What is with David Schreck?
I'm trying to understand why people oppose electoral reform. Some are opposed because they feel unfamiliar with it, but most seem to have their own agenda.
Most of those who oppose electoral reform are doing so for their own interests. Some are afraid that the "Green Party" may eat into their support base. Others fear that increased competition will take away their existing influence in government. Some enjoy the overly partisan nature of the legislature. Others don't trust voters to make their own decisions.
One of our opponents, David Schreck seems to be opposing electoral reform for the pure sake of preserving his legacy as being one of only two NDP MLAs elected in the North Shore.
"The foremost argument about the North Shore is that voters on the North Shore have not embraced New Democrats; Colin Gabelmann and I are the only two to have won for the NDP in the past 50 years"
- http://www.strategicthoughts.com/record2009/nsNews022209.html
He also expressed similar sentiment to me in an email exchange:
"I’m looking forward to seeing how people on the North Shore vote when they understand that their half century tradition of voting against the NDP would be defeated by adopting a system that would virtually guarantee that a New Democrat would also be one of the four MLAs elected to represent the region. "
And again in another post:
"I do not think it is democratic to win a seat in a multiple-MLA region with just 20% of the vote when history shows that under the system we've grown up with my party has only won twice anywhere in the region over more than 50 years. It will be fascinating to see if Liberals on the North Shore rush to the polls on May 12th and vote for a system that will almost guarantee that my party will win a seat at their expense."
-http://www.strategicthoughts.com/record2008/rejectBC-STV.html
I find this to be a very distorted view of our democracy. David knows that he managed to win only because the Liberals and the Social Credit split the vote and let him eke in with 38%. (Ironically, that year the NDP received 2% less votes that it did previously, yet doubled their seat count.)
He somehow thinks it is democratic that he could win with 7000 votes, yet undemocratic that an MLA would need closer to 16,000 votes in an expanded riding. He complains that it is also "undemocratic" that the NDP could win one out of four seats on the Northshore when they receive one in four of the votes.
It is unfortunate that David is so willing to equivocate democracy with "all spoils for the winner". Democracy is supposed to be "rule by the people" rather than rule "by the person representing the biggest block in any given election."
- Dan Grice's blog
- Add new comment
- 3142 reads
Comments
Schreck's lost credibility
... has meant at least one person having stopped listening to him on not just this, but other issues.
His position on STV, a proportional voting system, which is far superior in terms of voter representation, is inconsistent both with the purported principles of his own party and NDP leader Carole James' stated position on the process and PR in the presentation she made to the BC Citizens Assembly. That Schreck represents the party's inner circle views is turning people who didn't vote STV last time to give it a second look. It is also turning them off the party.
And Again
http://www2.canada.com/northshorenews/news/letters/story.html?id=4ae16b6...
"If we look at the total vote by party in 2005 for the combined four North Shore constituencies, we get Liberal, 55.0 per cent, NDP, 27.1 per cent, Green, 15.8 per cent and others 2.0 per cent; therefore, it is highly likely that if BC-STV passes the NDP can count on winning one of the four seats allocated to the North Shore.
While I support the NDP, I do not support multiple-MLA constituencies where candidates win with just 20 per cent of the vote.
It will be fascinating to see if Liberals on the North Shore go to the polls on May 12 and vote for BC-STV, a system that will almost guarantee that my party will win a seat at their expense."
Back to School, Mr. Schreck
Under BC-STV, there is NO COMPARISON between the 20% a candidate needs on the North Shore and the 27% the NDP's North Shore candidates got in 2005. It's like comparing apples and oranges, and Mr. Schreck knows this perfectly well.
What actually would happen is that perhaps one or two of the Liberals would pass the quota in the first round, and then the rest of the story would slowly emerge, as BC-STV took into account the whole intent of each voter by considering their next preferences. We can assume that the percentage of first-preference votes would be similar to the vote totals of 2005, but beyond first-preference (which is ALL the current system gives a voter), there's no way to know for sure. The best speculation may be that a single popular NDP candidate there may get some high-preferences from Liberal voters, if such a candidate could acknowledge some of the positions of other parties. But this is clearly the sort of non-party oriented candidate that Mr. Schreck and Mr. Tieleman don't want to see in B.C. Politics....