[fvc-wat-disc] I want PR

Thu Sep 1 18:07:42 EDT 2016

Dear Laurel,

"What I am talking about is what looks to be a disproportionate amount of
FVC promotion of this specific system in social media."

Do you follow the @FairVoteCanada twitter account? And our facebook page? (
www.facebook.com/FairVoteCanada). I'd like to see the disproportional
amount of promotion of RU-PR. Because I haven't noticed that at all.

I am personally sharing RU-PR a lot for the simple reason that the 2% of
people who are paying most attention to this and/or are the decision makers
considering systems have heard of MMP and STV (sometimes, over and over)
but they have never heard of the third option. But there's not exactly a
ton of us doing that!

 Oh, sure, that MP over in that city is supposed to make it proportional,
but that is not how it will look or feel to rural folk.

If you are in one of the rural single member ridings, and lets say that all
three of them in that rural area go to Party A, leaving voters for Party B
and C unrepresented, then the best runner-up in RU-PR would come from that
rural area where those voters most need them, not from the city.

Anita

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Laurel L. Russwurm <laurel.l at russwurm.org>
wrote:

> Dear Anita:
>
> Yes, I understand all the arguments for the system, Anita, my concern is
> rural voters who are already disenfranchised with a monopoly MP will
> continue to be stuck with a monopoly MP.  Oh, sure, that MP over in that
> city is supposed to make it proportional, but that is not how it will look
> or feel to rural folk.  With luck I'll be living in an urban riding that
> will benefit wildly from getting STV with MMP top ups.   This isn't about
> me, Anita.  I'm simply providing a rural perspective the system designers
> don't seem to have taken into account.  Frankly, I think DMP would be
> better because it at least frees voters from monopolies.  And yes, I am
> well aware FVC has defaulted to MMP, and have long understood the chance of
> getting the system I actually want is slim to none.  I'm not sure where
> your idea of 10 member STV rural ridings comes from; the numbers I have
> heard being bandied about for STV from FVC folk in urban areas has been
> more like 5 - 7 MPs (which I think should be 7 - 9). My goal is PR, I have
> ZERO expectation of getting my favored flavor.
>
> You've misunderstood my complaint: I don't have any problem at all with
> FVC including this or any system in its submission to the committee.
> Submitting 3 potential systems is great.  In fact I have been wondering
> when a Fair Vote witness will present.
>
> What I am talking about is what looks to be a disproportionate amount of
> FVC promotion of this specific system in social media.  BTW, even when FVC
> used MMP as the default, it was still always pushing proportional
> representation.  It wasn't me who decided to keep FVC system neutral, that
> happened long before I knew anything about PR.  And But that worked really
> well because FVC wasn't selling something, it was promoting a principle.  I
> understand its fun to talk about a new system, you all are understandably
> tired of saying the same things over and over about the same old ones.  But
> most Canadians are still new to this, and it is VERY daunting.  Which is
> why now more than ever before FVC needs to be system neutral.
>
> Regards,
> Laurel
>
>
>
> On 09/01/2016 03:09 PM, Anita Nickerson wrote:
>
> Well, today at the ERRE committee both Nathan Cullen and Alexandre
> Boulerice were mentioning Kingsley's model and how it could be made
> proportional (AKA the FVC proposal). So it's not some out in the fringes
> distracting proposal and it certainly doesn't prevent the committee from
> choosing something else.
>
> The reason it's gaining traction is that there are real challenges with
> both MMP and STV in terms of riding sizes in rural ridings and those who
> need to vote yes to get us PR. I know it's not a problem for you, Laurel,
> to live in an STV rural riding with 10 members but it's a problem for
> enough people in those areas and enough MPs that we have to be creative.
> Even making ridings 60% bigger with MMP gets major pushback in some places.
>
> Yesterday one of the MPs asked at ERRE how many MPs you'd have to add to
> get proportional results with MMP if we could just keep all the ridings the
> same and just add MPs, because in QC he said (where he pushed for MMP) one
> of the reasons the project stalled was opposition to changing boundaries.
> The answer would be about 125. To me, that is a political non-starter.
>
> There's a sense that any PR has to be tailored for Canada.
>
> RU-PR is really just MMP and STV brought together to do just that.
>
> Some people will really like RU-PR as a very proportional compromise that
> incorporates aspects of MMP and STV. Some people will not like it *because
> *it's some kind of compromise. Believe me, introducing a new model at
> this stage of the game was not even on the radar a year ago. FVC is
> responding to what we see is needed right now.
>
> For voters in the ridings that will still have a single member MP locally,
> it's really no different than MMP for you in practice. You'll have the
> local guy, and then you'll have regional MPs. Yes, there are far fewer
> top-ups than MMP, but unlike MMP they will be allocated to the part of the
> region where those voters need that representation the most. So just like
> MMP you'll have a choice of representation.
>
> It's actually more proportional for smaller parties than either the MMP or
> STV models on the table. As a Green voter, you're a lot more likely to
> elect a Green MP with this model in your region.
>
> If you listen to the ERRE committee most days it's anything to do with
> systems (with the exception of the one day they had the Irish experts) it's
> all MMP MMP MMP.
>
> For years when it came to what system all you heard from FVC was MMP MMP
> MMP.
>
> Like, "PR is a principle and has lots of options. Here's how it could work
> (describe MMP). Oh yes, that other thing is too complicated."  I did it,
> too.
>
> For the public, for communications with most people who have never thought
> about this or only marginally, we are doing what we've always done -
> focusing on 30%=30% and make every vote count.
>
> But we're at that stage where in 3 short months the committee (we hope)
> will recommend a specific system. So at this stage it is very important
> that the ERRE committee and every MP hears not just that FVC likes the
> principle of PR and considers that top priority (they know that - we push
> that hard) but what the 3 concrete options are we are bringing the table.
>
> All three models are in our submission to ERRE and we stand behind all
> three.
>
> Anita
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Jennifer Ross <2jennross at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> We are very specifically not selling our new system, Laurel.  It does
>> happen to be my favourite, but while I'm expressing a preference like
>> everyone else in FVC does, I am very sure to always say that any PR model
>> will make me happy.  I walk around with the three systems at all times and
>> never show one without the other two.
>>
>> Perhaps your favourite system is MMP, which is why you haven't been
>> bothered that for the last five years at the least, FVC has been 'selling'
>> MMP.
>>
>> Are you sure you understand RU-PR though?  Because it isn't you get AV
>> and the rest of us get representation.  It isn't that at all.  You
>> basically get MMP if you are a single member constituency (which, Kitchener
>> Conestoga very likely wouldn't be.  I actually can't see how it can be.)
>>
>> And I've already said I'm going to the New Hamburg meeting.
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Laurel L. Russwurm <laurel.l at russwurm.org
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> As long as I have been listening to FVC the mantra has been: Fair Vote
>>> does not support a single system, but the principle of
>>> ProportionalRepresentation.
>>>
>>> Now FVC has not only designed its own system.
>>>
>>> As someone who knows well what it's like to be a rural person lacking
>>> representation, I hold a great deal of personal dislike for this particular
>>> system which I see as throwing rural folk under the bus in much the same
>>> way they were in the hybrid system we had for a time in parts of western
>>> Canada did.  So I complained a bit, and  I understand urban dwellers don't
>>> get it, but rural dwellers are in a minority, so it doesn't really matter
>>> as far as getting PR goes.   That said, I understand the reason for having
>>> such a system as a choice.
>>>
>>> The problem is Fair Vote seems to be running around actively selling its
>>> new system every chance it gets.  I get that... I understand people I know
>>> and respect have been actively involved in the system's development, and
>>> that these folks are proud of the system in which they have invested so
>>> much time and energy.
>>>
>>> At any other time it wouldn't be a biggie, but at *this* time what it is
>>> doing is distracting from getting PR.
>>>
>>> The biggest single issue with getting PR is that, even though most
>>> Canadians know something is wrong (why getting rid of FPTP resonates) most
>>> people don't know what is wrong.  People don't know the jargon, something
>>> made worse by the fact there are no standards so different people use
>>> different words for the same thing or the same words for different things.
>>> You can't even have a conversation without teaching the person you are
>>> talking to what the issue is even about.
>>>
>>> Which is why I see no value (and in fact, distinct detriment) in Fair
>>> Vote adding to the confusion by pushing a specific system.  As I understand
>>> it, system vs system factions contributed to the failure of the Ontario and
>>> 2nd BC electoral reform referenda.
>>>
>>> Teaching people basic STV and MMP is plenty to start with.  Getting
>>> tangled up in the weeds isn't good.
>>>
>>> It is fine for the Committee to take submissions on systems, but the
>>> ERRE Committee has some idea of what is being talked about.
>>>
>>> By pushing a specific system, FVC stops being a lobby group for ordinary
>>> Canadians and starts being a lobby group for FVC.
>>>
>>> Much as I dislike your Rural Urban thing, I will suffer with it if it is
>>> ultimately chosen (tho it replaces Mr Dion's P3 as my own pick for worst
>>> PR).  The poiny is *this is not the time for arguing specific systems*.
>>> This is the time for educating Canadians, this is the time for arguing the
>>> need to implement PR during THIS administration.
>>>
>>> Because if we don't get PR this time, I very much doubt we will get it
>>> at all.
>>>
>>> If you still don't understand why I see pushing your Urban-Rural system
>>> as having a serious potential to derail the chance of actually getting PR ,
>>> please go watch Proportional Representation vs. Alternative Vote
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bu31U5fogzU&index=2&list=PL6
>>> 6aOelRZ1qsEgqfd2BbE1CLL7EeDTCZ7
>>>
>>> You don't have to watch the whole thing again, skip ahead to the
>>> audience questions where 2 people waylay the discussion by getting into the
>>> nitty gritty of the pet systems they developed.  Most of the audience was
>>> not remotely keen to go there (nor was the panel) and that was an audience
>>> that has some idea what is being talked about.  Even if they hadn't going
>>> in, Dennis Pilon explained it all nicely, so to start those folks would
>>> have been better off than the average Canadian who is listening and
>>> certainly confused by all this.
>>>
>>> It took me a couple of years before I understood PR well enough to talk
>>> about it; even then, it took another year before I discovered AV was the
>>> same as IRV.  (And another couple of years before I twigged to the act
>>> American electoral reformers lump IRV & STV together as Ranked Choice
>>> Voting... being able to use Cambridge's STV results to make AV city results
>>> look more diverse).
>>>
>>> Step away from your hobby horse, get out of the weeds and push for PR.
>>> There are too many people actively working to stall, delay, derail and
>>> generally make sure no meaningful electoral reform happens without Fair
>>> Vote muddying the water further.
>>>
>>> Bob tells me Fair Vote Waterloo is spending a pile of cash to bring Mr.
>>> Kingsley in.  Presumably to push his new system.  While I get that
>>> electoral reformers and political junkies may get a tingle at bringing in
>>> such a guest, frankly I doubt very much that the wider public will have a
>>> jot of interest.
>>>
>>> In light of everything else I've said above, you'll understand I might
>>> think this is not only a waste, but a detriment to what I want, which is
>>> getting PR.
>>>
>>> The worst is the fact you've scheduled this event to compete with (and
>>> this undermine) one of FVCwrc's own Public Library presentations.  I get
>>> that Waterloo Region Libraries only serve the rural population, I mean who
>>> cares about New Hamburg?  Well, I have to tell you, the New Hamburg
>>> Election Debate was the only debate where Conservative MP Harold Albrecht
>>> had to face an angry constituency.   You know, he's the only Waterloo
>>> Region MP who is NOT holding his own town hall or lifting a finger to
>>> inform his constituents.
>>>
>>> So, how many Fair Vote folk are going to go to New Hamburg to help
>>> deliver the Make Every Vote Count message when they can instead be
>>> political groupies at the Kingsley event instead?
>>>
>>> If you still don't get what I am saying, maybe this Winnipeg Free Press
>>> article will help:
>>>
>>> *Debate over electoral reform about values *
>>> http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/analysis/debate-ove
>>> r-electoral-reform-about-values-391834921.html
>>> <http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/analysis/debate-over-electoral-reform-about-values-391834921.html>
>>>
>>> I'm wondering if Fair Vote needs to figure out what it really wants.
>>>
>>> I know I want PR.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Laurel Russwurm
>>>
>>> PS: I am not looking for an argument here.  I've said my piece; Fair
>>> Vote can ignore it or not.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> This is the fvc-wat-disc mailing list
>>> Post a message: fvc-wat-disc at listserv.thinkers.org
>>> Unsubscribe: http://listserv.thinkers.org/m
>>> ailman/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_l
>> istserv.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
>
>
>
> --
> Laurel L. Russwurm, Author <http://laurel.russwurm.org/blogs/> § about.me
> <http://about.me/laurelrusswurm> § Libreleft Books <http://libreleft.com>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160901/e659823f/attachment-0002.htm>