Vancouverites Vote "No" in Their Recent Referendum

         And so, just what was the result of that recent, long-lasting Vancouver Referendum? It was just recently announced.

         The Vancouverites voted quite decisively against the idea of adding a small percentage to local sales taxes to pay for the expensive, proposed new transit system. Over 60% voted –“no”, despite considerable monies being expended in trying to persuade them that the idea was a good one.

           Was it a good example of – democracy in action?  Most would say – yes, definitely.

         The majority is supposed to rule – in a democracy. So often, that does not seem to be happening. The following comments were taken from a recent editorial  upon the whole exercise – from the National Post, July 4, 2015.

         “An enormous reservoir of distrust has built up between the political class and the public in this country, …..  People can sense when they are being patronized, and they tend not to take it well. The notion that such questions are too difficult for the public to understand could as well be said about elections, an infinitely more complex exercise in which the voter is required to sum up, in one vote, his views on the leaders, the parties, the platforms, the local candidates, their stances on local issues and so on. 
        Yet no one says after an election defeat, "well, that was a mistake - we won't hold one of those again." We don't want to claim the people are infallible. But the remedy, … is not to permit them fewer such opportunities to speak their mind, but more. Referendums are unusual events in Canada.  …. More regular consultation on major issues would go a long way to strengthen the sinews of self-government. Not every subject can or should be put to a referendum. But the question of whether to raise taxes is of a particular kind: it was, after all, the same question that first forced kings to consult parliaments. That the public declined to open their wallets this time does not mean they would do the same the next. But whether they would or not, the fact remains: it's their money. If politicians would like them to fork over more of it, it is only fair to ask them. This should not be the last such exercise but the first."