Yesterday, I wrote about why you should or should not care about Proportional Representation. You can read about that here. The main takeaway from that article is that true Proportional Representation is absolutely hated by existing, established parties, because it removes much of the purpose of Strategic Voting, allowing smaller parties to much more easily compete against them, and then ultimately destroy them. I wrote that so you could understand why the NDP appeared to be throwing the fight on the Proportional Representation Referendum back in 2018. Spoiler: it's because they were. Globe and Mail: TDC_ARTICLE_START Electoral reform in British Columbia is dead. The news is bittersweet. But it sure was thrilling to watch Canada’s least honest attempt at electoral reform – a B.C. referendum whose deck was stacked by the New Democratic government and its Green allies – being given a sound thrashing this week. It restored one’s faith in democracy. TDC_ARTICLE_STOP This article, from 2018, has no listed author. As such, even more than most Propaganda, this can be seen as transparent shilling for the the opinion of the Billionaires who own the Globe and Mail. You, the filthy goy-peasant, might be thinking it odd how a transparently fraudulent referendum with about a billion poison pills being rejected by the people, "restores one's faith in democracy." However, if you replace "democracy," a term that means "rule of the people," with "Donor Democracy," a term that means "rule of the donors over the people," then you will understand. Prop Rep freaks the shit out of big money donors, since bought and paid for politicians can be much more legitimately removed. Therefore, the defeat of this fake and gay version of Prop Rep restores their faith in Donor Democracy. In fact, that only a completely fake and gay version of Prop Rep even made it onto the table is what really restores their faith in Donor Democracy. That something the Peasants wanted didn't even make it onto the table, that's cause for success! TDC_ARTICLE_START We’re not sure what’s most ironic: that a government tried to gerrymander a vote on voting reform; that the move ended up motivating opponents more than supporters; or that people responded by delivering a slightly more negative result than in the 2009 referendum, with 61 per cent opposed. This was B.C.’s third electoral-reform referendum in a decade-and-a-half. Support for reform has fallen each time. Yet, the NDP government appeared to have set things up to ensure victory this time. It got rid of the need for a supermajority; unlike the 2005 and 2009 referendums, 50 per cent plus one would be enough. And it torqued the question. TDC_ARTICLE_STOP You might be thinking: how is the NDP throwing the fight on Prop Rep? After all, lowering the requirement to 50% would make it easier to pass, right? Well, sure, but what the Donor-Left Party wanted was a "Heads I win, Tails you lose," situation, where they could do completely fake and gay Prop Rep if it passed, or have the excuse to not do Prop Rep if it failed. The reason that the previous attempts had a 60% vote requirement, is because they were far more honest. As such, they needed to make it far harder for the filthy Peasants to win, so they set the bar at 60%. This attempt was fake, so it was okay if Prop Rep passed, since the fight had already been thrown. TDC_ARTICLE_START An honest ballot would have given voters a menu of options, including the current first-past-the-post system, and asked them to pick. It could have asked them to rank their choices; it could even have presented them with just two, namely first-past-the-post versus a fully fleshed-out alternative, explained via deep public consultation. Instead, the 2018 ballot asked voters whether they wanted the status quo or some other, unspecified alternative. It was silent on the details. It was like asking kids whether they wanted spinach, or something – anything – else. The first question having been designed to assure the status quo would lose, the ballot then asked voters a second question, which seemed to have been designed to guarantee that the government’s preferred option would win. Voters were presented with three forms of proportional representation: two theoretical schemes used nowhere else, and a system known as mixed-member proportional. But even the details of the proposed mixed-member proportional system, the system that was supposed to win the referendum, were to be left to the discretion of the government. It was like asking someone if they wanted the usual for lunch, or a sandwich. What kind of sandwich? Can’t say. Vote “sandwich” and leave it to the politicians to figure what goes between the bread. TDC_ARTICLE_STOP I swear to god the author of this piece has to be a fucking jew. Like there is no other possible explanation here. The above is about 60% correct, and, I have to admit, more truthful than I was expecting from a Globo Homo Schlomo publication like the Globe and Mail. However, they are pretending that the Donor-Leftists wanted Prop Rep to win, they didn't. It was the "Heads I win, Tails you lose," scenario I talked about earlier. Prop Rep is not genuinely this partisan thing that the NDP really truly wants. They just say that because they know that's what people want to hear. The same is true for their economic promises. The same is true when Donor-Right Party talks about immigration, or anything else popular. As I said earlier, if Prop Rep passed, the NDP could easily have included poison pills into the legislation, such as the German system of disallowing parties that get less than 5% of the general vote into Parliament. Really, they could have done anything they wanted, to both destroy the entire purpose of the system, as well as enrich their donors, in any way they felt like. And they absolutely would have. TDC_ARTICLE_START In October, 2019, Canada’s smallest province is scheduled to go to the polls. The date may change, because of the federal election – but whenever they vote next provincially, Prince Edward Islanders will also be faced with a referendum question. As with B.C., this will be PEI’s third electoral-reform referendum since 2005. The question – “Should Prince Edward Island change its voting system to a mixed-member proportional voting system?” – is straightforward. That’s not the end of the story, but it’s not a bad place to start. TDC_ARTICLE_STOP I looked up that PEI 2019 Electoral Reform Referendum. Guess what the question on the ballot was? TDC_ARTICLE_START Should Prince Edward Island change its voting system to a mixed member proportional voting system? No Yes TDC_ARTICLE_STOP Wow, what a complete and utter surprise to see the same unspecified changes to something as important as an entirely new electoral system being completely and unnecessarily vague, and thus being rejected by voters. It's almost like there's this conspiracy to do completely fake and gay attempts at Prop Rep, to ensure that they fail. My shock is immense, and my surprise unmeasurable.