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

[Les Kadar]

Dear Bob.

While upsetting, at least you were quoted and FVC was identified to the public as a viable entity in the process.

What is clear to me at least, governments are not willing to bite off the hands that elect them too easily by changing the way the ballot can be marked.
At the municipal level, all clerks in the region are meeting to discuss how and what to present to councillors on the topic.
This recommendation will surely be accepted by the majority if not all councils, but may not necessarily be the best it could be in order to bring proper electoral reforms to the system.

One can change the sheets on the bed, but after a good many years you also need to turn over the mattress. 
If you are the mattress, that may not be what you want done and that is why governments and their staff should NOT be allowed to determine their own destiny on this topic.
A rushed and uneducated of the issue referendum, is but window dressing to show they are trying, but the people unfortunately are not willing as you pointed out,  to make the changes. 

Item 3 to do with " rights " you mention below, clearly has a different meaning to those already in office that make the decisions than on behalf of the voters that put them there.


Thanks for efforts none the less.  


Les Kadar
iPad email

> On Jun 28, 2016, at 4:11 PM, Bob Jonkman <bjonkman at sobac.com> wrote:
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> - --
> Bob Jonkman <bjonkman at sobac.com>          Phone: +1-519-635-9413
> SOBAC Microcomputer Services             http://sobac.com/sobac/
> Software   ---   Office & Business Automation   ---   Consulting
> GnuPG Fngrprnt:04F7 742B 8F54 C40A E115 26C2 B912 89B0 D2CC E5EA
> 
> 
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2
> Comment: Ensure confidentiality, authenticity, non-repudiability
> 
> iEYEARECAAYFAldy2gMACgkQuRKJsNLM5eq0swCgwhi2U81NsvIinMHdreeIk8gU
> o5oAnid3SBuTwZ/Q3yJY8RQYQbotVp02
> =uabk
> -----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