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

Thu Jun 30 08:25:58 EDT 2016

It was at the top of this Email chain ... but here it is again

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 30 June 2016 at 05:22, Sharon Sommerville <sharonsommerville at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Sorry Donald, I missed your response. Could you forward it to me?
>
> With thanks,
> Sharon
>
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 7:28 AM, Donald Fraser <donaldafraser at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> OK I take it my response does not please our group ... my rationale for
>> saying that a referendum would be OK with public education FIRST ... was to
>> give the public education
>>
>> If I didn't respond that such a referendum would be OK then I didn't have
>> a reason to exhibit in the letter what we would (and are) presenting to the
>> public.
>>
>> On 29 June 2016 at 21:20, Bob Jonkman <bjonkman at sobac.com> wrote:
>>
>>> -----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-----
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160630/1ecd9cd9/attachment-0002.htm>