Metro Vancouver Transit Referendum: How Should I Vote?

Introduction

The transit referendum in Metro Vancouver has been a popular topic recently in the news and on social media because of its potential effect on the economy and on people’s day to day lives. Many news stations and online bloggers have shown their support for either a “Yes” or a “No” vote. The referendum concerns increasing taxes by a small margin to widen the fleet of transit vehicles in Vancouver, and some believe it will increase traffic flow and hasten commuters, while others deem that it is a waste of taxpayer money and a repeat of past TransLink failures.  One of the main challenges we faced during our research was attempting to find unbiased articles. While most articles were one-sided, and strongly encouraged the reader to favour either a “Yes” or a “No” vote, most journalists provided concrete examples to support their argument. However, while all of the information was retrieved from reliable sources, many of the journalists depended upon the use of logical fallacies in order to garner approval for their position.

 

Link 1

This news article from the Vancouver Sun, written by columnist Barbara Yaffe, outlines the position against the transit referendum by supporting various reasons for a “No” vote. The author states that one of the major concerns of many people living in Vancouver is the ever-increasing taxation by the municipal government, which could potentially come as a direct result of the new referendum.  As well as emphasizing taxation, Yaffe reveals the issues surrounding the unpredictable past of TransLink, the municipal government’s unfair budgeting, and inequitable resources for the campaign. By highlighting the problems faced by the citizens of Vancouver, the author intends to bring to light the frustration and anger experienced by these taxpayers.

This article reveals the strong opinion of the journalist, who uses various techniques to persuade the reader to consider voting “No” to the referendum. As well as emphasizing the positive side to a future without a transit referendum, Yaffe uses the ‘slippery slope’ fallacy in an attempt to arouse fear and unrest: “A Yes vote could set a dangerous precedent for more revenue-raising-by-referendum in future.”  While the writer does use some logical fallacies to persuade the reader, we decided to use this article as the author gives evidence for her claims, and provides statistics to support her position.  The Vancouver Sun is a well-known and reputable news source and, with Western Canada’s largest news team, it provides daily information on local and global affairs.

Link 2

In this pro-Transit Referendum editorial, the author gives clear reasons and concrete examples of why a bright future for citizens living in Vancouver is contingent on a “Yes” vote for the upcoming referendum.  The author presents the “honest choice” between voting yes, and offering an “excellent prospect for better transportation”, and voting no, and adding merely “half of one percentage point to the provincial sales tax.”  By acknowledging the fears of the “No” voters, the author hopes to encourage the readers to understand the many positives to an alternate “Yes” vote.

We chose this article as a good quality source because of the strong reputation of The Globe and Mail as a reliable newspaper.  In a non-confrontational writing style, the author impels the readers to consider voting “yes” to the referendum, but ultimately allows them to come to their own conclusion based on the the evidence at hand.

Link 3

In this editorial, Jordan Bateman outlines various reasons why “No” would be the better vote. Mostly, he talks about TransLink’s financial troubles and how they overpay their employees using tax payer’s money. Bateman says that TransLink does not deserve our trust and he outlines its many wasteful blunders.  In turn, he writes about the potential raising of taxes, and he supplies several examples. He is a vehement opposer of Translink’s plans and he provides specific examples of the company’s detrimental past decisions. He also gives a description of Plan B (not the one from Interstellar).

In persuading the reader to vote “No” to the referendum, Bateman looks at the money angle, but he ignores the social impact that the referendum would have on people’s lives. However, despite its biased writing style, the article does provide statistics and evidence to show TransLink’s past failures and this strengthens the argument as a whole.

Link 4

In this editorial, ten simple reasons are given as to why voting “Yes” would be the better, more sustainable choice. Guy Dauncey, the columnist, explains that biking, busing, and transit in general would greatly improve. He also writes about how there would be less environmental damages and less pollution. Dauncey says it would improve the lives of those not only living in Vancouver, but also of those residing in Burnaby, Surrey, and the Lower Mainland. He acknowledges the fact that TransLink needs new policies and change in governance, but he points out that voting “No” will not help the matter.

While Dauncey examines the positive social impact of a majority “Yes” vote, he fails to examine the financial angle. As a weekly newspaper, which has been nominated for and won several national awards, the Georgia Straight carries feature articles which showcase current events.

Link 5

This is an editorial written by pro-transit author Jak King, however his vote remains “No” on the upcoming referendum. King points out that this referendum is poorly made and, even though he wants transit to improve in our city, he warns of its potential to slow down proper development. He even supports the notion of raising taxes for transit as he advocates for a change in the government’s monetary priorities.

While King provides objectively sound points, the author does not provide sufficient evidence to support his claims, and that strongly weakens his arguments and article: “So, I am for increased transit, and I don’t object to the tax increase, so why am I voting No? Because this particular transportation plan sucks and we need a better one.” Despite weaknesses in his argument, King does bring attention to numerous questions that the “Yes” supporters and lobbyists have refused to answer.

Conclusion
Many articles show a distrust in the government and TransLink to fulfill the promises that they make about this referendum, however most argue that funding TransLink will improve our transit system surely, and that an increase of funding is a necessity for the public transit system of an ever-growing city. Overall, the arguments for “Yes” are stronger and more logical, while most “No” arguments rely on the slippery slope fallacy and scare tactics to persuade the reader. In conclusion, a “No” vote would save relatively a small amount of money, while a “Yes” vote would reduce traffic, improve infrastructure and make the city a more accessible place for tourists and commuters alike.