[fvc-wat-disc] Fwd: Re: An Open Letter to ERRE Committee Liberals

Sun Jun 4 15:15:37 EDT 2017

The Liberals are all saying that.

They couldn't vote yes because of the referendum and it was all a political
ploy by the NDP to score partisan points.

I get that there is definitely an element of partisan motivation from the
NDP here.

Even if the motion didn't pass (always a remote hope), if they just show
the Liberals as liars, make the Liberals vote against their own promise
again and again, keep driving the electoral reform community to them as the
ones keeping this issue and broken promise narrative alive, they get
something from that in 2019.

Regardless - I'm glad they - and the Greens - continue to take this on.
They are filling a huge gap left by the Liberals.

The complaints by the Liberals that they couldn't vote yes because of a
referendum, and that it was all a partisan ploy, don't hold much water with
me considering:

a) they're responsible for this ERRE report mess to begin with

b) it's a non-binding motion that doesn't require the gov't to do *anything*,
much less all 13 things (read Parliament's Procedure book)

c) *not a single one of them has put forward another constructive idea*

Anita

On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Don Giberson <donthecoach at rogers.com>
wrote:

> Hi Everyone
>
> John Aldag's reply is partly correct; the ERRE did not actually recommend
> electoral reform or implementing PR.
>
> You can find the ERRE's list of recommendations here:
> http://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/ERRE/report-3/page-408
>
> And you can find the government's response here:
> http://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/ERRE/report-
> 3/response-8512-421-122
> (The government agreed to 8 of the 13 recommendations; the remaining 5 had
> to do with using the Gallagher Index and holding a referendum)
>
> I attended several of Nathan Cullen's Town Halls and he seemed to suggest
> that if this motion passed, it would revive electoral reform.
>
> If you read the actual recommendations the MPs were being asked to concur
> with, this was somewhat disingenuous.
>
> There are no recommendations that actually ask the government to reform
> our electoral system or adopt PR.
>
> Personally, my sense was that, by voting for this motion, Parliament would
> be saying that they support the principle of PR.
>
> But they would not be committing to making any actual changes to our
> electoral system.
>
> I worked very hard in support of Cullen's initiative because I felt
> getting Parliament to agree in principle with PR would be a significant
> step forward for our cause.
>
> But I had no illusions that it would revive electoral reform.
>
> This is the case we made to our two local (Hamilton) Liberal MPs: Filomena
> Tassi and Bob Bratina.
>
> We suggested that by voting for the motion:
> * they would be representing the wishes of a clear majority of their
> constituents (as shown by the results of the FVC polls in their ridings)
> * they would be indicating their support for PR, at least in principle
> * they would not be committing to taking any concrete action on electoral
> reform
> * this would be consistent with their campaign promise and would allow
> them to win some brownie points without compelling them to actually do
> anything
>
> And that, to me, is why the Liberals could have, and should have, voted
> for it.
>
> I believe Nathan Cullen is a true proponent of PR and electoral reform.
>
> But he had to know that passing this motion was not going to revive PR or
> electoral reform.
>
> So John Aldag may be correct that this was, at least in part, a political
> move by the NDP to score points against the Liberals.
>
> But, for the reasons mentioned above, I still feel the Liberals should
> have voted for the motion.
>
> However, they didn't and that weakens them even further.
>
> We can make the above points and also point out how a number of Liberal
> MPs knowingly voted against the express wishes of their constituents.
>
> Even those who don't care about electoral reform are likely to resent
> their MP knowingly voting against the wishes of their constituents.
>
> This shows a certain degree of arrogance and disconnect on the part of the
> Liberals; and that has always been their Achilles' Heel.
>
> And that could cost them votes and possibly seats in 2019.
>
> The results of the vote also provide fodder for our ongoing campaign for
> PR.
>
> If the motion had passed, it would have been a victory for PR.
>
> But I think the defeat of the motion, although disappointing, actually
> helps the larger ongoing campaign for PR because it draws attention back to
> the issue and reminds voters of the Liberals' broken promise.
>
> The question is where do we go from here?
>
> And that was the focus of the FVC AGM yesterday in Montreal.
>
> This was my first AGM so it was great to meet other FVC members from
> across the country and also meet some of the people I have seen taking part
> in these discussions.
>
> The newly elected National Council is meeting today to consider possible
> FVC strategies going forward.
>
> It will be interesting to see what emerges from that meeting!
>
> I expect the next two years to be a very exciting time for electoral
> reform!
>
> Blessings, Don Giberson (Hamilton)
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Laurel L. Russwurm
> Sent: Friday, June 02, 2017 10:32 PM
> To: FVC Waterloo Region Discussion
> Subject: [fvc-wat-disc] Fwd: Re: An Open Letter to ERRE Committee Liberals
>
> Dear Electoral Reformers:
>
> I was surprised to get a reply from ERRE Committee Liberal John Aldag.
> I was flabbergasted by:
>
> "I would like to take the time to point out that this motion was brought
> forward largely as a political move, and not as an action to bring forward
> any real change or point to any true reform. In saying such, if the vote
> were to go forward, it would not have led to the implementation of
> proportional representation.
>
>
> I'll probably respond next week; at this point I lack the fortitude to
> respond with civilty.  Oh, and there is no "o" in my name.
>
> Regards,
> Laurel
>
> ............................................................
> ............................................................
> .................
> Hi Ms. Russworm,
>
> Thank you for reaching out about electoral reform. I would like to clear
> up a slight misunderstanding about the Motion to Concur with the ERRE
> Committee's Majority Report, which was voted on yesterday in the House of
> Commons. I would like to take the time to point out that this motion was
> brought forward largely as a political move, and not as an action to bring
> forward any real change or point to any true reform. In saying such, if the
> vote were to go forward, it would not have led to the implementation of
> proportional representation.
>
> However, at this time I would like to share my thoughts on the matter of
> Electoral Reform and my work as a former member of the committee. In short,
> as I do personally feel some aspects of the report would be advantageous,
> there were others that my colleagues and I felt were problematic. Further,
> at this time no real consensus could be reached and our Government believes
> that to move forward with such little engagement on the issue on the part
> of the majority of Canadians at this time would be irresponsible.
>
> As a former member of the Special Committee on Electoral Reform, I had the
> opportunity to study this topic in great detail. I have released a public
> statement on the matter that I believe would be informative, and explain my
> full position on the issue. You can read this statement here:
> http://www.johnaldagmp.ca/my-work/electoral-reform-open-letter
>
> For a more complete understanding of the aforementioned report, I invite
> you to take a look at it here: http://www.ourcommons.ca/Conte
> nt/Committee/421/ERRE/Reports/RP8655791/errerp03/errerp03-e.pdf
>
>  Sincerely,
>
>  John Aldag
> ............................................................
> .....................................
>
>
> The letter I sent was published in my Whoa!Canada bloghttps://
> whoacanada.wordpress.com/2017/05/30/an-open-letter-to-erre-committee-liber
> als/
>
>
>
>  ________________________________
> ?  Laurel L. Russwurm, Author<http://laurel.russwurm.org/blogs/>  ?
> Libreleft Books<http://libreleft.com>  ?  Laurel L. Russwurm's Free
> Culture Blog<https://laurelrusswurm.wordpress.com/>  ?  Libreleft
> Pictures<https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL66aOelRZ1qt
> Z49PbicKRQC-OgAXPUhNz> ?  Whoa!Canada<https://whoacanada.wordpress.com/>
> ?  visual laurel<http://laurelrusswurm.tumblr.com/>   ?  on Flickr<
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/laurelrusswurm/albums/>  ?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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_l
> istserv.thinkers.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.thinkers.org/pipermail/fvc-wat-disc_listserv.thinkers.org/attachments/20170604/5b273567/attachment-0002.htm>