[fvc-wat-disc] The Record column by Luisa D'Amato
Bob Jonkman
bjonkman at sobac.com
Wed Jun 29 22:13:42 EDT 2016
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
That is great advice, Les! No, I didn't know most of that.
We do have a Letter Writing Group, let me know if you're interested in
participating. We keep an eye on various print publications (newspapers,
Macleans, one or two others), and work together to write a response to
the most egregious errors and omissions. We try to stagger our
submissions so that we're not all "blacked out" at once -- most
publications will only take one letter from someone every three or four
weeks.
I try to keep a list at http://fairvotewrc.ca/media/ -- let me know if
there's any missing articles or letters by or about a Fair Vote
Waterloo member (that's everyone on this mailing list, BTW).
What we're missing is a concerted effort to keep tabs on the online
publications like http://rabble.ca/ , http://ipolitics.ca/ and
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/ I'm sure there are others, but we don't
have enough people to cover even those three. Hint, hint, list members!
- --Bob.
On 2016-06-29 06:03 PM, Les Kadar wrote:
> 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:
>>
> 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.
>
>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________ 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
>
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ 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
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
Comment: Ensure confidentiality, authenticity, non-repudiability
iEYEARECAAYFAld0gE8ACgkQuRKJsNLM5eoQzQCg5VJzr0PbDp07UX/8ohH2Sh76
6NYAniYnZ/uI8guEoyR4lUAqV/GvU80+
=yqwJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the fvc-wat-disc
mailing list