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

[Bob Jonkman]

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

On 2016-06-29 08:32 PM, Laurel L. Russwurm wrote:
> Bob:
> 
> Your response here needs to be posted as an article on the fvcwrc
> blog.
> 
> Maybe illustrated with a copy of the FVC postcard picture and an 
> invitation to people to come pick up a postcard and/or ask
> questions at the Fair Vote booth at the upcoming summer festivals.

Done!

 http://www.fairvotewrc.ca/on-referenda-consultations-and-postcards/

The blog is also open for contributions by Fair Vote Waterloo members.
Sign up at https://www.fairvotewrc.ca/wp-login.php?action=register and
write something!

- --Bob.


> On 06/29/2016 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 Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 4:11 PM, Bob Jonkman <bjonkman at sobac.com 
>> <mailto: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 
>> <mailto:fvc-wat-disc at listserv.thinkers.org> Unsubscribe:
>> 
>> http://listserv.thinkers.org/mailman/listinfo/fvc-wat-disc_listserv.thinkers.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
- -- 
>> No other Western democratic country concentrates as much
>> political power in the hands of one person as Canada does with
>> her Prime Minister.
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ 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

iEYEARECAAYFAld0ngQACgkQuRKJsNLM5equtwCePjB8t71t6S3oqZgbfoc04nbd
l4UAnRjMKGkz36tsln7tAtHLSp0ostwx
=t/f4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----