It’s almost like a system that awards power on a winner-takes-all basis results in suboptimal representation of your population. Who would’ve though? /s
Couldn’t agree more. Politics (and politicians by extension) should represent the constituents, not force the constituents to fit into one of two camps. The whole system is backwards currently and the sooner we fix it, the better we’ll all be for it.
Yes! Electoral reform referendums are always being pushed down people’s throats even though most people already support pr as it was shown when they voted for the BCNDP and BCGreens to get it done. Which is why the bigger parties often want to slow down the process and have the corporate media campaign against it as it goes against big money interests.
It’s certainly a bit leading in question 1 and doesn’t explain the differences in question 2. I don’t think it was outright intended to influence people’s decisions, but it sure didn’t help either.
It’s almost like a system that awards power on a winner-takes-all basis results in suboptimal representation of your population. Who would’ve though? /s
We need more than 2 choices at every one of the 338 riddings and more accountability for all politicians. I’m tired of toxic politics.
Couldn’t agree more. Politics (and politicians by extension) should represent the constituents, not force the constituents to fit into one of two camps. The whole system is backwards currently and the sooner we fix it, the better we’ll all be for it.
What boggles my mind though is that three consecutive pollings on electoral reform have failed here in BC (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/electoral-reform-referendum-results-1.4954538). You’d think people would like to get rid of FPTP but apparently they consistently vote in favor of the status quo.
Yes! Electoral reform referendums are always being pushed down people’s throats even though most people already support pr as it was shown when they voted for the BCNDP and BCGreens to get it done. Which is why the bigger parties often want to slow down the process and have the corporate media campaign against it as it goes against big money interests.
The ballot seemed like it was setup for failure although the turnout(42.2%) was also mediocre as usual.
It’s certainly a bit leading in question 1 and doesn’t explain the differences in question 2. I don’t think it was outright intended to influence people’s decisions, but it sure didn’t help either.