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

[Les Kadar]

Bob, no real need to be media savy IMO.
The group needs to submit letters to the editor on a regular basis with 400 max 600 words and the  last line needs to read.
" do not edit "
In this way they will call and debate with you as to what can come out in order that it gets printed if deemed too long.

The TV is really your best friend.
Dave Carswell of CTV is the news director in case you were not aware.
Call him 2 days prior to a press conference.
Hold them regularly, advise them you are doing it and if they have a reporter that is not covering a cat in the tree and is free, they will be there.
After about the 3 rd one, they will realize you have something going and will make a better effort to cover you.

Local talk show radio is also excellent.
Call to get on one to discuss the issue and do it on a month with a slight twist to the previous show.

Believe it or not the old school media works.

Once FVC starts to roll with these campaigns the media becomes sensitive to the fact you are out there, have something to say and people are listening and participating.

Clear evidence based facts with no political overtones will get peoples attention as well as media respect. When they respect what you are doing for the right reason they begin to do their own coverage.
That is when you know you are on a roll.

Sorry if you already know all of this but these are tried and true steps we take today, ie the Sportsplex issue here in Cambridge.

Hope,it helps.


Les Kadar
iPad email

> On Jun 29, 2016, at 5:49 PM, Bob Jonkman <bjonkman at sobac.com> wrote:
> 
> -----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-----
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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