NDP slams BC Liberals for ‘undermining the electoral reform process’

Sam Sullivan

THE  NDP on Wednesday slammed the Liberal-affiliated group KNOWB4UVOTE.COM for spending tens of thousands of corporate dollars on newspaper ads trying to undermine the electoral reform process. The NDP noted that although the group presents itself as non-partisan, BC Liberal MLA Sam Sullivan is listed as one of the group’s directors.

The NDP added that even as the BC Liberals and wealthy interests attempt to sow confusion to undermine the process, a recent letter from Chief Electoral Officer Anton Boegman describes the referendum questions as simple and clear:

“In general, I believe that this question is simple and clear enough for voters to understand. They are being offered a distinct choice between the existing voting system and a proportional representation voting system.”

“What is also clear is that the BC Liberals and their big money backers will say anything to stop British Columbians from choosing a new way of voting that puts the interests of regular people ahead of those at the top,” the NDP said.


  1. It seems that the anti-PR forces are trying to circumvent the rules by spending big money before the regulations kick in July 1st, and spawning a bunch of “separate” groups that are all fronts for the BC Libs.

  2. The “no” side of this referendum has no volunteers or grassroots base whatsoever, whereas groups like Fair Vote have members and chapters all across BC working to convince people of the need for better proportionality. It speaks volumes about where the moral arc of history on this issue leans: towards change.

    The “no” side is made up of a small clique of connected party insiders, backed by big money. E.g. Suzanne Anton, Sam Sullivan, Bill Tieleman. They are using every trick in the book to try to manipulate you with FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) about PR. Don’t fall for it!

  3. The simple fact of the matter here is this, the NDP want proportional representation which completely benefits them. The vast majority of their support is in the lower mainland which also has the majority of the population. This means that people living in the rest of the province will have virtually no representation. Trudeau promised a change but when it came down to it, there was no real appetite across Canada for change and it was abandoned. Here in BC the NDP have no intention of the people themselves actually choosing what new method, they will let a few selected “experts” choose which method. They just want BC residents to basically give them the go-ahead.

    • FPTP completely benefited the NDP in the 1996 election. Liberals won the plurality of votes ahead of the NDP, but the NDP got the majority of seats and formed a “majority” government. Courtesy of our current very simple (simplistic?) voting system.
      On the other hand with ANY of the 3 proposed PR systems, the legislature will reflect the way we vote.

    • Read the report:
      “Some mandatory criteria would apply to any of the proposed proportional representation voting
      systems if implemented:
       Either no increase to the current number of 87 MLAs or a modest increase of no more than
      eight MLAs (i.e. up to 95);
       No region of the province would have fewer MLAs than it currently does;
       No political party would be eligible to receive seats through a system’s proportional
      allocation method unless the party received at least 5% of the overall vote in the province
      or region, as applicable.”

  4. If John Goodwin were arguing in good faith, he would know that the acknowledge that two of the three proposed PR systems were crafted with the rural representation issue at front of mind. But the gentleman is not arguing in good faith, he is spouting LPBC talking points which are essentially untrue.

  5. John Goodwin is confusing pro rep for our current system. Right now, the NDP has little representation outside the Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island. With pro rep, they’d have MLAs from all regions of the province (and the Liberals would have MLAs from metro Vancouver and the island).

    And it’s absurd to say that voters won’t be able to choose – that’s precisely what the second question is all about.

  6. Representative democraacy is not supposed to be a party dog-fight. That is why there was a BC Citizens Assembly, that got hurled aside, for excluding the party drama queens from proportional representation, when the citizens recommended the single transferable vote. The BC CA solved the problem of respective rural and urban PR. But meddlers and wreckers substituted an untried and therefore unrealistic rural-urban PR so-called.
    Richard Lung:
    Peace-making Power-sharing; Scientific Method of Elections;
    Science is Ethics as Electics;
    FAB STV: Four Averages Binomial Single Transferable Vote;
    (editor) The Angels Weep: H. G. Wells on Electoral Reform;
    (in French) Modele Scientifique du Proces Electoral.

  7. Proportional Representation totally benefits voters, as opposed to the distorted misrepresentation we get now. It’s also fair to candidates regardless of their party – because they get the seats they actually earn from voters – not a seat more nor a seat less. If someone has a problem with proportional representation, then they have a problem with democracy. PR just means that every vote counts. The louder someone argues that every vote shouldn’t count, the less we should trust him or her.

  8. This level of fear mongering and spending huge sums of money goes far beyond garden variety partisan differences between voters. Although we may grumble about each other, for the most part, we get along just fine. We work together and live in the same neighbourhoods, without even thinking about our political preferences. These few, very wealthy people behind the scenes are not looking out for us, or defending a system they believe is better. They are only looking out for themselves, because FPTP benefits them. Proportional representation gives the power to voters and that scares the c*ap out of them. This is an issue of the people versus power.

Comments are closed.