Thank you for explaining in an unbiased way. I did not want to deal with another advertisement to side with one of the systems. Also I'm typing this from a train and got confused into thinking a door was closing while it's moving. Hilarious.
MMP and Rural-Urban should be yellow for "simple ballot." Rural-Urban should also definitely be above MMP on Local Representation. An STV elected multi-member district provides better local representation than a party list.
It depends on how you look at it. In mixed member you have ridings that are a little less than double their current size. In RUP you could have ridings even larger than that, which is certainly less local.
Thanks for breaking these down, the longer video is very well done and I get why you've uploaded this lighter version. What I'd really like to know is how these systems are performing in the current world. How many of these systems are being used right now? and where? and how are those places doing? Has anyone looked on a global scale to rank political systems? I'm sure we could come up with a rating system... something that looks into: economy growth, unemployment %, national debt burden, living situations, suicide ratio, crime.... etc. and actually see which governing system has the greatest trend of success? .... At first thought I'm all for having a mix of representatives but I have to wonder if it actually creates an efficient governance, maybe it's beneficial for a party to have that extra power to actually get a few things done without leaping through so many hoops and arguing through opinions. I think a breakdown of how each form works is great, but where is the breakdown of their long term effect? Are any of these tried, tested and proven? Currently I don't have an answer for the first question on the referendum, but let's not overlook the fact each proportional system still has unclear rules on their establishment. Who get's to decide on all those new ridings? who get's to decide how candidates are chosen? That's a very powerful and under looked topic.
I'll start with your last two questions. Elections BC will decide on all the ridings, just as the currently do. The parties will decide which candidates they nominate to run, just as they already do no, and the voters will elect all of the MLAs based on which MLAs got the most votes (with the exception of closed list MMP). I don't believe there's any credible ranking systems of countries based around the effects of their electoral system on their economies and welfare. But Germany is a very good example of a country that has been using MMP for decades, and has seen some of the greatest successes of the last half century. On the other hand, America has also done very well, and of course uses first past the post. I think that on net, all our possible systems are equal. It just depends on what you value most, and what you like to see emphasized/sacrificed.
Most favoured candidate. Really, is any other choice a real consideration for an informed electorate on a local level? Urban-Rural STV is the only viable choice imho.
As a supporter of Pro Rep who has been following this issue for a long time, I would like to highlight that there are 2 inaccuracies in this video: 1) At 3:35 , you point out that "you're not going to get inverted results" (in terms of votes equalling seats). However, in the 1996 BC Election, the BC NDP won a majority government (~55% seats) even though they ONLY came in 2nd place with ~39.9% votes (While Libs came 1st place with 41%). 2) At 3:59, you say that "you shouldn't vote MMP or RUP if you don't like parties rank-ordering their lists of candidates". However, we should take into consideration that John Horgan has come out openly AGAINST closed-lists, and in Favour of Open-Lists (where voters decide which regional PR MLAs are elected, by putting 1 X next to their favourite regional candidate- regional candidates with most votes from each party win if parties need more seats to make PR results). BC Green leader Andrew Weaver also supports open-lists. vancouversun.com/news/politics/b-c-premier-to-veto-closed-list-version-of-mixed-member-pro-rep
I’ll believe we won’t have closed lists when I see it. Right now there’s nothing stopping them. If they only supported open lists, they should have said so, and put that to the vote.
Yeah, they should've just gone off the MMP model used in the PEI Plebiscite in 2016 (Open-List), same as the one recommended by the Federal All-Party Committee on Electoral Reform that year.
Maybe I need to watch the longer video but I'm not actually sure an actual answer exists.... Elections BC only showed the stuff from back in the day. Which brings me to the question... So back in the day, when we did this the last time, there were some maps drawn up. With the FPTP system BC has a smattering of smallish ridings that are generally along the US/Canada border and then ridings the size of European countries elsewhere. Do any of these compensate for that? For example, since the ridings in some systems can become so large, depending on how the party chose their members you could have all representatives of northern BC represented by MLA's based out of Prince George because its the largest northern city so in a popularity contest those candidates are the most known. Additionally, how does a candidate for that type of a riding campaign when the riding is literally the size of a European country?
All of the ridings are roughly equal size by population in all the systems. If it were done by area, people in Northern ridings would have hundreds% more voting power. And because the ridings are equal by population, whether you're running in a rural riding or an urban riding, you're just as likely to get the most amount of votes province wide, because no matter what riding you're running in, the amount of people eligible to vote for you is roughly the same.
The ridings are always based upon attempting to balance the population across another, but with FPTP ridings are kept relatively small with populations of about 60,000 per riding. This referendum is a complete joke because there are no details given for how large the ridings will grow in different scenarios. That makes it difficult to know how things would actually work because there are a significant number of questions that must be answered in order to make an informed decision about this. For example... if each riding now had 3 seats, assuming 87 seats is desirable still, each riding would triple in size. Alternatively, for every 3 ridings in close proximity you'd now have 1 larger riding, but still with 3 MLA's being sent to Victoria. In practice, this means that Vancouver Island becomes 2 ridings. The Central Okanagan becomes 1 riding. The Lower Mainland is less fractured, the rest of BC starts getting ridings that are quite large. If you move to 6 MLA's that would encompass all of Vancouver Island in a single riding. The Okanagan would be a riding, but maybe be broken up for better groupings. The rest of BC, including Haida Gwaii and the Okanagan, would be served by 4 ridings that would get progressively larger as you headed north. The entire northern half of the province would be a single riding. Without the details, which is really lacking this time around, there's the potential that this could result in no representation for smaller communities outside the larger urban centers of their respective ridings. All the MLA's for that northern riding might be based in Prince George or Rupert which would leave northern towns like Fort Nelson, Altin, Dease Lake, etc without any real representation as they'd be a full days drive away. The existing Peace River North riding is 160,485km^2 in size. As a European country, it would rank 15th - taking the spot of Greece. A merged riding would likely be larger than Germany, which would put it well into the top 10. So how would that work? The representation is more representative, but the voter is more disenfranchised as their representative is far away?
The critical question is Question 1, so the idea in the video of voting for no change (FPTP) in Question 1 because you have some fear of one of the proportional options is ridiculous. Here's why FPTP (current system) is so undemocratic: Say there are four parties: Party A gets 40% or the vote, Party B gets 35%, Party C gets 15% With one candidate elected for each riding, the current system would tend to send Party A to the legislature IN EVERY RIDING!!! Party A would likely even form a majority government! AND YET 60% of voters VOTED AGAINST PARTY A!!!
Some people just have different values that they prioritize in their electoral systems. If they prefer majority governments (and also local representation, which FPTP also has a slight edge in), then they should feel free and empowered to vote for that. Your values are clearly proportionality which means minority governments, more compromise, and more smaller parties. So - obviously - you should vote for a proportional system. Voting for FPTP in the first question is only ridiculous from the perspective that the most important quality of an electoral system is proportionality. Just like voting proportional in the first question is ridiculous from the perspective that what matters most is strong majority governments that have their mandates graded and put to the test by the electorate.
Red-Green moderate protan, greens, yellows, oranges, reds, and browns can look the same, It is also hard to tell the difference between blues and purples, or pinks and grays. so picking colours with larger gaps. Try textures overlays on the colours? usabilla.com/blog/how-to-design-for-color-blindness/
No - you can leave the others blank. But - you might as well give at least one vote to your least hated of the proportional systems. Doing so won't increase the chances of proportional beating First Past the Post, but will help in limiting your dissatisfaction if proportional does win.
Thank you for the reply. I just want to leave things alone and I feel that if I enter a preference I may be attributing to the uneducated masses who are likely voting in the dark. I don't want any part of it!!! Leave it alone but many will not. I was at a Focus Group a few months ago and this was the topic. At the beginning of the evening, five of the eight voted for proportional representation and three voted against any change. Of the five that thought it was a good idea, perhaps ONE had any idea what it meant. Go figure!!!! Of the three that voted to leave things alone, one was a law student at Osgoode Hall, who seemed to know a lot about it. I voted to leave things alone because I knew NOTHING about the changes. Now I know a little about it but I feel that my vote will be swamped by all the uneducated votes. They should just leave it alone or make a real effort to make sure voters know what they are for or against. This whole referendum is shameful. This is one of the few sites that is making an effort to educate the voters. The Government should be taking the lead, if they really care about an informed vote.
@@Mrskateboardboy There are lots of groups and pages online that have clear, educational videos on the referendum and the PROREP options. Let's be clear though; if you support fair democracy then you would vote PROREP. 40% of the vote should equal 40% of the seats, and not 100% of the power.
@@CANADAWOOOOOOOOO No doubt and I have looked at some. It is quite foreign to voters and only those that really care will make the effort. I am concerned that too few will make the effort to educate themselves and we will end up with a different system that we don't understand well and there will be no way BACK!!
@@Mrskateboardboy The new systems are not complicated. Majority of BC voters are not idiots, they will figure out how to vote when they see the ballot which will also have instructions. This change is for the fairness of our democratic process. How can anyone be against true democracy.
Good, but did the producer use an automated speeder-upper? Many of the comments are unfortunately poorly founded, i.e. not really accurate, but a good attempt. Other videos are listed at votingbc.ca/videos
If anything in this video is wrong, could you provide a counter to them so that others can learn from them? There's also the longer Explained version, if you feel things are over simplified. As for speed, this just myself talking normally. It's not much faster than your average internet video.
@@joshmessmerthisherevancouv2996 Interesting and amazing that the 24 minute video has gotten more than twice the views of the 6 minute video; it's great that people are taking it seriously, but that's puzzling. The following comments are about this 6 minute video. In reply to your query to me about me saying "not really accurate", there are both minor and major errors in the video. For example, a careless minor error is the chart calling Rural-Urban Proportional "Urban/Rural Proportional", which is not on the ballot. More importantly, you can tell your presentation is flawed from your chart. For example, each of the systems is shown as having one red (bad) characteristic except MMP which is shown with three. This is contrary to the ratings of international electoral academic experts, who rate MMP superior to our winner-take-all voting, and superior to the other PR systems. Since MMP is the leading candidate for PR in BC, your chart is effectively campaigning against PR succeeding altogether. If we look at it quantitatively, and assign green=4 (most satisfactory), yellow=2, orange=1 and red=0, then FPTP's scores add up to 24, DMP 25, RUP 23, and MMP distinctly less at 19. Again, this near-equivalency of FPTP with most of the PR systems is completely at odds with the Canadian findings of over a dozen government commissions, 8 out of 9 international experts, and 7 out of 8 Canadian experts. It proves your methodology is badly flawed and/or biased. Getting now to specifics: It's noteworthy that you assigned a yellow warning on local representation to DMP and RUP, presumably on the basis that the districts would be physically double in size (DMP except a few rural areas) or variable but probably averaging a bit over double in size (RUP). While this physical difference is literally true, what the voters should be concerned about with respect to local representation are the implications for (a) nonpartisan local servicing of citizens and (b) having a rep whose views are aligned with your own, particularly with respect to local issues under provincial jurisdiction. Experience overseas suggests that (a) will be as good or better under PR. With respect to (b), the PR systems DMP and RUP, particularly RUP, improve local representation almost double. So, I believe the chart is wrong - it's precisely only FPTP that should have the yellow warning (or a red one) for local representation because it leaves around half the local residents without a local rep they support or who supports their views. Closely related to this is the fact that you've omitted from the chart one of the biggest flaws of FPTP - it's disastrous misrepresentation of regions, and the improved regional representation with PR (sending both govt. MLAs to do stuff, and opposition MLAs to Victoria to hold them accountable, from every sizable region.) Because simplicity is the voters top priority, I'm particularly upset under "Simple Ballots" you again took a literal stance on the basis that FPTP and DMP require only one choice, so you put them as green. That's also ignoring that MMP, and the MMP portion of RUP, might use a single ballot exactly the same as FPTP, using the candidate's vote as a party vote. If the MLAs who decide the details want simplicity, they can choose that under MMP. But let's assume they would go with two MMP votes; it is twice as complicated as FPTP in a simplistic literal sense. But wait - the purpose of a ballot is to convey the voter's intentions effectively. That's often defeated in FPTP because, to reduce the chances of wasting your vote altogether, you have to guess who are the top two candidates and then vote for the one you hate least. These vote splitting guesses and strategic voting is complicated - much more complicated than PR, in which you simply vote your preference. So, for the voter's real concern of being heard, for Simple Ballot you should have FPTP as yellow (not red because vote splitting isn't a concern in the many safe ridings), DMP as green as you have it, MMP as green (because it's simple to vote twice, who can't make two choices on the ballot? in Vancouver municipal elections we make about 20) and RUP as yellow (because you might need to rank a rather long list). Saying 'if you want a ranked ballot then your only choice is Rural-Urban'...is a really bad way to discuss ranked ballots, because most people dislike ranked ballots, no-one "wants" a ranked ballot per se so if anyone takes your statement literally this could cause them to rule out RUP, but they do (some of them anyway) "want" the benefits of a ranked ballot (and while they don't much like it, they're perfectly capable of ranking their preferences), so it would have been more appropriate to omit the "Ranked Ballots" factor line if you didn't have the time to discuss their pros and cons rather than just the physical "ranked ballot". In other words, presenting that line in literal terms is a very inaccurate depiction of the whole ranked ballot issue. Then you go on to 'strong majority government' for speedy decision making - and make the mistake of not considering both "speedy and wise" decision making, because PR govts. have been shown to make wiser decisions, which is pretty important. Then you say that PR governments are not usually majority govts. when in fact they usually are - a major blunder. Sure, they're coalition majority govts, but still majority, not minority. Then you say under FPTP minority govts. are rare - but they're not rare; they've been relatively uncommon in BC, I think about 1/8 of my lifetime, but they've been quite common federally, and the trend in BC is that way with the rise of the Greens (who won 9 of 10 candidates they ran in Vancouver municipally apparently), so 'rare' is completely misleading. Under "Don't like Party Lists" you say "If you don't like the idea of a party creating their own ranked list of candidates that will get seats, then you shouldn't vote for Mixed Member or Rural-Urban if you live in a rural area. In the other three systems, First Past The Post, Dual Member, and urban ridings of Rural-Urban all the candidates that win seats are the most popular candidates at election, although they all calculate that slightly differently." This version of MMP is a straw man, it has been specifically disavowed by the governing party - see www.bcndp.ca/pro-rep. You could have been forgiven if you had stated that there's no law against the MLAs bringing in such a version of MMP, but a fair presentation would have at least mentioned that there are many different versions of MMP, including both open and closed lists, rather than making the blanket statement that a voter should not vote for MMP if they don't want parties choosing their MLA for them. That's misleading in BC and therefore inaccurate. You then waste valuable time to distinguish between ranking two or three PR systems, but these do not differ in effect. Then you take considerable time to discuss and suggest "it's worth noting" that they have the option of strategic voting, that a person might want to vote for FPTP if they are extremely against one PR system. This implies that there are major differences among the PR systems, which is hugely inaccurate because in fact they are merely mechanically different and not hardly different at all in political outcome terms, so encouraging ignorant people to believe that they are highly different is irresponsible. Moreover, a strong dislike of one of these systems is quite rare because of the general ignorance of them, so talking about that point in a three minute video comes across as just spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt about the whole mess rather than educating people about the main points, and this FUD clearly will favour the status quo, first past the post. You may have good and honest intentions and be as pure as the driven snow, but somehow your video became a self-serving promotion (Patreon) and one of the more sophisticated hatchet jobs. And in my experience, opponents of Pro Rep are not willing to read hundreds of research papers and are rarely willing to open their minds to change, so debating with them is a waste of time.
Ive only watched/listened to this once and for me, You talk too fast. I will listen to this multiple times. WHO started this, I would also like to know.
Are you referring to these videos or to the referendum. I - Josh Messmer - started these videos, and I do all the work on them. There’s no outside influence other than from viewers. The referendum was campaign promise from both the NDP and Greens, and since they both hold power, it only makes sense that a referendum would be happening now.
I think its because hes one of these proud "canadian" libtard commie / socialist types. They all talk this way. Real fast and with a stupid canadian accent. They watch a lot of cbc or other fake news broadcasts. (All major canadian networks are fake libtard bias garbage however the cbc is the worst) this is where they start talking this way. Also they learn it from the commie school teachers in the public schools. It is a pre rec to be a commie / libtard before getting hired as a teacher in BC.
All three systems have huge flaws but so does our current system. We would all be better served with Approval voting and consensus government formation. The issue of low PR is not really an issue coming from the ballot. It is an issue with government formation. We need a better systems than "The leader is the leader of the party with the most seats". The leaders of parties are not elected by the general population.
I am troubled by this referendum. From my reading and research, I understand that the Citizens Assembly that looked at several different models of proportional representation in 2004 included ones where the voter gets to choose the MLAs, and ones where the parties choose the MLAs. After long and careful deliberations, they rejected the models that had the parties choose the MLAs. This government's own consultations resulted in four different models that again included some where the voter chooses and some where the and parties get to choose, but the only options that this government is offering the voters are three models (two of which apparently didn't come up in consultations) where the parties choose the MLAs. How does this happen? How is it that the government gets to chooses the system, and they all involve the parties choosing the MLAs. This feels decidedly undemocratic. How can MLAs be accountable to the voters when the voters aren't choosing the MLAs?
Only closed list multi-member would let the parties create lists. Dual member, open-list mixed member, and Rural-Urban all leave the decisions to the vote. Edit: You can watch the longer Explained version of this video for clarification.
Thanks, I watched the longer video. So you agree that there are situations where the parties choose the members. That is wrong, in my books. I am voting to stay with the FPTP system, and hoping that a more thoughtful government will find a better PR system in the future.
That's only partly true. It's possible that on of the three option - mixed member - lets the party create ranked list of candidates that's published prior to the election, but not in the closed-member version of mixed. In close-list mixed member, dual member, and rural-urban, the voters decide who wins each seat, and the NDP have said they prefer open-list, not closed-list, although this isn't binding.
I think you meant to say that it's true in a certain case, not that it's partly true. There is a difference. The video, at approx. 14:00, explains that with a closed list the parties get to decide, so I think you meant to say that in the open list MM version the voters get to decide.
perhaps you did not notice that the parties pick the candidate under FPTP? Since this is your major concern I presume you can not support the existing FPTP at all. just can not think of a system that you would like. But FPTP is definitely the worst option for you.
Loved this explanatory videos. Always so interesting to watch!
Thank you for explaining in an unbiased way. I did not want to deal with another advertisement to side with one of the systems.
Also I'm typing this from a train and got confused into thinking a door was closing while it's moving. Hilarious.
MMP and Rural-Urban should be yellow for "simple ballot."
Rural-Urban should also definitely be above MMP on Local Representation. An STV elected multi-member district provides better local representation than a party list.
It depends on how you look at it. In mixed member you have ridings that are a little less than double their current size. In RUP you could have ridings even larger than that, which is certainly less local.
HE IS BACK
i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/225/329/81e.gif
Thanks for breaking these down, the longer video is very well done and I get why you've uploaded this lighter version. What I'd really like to know is how these systems are performing in the current world. How many of these systems are being used right now? and where? and how are those places doing? Has anyone looked on a global scale to rank political systems? I'm sure we could come up with a rating system... something that looks into: economy growth, unemployment %, national debt burden, living situations, suicide ratio, crime.... etc. and actually see which governing system has the greatest trend of success?
.... At first thought I'm all for having a mix of representatives but I have to wonder if it actually creates an efficient governance, maybe it's beneficial for a party to have that extra power to actually get a few things done without leaping through so many hoops and arguing through opinions. I think a breakdown of how each form works is great, but where is the breakdown of their long term effect? Are any of these tried, tested and proven?
Currently I don't have an answer for the first question on the referendum, but let's not overlook the fact each proportional system still has unclear rules on their establishment. Who get's to decide on all those new ridings? who get's to decide how candidates are chosen? That's a very powerful and under looked topic.
I'll start with your last two questions. Elections BC will decide on all the ridings, just as the currently do. The parties will decide which candidates they nominate to run, just as they already do no, and the voters will elect all of the MLAs based on which MLAs got the most votes (with the exception of closed list MMP).
I don't believe there's any credible ranking systems of countries based around the effects of their electoral system on their economies and welfare. But Germany is a very good example of a country that has been using MMP for decades, and has seen some of the greatest successes of the last half century. On the other hand, America has also done very well, and of course uses first past the post.
I think that on net, all our possible systems are equal. It just depends on what you value most, and what you like to see emphasized/sacrificed.
Most favoured candidate. Really, is any other choice a real consideration for an informed electorate on a local level? Urban-Rural STV is the only viable choice imho.
I love the visual puns
As a supporter of Pro Rep who has been following this issue for a long time, I would like to highlight that there are 2 inaccuracies in this video: 1) At 3:35 , you point out that "you're not going to get inverted results" (in terms of votes equalling seats). However, in the 1996 BC Election, the BC NDP won a majority government (~55% seats) even though they ONLY came in 2nd place with ~39.9% votes (While Libs came 1st place with 41%). 2) At 3:59, you say that "you shouldn't vote MMP or RUP if you don't like parties rank-ordering their lists of candidates". However, we should take into consideration that John Horgan has come out openly AGAINST closed-lists, and in Favour of Open-Lists (where voters decide which regional PR MLAs are elected, by putting 1 X next to their favourite regional candidate- regional candidates with most votes from each party win if parties need more seats to make PR results). BC Green leader Andrew Weaver also supports open-lists. vancouversun.com/news/politics/b-c-premier-to-veto-closed-list-version-of-mixed-member-pro-rep
I’ll believe we won’t have closed lists when I see it. Right now there’s nothing stopping them. If they only supported open lists, they should have said so, and put that to the vote.
Yeah, they should've just gone off the MMP model used in the PEI Plebiscite in 2016 (Open-List), same as the one recommended by the Federal All-Party Committee on Electoral Reform that year.
Maybe I need to watch the longer video but I'm not actually sure an actual answer exists.... Elections BC only showed the stuff from back in the day.
Which brings me to the question... So back in the day, when we did this the last time, there were some maps drawn up. With the FPTP system BC has a smattering of smallish ridings that are generally along the US/Canada border and then ridings the size of European countries elsewhere. Do any of these compensate for that?
For example, since the ridings in some systems can become so large, depending on how the party chose their members you could have all representatives of northern BC represented by MLA's based out of Prince George because its the largest northern city so in a popularity contest those candidates are the most known. Additionally, how does a candidate for that type of a riding campaign when the riding is literally the size of a European country?
All of the ridings are roughly equal size by population in all the systems. If it were done by area, people in Northern ridings would have hundreds% more voting power.
And because the ridings are equal by population, whether you're running in a rural riding or an urban riding, you're just as likely to get the most amount of votes province wide, because no matter what riding you're running in, the amount of people eligible to vote for you is roughly the same.
The ridings are always based upon attempting to balance the population across another, but with FPTP ridings are kept relatively small with populations of about 60,000 per riding. This referendum is a complete joke because there are no details given for how large the ridings will grow in different scenarios. That makes it difficult to know how things would actually work because there are a significant number of questions that must be answered in order to make an informed decision about this.
For example... if each riding now had 3 seats, assuming 87 seats is desirable still, each riding would triple in size. Alternatively, for every 3 ridings in close proximity you'd now have 1 larger riding, but still with 3 MLA's being sent to Victoria. In practice, this means that Vancouver Island becomes 2 ridings. The Central Okanagan becomes 1 riding. The Lower Mainland is less fractured, the rest of BC starts getting ridings that are quite large.
If you move to 6 MLA's that would encompass all of Vancouver Island in a single riding. The Okanagan would be a riding, but maybe be broken up for better groupings. The rest of BC, including Haida Gwaii and the Okanagan, would be served by 4 ridings that would get progressively larger as you headed north. The entire northern half of the province would be a single riding. Without the details, which is really lacking this time around, there's the potential that this could result in no representation for smaller communities outside the larger urban centers of their respective ridings. All the MLA's for that northern riding might be based in Prince George or Rupert which would leave northern towns like Fort Nelson, Altin, Dease Lake, etc without any real representation as they'd be a full days drive away. The existing Peace River North riding is 160,485km^2 in size. As a European country, it would rank 15th - taking the spot of Greece. A merged riding would likely be larger than Germany, which would put it well into the top 10.
So how would that work? The representation is more representative, but the voter is more disenfranchised as their representative is far away?
In-Depth Explained Version: th-cam.com/video/BCRhpVNsBPY/w-d-xo.html
reminds me of cgpgrey's videos on the topic
The critical question is Question 1, so the idea in the video of voting for no change (FPTP) in Question 1 because you have some fear of one of the proportional options is ridiculous. Here's why FPTP (current system) is so undemocratic: Say there are four parties: Party A gets 40% or the vote, Party B gets 35%, Party C gets 15%
With one candidate elected for each riding, the current system would tend to send Party A to the legislature IN EVERY RIDING!!! Party A would likely even form a majority government! AND YET 60% of voters VOTED AGAINST PARTY A!!!
Some people just have different values that they prioritize in their electoral systems. If they prefer majority governments (and also local representation, which FPTP also has a slight edge in), then they should feel free and empowered to vote for that. Your values are clearly proportionality which means minority governments, more compromise, and more smaller parties. So - obviously - you should vote for a proportional system.
Voting for FPTP in the first question is only ridiculous from the perspective that the most important quality of an electoral system is proportionality. Just like voting proportional in the first question is ridiculous from the perspective that what matters most is strong majority governments that have their mandates graded and put to the test by the electorate.
I think you used more than 2 colours for this chart but i cant tell because I am colour blind. can you make one with better colours?
What kind of colour blind are you? What are better colours?
Red-Green moderate protan, greens, yellows, oranges, reds, and browns can look the same, It is also hard to tell the difference between blues and purples, or pinks and grays. so picking colours with larger gaps. Try textures overlays on the colours? usabilla.com/blog/how-to-design-for-color-blindness/
Would Black, dark grey, light grey, and white work better?
Edit: I used Green, yellow, orange, red
Yes they would.
If we choose to keep the existing system on the ballot do we have to fill in the preferences?
No - you can leave the others blank. But - you might as well give at least one vote to your least hated of the proportional systems. Doing so won't increase the chances of proportional beating First Past the Post, but will help in limiting your dissatisfaction if proportional does win.
Thank you for the reply. I just want to leave things alone and I feel that if I enter a preference I may be attributing to the uneducated masses who are likely voting in the dark. I don't want any part of it!!! Leave it alone but many will not. I was at a Focus Group a few months ago and this was the topic. At the beginning of the evening, five of the eight voted for proportional representation and three voted against any change. Of the five that thought it was a good idea, perhaps ONE had any idea what it meant. Go figure!!!! Of the three that voted to leave things alone, one was a law student at Osgoode Hall, who seemed to know a lot about it. I voted to leave things alone because I knew NOTHING about the changes. Now I know a little about it but I feel that my vote will be swamped by all the uneducated votes. They should just leave it alone or make a real effort to make sure voters know what they are for or against. This whole referendum is shameful. This is one of the few sites that is making an effort to educate the voters. The Government should be taking the lead, if they really care about an informed vote.
@@Mrskateboardboy There are lots of groups and pages online that have clear, educational videos on the referendum and the PROREP options. Let's be clear though; if you support fair democracy then you would vote PROREP. 40% of the vote should equal 40% of the seats, and not 100% of the power.
@@CANADAWOOOOOOOOO No doubt and I have looked at some. It is quite foreign to voters and only those that really care will make the effort. I am concerned that too few will make the effort to educate themselves and we will end up with a different system that we don't understand well and there will be no way BACK!!
@@Mrskateboardboy The new systems are not complicated. Majority of BC voters are not idiots, they will figure out how to vote when they see the ballot which will also have instructions.
This change is for the fairness of our democratic process. How can anyone be against true democracy.
Good, but did the producer use an automated speeder-upper? Many of the comments are unfortunately poorly founded, i.e. not really accurate, but a good attempt. Other videos are listed at votingbc.ca/videos
If anything in this video is wrong, could you provide a counter to them so that others can learn from them? There's also the longer Explained version, if you feel things are over simplified.
As for speed, this just myself talking normally. It's not much faster than your average internet video.
@@joshmessmerthisherevancouv2996 Interesting and amazing that the 24 minute video has gotten more than twice the views of the 6 minute video; it's great that people are taking it seriously, but that's puzzling.
The following comments are about this 6 minute video.
In reply to your query to me about me saying "not really accurate", there are both minor and major errors in the video. For example, a careless minor error is the chart calling Rural-Urban Proportional "Urban/Rural Proportional", which is not on the ballot.
More importantly, you can tell your presentation is flawed from your chart. For example, each of the systems is shown as having one red (bad) characteristic except MMP which is shown with three. This is contrary to the ratings of international electoral academic experts, who rate MMP superior to our winner-take-all voting, and superior to the other PR systems. Since MMP is the leading candidate for PR in BC, your chart is effectively campaigning against PR succeeding altogether.
If we look at it quantitatively, and assign green=4 (most satisfactory), yellow=2, orange=1 and red=0, then FPTP's scores add up to 24, DMP 25, RUP 23, and MMP distinctly less at 19. Again, this near-equivalency of FPTP with most of the PR systems is completely at odds with the Canadian findings of over a dozen government commissions, 8 out of 9 international experts, and 7 out of 8 Canadian experts. It proves your methodology is badly flawed and/or biased.
Getting now to specifics:
It's noteworthy that you assigned a yellow warning on local representation to DMP and RUP, presumably on the basis that the districts would be physically double in size (DMP except a few rural areas) or variable but probably averaging a bit over double in size (RUP). While this physical difference is literally true, what the voters should be concerned about with respect to local representation are the implications for (a) nonpartisan local servicing of citizens and (b) having a rep whose views are aligned with your own, particularly with respect to local issues under provincial jurisdiction. Experience overseas suggests that (a) will be as good or better under PR. With respect to (b), the PR systems DMP and RUP, particularly RUP, improve local representation almost double. So, I believe the chart is wrong - it's precisely only FPTP that should have the yellow warning (or a red one) for local representation because it leaves around half the local residents without a local rep they support or who supports their views.
Closely related to this is the fact that you've omitted from the chart one of the biggest flaws of FPTP - it's disastrous misrepresentation of regions, and the improved regional representation with PR (sending both govt. MLAs to do stuff, and opposition MLAs to Victoria to hold them accountable, from every sizable region.)
Because simplicity is the voters top priority, I'm particularly upset under "Simple Ballots" you again took a literal stance on the basis that FPTP and DMP require only one choice, so you put them as green. That's also ignoring that MMP, and the MMP portion of RUP, might use a single ballot exactly the same as FPTP, using the candidate's vote as a party vote. If the MLAs who decide the details want simplicity, they can choose that under MMP. But let's assume they would go with two MMP votes; it is twice as complicated as FPTP in a simplistic literal sense. But wait - the purpose of a ballot is to convey the voter's intentions effectively. That's often defeated in FPTP because, to reduce the chances of wasting your vote altogether, you have to guess who are the top two candidates and then vote for the one you hate least. These vote splitting guesses and strategic voting is complicated - much more complicated than PR, in which you simply vote your preference. So, for the voter's real concern of being heard, for Simple Ballot you should have FPTP as yellow (not red because vote splitting isn't a concern in the many safe ridings), DMP as green as you have it, MMP as green (because it's simple to vote twice, who can't make two choices on the ballot? in Vancouver municipal elections we make about 20) and RUP as yellow (because you might need to rank a rather long list).
Saying 'if you want a ranked ballot then your only choice is Rural-Urban'...is a really bad way to discuss ranked ballots, because most people dislike ranked ballots, no-one "wants" a ranked ballot per se so if anyone takes your statement literally this could cause them to rule out RUP, but they do (some of them anyway) "want" the benefits of a ranked ballot (and while they don't much like it, they're perfectly capable of ranking their preferences), so it would have been more appropriate to omit the "Ranked Ballots" factor line if you didn't have the time to discuss their pros and cons rather than just the physical "ranked ballot". In other words, presenting that line in literal terms is a very inaccurate depiction of the whole ranked ballot issue.
Then you go on to 'strong majority government' for speedy decision making - and make the mistake of not considering both "speedy and wise" decision making, because PR govts. have been shown to make wiser decisions, which is pretty important. Then you say that PR governments are not usually majority govts. when in fact they usually are - a major blunder. Sure, they're coalition majority govts, but still majority, not minority. Then you say under FPTP minority govts. are rare - but they're not rare; they've been relatively uncommon in BC, I think about 1/8 of my lifetime, but they've been quite common federally, and the trend in BC is that way with the rise of the Greens (who won 9 of 10 candidates they ran in Vancouver municipally apparently), so 'rare' is completely misleading.
Under "Don't like Party Lists" you say "If you don't like the idea of a party creating their own ranked list of candidates that will get seats, then you shouldn't vote for Mixed Member or Rural-Urban if you live in a rural area. In the other three systems, First Past The Post, Dual Member, and urban ridings of Rural-Urban all the candidates that win seats are the most popular candidates at election, although they all calculate that slightly differently." This version of MMP is a straw man, it has been specifically disavowed by the governing party - see www.bcndp.ca/pro-rep. You could have been forgiven if you had stated that there's no law against the MLAs bringing in such a version of MMP, but a fair presentation would have at least mentioned that there are many different versions of MMP, including both open and closed lists, rather than making the blanket statement that a voter should not vote for MMP if they don't want parties choosing their MLA for them. That's misleading in BC and therefore inaccurate.
You then waste valuable time to distinguish between ranking two or three PR systems, but these do not differ in effect. Then you take considerable time to discuss and suggest "it's worth noting" that they have the option of strategic voting, that a person might want to vote for FPTP if they are extremely against one PR system. This implies that there are major differences among the PR systems, which is hugely inaccurate because in fact they are merely mechanically different and not hardly different at all in political outcome terms, so encouraging ignorant people to believe that they are highly different is irresponsible. Moreover, a strong dislike of one of these systems is quite rare because of the general ignorance of them, so talking about that point in a three minute video comes across as just spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt about the whole mess rather than educating people about the main points, and this FUD clearly will favour the status quo, first past the post.
You may have good and honest intentions and be as pure as the driven snow, but somehow your video became a self-serving promotion (Patreon) and one of the more sophisticated hatchet jobs. And in my experience, opponents of Pro Rep are not willing to read hundreds of research papers and are rarely willing to open their minds to change, so debating with them is a waste of time.
Clear as mud.
If you're still having trouble with the systems you can watch my longer Explained version
Ive only watched/listened to this once and for me, You talk too fast. I will listen to this multiple times. WHO started this, I would also like to know.
Are you referring to these videos or to the referendum. I - Josh Messmer - started these videos, and I do all the work on them. There’s no outside influence other than from viewers. The referendum was campaign promise from both the NDP and Greens, and since they both hold power, it only makes sense that a referendum would be happening now.
I think its because hes one of these proud "canadian" libtard commie / socialist types. They all talk this way. Real fast and with a stupid canadian accent. They watch a lot of cbc or other fake news broadcasts. (All major canadian networks are fake libtard bias garbage however the cbc is the worst) this is where they start talking this way. Also they learn it from the commie school teachers in the public schools. It is a pre rec to be a commie / libtard before getting hired as a teacher in BC.
All three systems have huge flaws but so does our current system. We would all be better served with Approval voting and consensus government formation. The issue of low PR is not really an issue coming from the ballot. It is an issue with government formation. We need a better systems than "The leader is the leader of the party with the most seats". The leaders of parties are not elected by the general population.
I am troubled by this referendum. From my reading and research, I understand that the Citizens Assembly that looked at several different models of proportional representation in 2004 included ones where the voter gets to choose the MLAs, and ones where the parties choose the MLAs. After long and careful deliberations, they rejected the models that had the parties choose the MLAs. This government's own consultations resulted in four different models that again included some where the voter chooses and some where the and parties get to choose, but the only options that this government is offering the voters are three models (two of which apparently didn't come up in consultations) where the parties choose the MLAs. How does this happen? How is it that the government gets to chooses the system, and they all involve the parties choosing the MLAs. This feels decidedly undemocratic. How can MLAs be accountable to the voters when the voters aren't choosing the MLAs?
Only closed list multi-member would let the parties create lists. Dual member, open-list mixed member, and Rural-Urban all leave the decisions to the vote.
Edit: You can watch the longer Explained version of this video for clarification.
Thanks, I watched the longer video. So you agree that there are situations where the parties choose the members. That is wrong, in my books. I am voting to stay with the FPTP system, and hoping that a more thoughtful government will find a better PR system in the future.
That's only partly true. It's possible that on of the three option - mixed member - lets the party create ranked list of candidates that's published prior to the election, but not in the closed-member version of mixed. In close-list mixed member, dual member, and rural-urban, the voters decide who wins each seat, and the NDP have said they prefer open-list, not closed-list, although this isn't binding.
I think you meant to say that it's true in a certain case, not that it's partly true. There is a difference. The video, at approx. 14:00, explains that with a closed list the parties get to decide, so I think you meant to say that in the open list MM version the voters get to decide.
perhaps you did not notice that the parties pick the candidate under FPTP? Since this is your major concern I presume you can not support the existing FPTP at all. just can not think of a system that you would like. But FPTP is definitely the worst option for you.
Talk more slowly, Josh.
Hi, if you push the settings button (3 small dots on the top right), and click "playback speed" you can make the video slower. Hope that helps.