[fvc-wat-disc] The Record column by Luisa D'Amato

[Bob Jonkman]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Wow! Published verbatim from what Donald submitted!  Well done!

- --Bob.


On 2016-07-09 09:12 PM, Sharon Sommerville wrote:
> Hi Cathe,
> 
> Here it is:
> 
> http://www.therecord.com/opinion-story/6759835-public-needs-to-be-educated-about-vote/
>
>  Cheers, Sharon
> 
> On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 12:46 PM, <cdcampbell9 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> What does Don's letter say?
>> 
>> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone. *From: *Sharon
>> Sommerville *Sent: *Saturday, July 9, 2016 8:35 AM *To: *FVC
>> Waterloo Region Discussion *Reply To: *FVC Waterloo Region
>> Discussion *Subject: *Re: [fvc-wat-disc] The Record column by
>> Luisa D'Amato
>> 
>> Congratulations Donald!  Your letter is today's lead in the
>> Record's Letters to the Editor.
>> 
>> Thank you & hope you are having a great holiday,
>> 
>> Sharon
>> 
>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 5:11 PM, Donald Fraser
>> <donaldafraser at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> thanks, Laurel ... as I stated before I don't really want a
>>> referendum because the public is uninformed ... But it gave me
>>> an excuse to say what that education should be.
>>> 
>>> cheers, Don
>>> 
>>> On 4 July 2016 at 08:28, Laurel L. Russwurm
>>> <laurel.l at russwurm.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> It doesn't matter if the your letter or comments please
>>>> everyone, Don. In a democracy every voice needs to be heard,
>>>> so the big picture is properly addressed by policy and law.
>>>> Bob left a photocopy of an awful David Akin article praising
>>>> FPTP laying around, Akin argues FPTP allows us to disagree
>>>> while PR will reduce politics to one voice.   But he's got
>>>> it backward.  What we have now makes every party say the same
>>>> thing because they all need the most voters ... so the
>>>> reality is what we have is big tent parties that try to
>>>> pretend they are everything to everyone, and disagreement
>>>> within is dangerous.
>>>> 
>>>> PR is so powerful because when we say what we think, we can
>>>> find out where consensus lays, but also see other points of
>>>> view, find out what works and what doesn't so we can refine
>>>> our thoughts and arguments.  (Like beta readers for a self
>>>> publishing novelist, there is no wrong answer.  We need to
>>>> learn from each other, brainstorm together.  It is decidedly
>>>> weird to argue against better democracy by arguing against
>>>> direct democracy.   As Jenn points out, what you've done well
>>>> is to articulate an important part of why a referendum is as
>>>> inappropriate here as in the UK.
>>>> 
>>>> If we lived in Switzerland where they are referenda mad, as a
>>>> matter of course they spend 2 years educating the public
>>>> before each one.  The Canadian experience is different: not
>>>> only is the populace largely in the dark because we have (a)
>>>> no experience of PR (b) no education about it (c) the media
>>>> has spectacularly failed to inform us AND (d) our
>>>> winner-take-all system inflicts time limits.  No matter how
>>>> good the idea when government changes the new guys won't
>>>> touch it.
>>>> 
>>>> Regards, Laurel
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 06/30/2016 09:06 AM, Jennifer Ross wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Actually, Donald, that isn't true.  I think it is a great
>>>> message!!
>>>> 
>>>> Because, "polls show that 62% of Canadians want a referendum"
>>>> but how many of those people want an education campaign
>>>> FIRST?  Why don't you ask that question, Mr. Pollster,
>>>> because I'm sure Canada doesn't think the disgrace that was
>>>> the Brexit referendum is anything to follow.
>>>> 
>>>> And we can't make THAT a thing until we have people saying
>>>> they want an education component.
>>>> 
>>>> So, good job in getting that ball rolling.  :)
>>>> 
>>>> Jenn
>>>> 
>>>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 7:28 AM, Donald Fraser
>>>> <donaldafraser at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> OK I take it my response does not please our group ... my
>>>>> rationale for saying that a referendum would be OK with
>>>>> public education FIRST ... was to give the public
>>>>> education
>>>>> 
>>>>> If I didn't respond that such a referendum would be OK then
>>>>> I didn't have a reason to exhibit in the letter what we
>>>>> would (and are) presenting to the public.
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 29 June 2016 at 21:20, Bob Jonkman <
>>>>> <bjonkman at sobac.com> bjonkman at sobac.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
> On 2016-06-29 08:32 PM, Laurel L. Russwurm wrote:
>>>>>>>> Bob:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Your response here needs to be posted as an article
>>>>>>>> on the fvcwrc blog.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Maybe illustrated with a copy of the FVC postcard
>>>>>>>> picture and an invitation to people to come pick up a
>>>>>>>> postcard and/or ask questions at the Fair Vote booth
>>>>>>>> at the upcoming summer festivals.
> 
> Done!
> 
> http://www.fairvotewrc.ca/on-referenda-consultations-and-postcards/
>
>  The blog is also open for contributions by Fair Vote Waterloo
> members. Sign up at
> https://www.fairvotewrc.ca/wp-login.php?action=register and write
> something!
> 
> --Bob.
> 
> 
>>>>>>>> On 06/29/2016 12:23 AM, Jennifer Ross wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Yes, very disappointing.  I couldn't believe you
>>>>>>>>> guys were tweeting it to make people read that
>>>>>>>>> piece of rubbish.  I'm sorry you had to be the
>>>>>>>>> poster-boy for "but I did get a second viewpoint"
>>>>>>>>> journalism.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 4:11 PM, Bob Jonkman
>>>>>>>>> <bjonkman at sobac.com <mailto:
>>>>>>>>> <bjonkman at sobac.com>bjonkman at sobac.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I get quoted in today's column by Luisa D'Amato:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
> http://www.therecord.com/opinion-story/6743051-d-amato-despite-brexit-we-need-a-referendum-on-electoral-reform/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
> 
D’Amato: Despite Brexit, we need a referendum on electoral
>>>>>>>>> reform
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Bob Jonkman, co-chair of the Waterloo Region
>>>>>>>>> chapter of Fair Vote Canada, says there is barely
>>>>>>>>> time to put a new system in place, let alone ask
>>>>>>>>> people what they think of it
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Ms. D'Amato and I had a 20 minute conversation
>>>>>>>> yesterday and that's only a brief and
>>>>>>>> under-representative quote of what we spoke about.
>>>>>>>> Among other things, I expressed my opinion that a
>>>>>>>> referendum on Electoral Reform isn't necessary
>>>>>>>> because:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 1) Parliament (and provincial legislatures) may
>>>>>>>> change the electoral system with a vote in
>>>>>>>> parliament, as they have done for every other
>>>>>>>> electoral reform issue such as giving the vote to 
>>>>>>>> women
>>>>>>>>>> (1917-1918) or
>>>>>>>> First Nations people (1960!)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 2) A referendum on electoral reform is not a
>>>>>>>> constitutional requirement. The only issue that
>>>>>>>> affects consitutionality is seat allocation to the
>>>>>>>> provinces, and that requirement is easily met by
>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> extending electoral boundaries across provincial
>>>>>>>> lines. (We didn't discuss it, but there have been
>>>>>>>> many electoral boundary changes, notably before the
>>>>>>>> 2015 election, which didn't go to a referendum and
>>>>>>>> were perfectly constitutional)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 3) That an effective and equal vote is a right, and
>>>>>>>> that the First-Past-The-Post system violates that
>>>>>>>> right, and rights issues are never decided by
>>>>>>>> referenda.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I spoke of the rarity of referenda in Canada, that
>>>>>>>> the only national referenda have been on issues like
>>>>>>>> prohibition (I thought that was in the 1930's, but it
>>>>>>>> was in 1898), and the separation of Quebec (1992).
>>>>>>>> Ms. D'Amato pointed out that we had a municipal 
>>>>>>>> referendum on fluoridation, and pointed out the many
>>>>>>>> provincial referenda on electoral reform.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> We talked about the 2007 referendum in Ontario --
>>>>>>>> that example is a great reason to avoid referenda on
>>>>>>>> these topics. Although the
>>>>>>>>>> McGuinty
>>>>>>>> Liberals made it an election promise in 2003, the
>>>>>>>> Citizens' Assembly wasn't formed until 2006, leaving
>>>>>>>> them only six months to become experts in voting
>>>>>>>> systems and make a recommendation. Elections
>>>>>>>>>> Ontario
>>>>>>>> did not have enough information documents available;
>>>>>>>> Fair Vote Waterloo members went door-to-door, and we
>>>>>>>> ran out. Elections Ontario themselves were prohibited
>>>>>>>> from giving out information on the
>>>>>>>>>> proposed
>>>>>>>> voting system, and when voters went to the polls in
>>>>>>>> October most didn't even know there was a referendum
>>>>>>>> on.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I expressed dismay that it took the Federal Liberal
>>>>>>>> government eight months to form the current All-party
>>>>>>>> Parliamentary Committee, that
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> Committee's proposal is due on 1 December (and
>>>>>>>> consultations need to wrapped up by 1 October), that
>>>>>>>> the time it would take to move a bill through
>>>>>>>> parliament could be as much as year, what with 
>>>>>>>> debate, multiple reading, and senate approval, and
>>>>>>>> that Elections Canada will need a year to re-tool for
>>>>>>>> a new electoral system.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> And that whole conversation was distilled down to the
>>>>>>>> one sentence.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> --Bob.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
Comment: Ensure confidentiality, authenticity, non-repudiability

iEYEARECAAYFAleCf8IACgkQuRKJsNLM5eqvMACeJjxFb8LWTqzxjjxvi8w75/Ye
ukoAoL14GrQwabxsWLtkht6EaJGhLNex
=8+bN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----