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

Tue Jul 12 09:04:40 EDT 2016

Thanks for the encouragement ... did you catch 'uniformed' instead of
'uninformed'? ... I did after I submitted (spell-check doesn't catch
homonyms) ... I Emailed them about it but I guess they didn't pay attention
... anyway readers will blame it on the editor.

On 10 July 2016 at 10:03, Bob Jonkman <bjonkman at sobac.com> wrote:

> -----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-----
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> This is the fvc-wat-disc mailing list
> Post a message: fvc-wat-disc at listserv.thinkers.org
> Unsubscribe:
> http://listserv.thinkers.org/mailman/listinfo/fvc-wat-disc_listserv.thinkers.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.thinkers.org/pipermail/fvc-wat-disc_listserv.thinkers.org/attachments/20160712/5f2531e8/attachment-0002.htm>