250 News - Your News, Your Views, Now

October 27, 2017 10:12 pm

Half of Canadians Want Proportional Representation – Poll

Wednesday, June 29, 2016 @ 5:55 AM

Prince George, B.C. – A new Insights West poll has found more and more Canadians are beginning to support the idea of a new electoral system in this country.

The online survey found 50% of Canadians agree with Canada electing MP’s through Party-List Proportional Representation, up five points from the last survey.PR

Canadians aged 18-34 are most likely to support the change (62%). That’s higher than those aged 35-54 (45%) and those aged 55 and over (44%).

The survey also found those who voted for the Liberal Party in last year’s federal election are more supportive of this move (59%) than those who voted for the NDP (49%) or the Conservative Party (40%).


The poll showed there were no fluctuations for Canadians willing to adopt the Single Transferable Vote system (45%) and for those favouring the Mixed Member Proportional Representation system (40%).


As for our current First-Past-The-Post system, three-in-five Canadians (61%) say there are very or somewhat satisfied with that system – including 64% of those aged 55 and over and 72% of Conservative voters

Insights vice-president of public affairs Mario Canseco says the results show two emerging trends.

“Younger, more Liberal voters seem willing to give Proportional Representation a try, while older, more Conservative voters are definitely happy with First-Past-The-Post.

The poll also found a majority of Canadians (68%) believe a change in the electoral system should be put to a country-wide referendum while just 18% think a vote in the House of Commons would be enough to settle the issue.


Its interesting that Canadians between the ages of 18-34 are in favour of changing to some form of proportional representation, 62%. While at the same time this age group has the smallest turn out during any election year.

Was this poll taken with people who actually vote, or just a random selection.

Interesting that it is the Conservatives who are least in favour (40%) of proportional representation, or any kind of change to the electoral system. While Liberals and NDP are much more receptive to change (59% and 49% respectively).

I am not surprised by these survey findings, Cons are always afraid of change, any kind of change. Must be hard living in fear all the time.

    Interesting that it’s the entitled generation that supports the change. Everyone gets a ribbon!

      As if you do not feel that you are entitled. Tell me another one.

      We are all entitled to our rights.

    They are called Conservatives for a reason.

    Or maybe they should be called Preservationists. :-)

    I mean, why does anyone want to poll Conservatives on questions of change?

    A conservative person might see this from a different perspective. Canada is a pretty good country. Yes, we can make it better, but let’s make changes slowly. Change might be better and it might be worse and without a compelling need to make a change, let’s be cautious.

    It’s not about living in fear all the time. It’s about recognizing that things are pretty good as they are.

      Read the comments under the sexual assault in our local park story yesterday. Drive by shooting, rapes and the common thread among some is that these kinds of thing just happen, and we need to accept it. I call BS to that, because it’s just the Conservative mentality that everything can be fixed with jobs and the economy, when if fact we have severe “social” issues in this city and province!

      This city has been economically stagnant for more than a decade, two area mines have closed (Endako and Blueberry), LNG is a pipe dream… and you say “things are pretty good as they are??? You are just one of many Conservatives who are delusional about the reality of the situation because it does not fit with your disphoric idealism!

      “This city has been economically stagnant for more than a decade”

      That is being very kind … or maybe conservative.

      This city has been in economic decline since 1981. There was a blip for a while in the early 1990s when UNBC came on stream.

    Do you ever stop spewing the standard leftard talking points JGalt. Very tedious.

    JGalt, and gopg2015, how can either of you suggest that Conservatives are afraid of change and/or are living in fear without also pointing out that being afraid of change and living in fear is far more prevalent in the left of centre?

    For example, let’s take a look at the current Canada Post situation. This company needs to evolve! Times, they are a changing! CUPW however, remains stuck in the past and is scared sh**less of having their boat rocked!

    Another example is our very own BCTF. The only change that they want is change on their terms. Close a school and consolidate student populations to more effectively utilize school properties and taxpayer dollars? Hell no say the BCTV!

    Review Public Sector compensation and public sector taxpayer subsidized pensions? Hell no say the BCGEU, the BCFed, CUPE, etc!

    Afraid of change? Living in Fear? With all due respect, I suggest that the left wing and big labour in particular are far more afraid and far more fearful than the Conservatives!

      “how can either of you suggest that Conservatives are afraid of change and/or are living in fear without also pointing out that being afraid of change and living in fear is far more prevalent in the left of centre (SIC)”

      Very easy. We have a different perspective of the environment around us.

      I might as well simply state that you are making a mistake because I feel that being afraid of change and living in fear is far more prevalent in the right of center.”

      By the way, all sides of the political spectrum want change. Typically when a new party comes to power, change happens – sometime slowly, sometimes quickly, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worst (as seen from a retrospective viewpoint 20 years later from several independent outside political researchers with no vested interest other than to try to have as objective a report as possible.

      And, I believe that it is very difficult to get an objective report unless it is conducted by an extra-terrestrial.

If 68% of those polled favour letting the electorate decide in a national referendum whether they want to retain the current first-past-the-post system or change to whatever new one the Committee studying the issue finally decides is better, wouldn’t the most democratic thing be to have a referendum? That way no one can accuse the Liberals of imposing their choice of a voting system on us, people are able to make their own decision if that’s what they want or not. Why does Trudeau seem so afraid of letting the people finally decide a fundamental issue of ‘policy’ this way?

    Oh, that is so easy. It is called the Brexit experience so quickly followed by bregret.

      So quickly followed by a media response that portrays a ‘bregret’ likely far out of proportion to what it actually is. Not surprising when the control of the media and the control of finance are concentric and see what they had in store for Britain and the other countries of Europe suddenly threatened.

    “That way no one can accuse the Liberals of imposing their choice of a voting system on us”

    And you actually believe that?

    Those who oppose a position opposite to their own can think of many reasons to continue to oppose the decision.

    The postings on this site should make that abundantly clear.

      Then why not let the PEOPLE decide in making the final choice of having any proposed new way of electing our MPs or sticking with what we have now? The Conservatives haven’t insisted we keep ‘first-past-the-post’, which they favour, they’re quite willing to accept a different system IF that system wins voter approval in a referendum. What could be more democratic than that?

The exact method of reapportioning votes with STV can vary.

Unless the question posed indicated which one people were voting for the survey is useless.

In fact, the survey did not use the STV standard of casting a vote indicating one’s preference. ;-)

So we have Brexit followed by Bregret. Hmmm.

Would that be the regret we had when we got rid of the HST and send Campbell packing. Hope he is enjoying his stay in London.

How come we hear nothing about all the terrible things that would happen to BC if we got rid of the HST. Remember. We would lose out to Ontario, etc; etc; etc;.

Seems none of the bad things that were stated about the HST came to pass, and I suspect that very few of the bad things about leaving the EU will come to pass.

In other words those in favour of the HST, EU, and Proportional Representation operate on the age old adage of BS baffles brains, however its not quite as easy to-day, as it was in the past.

    Bs no longer baffles brains because there are millions of us fact checking the bs that is being presented as facts every minute around the globe . Most of the bs is coming out of the mouths of the neocons , harperettes and their parrots .

      Good to know your on the file stockaloss. I feel better knowing some one who consistently gets thumbs down is looking out for the rest of us.

    “I suspect that very few of the bad things about leaving the EU will come to pass”

    Obviously you are not watching news broadcasts and discussion groups directly from the UK.

    Banks like Barclays are starting to look at how to operate in Europe if they do not have equal access. The banks are looking at bank “passports” as they call them to allow them to operate on the mainland.

    Meanwhile the mainlanders are saying no special deals. After all, if the Brits get a special deal, then others will get a special deal. Sort of like Quebec’s notwithstanding clause.

    I would think that California would like a special deal within the federation of states south of us. And then there is Texas … and Alaska …. and New York…. and on and on it goes.

      Britain holds all the cards. They import more from Europe than any other country or trading zone in the world… including China or the USA. They have financed Europe for the last four decades importing three times what they export to Europe.

      Junker is a drunk. He is an irrational looser that is full of himself and doesn’t for one minute think a second thought for the people or nations of Europe. Look at how he gets drunk and gropes the female leaders of Europe; or slaps around the male leaders at welcome lines to EU events. No respect what so ever from him.

      Junker threatens Britain because he hasn’t been reined in yet by the national leaders in Europe as they begin to realize the implications. He runs an organization that is a threat to democracy itself. He makes noise based on his hurt feelings and not on what is legal rule of law reality. He threatens to break up Europe by entertaining the idea that Scotland can be part of the EU if they so choose, ignoring that Scotland is still part of Great Britain. Akin to Junker saying Quebec could join the EU even if the rest of Canada did not… a total violation of national dignity.

      Britain made the right choice and will likely pay a short term cost imposed by the globalist elite, but in the long run will have the sovereignty to determine their own destiny.

      Canada exports more to Britain than to all of Europe, so maybe Canada should scrap CETA and be working on a fair trade deal with Britain first… one that respects national sovereignty and democracy.

    No. BY over brains is more of a Conservative thing.


Doing bit of research for my won edification.

Droop quota
Hare Quota
Gregory method
Meek’s method
Warren’s method
Wright method.

And I suspect there are many others in this day of computerization and numbers juggling which is possible.

I wish people would learn how to do proper surveys …. ;-)

This was an “online survey”.

    Nice to see your reading comprehension skills improving . A few more baby steps and we’ll think your an adult . Well done Dow , bravo !

    And you point is?

      My point o pompous ass is it means dick. Is an online survey on this site statistically representative of Prince George? Maybe in when it fits the Gus/ataloss narrative it does. You two need to find a hobby besides trolling for opportunities to pump your egos.

      Does that analogy for online surveys also apply to thumbs up and or down in your world ?


      No. Thumbs down from one Con with multiple accounts is a really meaningful measure of a comment’s reception. /s

      Thumbs up and down are on individual comments and represent the boards thoughts on them. Online surveys ask a specific question and try to glean data from the responses. A bit different. Regardless ataloss, you lose. Your a immature goof who needs to fixate on Harper to have any fulfillment in your pathetic life.

      The ad hominem attacker. Can’t put together a credible argument if he tried.

Those business’s who are crying the blues over the withdrawal from the EU have already made their fortunes time and again. If they lose a few millions or billions, its no skid of my a.. In fact losing a pile of dough might result in some character building.

JGalt. I think you meant Huckleberry mine, not Blueberry.

I was searching the net to see if I could find some left wing, mines, pulp mills, lumber mills, or other major business’s that were still in business, or had shut down, however I could not find any. Is that because the left wingers don’t own any business’s and do not create any jobs.

    As opposed to Conservative right winger businesses that create jobs for Temporary Foreign Workers?

    Please define left wing business and right wing business and differentiate clearly between the two.

    When registering a business name I have not seen a checkbox for “left wing” or “right wing”. Have you?

I personal like this idea a lot. Wrote some papers on it at UNBC Political Science classes also. A lot of pros and cons but the pros out weigh the cons in my option.

    Yikes ! That is some good grammar from a UNBC student.

Pretty lame comeback JGalt. Obviously you cannot come up with any successful business in Canada that was founded, built and run profitably by the left wingers, other than their pension funds which are invested in successful middle/right ring business’s.

    Right wing business? You really are laughable. The only thing business cares about is money. That is why they had no trouble dealing with Nazis in Germany and have no trouble dealing with Communists in China and Vietnam. All business cares about is exploitation. They don’t give two s***s if the country is left or right, just as long as the country they are operating in is open for business at the cheapest possible operating cost.

      I think you’re describing ‘banks’. Whose policy is imposed on all other businesses as a requirement of credit worthiness and continued access to it. A great many businesses care, or would care if they could care, about a lot of things other than just money. As it stands right now, however, those who have a monopoly over the purse strings and demand their interest have priority over every other, call the shots.

    Talk about lame, you have no clue how to define a left wing and a right wing business, Palopu.

    So, just to keep you happy, describe the corporate policies with respect to managing and treating people within the corporate structure of a Trump company and Google

    Or, identify some other companies which have progressive human resource philosophies and programs to implement those compared to those which have regressive policies.

    Which are the companies who bring in best human resource practices which go beyond those required by various labour laws versus those who just provide the minimum standards as set by those labour laws.

    Talk about maternity leaves, harassment policies which are implemented and work, annual vacations beyond what is required by law and or union agreements, etc.

    Once you deal with such aspects of company culture, you might want to deal with the way they conduct business in relation to others they deal with, societal as well as environmental well being and improvements of the world around them.

    Another view would be the governance aspect of who sits on the Board, if it is a Board led structure. That is often a characteristic which would identify a progressive versus regressive company.

    When that is all said and done, take out you finger, whet it and hold it up in the air to see which way the wind blows when trying to whether a company is left or right wing.

    When you are all done with that, then you have a right to complain about someone’s response being lame!!!

    Good luck!!

Talk about lame… the issue is about electoral reform possibilities and you guys are all stuck in left verse right dog whistle calls.

    So what do you think we vote for other than issues which are identified with the political spectrum of left to right????

Proportional representation is about having party representatives appointed to manufacture proportionality… which usually means giving representation to single issue politicians that can not gain the support of the majority.

Proportional representation also means those that are appointed don’t ever have to win a riding, or face the music in an election and operate with no democratic accountability… as any party can get 5% of the vote with a dog whistle call to the extremist side.

Proportional representation enables and supports extremist elements within the party system, due to no accountability directly on the ballot for those that push the agenda.

Look at all the countries that use proportional representation and they are all fractured parliaments that are a sort of divide and conquer for special interest groups and globalist extremists.

Proportional representation comes at the expense of having locally elected politicians that represent rural and regional types of riding’s.

Proportional representation weakens parties that represent the middle silent majority, and empower the protest single issue parties that thrive on divisions.

Proportional representation empowers the elites that like to hide behind party power, rather than putting themselves out in front of the public themselves.

Proportional representation creates complex formulas for appointing list candidates that most people would never understand and democracy transparency is lost.

Proportional representation dumbs down the electorate on the issue and has no incentive to work towards common ground with the other elected parties.

Proportional representation puts primacy on parties in our legislature, rather than primacy on the rights of elected MP’s.

Proportional representation sells our democracy to special interest groups and factions.

    It does indeed. Really, though, when it comes right down to it, old Huey Long had it right back in the 1930’s when he said there wasn’t really a lick of difference between the Republican and Democratic parties in the USA, “…except one’s going to skin you from the ankle up, and the other one from the ear down.” Pretty much the same elsewhere, too. People are very seldom ever given a choice on anything to do with ‘policy’. What we do get is a choice on the ‘method’ by which the SAME policy, one which WE, for the most part never made, will be imposed on us.

    The main reason why this is so is because ‘conservatives’ have allowed themselves to become a group of ‘reactionaries’, i.e., they are generally only re-active to what amounts to slowing down what their opponents want. When they should, and could, be pro-active in providing the alternatives most people would likely want, if only they could allow themselves to look at how “…what is physically possible, socially desirable, and morally correct, can ALWAYS be made FINANCIALLY possible.”

      The transferable ballot forced the British MP’s to hold an EU referendum, and then now compels them to honor the results against even their own self serving interests. The people have spoken and they forced the policy because they had the democratic ballot that empowered their vote.

It seems all those that aspire to be political scientists and ride the gravy train in politics support proportional representation.

A group in Vancouver recently held a forum on electoral reform, but only invited the pro proportional representation factions and said that this was all the leading advocates for electoral reform. They manipulate the polls through limiting the choice, and push the agenda through means the don’t leave the voter informed of all their choices… often implying simplicity but when one looks at their policy it is anything but as simple as they present it to be.

Proportional rep supporters are often snake oil salesmen with it comes to getting their way on this issue.

A transferable ballot is simple.

With a transferable ballot we all keep our local riding’s and our local member of parliament. We have local accountability and choice.

With a transferable ballot we will always have a majority elected MP.

With transferable ballot every MP in parliament would be elected by a majority within their riding… therefor to get elected one must know more than a single issue… one must be a well rounded individual to get elected… capable of deliberating on any and all issues and not just the 5% that a proportion of the population is focused on.

With a transferable ballot the politicians are fighting for a local majority to get elected, and not a special interest faction nation wide. Politicians need to find that middle ground and appeal to all voters to win the majority… politicians need to have a good sense of common sense and what is good for the country as a whole to get elected with a majority of the vote.

With a transferable ballot politicians will need to work with the other parties and reach out to them, especially if they can’t get a majority on their own first ballot… or those in their party will need the support of the smaller parties second votes.

With a transferable ballot smaller parties become power brokers within the larger tent parties, and independent MP’s can win on their own right as a consensus candidate. Under Proportional rep the independent candidates go extinct.

With a transferable ballot small parties can win closely contested riding’s as the consensus candidate when the bigger parties are too polarized.

With a transferable ballot no politician is in a safe seat for the next election.

The British Westminster government recently switched to a transferable ballot (along with Ireland, Australia, and Iceland) and now they have their sovereignty back… not because the politicians necessarily wanted it, but because if they didn’t honor the referendum they would loose their seats next election to the silent majority in a true democratic fashion.

All the countries still trapped in the EU are trapped because they don’t have sovereign democracies for their people, so therefor do not have the power to demand as much from the EU. All that are left in the EU have some form of proportional representation that undercut their national sovereign will through divide and conquer techniques of the globalist banking class.

Why should a party or MP that can’t get a majority, and can only get say 10% support in the election… get to legislation on a 100% of the issues, some completely unrelated to their one issue campaigns, and legislate from the position of a majority elected representative. Absurd and undercuts the link to competency in a democracy.

Guy gets elected to parliament on a issue for separation from this or that… then gets to vote in parliament on issues of CPP, or EI reform, or healthcare… when they’re on a 10% list placement for a platform to sandbag the institution unless they get their way? That’s not democracy. Failed Europe makes that clear.

Comments for this article are closed.