[fvc-wat-disc] Fwd: Please all members of council and chapters...flood the Star with letters today!

[Derek Kraan]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jacqueline Sharp <jacqueline_sharp at yahoo.com>
Date: 23 feb 2007 09:55
Subject: Please all members of council and chapters...flood the Star with
letters today!
To: FVO Listserv <fvo at fairvote.ca>

Hi everyone,
A few people have already sent out copies of the
anti-PR editorial in the Star today, and I know a few
FVO-ers have already sent in letters.  But they need
to hear from citizens EN MASSE that they don't agree
with the editorial stand on this issue.  They won't
print most of the letters...but they will consider the
volume and tone of what they hear, and it will
hopefully influence their reporting of the issue in
future.  Please take just 10-15 minutes to send a
letter to the Toronto Star now (submission
instructions below) telling them that you totally
disagree with their conclusion.  They make so many
false statements about the benefits of FPTP and the
cons of PR that you can choose any of them to focus
on.  Especially make sure you hammer on why FPTP is
NOT a good system for Ontarians.

Please copy me on any letters you send!  10 minutes
from most of us on this could have an impact on how
they report on this issue over the rest of the
campaign!

To submit a letter:
Send your contribution to Letters to the Editor via
email tolettertoed at thestar.ca; via fax to
416-869-4322; or by mail to One Yonge Street, Toronto,
Ontario M5E 1E6. Letters must include full name,
address and all phone numbers of sender (daytime,
evening and cellphone). Street names and phone numbers
will not be published. We reserve the right to edit
letters, which typically run 50-300 words. Please
note: We get many more letters than we have space to
print. Due to the volume, we unfortunately cannot
acknowledge every submission.

The article is below.
THANKS!
Jacqueline

EDITORIAL
TheStar.com - opinion - Bad electoral medicine
Bad electoral medicine
Feb 23, 2007 04:30 AM
The 103 "ordinary citizens" selected by the provincial
government to examine Ontario's electoral system
appear poised to "fix" something that may not need
fixing at all.

Last weekend, the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral
Reform, set up by Premier Dalton McGuinty to fulfill a
2003 election promise, voted overwhelmingly for a form
of proportional representation called "mixed member
proportional" voting.

True, the vote decided only which alternative method
the assembly will "work up" first. The status quo will
not be up for consideration until later, when it will
go up against whatever alternative the assembly
eventually settles on.

Any change the assembly recommends when it finishes
its work in May would be put to voters in a referendum
that would be part of the provincial election ballot
on Oct. 10.

But the strong support among assembly members for this
electoral model is another ill-advised step down the
road toward scrapping our current
"first-past-the-post" method, which awards ridings to
the candidate who wins the most votes.

It is a system that, while not perfect, has served us
well.

That's why the assembly should think hard before
recommending an alternative that could create far more
problems than it would solve.

In its purest form, proportional representation awards
seats according to the popular vote: A party that wins
30 per cent of the votes would win 30 per cent of the
seats.

Under the variation the assembly appears to favour,
citizens would cast two votes, one for a local
candidate and the other for the party they support.
The second vote would be used to allot the remaining
seats from party lists, ensuring the total number of
seats each party holds is about equal to its share of
the popular vote. Such a system is used in Germany,
New Zealand and several other countries.

Many tout proportional representation as a cure-all
for perceived shortcomings in our current system.
Smaller and single-issue parties like it because they
would win more seats. Some say it would more fairly
represent voters' intentions. Still others see it as a
remedy for voter apathy, although voter turnout rates
have also fallen in recent elections in many of the
countries that have had proportional representation
for years.

The best argument in favour of the status quo is that
it leads to strong governments. By contrast,
proportional representation is a recipe for unstable
coalitions, permanent minority government and
legislative chaos. For proof, one need look no further
than Israel and Italy.

There is no reason to think Ontario would be any
different. No party has won more than 50 per cent of
the vote in an Ontario election since 1937. While some
minority governments have achieved much, most have
been failures that collapsed quickly in bitterness and
disarray.

Voters in British Columbia and Prince Edward Island
have already rejected proportional representation.
Hopefully the Ontario assembly will study the results
in those provinces closely before it makes its final
recommendation.


Jacqueline Sharp, MRM
Research Associate
M.K. Jaccard and Associates
Toronto, Ontario
jacquelinesharp at gmail.com
416-901-2140 (home/office) / 647-893-8910 (cell)



____________________________________________________________________________________
No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.thinkers.org/pipermail/fvc-wat-disc_listserv.thinkers.org/attachments/20070223/90b235a0/attachment-0001.htm>