BC referendum on changing electoral system

[jimrtex]

"Weighted votes" is probably unconstitutional in a Westminster system.

How so? The UK doesn't have a written constitution, it is merely a bunch of conventions. Queen Elizabeth can wave her magic wand, and it is so.

[Gary J]

"Weighted votes" is probably unconstitutional in a Westminster system.

How so? The UK doesn't have a written constitution, it is merely a bunch of conventions. Queen Elizabeth can wave her magic wand, and it is so.

It is not quite true to say that the UK does not have a constitution.  What it does not have is a constitution formalised into a single document.

The UK constitution is partially written in statutes and  partially based upon the common law. The conventions are in some respects more important than the legally enforceable parts of the constitution.
 
What the UK constitutions boils down to is that whatever the Crown in Parliament enacts is law. It is the Crown in Parliament, not just the monarch alone, which can wave the magic wand and alter constitutional law as easily as it can provide for minor issues in the administration of the public services.

However, British Columbia does have a constitution written into one document. The constitutional provisions do not say that each member of the Legislative Assembly is to have an equal vote, but I imagine the courts would imply it.

http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96066_01#section18

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[jimrtex]

"Weighted votes" is probably unconstitutional in a Westminster system.

How so? The UK doesn't have a written constitution, it is merely a bunch of conventions. Queen Elizabeth can wave her magic wand, and it is so.

It is not quite true to say that the UK does not have a constitution.  What it does not have is a constitution formalised into a single document.

The UK constitution is partially written in statutes and  partially based upon the common law. The conventions are in some respects more important than the legally enforceable parts of the constitution.
 
What the UK constitutions boils down to is that whatever the Crown in Parliament enacts is law. It is the Crown in Parliament, not just the monarch alone, which can wave the magic wand and alter constitutional law as easily as it can provide for minor issues in the administration of the public services.

Her Majesty, through her Lieutenant Governor, will undoubtedly give close attention to the advice of the Premier and other minsters, and they too will heed the prudence and wisdom given by (or for) the monarch,

Queen Elizabeth and the British Prime Minister meet weekly. It is not clear whether the Lieutenant Governor meets regularly with the BC Premier. Since she is a cattle rancher in the Nicola Valley, travel and residence in Victoria may constitute a hardship.

It appears that the Lieutenant Governor actively rejected Christy Clark's advice to dissolve the Legislative Assembly, and instead gave John Horgan an opportunity to form a government. She is said to have consulted with roughly 30 experts in Canada, Britain, and Australia. I do not know if Her Majesty was directly involved.

A previous Lieutenant Governor chose W.A.C.Bennett to be Premier, ushering in a 20-year period of SoCred government.

The Throne Speech was interesting. The Lieutenant Governor obvious could not refer to "my government" as Her Majesty would, and "Her Majesty's government" would be a 3rd party reference, which would be incorrect since she is acting as the agent of The Queen. And "The Government" would suggest a republican form of government, equivalent to the "The Administration" or even worse "My Administration". So it was simply "Government".

Incidentally, the wand would not be magical if anyone could wave it. It is clearly magical in whom its use is vested and how it is used.

However, British Columbia does have a constitution written into one document. The constitutional provisions do not say that each member of the Legislative Assembly is to have an equal vote, but I imagine the courts would imply it.

http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96066_01#section18

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Election Act will be amended to reflect whatever method of election is chosen. The Electoral Districts Act and Electoral Boundaries Commission Act will also be amended.

18(3) would appear to be an impediment to AMS or province-wide list, unless one considers the entire province to be an electoral district. The different electorate under AMS seems to have been a problem in Scotland, though apparently not in Germany.

The wording of this section appears to anticipate that members would have different numbers of votes (i.e. majority of votes, rather than majority of members).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And finally, the Constitution Act itself is subject to amendment as ordinary legislation (majority of votes, plus Royal Assent).

[Pragmatic Conservative]

Election results to be posted at 2:30 pst today.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

Clear victory for FPTP 61.3% to 38.7%

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Ugh. Hopefully Quebec will show anglophone Canada the way to go and send this disease of an electoral system to hell.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Clear victory for FPTP 61.3% to 38.7%

Great Result

[Intell]

Clear victory for FPTP 61.3% to 38.7%

Great Result

Stupidity prevails.

[Antonio the Sixth]

FOR F**K'S SAKE

[OSR stands with Israel]

You can argue FPTP is more democratic than propertional


Reason is incumbent party is almost guaranteed 25%-30% of the vote and in propertional type voting systems that could easily be enough to lead the government . In FPTP that result would obliterate the incumbent party .


Also FPTP you directly get to vote for representatives

[bigic]

But that party would then need to enter a coalition. Also in MMP and STV proportional systems you can vote directly for representatives.

[brucejoel99]

Clear victory for FPTP 61.3% to 38.7%

REEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

[Former President tack50]

Looking at the results I wonder how would the referendum have looked like if instead it was about making it a 2nd round election (a la France, or some American states).

[DC Al Fine]

Anyone have maps?

Looking at the results I wonder how would the referendum have looked like if instead it was about making it a 2nd round election (a la France, or some American states).

I dont think it would make much of a difference to be honest.

[jimrtex]

Anyone have maps?

Looking at the results I wonder how would the referendum have looked like if instead it was about making it a 2nd round election (a la France, or some American states).

I dont think it would make much of a difference to be honest.

Not the same question, but if the 2017 election had been conducted under those rules, NDP might have a clear majority.

Liberals won Fraser-Nicola, Richmond-Queensborough, Coquitom-Burke Mountain, and Vancouver-False Creek, narrow margins.

In a runoff, these could easily have flipped if Green voters only slightly favored NDP.

This would give a NDP 45, Liberal 41, Green 3 majority.

[mileslunn]

Anyone have maps?

Looking at the results I wonder how would the referendum have looked like if instead it was about making it a 2nd round election (a la France, or some American states).

I dont think it would make much of a difference to be honest.

Not the same question, but if the 2017 election had been conducted under those rules, NDP might have a clear majority.

Liberals won Fraser-Nicola, Richmond-Queensborough, Coquitom-Burke Mountain, and Vancouver-False Creek, narrow margins.

In a runoff, these could easily have flipped if Green voters only slightly favored NDP.

This would give a NDP 45, Liberal 41, Green 3 majority.

The NDP absolutely would have won a majority under those rules, although contrary to some others claim, I think BC Liberals would have still won in 2005, 2009, and 2013 but just barely.  Usually after a party has been in power for 16 years it is tough to be re-elected no matter what.  In fact most other parties that have been in power that long have suffered much worse defeats.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Whatever. FPP is still an undemocratic abomination.

[mileslunn]

Whatever. FPP is still an undemocratic abomination.

A lot in the academic community would agree with this, but for the average voter in the street, I think most have limited knowledge of other electoral systems and since ours has served us well since 1867, there isn't a huge outcry to change.  I think Chretien's remark that PR is only great for unelectable professors was absolutely right on the money

[brucejoel99]

Whatever. FPP is still an undemocratic abomination.