Skip to main content

“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.” ~~ John G. Diefenbaker

You'd be welcome to call it the Twigg Formula - a system that would put the peoples' interests First



Through-out the province of BC recently, there has been much talk about electoral reform --- what it should look like, how it will be achieved, how we as
BC Attorney General David Eby (right), campaigning
in May 2017. The BC NDP promised to hold a
referendum on a new voting system for the province
voters will have input to the process, what a referendum question(s) should look like, what kind of majority would be required to have a change made.  These, just to name a few, are the questions being asked.

For many, the name John Twigg will be familiar.  He recently submitted his thoughts to the BC governments Citizen Engagement, as well as forwarding those thoughts to me, Bob Makin, Bill Tieleman (co-chair of the No B.C. Proportional Representation Society), the BC Pundit, and BC NDP Attorney General David Eby.

Here are those thoughts:


The NDP does have "democratic" in its name but its past and present practices too often have shown that that can be a misnomer.

I want a reformed electoral system that will still tend to elect majority governments composed mainly of people of all races, creeds, genders etc representing clearly distinct regions geographically, with very little if any gerrymandering such as Gracie's notorious finger.

The current range of population per riding needs to adjusted because there are too many big ridings with too-few people; they need to be consolidated and the MLAs and candidates specially assisted with travel costs.

I'd like to see a Legislature of up to 99 or 100 seats and no more (at least for a few elections), which would include about 90 people elected in territories as now (except with the above-mentioned population adjustments) and about 10 people chosen in one or more processes to reflect smaller parties, ethnic groups, regional interests, maybe gender balance, maybe talent and/or popularity (eg someone who lost a seat by 10 votes or so). Perhaps some could be chosen by an independent panel chaired by the chief electoral officer. Perhaps some could be selected in a subsequent election off of a list.


These 10 "proportional" MLAs would have full voice in the Legislature and powers to sit on committees and have offices and staff, etc., but their voting powers in the Legislature would be limited so they could not defeat a government or defeat a budget - but they could have a positive impact, especially if Question Period was extended and this group was given a rotating turn. And if there was a tied count on a confidence vote THEN they could break the tie.

The idea that (for example) the Green Party should have 15% of the seats and votes because their candidates collectively pulled 15% of the popular vote is NOT a good idea and in fact is a very bad idea and is NOT "democratic" but instead over-weighs minority special interests. This has proven to be a disaster in several European countries. Likewise any gender quotas or orientation, ethnic or religion quotas - NO!

The idea that the BC Conservative Party should get 7% of the seats because its candidates pulled in 7% of the vote is even more ludicrous. Perhaps the threshold for such seats should be 10% of the provincial popular vote.

The British Parliamentary System that the BC Legislature follows and imitates has proven to be an efficient way for governments to govern with a balance of both pragmatic practicality and intellectual and political diversity. It should be retained but augmented to better reflect B.C.'s diverse population and geography.

And then there is the elephant in the room: new voting technologies. Maybe even instant universal referendums on issues of the day or week.

So I favour an evolution to be revisited as soon as practicable after it has had a chance to work, or not.

I'm not sure what label that formula fits best under. You'd be welcome to call it the Twigg Formula - a system that would put the peoples' interests First.

John Twigg

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

FORSETH -- Given the noted infractions of this agreement with OneBC leader Dallas Brodie, I request the Party immediate suspend the leadership campaign of Yuri Fulmer

I have personally emailed the following to the Board and Administration of the Conservative Party of BC:   TODAY (03/30) Yuri Fulmer, a candidate for the leadership of the Conservative Party of BC, made a pact with ONEBC leader Dallas Broldie, that if he is elected will commit the Conservative Party to the following. Specifically, the pact states : This Memorandum of Understanding outlines the definitive electoral and governing alliance that will be executed upon Yuri Fulmer’s election as Leader of the Conservative Party of British Columbia OneBC Party commits to not nominating or authorizing candidates in 88 of British Columbia’s 93 electoral districts. In exchange, the Conservative Party of BC, under the leadership of Yuri Fulmer, commits to not nominating or authorizing candidates in five (5) specific electoral districts . OneBC will be the sole standard-bearer for the right in those five districts. The specific ridings will be determined through mutual negotiation and fin...

Delays to the replacement of the Red Bridge? Kamloops North Thompson MLA Ward Stamer says they are, “Totally Unacceptable.”

I think it’s totally unacceptable that on one hand the Ministry of Transportation and Transit (MoTT) is saying they’re going to be responsible for putting together multiple replacement options with public engagement, and then in the same breath they're saying, ‘Oh, and by the way, we're going to start our geotechnical environmental and archaeological site assessments on both sides of the river, possibly beginning this summer.’ According to Stamer, that should already have been done. “Obviously, we're pretty sure it will be in the same location because there's really no other place to put it. So, if you're going to put in a bridge, you think that at least you'd be doing the archaeological assessments first off”, stated Stamer.   “If it's determined it has to be a free-span bridge, and it can't have anything or very minimal impact in the riverbed, they should already be determining that. It would help in the design, wouldn't it?” Stamer indicated...

Your government has a gambling problem (Troy Media)

Provinces call it “revenue,” but it looks a lot like exploitation of the marginalized The odds of winning Lotto Max are about 1 in 33 million. You’re statistically more likely to be struck by lightning than to win it. But your government is betting that statistics won’t hold you back; they’re counting on it. Across Canada, provincial governments not only regulate gambling, they also maintain a monopoly on lottery and gaming by owning and operating the entire legal market. That means every scratch card is government-issued, gambling odds are government-set, casino ads are government-funded and lottery billboards are government-paid. And these are not incidental government activities. They generate significant revenues that governments have powerful incentives to expand, not constrain. It would be one thing for our governments to encourage us to engage in healthy activities. We can quibble about whether the government should be trying to convince us to be more active or eat more vegetabl...

Labels

Show more