though, is that there is no guarantee that YOUR local cabdidate will get put into the party after the populus vote. Each party will pick the top % of supporters and place them accordingly. Means some good candidates will not run and the hardcore party benchers will always be in gov, it can get stale real quick with inefficient yet hungry politicians that never want to concede on issues, they just want reelected.
Back in the day, when local MLA's could vote based on their constituents' wants and not only pull party line, FPTP was a great system of democracy. Over the last 20 years, being able to vote against party line has lead to members being cast out, leaving less local autonomy. PR will NOT help this in any matter, in fact, you may have less local voice in government for decades.
That’s essentially my issue in my riding because there is such a stronghold by a long term candidate that somone would have to promise the world to dethrone them
It’s almost like a trump though. Local MLA has done nothing for me now or before, so any change is better than status quo. If the same shit gets in with PR or not, may be worth it for the sake of change and the chance of one
__________________
Dank memes cant melt steel beams
Not sure if it's any bearing on PR but iceland has very high representation for it's population base so you could say "bigger gov" but they also voted to throw the bankers in jail who signed them up to the euro debt and thus far has been the only country to break free of the big bank scam control/enslavement.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
