No BC Proportional Representation Society demands two clear, simple choices in fall electoral system referendum; rejects Attorney General David Eby's "neutrality"

No to Proportional Representation in BC

NEWS RELEASE                                                                 Wednesday February 28, 2018

No BC Proportional Representation Society makes recommendations on electoral systems referendum despite “grave worries” on process and results, while rejecting Attorney General David Eby’s “neutrality” in government public consultation process and ballot

The No BC Proportional Representation Society has made several strong recommendations to the BC government public consultation process on the fall referendum on electoral systems despite “grave worries” about the process and its results, while rejecting claims by BC Attorney General David Eby of “neutrality” in supervising the referendum and asking that he remove himself from involvement.

The No BC Proportional Representation Society intends to: “Campaign vigorously in every part of our great province to keep the First Past The Post electoral system that has helped build a strong democracy, an inclusive society and a powerful economy,” it says in its submission to the consultation process which ends today.

The key No BC Proportional Representation Society recommendation is that in the referendum voters should have two clear choices between: “Our current First Past The Post system and whatever Proportional Representation system the government recommends.  There should not be any ‘two-part’ ballots or ‘ranked ballots’ with multiple choices.”

The No BC Proportional Representation Society says it agrees with BC NDP Premier John Horgan, who said before the May 2017 provincial election that: “A consensus on yes or no is pretty easy.  You are going to have 50 per cent say yes or no.”

Unfortunately, says Bill Tieleman – a No BC Proportional Representation Society director, the BC government consultation actually proposed a possible two-part ballot and ranked ballots with multiple choices that would prevent voters from comparing apples to apples or ensuring that they have the full information to decide about competing electoral systems.

“British Columbia voters deserve a clear choice and an understandable alternative to our current First Past The Post electoral system, with detailed information about the negative impacts of potentially dramatic reductions in local, accountable representation,” said Tieleman, a former BC NDP strategist who successfully led opposition to the Single Transferable Vote electoral system in the 2005 and 2009 provincial referenda.  “This is a fundamental question about how British Columbians are governed – and it demands a ballot question with clarity.”

Attorney General Eby’s involvement in making recommendations to the BC cabinet about the referendum process and the ballot question, when he has made public statements supporting Proportional Representation and campaigned on implementing it mean there is a clear perception of bias, says Bob Plecas, a No BC Proportional Representation Society director who served as a deputy minister in many portfolios under several BC governments.

“We respect Attorney General Eby’s genuinely held belief in Proportional Representation that he has expressed personally and as a BC NDP candidate, as is his right,” says Plecas.  “But for that very reason, the Attorney General should not be involved in recommending the ballot question and other important referendum details – he has already made up his mind and therefore should remove himself from the process immediately.”

The No BC Proportional Representation Society also says that the government’s decision to remove strong consensus requirements for changing electoral systems that previously existed in BC’s 2009 and 2005 referenda, as well as identical requirements in Ontario and Prince Edward Island’s referenda in 2007 and 2005, should be reversed.

“Changing our electoral system is a very significant decision that not only determines how we will be governed indefinitely but also impacts our economy, our society and our communities,”

says Suzanne Anton, also a No BC Proportional Representation Society director and former BC Liberal Attorney General. 

“BC should return to the 2009 and 2005 requirement that 60% of voters agree to any change to ensure that we have a strong, cross-province consensus and that non-urban voters are not unfairly deprived of their right to local, accountable political representation,” said Anton.  “We also need a requirement that any change has a 50% plus one majority in favour in at least 60% of BC’s geographic ridings to again guarantee a significant consensus.”

“The current BC Strata Property Act demands a 75% vote in favour of any additional expenditures in condominiums – like replacing a furnace – surely changing BC’s electoral system should require more of a consensus than a bare minimum of 50% plus one of those who turn out to vote?” asked Anton.

The No BC Proportional Representation Society also recommends that:

·       the ballot question be drawn up by Elections BC to ensure fairness and neutrality;

·       that the term “electoral reform” be dropped from all government communications due to bias;

·       that both sides in the referendum receive public funding of at least $500,000 each to conduct a province-wide public awareness campaign as in the 2009 referendum;

·       that organizations outside BC be prohibited from funding either side in the referendum;

·       that unions and businesses based in BC be allowed to donate to either side; and

·       that there be no restrictions on third-party advertising by BC-based organizations on either side.

The full No BC Proportional Representation Society submission is online now at the BC government website here.

   

.

No BC Proportional Representation Society charge Fair Vote Canada BC with trying to subvert government public consultation process, stuff ballot box

No to Proportional Representation in BC

NEWS RELEASE                                                                Sunday February 25, 2018

NO BC Proportional Representation Society charge Fair Vote Canada BC with trying to subvert government public consultation process with “guide” to filling out online questionnaire on electoral systems and stuff ballot box

Part of Fair Vote Canada BC "guide" to BC government consultation

An advocacy group is trying to subvert a BC government public consultation process on possible changes to British Columbia’s electoral system in the fall 2018 referendum by asking supporters to use its “guide” to answer the government’s online questionnaire, says the No BC Proportional Representation Society.

Fair Vote Canada BC is attempting to wrongly influence the results of a BC government website seeking public input by encouraging its supporters to follow its directions on answers rather than think for themselves and answer honestly, says Bill Tieleman – a No BC Proportional Representation Society director.

Tieleman said every one of Fair Vote Canada BC’s “recommendations” on answers would bias the government consultation heavily in favour of proportional representation and against our current First Past The Post electoral system.

“It is absolutely offensive that a group which purports to want more democracy and voter engagement in elections is out trying to subvert a public consultation process and stuff the ballot box to meet its own narrow goals,” said Tieleman, a former BC NDP strategist who successfully led opposition to the Single Transferable Vote electoral system in the 2005 and 2009 provincial referenda.  “Fair Vote Canada BC is attempting to bias the results in favour of its own agenda and not listen to what actual voters think about our electoral system and our democracy.”

The Fair Vote Canada BC website states that: “FVC has prepared some tips to help you answer the questions in the BC government survey.... This guide will provide tips on some specific key questions – 5, 7c, 8, 9, 18b, 18c, 19, 20, 21, and 24 – related to the referendum question format, values and PR systems.”  And a FVCBC Tweet says of the survey: “We recommend using our guide for completing it (some confusing questions)”.

[Website at:  http://www.fairvote.ca/bc-government-consultation-survey-guide/ ]

The Fair Vote Canada BC website guide is blatant in its disregard for even its own supporters’ personal opinions, says Suzanne Anton, also a No BC Proportional Representation Society director and former BC Liberal Attorney General.  

And Anton notes that another Proportional Representation advocacy group – Leadnow – is also referring supporters to the Fair Vote Canada BC guide: https://www.leadnow.ca/BCPR/

“Fair Vote Canada BC is literally telling people what they should think and how they should answer important questions about our democracy – that is exactly the opposite of what should happen,” says Anton. 

“Proportional representation supporters like FVCBC and Leadnow are trying to stack the deck in their favour for the referendum ballot and how it is going to be conducted – that is reprehensible.”

Anton added that the No BC Proportional Representation Society is not telling anyone how to fill out the government consultation questionnaire.

“We trust BC voters to answer important questions however they believe – Fair Vote Canada BC obviously doesn’t even trust its own supporters – because they might think for themselves and give the ‘wrong’ answers,” Anton said.

Bob Plecas, a No BC Proportional Representation Society director who served as a deputy minister in many portfolios under several BC governments, says it is astonishing for a public advocacy group to openly attempt to subvert the consultation process.

"I find it insulting to British Columbians that some back room hack in Fair Vote BC believes there is a need for a Dummies Guide to the Referendum Questions,” says Plecas. 

“The trouble with zealots who believe they know all the answers, and provide people with a paint by numbers kit to answer the most simple of questions, is that it makes a mockery of the process and their members.  Zealots and ideologues spawn bad pubic policy." 

Plecas said the Fair Vote Canada BC “recommendations” – if followed – would result in a highly unfair and biased referendum ballot question.  He gave one example where Fair Vote Canada BC recommends rejecting “simplicity” as one of voter’s top 5 values because it would favour First Past The Post. [See photo above]

“The fact that not only would Fair Vote Canada BC argue against simplicity as a value in our electoral system but also then have to explain exactly why –because Proportional Representation is so complicated – is laughable,” Plecas said. “Here’s an even more simple idea for them – let people figure it out for themselves!”

The No BC Proportional Representation Society will work to defeat any proportional representation system proposed for the fall 2018 referendum schedule and support the current First Past The Post electoral system that has served BC well.

.

BC government consultation stacks the deck for proportional representation electoral system

BC government electoral system referendum website consultation logo

Bill Tieleman’s 24 Hours Vancouver column

Tuesday November 21, 2017

By Bill Tieleman

“When you're playing against a stacked deck, compete even harder.” 

-       Pat Riley, ex-National Basketball Association head coach

Heads or tails?  Ante up or fold? Black or red?

Whether it’s flipping a coin, playing poker or roulette – you have two choices, not multiple choices – just pick one and either win or lose.

Unless you are the BC government and consulting the public online about possibly changing our electoral system in the fall of 2018, which determines how we are governed and how we choose our representatives.

Regrettably, the New Democratic Party I support wants to change the voting system to something called proportional representation.  So does the Green Party.

I disagree – and successfully led opposition to the Single Transferable Vote in referendums in 2005 and 2009.

But I respect voters choosing through a democratic referendum.

What I don’t understand is why the NDP government appears to be reneging on a clear pre-election promise Horgan made.  

Horgan told the Vancouver Sun in May that referendum ballot would have only two choices – either keep our existing First Past The Post system or move to some proportional representation model.

“A consensus on yes or no is pretty easy.  You are going to have 50 per cent say yes or no,” Horgan said then.

“So you give them one system to vote on?” a reporter asked.

“Yeah, yeah exactly,” Horgan responded.

But last week Attorney General David Eby launched a consultation website that’s anything but clear – except in its bias towards proportional representation.

It appears to encourage using a “ranked ballot” in the referendum – designed to maximize the possibility of some proportional representation system squeaking through. 

How?  Voters whose first choice comes in last place then get their second choice counted.  And maybe their third and fourth choices.

One disturbing question: “The referendum should offer voters the choice between the current First Past The Post voting system and MORE THAN ONE Proportional Representation voting system.”

And then another: “Voters should rank order their support for all the proposed systems.”

So – is the referendum ballot going to be “yes or no” – one system or the other – as the premier promised? Or multiple choices and a ranked ballot?

Instead of stacking the deck in favour of proportional representation the NDP government should reshuffle – and get back to what it promised.

.

Why Andrew Wilkinson won the BC Liberal leadership, confounding pundits and Dianne Watts; BC NDP beware

New BC Liberal leader Andrew Wilkinson celebrates his win Saturday on stage at the Wall Centre 

By Bill Tieleman 

No one in the political prognostication business likes to be wrong but we all are occasionally and when that happens the best thing to do is review the analysis that was erroneous.

Andrew Wilkinson is the new BC Liberal leader even though I predicted in this space Saturday that Todd Stone should win the BC Liberal leadership vote.

Instead Stone underperformed on the first ballot, garnering 17% compared to frontrunner Dianne Watts 24.5%, a surprising Michael Lee just behind at 22%, Wilkinson at 18%, Stone at 17%, Mike de Jong at 16% and Sam Sullivan at 1.8%.

After that Stone sank like his namesake, exiting with 20%.

What happened?  How did Wilkinson jump from 18% first ballot support to 53% in the fifth and final vote?  And will the BC NDP risk underestimating him?

First - credit Wilkinson for manufacturing a narrow win by doing all the little things right.  Known as a cold fish, snarky speaker and exuding all the charm of an undertaker, Wilkinson set about to change his public image and persona.

Rather than talking about being both a medical doctor and lawyer as well as a Rhodes Scholar, Wilkinson talked about delivering babies in Campbell River, growing up in Kamloops without a lot of money and living north of Cache Creek.  

Smart positioning instead of talking about being smart.  Identifying himself as a doctor - one of the most trusted occupations in our society.  Making people forget he represents uber-rich Vancouver Quilchena riding by referencing where he grew up.  

Charlie Smith, editor of the Georgia Straight, points this out in a new article today rightly warning the BC NDP to not underestimate Wilkinson. 

At the same time, Wilkinson has a serious challenge - keeping the fractured party together - which he acknowledged bluntly in his victory speech.  And that is doubly difficult for a guy who only got 18% of BC Liberal members to make him their first pick for leader. 

Unlike me, Smith was one of the few who correctly called Wilkinson the winner well in advance of the lengthy voting yesterday, saying on December 29 that: 

"Andrew Wilkinson will win the B.C. Liberal leadership race

The MLA for Vancouver-Quilchena is not the most dynamic speaker. And his name recognition with the public is still quite low. But the former B.C. Liberal party president has run the most effective campaign to replace Christy Clark."

All true.

Second - and perhaps most importantly - Wilkinson spent a lot of time sucking up to the BC Liberal caucus, including before the May 2017 election. 

That was evident when Wilkinson emerged with by far the most MLA endorsements - 13 - far more than the seven Todd Stone and Mike de Jong each had - and the bit 0 for either Dianne Watts or Michael Lee or Sam Sullivan.

BC political observers have seen former BC Premier Christy Clark win the 2011 BC Liberal leadership with just one MLA endorsement - the hapless Harry Bloy - and presumed wrongly that endorsements don't matter.

This contest proved they do and that Clark's win without caucus support was an anomaly.  What's more, that failure to convince sitting MLAs to back her leadership bid nearly cost Clark the premiership when the government ran into serious trouble and BC NDP leader Adrian Dix looked easily positioned to win the 2013 election. 

With the BC Liberals unique 100 points per riding voting system, a rural riding with 200 members is of equal strength as an urban riding with 5,000 members - each is 100 points.

That meant local MLAs had more influence on the results - and Wilkinson had more of them.

As for Stone - the twin troubles of the ICBC "dumpster fire" and his campaign being forced to admit 1,349 membership sign ups were disqualified for irregularities - and under the auspices of AggregateIQ - the controversial firm connected to Brexit issues in the United Kingdom vote that is under investigation by the Privacy Commissioner there - was simply too much to overcome.  

With the BC Liberal Party to date not releasing actual vote counts and the participation rate of the 60,000 members it is impossible to know exactly how close things were or whether a small number of votes could have tipped the scale in a different direction.

But with most leadership contests in recent years showing turnout of around 55% - see the Alberta United Conservative Party and federal Conservative party leadership votes - if only 33,000 BC Liberals voted, and given the closeness of the first ballot, it's easy to see that Stone could have indeed been a real contender if not beset by both problems.

And in my own defence - I did correctly predict outsider Dianne Watts would finish in second place - and that an insider would win.

I also wrote this yesterday before the vote: "But Wilkinson should still do well and in an ideal situation become the alternative final ballot choice to Watts - or Stone."

So while I will endeavour to do better on the prognosticating in the future, I did clearly foresee a possible Wilkinson win over Watts - as actually happened.

And that's not bad for predicting a multi-candidate race with up to 60,000 voters in a political party I don't support! 

.