[fvc-wat-disc] Saturday's editorial in the Record

[Alida and George]

Read Ted Martin's letter at the end of a long string of letters in today's 
Record :"Under a mixed member proportional system, no one - not even one as 
cynically undemocratic as the editorial writer - could make a case for 
voting against your own beliefs simply to back a winner."

Also Geoffrey Stevens' column on how the election campaign lost sight of the 
old folks in soggy diapers, child poverty, rotting infrastructure and 
medical wait times....the list could really be much, much longer.
11th hour stuff, but I guess it eases the conscience of a newsman somewhat. 
And it's an important reminder of just why one would/should  want  a 
"fairer" system of representation.

As for a great many of the letters:  A frightening level of ignorance and 
selfishness  is demonstrated; the kind that caused Churchill to observe that 
democracy is not a perfect system. He failed to observe, however, that it 
could be vastly (his favourite word) improved - as could our sources of 
information in this IT world.
Vastly.
John Roe is a guy with a conscience, a fellow who would not have been out of 
place paddling the Lake Country of Wordsworth, but who instead finds himself 
located between that proverbial rock and a hard place.

GB


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brian Tanguay" <btanguay at wlu.ca>
To: <fvc-wat-disc at listserv.thinkers.org>; <paul_nijjar at yahoo.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 12:41 AM
Subject: Re: [fvc-wat-disc] Saturday's editorial in the Record


> Yeah, John Roe and the rest of the editorial board are clearly idiots.
>
> I sent a somewhat nasty letter to the editor in response, but have not
> received an acknowledgement and doubt that they will print it, on the
> pretext that my views are already well known ...
>
> Pisses me off, but I do have rather low expectations of our media.
> Brian
>
>>>> paul_nijjar at yahoo.ca 10/8/2007 8:42 PM >>>
> Holy moses. I did not see the Record's editorial until just now. They
> trashed us on the tired old "list members are unaccountable"
> argument. Oy.
>
> Here's the article. Clearly the Record prefers another 20 years of
> phony majorities dominated by the premier, his cabinet and their
> unelected, unaccountable advisors to a system that reflects the
> actual wishes of voters.
>
> ---
>
> The wrong kind of electoral reform
> October 06, 2007
> THE RECORD
> There's only one good reason to dump the way Ontario voters have
> elected provincial politicians for over a century. There's only one
> good reason to gamble on a new system of selecting the government
> that leads and rules this great province. That reason is democracy --
> the government of the people.
>
> If the electoral reform being offered in next Wednesday's
> provincewide referendum can strengthen democracy, if it can transfer
> into the hands of the people of Ontario more political power, more
> authority over their lives and their land, then they should embrace
> it. But if the change being proffered fails this most important test,
> if it does not demonstrably bolster the health of Ontario democracy,
> if, in fact, it threatens to vitiate that democracy by granting more
> power to political cliques, then the proposed electoral reform should
> be roundly rejected.
>
> So how does the system being proposed -- mixed-member proportional --
> stack up? Ontario voters will, as is their right, make up their own
> minds. But for our part, we at The Record have concluded that
> democracy would suffer badly under a mixed-member proportional system
> because such a system would quickly and inevitably cede political
> power to political parties and their unelected elites, at the ongoing
> expense of ordinary people.
>
> If Ontarians choose mixed-member proportional, the number of members
> of the provincial legislature (MPPs) elected to represent geographic
> ridings will fall, from the current number of 107 down to 90.
> Meanwhile, there will be a new class of MPPs -- 39 members who are
> not directly elected by voters but are, instead, appointed by
> political parties to the enlarged, 129-seat legislature.
>
> The laudable goal of the mixed-member proportional system is to have
> a legislature that matches as closely as possible how citizens
> actually vote. And it is true that under our current
> first-past-the-post electoral system, political parties that capture
> far less than half of the popular vote typically win elections.
>
> Critics of the status quo say it lets a minority of voters enthrone a
> majority government that rules with total power. And that smacks of
> unfairness. Advocates of a mixed-member proportional system praise it
> as more fair because the number of seats a party gets in the
> legislature reflects as closely as possible the number of party votes
> it receives. There would be two votes on the ballot, remember, one
> for a local representative, one for a party.
>
> The 103 Ontarians who joined the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral
> Reform and proposed adopting this mixed-member proportional system
> deserve applause for their hard work, thoughtfulness and civic
> responsibility. However, our respect for them does not diminish our
> strong opposition to what they recommend.
>
> A mixed-member proportional system would hurt democracy because it
> would reduce the number of directly elected MPPs by more than 15 per
> cent. There would be significantly fewer ridings in Ontario and they
> would be bigger. Riding MPPs would be responsible for thousands of
> more constituents. It is easy to see how this would impede the direct
> access of constituents to their representative as well as their
> ability to influence that representative.
>
> Then, there is the troubling matter of the 39 non-riding or at-large
> MPPs. Directly elected by no one, they would be directly accountable
> to no one -- at least to no one outside of the party cadre that put
> them on a list. True, the parties would offer some explanation for
> their slates of potential appointees. But it would be difficult in
> the extreme for voters to examine the many names on a slate for an
> ever increasing number of political parties.
>
> It is questionable how much legitimate campaigning such potential
> appointees would do in future elections. But what would that matter?
> Once installed in the legislature, they would be beyond the reproach
> or touch of voters. Future legislatures would be home to two classes
> of MPPs, one the traditional riding representative, the other, in all
> but name, a senator. Spare us this.
>
> In the past 22 years, each of the three major Ontario parties has
> managed to win one or more elections, govern and then be evaluated by
> voters under the first-past-the-post system. Governments have been
> stable and often accomplished much, but they have also, out of
> necessity, been forced to heed the wishes of the people.
>
> To contemplate mixed-member proportional system is to consider a
> future of instability, of fragmented and only partially accountable
> legislatures fumbling their way under the leadership of perpetual
> minority governments. It is also a future in which political parties,
> including party hacks, hangers-on and failed politicians, would gain
> in influence and power as the already limited authority of ordinary
> voters wanes.
>
> To be sure, the way Ontario elects MPPs today has flaws. It could be
> improved and perhaps, after this election, Ontarians should continue
> searching for a better system. But mixed-member proportional is, in
> the final analysis, not a better system. On Oct. 11, please, say no
> to this proposed reform.
>
> --
> Paul Nijjar  http://www.fairvotecanada.org/WaterlooRegion
> Vote for MMP! http://voteformmp.ca
> (Please use this Yahoo! account for future correspondence.)
>
>
>      Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk
> email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail at
> http://mrd.mail.yahoo.com/try_beta?.intl=ca
>
> _______________________________________________
> fvc-wat-disc mailing list
> fvc-wat-disc at listserv.thinkers.org
> http://listserv.thinkers.org/mailman/listinfo/fvc-wat-disc
> _______________________________________________
> fvc-wat-disc mailing list
> fvc-wat-disc at listserv.thinkers.org
> http://listserv.thinkers.org/mailman/listinfo/fvc-wat-disc
>