[fvc-wat-disc] Re: appeal to traditionalists

[Kevin Smith]

Hi Rick:

Thanks for working on a letter to the editor.  It's so important to get our
work out there!

I'm not sure if these arguments would convince traditionalists.  Sure, there
are bad traditions, but there are also some traditions that we have that are
good, no?

The tradition argument says that the system has worked fairly well for 200
years, so why change it now?

Fair Vote's messaging around this issue is that what we have is OK, but
could use some improvement.  Calling our current system undemocratic doesn't
play well with people according to polling, but talking about making it more
democratic does.

Also, saying that the current system is "virtually disenfranchising one out
of two people who bother to vote" could use some more explanation, or you
might want to leave it off if you don't have space.

Otherwise, good show!

Kevin.

On 6/29/07, Rick Fairman <rickyfairman at sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> Hello All
> I am about to submit this letter to The Record.  Before doing so I would
> like to submit it to your collective scrutiny for potential improvement
> and/or correction.  Its aim is to persuade traditionalists.  Did I forget
> any important points etc.?  Thanks.  Peace.    Rick.
>
>
>
>
>
> Those against the proposed change in our electoral system because it would
> overthrow 200 years of tradition, would do well to review history.  Is
> this
> tradition truly worth keeping?
>
> Our current electoral system has not served us well:  It renders voters
> unequal by virtually disenfranchising one out of two people who bother to
> vote.  It effectively dissuades and alienates many voters who don't see
> any
> point in voting since their vote rarely, if ever, translates into
> representation.  Of those who do bother, many resort to strategically
> voting
> for the lesser of evils rather than the choice of their conscience.
> Moreover, our system distorts election results by allotting
> disproportional
> representation to all parties, and some parties with substantial voter
> support no representation at all.  It makes false majority governments of
> parties with a minority of voter support.
>
> If the objective were to uphold 200 years of tradition, why then today are
> women allowed to vote?  Why are not citizens allowed to hold others as
> slaves and personal property?
>
> Today, women can vote and slavery is abolished because some of our
> forebears
> recognized the injustice of those institutions and bid to have them
> overthrown.  Just, as today, many recognize the injustices of an
> institution
> from the same era: our current first-past-the-post electoral
> system.  Many,
> likewise, are moved by a moral imperative to correct it.
>
> This is the objective of the Ontario Citizens Assembly and the electoral
> reform campaign: that we progress to a new era of truer democracy through
> proportional representation.  In the election/referendum of October 10,
> vote
> for Mixed Member Proportional.  It's long overdue.
>
> Richard Fairman
> Kitchener
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> fvc-wat-disc mailing list
> fvc-wat-disc at listserv.thinkers.org
> http://listserv.thinkers.org/mailman/listinfo/fvc-wat-disc
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.thinkers.org/pipermail/fvc-wat-disc_listserv.thinkers.org/attachments/20070629/b0c44cf9/attachment-0002.htm>