B.C. New Democrat and B.C. Greens finalize agreement - BC Green Caucus
bcgreencaucus.ca

Full text agreement here.

Section 3 – Policy Initiatives & 2025 Deliverables

11. Democratic and Electoral Reform

The Parties will work together to create a special legislative all-party committee to evaluate and recommend policy and legislation measures to be pursued beginning in 2026 to increase democratic engagement & voter participation, address increasing political polarization, and improve the representativeness of government. The committee will review and consider preferred methods of proportional representation as part of its deliberations. The Government will work with the BCGC to establish the detailed terms of reference for this review, which are subject to the approval of both parties. The terms of reference will include the ability to receive expert and public input, provide for completion of the Special Committee’s work in Summer 2025, and public release of the Committee’s report within 45 days of completion. The committee will also review the administration of the 43rd provincial general election, including consideration of the Chief Electoral Officer’s report on the 43rd provincial general election, and make recommendations for future elections.

  • MyBrainHurts@lemmy.caEnglish
    13·
    1 day ago

    Why not have everyone vote on every bill possible then? Or are you against democracy?

    • AlolanVulpix@lemmy.caOPMEnglish
      3·
      1 day ago

      A direct democracy is impractical, but perhaps a liquid democracy might be. In any case, this is why we have a representative democracy, our elected representatives are supposed to represent us, which seldom happens in FPTP due to its winner-take-all nature.

      But the discussion we are having isn’t about the degree of concentration of power, but rather PR versus non-PR.

      • MyBrainHurts@lemmy.caEnglish
        13·
        1 day ago

        Okay, so if I’m advocating for direct democracy, it’s more democratic than PR. So, this is PR vs non PR.

        Or, do you not actually care about democracy? Because earlier it seemed that the only thing that mattered to an electoral system was how democratic it was. Hard to argue direct democracy is less democratic than PR…

        • AlolanVulpix@lemmy.caOPMEnglish
          2·
          1 day ago

          You are trying to make the case that FPTP is better than PR. That’s the discussion we are having, so stop moving the goal posts.

          If you want to have a serious discussion, let’s have it, but don’t play these nonsense games of dodging inconvenient facts.

          • MyBrainHurts@lemmy.caEnglish
            12·
            1 day ago

            I’m just seeing how your logic plays out. You can’t have it wherein “if I’m talking about PR, then all that matters is how democratic a system is” AND “if I’m talking about any other system, then the practicalities and consequences matter.”

            You’ve been arguing that PR is the best system because it is the most democratic. I’m pointing out that there are more democratic systems.

            As you stated above, your principles:

            1. In a democracy, we are entitled to and deserving of representation in government.
            1. I am not trying to argue whether democracy (and by proxy PR) itself is successful (or unsuccesful), because that is an entirely different discussion.

            So, according to the two principles you’ve laid out, direct democracy seems superior to PR.

            Edited to include your quotes about the context/reminding you of the goal posts which you chose.

            • AlolanVulpix@lemmy.caOPMEnglish
              2·
              1 day ago
              1. PR can be demonstrated to be mathematically superior to winner-take-all such as FPTP. So this is the baseline.
              2. You are making the claim that FPTP is superior to PR. The onus is on you to demonstrate your claim.
              3. I am not saying one way or another whether there are more democratic systems than PR, because it’s not relevant to the discussion. I am not the one bringing up a controversial claim that is unsupported by the current evidence.
              4. Stop trying to move the goal posts by changing the objective, that you must demonstrate.
              5. You haven’t established the case that there are problems that are unique to PR, that you wouldn’t find in a (direct) democracy. This is a big problem with many of the points you are bringing up.
              • MyBrainHurts@lemmy.caEnglish
                13·
                1 day ago

                So, are you running away from the two principles that you laid out above? I’m just pointing out here that you seem to move the goal posts to whatever is convenient. When you are defending PR, all that matters is how democratic something is. When I bring up direct democracy, all of a sudden, the costs and practical consequences matter.

                You cannot have it both ways.

                And are you confusing me with someone else? My very original point was

                Please, anything but full PR. Please. In a polarized landscape PR is leading to increasingly bad outcomes (Israel, Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, Poland etc.) In a PR system, the Far Right would be running France.

                • AlolanVulpix@lemmy.caOPMEnglish
                  3·
                  1 day ago

                  So, are you running away from the two principles that you laid out above

                  I suppose so…? At the end of the day, PR can be demonstrated to be mathematically superior to FPTP, and you have not provided arguments that also couldn’t be made against any ordinary democracy.

                  I’m not scared to say that a direct democracy is more democratic than PR. But this is not new information, nor is it in contention. What is in contention is whether PR is democratically superior to FPTP.

                  To say “anything but full PR” necessarily implies that you believe PR is worse than FPTP. Again, you have yet to demonstrate this claim. I’m waiting for you to get back on topic.

                  • MyBrainHurts@lemmy.caEnglish
                    13·
                    1 day ago

                    So, are you running away from the two principles that you laid out above

                    I suppose so…?

                    Okay, then this:

                    What is in contention is whether PR is democratically superior to FPTP.

                    Doesn’t really make sense. You can’t just say “when we’re talking about PR vs FPTP, what matters is whether PR is more democratic” but then when Direct Democracy vs PR is the question, all of a sudden it doesn’t matter which is more democratic.

                    So again, what are the principles by which you are judging PR to be a good or bad choice? If it is purely, which is the most democratic system, then direct democracy blows PR out of the water…

                    If you want an answer to the question “which is better, PR or FPTP” you have to have criteria to use as judgement. And again, if that criteria is only “which is more democratic” then why aren’t you advocating direct democracy?