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

[Bob Jonkman]

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

Donald wrote:
> the public should be consulted on this issue

And they are being consulted. This is what our postcards are for: to
send our opinions to the All-party Parliamentary Committee on
Electoral Reform. While it may help to send another postcard to your
local MP and to the Minister of Democratic Institutions, I'm told they
just forward them to the Committee. If anyone reading hasn't sent a
postcard yet, pick one up at one of the festivals this summer, or let
the FairvoteWRC Executive know at executive at fairvotewrc.ca and we'll
get you one. Or several, if you have friends. You all have friends, right?

Although the public should be consulted, it's not in anyone's best
interest for the public to make the decision. We saw the results of
the four provincial referenda on electoral reform (BC held two), the
outcome of the fluoridation referendum that completely ignored best
public health care practices to the detriment of all Waterloo
residents, and the Brexit referendum that was decided by people with
no knowledge of global economics or foreign policy (I've read that
some people thought the "Leave" option was to make the Muslims leave
the UK).

The only way a referendum might work is in three parts: 1) Do we want
to change the current system (and that's already been decided in the
2015 election by the 63% of voters casting a ballot for a party
supporting electoral reform); 2) after extensive study and education,
asking which one of these voting systems (maybe STV, MMP, P3) should
be used; 3) after two or three election cycles asking if that system
should be changed (and if "yes", then start the whole process over again).

But Canada's electoral system does not allow a referendum on this
question[1]. There would have to be a new bill passed in parliament to
modify existing referendum legislation, and *that* will take months to
pass, never mind the time taken for the referendum itself.

Besides, Canada has a representative democracy, where we elect
representatives (our MPs) to study these matters and make the best
decision for their constituents. But that doesn't stop me from letting
my MP know what would be best for *this* constituent!

- --Bob.

[1]
http://globalnews.ca/news/2745915/reality-check-can-the-liberals-call-a-referendum-on-electoral-reform/



On 2016-06-29 04:54 PM, Donald Fraser wrote:
> 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:
> 
> 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

iEYEARECAAYFAld0QoEACgkQuRKJsNLM5eonEwCfZjRwBcZO6MRCBru/HQT0Ljan
iagAoOTo/kW6rc30Rhh/oskCmIbWth30
=PlxQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----