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

Wed Jun 29 16:54:16 EDT 2016

I guess we have to get used to journals chopping our contributions.
Maclean's does it all the time. However, they publish pieces of each of our
letters (sometimes all), so if we keep at it, we can get the whole message
out several times.

Here's my response to D'Amato's column.

I HAVEN'T SENT IT ... basically because I stated that a referendum is OK
... but ONLY if there is widespread public education ... NOT without ...
(and that won't happen)

See if sends the right message, and let me know.

============================

Dear Editor,

Re: Despite Brexit, we need a referendum on electoral reform_Luisa
D’Amato_June 28,2016

Philosophically the public should be consulted on this issue, but not
without widespread public education about Proportional Representation (PR).
First educate the public, then hold a vote.

There have been three provincial referenda on PR in Canada (British
Columbia May 17, 2005, Prince Edward Island Nov 28, 2005, Ontario Oct 10,
2007). All three failed, not because PR benefits were rejected but because
the public was not informed properly.

Without country-wide public education, a referendum should not be held.
Rather, the decision should be left to the committee based on public input,
because an uniformed referendum vote will most certainly reject change no
matter how beneficial it may be.

Public education should consist of 3 parts.

First, the ballot should be shown. Most voters fear that voting will be
confusing. A Mixed Member PR ballot consists of space to vote for the local
candidate as we do now and then another space to vote for the party of
choice (which can differ from the party of the chosen candidate if the
voter wishes) ... simple.

Second, voters should be encouraged by the major benefits of PR.

·        Every vote counts toward giving the voter's party of choice the
same percentage of seats in Ottawa as the party received in national vote
count.

·        Strategic voting which can produce false majorities (a majority of
seats without a majority percentage of votes) becomes unnecessary. A
citizen can vote for the party that most matches his/her ideals and be
assured that that party will get its fair share of seats.

·        Parties can present their true platforms instead of having to
compromise them to get elected.

Third, voters should be encouraged by learning the major countries that use
PR successfully such as Germany, Denmark, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand,
Norway, Republic of Ireland, Scotland, Sweden, Wales and many more.

Yours Truly,

Donald A Fraser,

184 Forsyth Drive,

Waterloo, Ontario,

N2L1A2,

519-576-9210

On 29 June 2016 at 09:13, Bob Jonkman <bjonkman at sobac.com> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> It wasn't so much upsetting as disappointing. I'm convinced Ms. D'Amato
> fully understands the subleties of both sides of the debate on Electoral
> Reform, and knows the legal requirements and restrictions on holding a
> referendum. But MainStreamMedia pays her salary, and she'll be
> restricted to writing within The Record's editorial policy. That, or her
> work will be edited until it does match editorial policy, something
> which may already have happened.
>
> But you're right, any mention for Fair Vote is beneficial. I just wish
> we were more media-savvy so that we could spin "Any press is good press"
> as well as our pro-FPTP colleagues.
>
> - --Bob.
>
>
> On 2016-06-29 07:04 AM, Les Kadar wrote:
> > 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 2016-06-29 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 Jun 28, 2016, at 4:11 PM, Bob Jonkman <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
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAldz87oACgkQuRKJsNLM5eoQLwCg1WsdmQPAPvsUL8cWiC2+MCs7
> HAsAniw0OyvimwqKlzPeauTpkKJ2u5Xk
> =euM6
> -----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/20160629/4c43b1ef/attachment-0002.htm>