2013 British Columbia General Election Thread

[notahomer]

Didn't we have a referendum on the ward system several years ago and it was rejected by the voters ?

Its a fairly common addition to civic elections. The ward system has 'WON' referendums in the past but not gotten a large enough majority to succeed as the system. Vancouver has had a ward system in the past but it was removed due to the corruption blamed on the system at the time. The Ward system is seen as the magic bullet by many in Vancouver that will help the left-leaning COPE finally get the power it deserves. The real reason COPE doesn't get elected is that, IMO, the majority of voters vote for other people. Changing the system to get elected may work for AN election but in the end, IMO, it is your message (or the message your opponents hang on you) that is going to get you elected.........

[sj-roc]

I live in the City of Vancouver and there has been a strong desire by many (on the left for the most part) for us to switch from our current system of At-large to a Ward System. The Ward System is just a fancy way of saying we'll elect the Councillors under a similar system to the firstpastpost system used provincially/federally. The left in Vancouver seems to think they'll do better under a Ward system. Vision has done well because, IMO, they have filled the void inbetween the two long-term 'parties' (the NPA and COPE).

Sj-roc, your fine examination, IMO, of the recent election results show some of the flaws of this electoral system. WHY SHOULDN'T a candidate campaign in stronghold ridings. My response is that it doesn't make sense strategically but at the same time the Premier is supposed to represent the entire province. The 'easy' seats get ignored by both parties usually. Why campaign there, we got it in the bag or we don't stand a chance. Certainly happened in the US Presidential election too. So called swing states get a ton of money and appearances. It makes sense strategically.

I'd like the City of Vancouver and both the feds/Victoria switch to a combined system. Elect some representation via At-large and some via Wards/Ridings. Some representatives would have a focus on the system as a whole versus a particular area. I do think both types of representation are valuable. Of course change is not going to happen. We don't need to expand any of our levels of government more via more elected people to have to pay pensions for...........

I don't see election system flaws from my analysis; rather, I think it just shows the NDP simply failed to get their vote out (assuming it was there at all for them to be had) in the swing ridings where it was most crucial. I mentioned earlier in this thread that they only needed about 6,500 extra votes in the 10 most critical swing ridings to earn their majority. Incidentally, with the absentee votes that were added in this week, which overturned one seat from Liberal to NDP pending automatic judicial recount, I've now lowered that figure to 5,400 votes in nine ridings, and this figure now includes extra buffer votes to avoid triggering automatic recounts in any of these ridings, which weren't included in the previous 6,500 figure (I'll have more to say on those absentee votes in another post coming up). Besides the 2001 landslide, you could probably identify for every election, regardless out of outcome, a similarly small subset of voters that swung the outcome.

I'm not in favour of anything to do with pro-rep because you end up with representatives that aren't directly elected by the people. I say keep FPTP; the rules are simple, everyone understands them and let campaigns strategise accordingly. The NDP didn't really do that, with Dix starting his campaign in some of the solidly Liberal interior ridings as I noted earlier. Perhaps he was buoyed by all the erroneous polls, felt he'd locked up pretty much all the swing ridings and thought he could snag even some of the safer Liberal seats.

[sj-roc]

With the absentee votes added in to yield the final election results released this week, I had a look at the absentee votes alone on a riding-by-riding basis to see how they compared with the overall vote (I actually had to do a final minus initial subtraction for every candidate since I was unable to locate the raw absentee vote totals). Since the polls were all so famously wrong in predicting the outcome, I was curious to see if even the absentee votes by themselves, comprising nearly 10% of all votes, formed a large enough sample to model the entire election.

The final vote came out as a Liberal majority with the following seat totals and % pop vote shares:

Liberal.....49 (44.14%)
NDP.........34 (39.71%)
Green.......1 (8.13%)
Ind...........1 (0.63%)

But if only the absentee votes alone (a total of 173,629 votes, or about 9.6% of the overall total of 1,803,051) were considered, things would have been quite different. Saanich North & the Islands, which produced a tight three-way Lib/NDP/Green race, would have gone Green instead of NDP; eight further seats would have swung to the NDP from the Liberals; all other results would have held. So the 85-seat legislature would have looked as follows:

Liberal....41 (41.66%)
NDP........41 (41.81%)
Green......2 (9.29%)
Ind.........1 (0.44%)

Had things unfolded like this for real, it seems likely to me that the NDP and Greens would have formed a razor-thin coalition majority of 43 seats. Christy Clark, still having lost her Point Grey seat in this scenario, would have been in a poor position to form a minority government and I don't think the Greens would have come onside with her in a coalition at any rate. The most plausible outcome would have been Dix, the elected party leader with the most seats, getting first shot at forming a government.

Now if that's the sort of much different result you can get from looking at nearly 10% of the vote, it doesn't say much for polling data that relies on considerably smaller sample sizes.

[notahomer]

I don't see election system flaws from my analysis; rather, I think it just shows the NDP simply failed to get their vote out (assuming it was there at all for them to be had) in the swing ridings where it was most crucial. I mentioned earlier in this thread that they only needed about 6,500 extra votes in the 10 most critical swing ridings to earn their majority. ...

So, you recognize I am not questioning your anaysis? I think its bang on and I guess thats why our opinions differ on the electoral system (you say no flaws, I see flaws). I was even more disgusted at the 1996 NDP win where the Clark government got elected even though its opponents, a Gordon Campbell led BC Liberals party, got more votes. I think there are lots of reasons why this FPTP system has outlived its usefullness, including voter apathy. Why vote if you live in one of the 'stronghold' seats of a party you can not support?

Anyway, I'll have to let you have the last word because you actually take the time to build the numerical models and do the math. The math part is what trips me up. I truly do appreciate the work you put in. It is interesting stuff to me. I could have voted for ANY of the parties depending on which riding I lived in. I will vote in every single election I am entitled to vote in for lots of reasons, the biggest one being I think I deserve a say if I made the effort to vote.

[sj-roc]

I don't see election system flaws from my analysis; rather, I think it just shows the NDP simply failed to get their vote out (assuming it was there at all for them to be had) in the swing ridings where it was most crucial. I mentioned earlier in this thread that they only needed about 6,500 extra votes in the 10 most critical swing ridings to earn their majority. ...

So, you recognize I am not questioning your anaysis? I think its bang on and I guess thats why our opinions differ on the electoral system (you say no flaws, I see flaws). I was even more disgusted at the 1996 NDP win where the Clark government got elected even though its opponents, a Gordon Campbell led BC Liberals party, got more votes. I think there are lots of reasons why this FPTP system has outlived its usefullness, including voter apathy. Why vote if you live in one of the 'stronghold' seats of a party you can not support?

Anyway, I'll have to let you have the last word because you actually take the time to build the numerical models and do the math. The math part is what trips me up. I truly do appreciate the work you put in. It is interesting stuff to me. I could have voted for ANY of the parties depending on which riding I lived in. I will vote in every single election I am entitled to vote in for lots of reasons, the biggest one being I think I deserve a say if I made the effort to vote.

Well, I won't consider this post the last word; I'm quite open to hear a response to it if you (or anyone) care to offer one. Yes, it was clear to me from your earlier post that you weren't criticising my analysis. We just disagree on where to go from the conclusions and I can certainly live with that.

You kind of answered your own question of why vote in a safe riding: so you can legitimately complain after the fact when the elected member doesn't act in your interest.

I should also mention you're giving me far too much credit on the models/math I've worked out. I haven't even done any modelling per se, just some very basic arithmetic of actual vote data from this 2013 election. I can assure you the math involved in some of the electoral systems proposed to replace FPTP is far more tedious to follow and less transparent. Pretty much every voting system will have its pitfalls and using one system for long enough does makes them more obvious over time. If we make a change I think you'll eventually hear the same chorus of calls for reform because the flaws in the new system will have also become exposed.

One thing I would prefer is re: voters who genuinely either don't care for any candidate, or the electoral process as it is currently structured; they should vote anyway by submitting a ballot that is either unmarked or perhaps marked in such a way that makes their position clear. If large percentages of voters were doing so, this would send a greater message of dissatisfaction with the process. If they're not voting at all then we don't really know why this is the case. It doesn't necessarily signal voter dissatisfaction.

It's also worth noting that so-called safe ridings can and do change over time. A good example is in Newfoundland, where the two St. John's ridings were both once solidly Conservative territory in the 70s and 80s (or PC I guess in those days) when they were represented by James McGrath and John Crosbie. McGrath's riding is now considered an NDP stronghold under current MP Jack Harris; his numbers rival those of Libby Davies. This was unthinkable for this riding 30 years ago. And if anything, Crosbie's seat was even safer in those days, but even that one now also has an NDP MP. That's only two examples; there are probably others where change in every conceivable direction has occurred. Perhaps ironically, in the SJ examples at least, the change has come in the face of lower turnouts.

[notahomer]

...
Pretty much every voting system will have its pitfalls and using one system for long enough does makes them more obvious over time. If we make a change I think you'll eventually hear the same chorus of calls for reform because the flaws in the new system will have also become exposed.

One thing I would prefer is re: voters who genuinely either don't care for any candidate, or the electoral process as it is currently structured; they should vote anyway by submitting a ballot that is either unmarked or perhaps marked in such a way that makes their position clear.
...

No question, IMO, that every voting system has its pitfalls. I think a purrfect example of this is the WARD/AT-LARGE debate that has happened here in the City of Vancouver. On a municipal level I think both systems have value as well as flaws.

During the May BC election I told at least 5 people (2 were family) that they should vote via the method you mentioned.

I am a white male. I guess people of my gender/ethnicity have been able to vote longer than most. Many immigrants I know from Latin America as just stunned at the apathy they feel exists when it comes to election time. Yes, its everyones right to not care and not vote. I think however, we all have some responsibility that comes with these rights we have and one of those is voting. Have a box for none of the above. Whatever.

Regardless, I am going to continue participating by voting and continuing to enjoy the process.

[sj-roc]

...
Pretty much every voting system will have its pitfalls and using one system for long enough does makes them more obvious over time. If we make a change I think you'll eventually hear the same chorus of calls for reform because the flaws in the new system will have also become exposed.

One thing I would prefer is re: voters who genuinely either don't care for any candidate, or the electoral process as it is currently structured; they should vote anyway by submitting a ballot that is either unmarked or perhaps marked in such a way that makes their position clear.
...

No question, IMO, that every voting system has its pitfalls. I think a purrfect example of this is the WARD/AT-LARGE debate that has happened here in the City of Vancouver. On a municipal level I think both systems have value as well as flaws.

During the May BC election I told at least 5 people (2 were family) that they should vote via the method you mentioned.

I am a white male. I guess people of my gender/ethnicity have been able to vote longer than most. Many immigrants I know from Latin America as just stunned at the apathy they feel exists when it comes to election time. Yes, its everyones right to not care and not vote. I think however, we all have some responsibility that comes with these rights we have and one of those is voting. Have a box for none of the above. Whatever.

Regardless, I am going to continue participating by voting and continuing to enjoy the process.

I'll make two short points:

I would agree with having a ward system for municipal voting in Vancouver.

To be honest, I think in general we've become a society more overly concerned with our rights than our responsibilities, and the way we (collectively) treat elections is merely one manifestation of it. There's too much of a victimhood culture developing these days, blaming our problems on others and expecting someone else to give us a magic pill to make it all better.

[notahomer]

I'm a 1/3 of the way through the "BIG SHIFT" by Darrell Bricker highly recommended by a fellow Lionbacker (jcalhoun, IIRC?). Excellent book, so far. Makes so much sense based on both the history and projected future. Great book for political junkies, like myself.

Onto the election. Read today that Christy Clark will be running in Kelowna. Will have me curious as the the next steps down the road. I mean Clark claims she will be getting a residence in the riding and I respect/admire she's making that effort. During the next election, it does make you wonder. Obviously polls (maybe ) and other things will have an impact but where does Christy run if she wants to be re-elected. Stay in the riding you got elected in and/or do you head back to the lower mainland? IMO, she will have no trouble getting the seat she deserves and I do agree with some of the comments made in todays paper by the columnists.

For e.g. Christy Clark recently recieved her first 'transition' payment that is part of a program that MLA's that did not get relected get paid (which she was fully entitled to due to losing in her riding). For the next 15 months after the May election, retired and/or un-re-elected MLA's get a substantial payment program. Apparently it was a raise over their payment as an MLA. Clark stated she will be refunding her recieved payment. The journalist (Smythe, IIRC) said he hopes this kind of program comes to an end. MLA's who were not elected, had a chance to get their job back but were rejected by the voters, so why should they get paid? Good point, IMO but these are the types of issues that most BC Liberals and NDP MLA's will be in agreement on (keeping these benefits of course).

[Sir Purrcival]

Well what is even worse IMO is those MLA's that are "retiring". In other words, they choose to leave politics of their own volition. I know of one who is not "transitioning" to the private sector but is retiring outright. This person is going to get paid for the next 15 months so as to help make the transition to RV'ing and other forms of recreational travel. Meanwhile, Fraser Health is going to start charging an additional $25.00 per month to seniors in extended care for wheelchair maintenance and such. That sickens me a whole lot. If politicians pull the plug on their own political lives, then why should they get paid for the next 15 months? It is absolutely disgusting and I am going to write my MLA about this. I would suggest that everyone do the same. It is time politicians get their public lives more in line with what the rest of us have to deal with in regards to severance, pensions and what not. They make it sound like they have been institutionalized and need time to figure out how to live on the "outside". Pathetic.

[Toppy Vann]

I'm a 1/3 of the way through the "BIG SHIFT" by Darrell Bricker highly recommended by a fellow Lionbacker (jcalhoun, IIRC?). Excellent book, so far. Makes so much sense based on both the history and projected future. Great book for political junkies, like myself.

Onto the election. Read today that Christy Clark will be running in Kelowna. Will have me curious as the the next steps down the road. I mean Clark claims she will be getting a residence in the riding and I respect/admire she's making that effort. During the next election, it does make you wonder. Obviously polls (maybe ) and other things will have an impact but where does Christy run if she wants to be re-elected. Stay in the riding you got elected in and/or do you head back to the lower mainland? IMO, she will have no trouble getting the seat she deserves and I do agree with some of the comments made in todays paper by the columnists.

For e.g. Christy Clark recently recieved her first 'transition' payment that is part of a program that MLA's that did not get relected get paid (which she was fully entitled to due to losing in her riding). For the next 15 months after the May election, retired and/or un-re-elected MLA's get a substantial payment program. Apparently it was a raise over their payment as an MLA. Clark stated she will be refunding her recieved payment. The journalist (Smythe, IIRC) said he hopes this kind of program comes to an end. MLA's who were not elected, had a chance to get their job back but were rejected by the voters, so why should they get paid? Good point, IMO but these are the types of issues that most BC Liberals and NDP MLA's will be in agreement on (keeping these benefits of course).

The transitional payments seem ugly but in reality this is intended to help attract good people to public life. In the good old days the government was filled with lawyers from firms who at the federal level gave 60% to the party in power and hedged with 40% to the Official Opposition while the unions took care of CCF- NDP. If you gave up a career to enter politics then lose your seat the issue is how to transition back to a job in the real world.

I have no trouble with this.

My biggest issue is how politics have changed and voters vote their biases and politicians no longer run on a platform that they actually implement vs attacking the other guy.

The tricky issue is how the Liberals take care of the newly elected MLA who is stepping down (if he needs a job/pay, etc). If he is well off it might not matter but you have to take care you don't break the law and buy and sell a public office. I have no trouble with this in a Parliamentary system as Clark won the gov't but lost her seat and deserves a seat.

[notahomer]

... I have no trouble with this in a Parliamentary system as Clark won the gov't but lost her seat and deserves a seat.

No arguement here.... I DOUBT the Liberals would have won without her fine effort barnstorming the crucial ridings. She barely had time for those. She had very little if any time to campaign in her 'home' riding and certainly saw no need to campaign in NDP strongholds (unlike Dix campaining in Liberal ones).

As I said, I recently read 'the big shift'. Excellent book. Upon reflection much of what is stated almost definately applies to provincial politics but in a different way of course. The book focussed on some things Harper/Conservatives have done to 'shift' the political scene. The BC Liberals certainly seemed to emulate many of the ideas/concepts, IMO, that have been successful for Harper in Ottawa.

The one glaring mistake only proves the authors points, IMO. The authors raved about the incredible revival of the BC NDP under Adrian Dix. I genuinely would love to have a short dialogue (not debate) with the authors about the BC election results. I would not be surprised if they felt Clark's Liberals were just further evolution of their 'big shift' talking points just with a BC twist.........

[Toppy Vann]

Adrian Dix and his team like many pollsters who didn't do their work to the right depth and like the former President of BCIT who resigned a while back with no Plan B to be Dix's Deputy Premier assumed this was a slam dunk.

Christy Clark may have many failings as a leader and Premier but one of them is not political smarts. These dudes know how to organize and the NDP blew it. What the NDP used to do in getting voters onside was done in spades by the BC Liberals. I was a bit surprised that she did not spend more time in her own riding and even more surprised that she is deciding to run in the interior.

Dix did a very job in Opposition reconstructing himself and acting positively but the backdrop of the work he did with former Prem. Glen Clark and the backdated memo to file that was so needlessly and foolishly done will forever stick with him. It is hard for voters to get over but that wasn't the main reason.

Dix was looking at the past and the Barrett gov't of 1972 who did fantastic things for BC and then lost as they went too fast in some areas and didn't get enough credit for some of the fundamental institutions like the BC Ambulance Service, Sheriffs revitalization, Agric. Land Reserve, ICBC and many more things. Then his time with Glen Clark as Premier showed him to be long term you need to be different so he had no grand vision or plan and he didn't hammer them constantly negatively as he felt he didn't need to.

The elephant in the room is this. He was Chief of Staff to Prem Glen Clark and he knows the province's finances are not that great and he will be very limited as are the Liberals in what can be done so he wanted to under promise and over deliver. Bad politics. He then becomes an echo.

On ripping off ICBC profits from optional while gouging compulsory insureds for an 11.2% increase - the NDP said they 'd continue that despite them calling that policy back in 2003 when Gary Collins brought it in - robbery - the NDP agreed that this was right. Just wait to see what ICBC rates will be post election as the Libs changed the rules in Cabinet to cut the rate increase in 11.2% or it'd have been in the 20% plus range.

In other words, they will continue to lower taxes for business and maybe people but get it all back in user fees and other means like BC Hydro and ICBC - meaning the well like me get a free ride while the guy struggling with a family and earning $40,000 or so a year is going to struggle more.

[notahomer]

Saw a blurb tonight on the news where LARGE salary increases to support staff were rescinded. Optics just did not look good. Some health authorities claim they now need to charge seniors for wheelchairs. Some support staff were ALREADY making more than Obama's staff and then getting large raises on top of that. I know its not easy and A (wheelchairs) does not equal B (raises for staff), but as I said, IMO, the optics did not look good. Good on Premier Clark and the new government for practicing what they are preaching (we need to cut back and get to CORE services)...........

[sj-roc]

The Westside-Kelowna by-election — held today after the Liberal incumbent resigned to allow Christy Clark an opportunity to win a seat in the legislature after she failed to do so in the May 14 general election — had the widely expected result of a victory for Clark with 62.7% of the over 17,000 valid votes cast compared to 29.7% for her nearest (NDP) opponent.

[TheLionKing]

The Westside-Kelowna by-election — held today after the Liberal incumbent resigned to allow Christy Clark an opportunity to win a seat in the legislature after she failed to do so in the May 14 general election — had the widely expected result of a victory for Clark with 62.7% of the over 17,000 valid votes cast compared to 29.7% for her nearest (NDP) opponent.