[fvc-wat-disc] Multi-cultural festival thoughts - part 2 - the parties

[Jay Judkowitz]

Thanks, Sharon for all the context as well!

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 8:08 PM, Sharon Sommerville <
sharonsommerville at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Jay,
>
> Thanks for this overview of your political discussions.
>
> On Brenden perspectives; the LPC ran on a vague picture of electoral
> reform because it suited them as a means of attracting progressive voters,
> the party didn't think they would be in a position to actually have to
> implement any electoral reform measures but once they won a majority, they
> put the campaign promise in the throne speech.... that is a big deal... it
> commits the government to action.  Then they stalled, operated in a
> leadership vacuum,  set up the committee late and with the hope it
> wouldn't/couldn't produce a majority report but through the miracle of
> politics it did.  If the party had run on an platform of AV, they wouldn't
> have won a majority.  They knew they couldn't run on AV as it isn't
> credible. Thirteen reports, commissions, studies and citizen's assemblies
> currently sitting on the shelves in the Library of Parliament have all
> recommended PR so run on something fuzzy that we won't need to deal with
> anyway seemed to be safe. Had they tired to run on AV, the media and the
> other parties would have had a mud fest .... better to wait and see what
> happens, perhaps we can maneuver this our way after all.
>
> It is very true that the Liberal caucus was all over the place.  However
> had their been an leadership on this file, it didn't need to be about
> herding cats. Without any leadership, the cats were all over the place. The
> issue as I see it is that Trudeau was devious & conniving and should be
> held accountable at the ballot box in 2019.
>
> On Stephen, it is neat getting to talk with legislators, new and old.  One
> of the great things about living in a smaller country.  We have been
> talking with Stephen for years.  He is unwilling to understand that this
> issue is not about the relationship between MPs and parties, it is about
> representation; fair and equal representation in Parliament for all Cdns.
> regardless of where they live (your point and well taken) or for whom they
> vote.  This problem just doesn't seem to register for Stephen.
>
> I agree that the CPC's real concern is about having to share power.  It is
> the same for the LPC, each party knows the rules of the game: your turn, my
> turn, your turn, my turn.  They are willing to sit it out for 2 or so
> election cycles to gain total power when their turn comes round which it
> will, eventually and they both know it.  Why would anyone really want to
> change the rules when it benefits them so very well.
> Except in the case of Trudeau wishing to advance AV which will benefit the
> LPC.
>
> The NDP talk a great talk but many, many NDP provincial governments have
> come and gone with nary another look at electoral reform.  Our best hope is
> a minority government in 2019 and the evolving situation in BC.
>
> Great work, Jay.  It is very helpful that Liberals and Stephen hear about
> PR and the issue of electoral reform from more than the usual suspects.
> Thank you for taking that on.
>
> Cheers,
> S.
>
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 12:40 AM, Jay Judkowitz <judkowitz at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> *** Please don't forward this mail around.  I don't want to embarrass any
>> of the people who were kind enough to speak with me, nor do I want to take
>> on the responsibility of being their spokespeople outside this group  ***
>>
>>      Second of two messages on the weekend.  After our booth, I went and
>> bothered three of the parties.  Here were the conversation results.  All
>> pretty interesting.  And, I'm sorry this mail is so darn long.
>>
>> *Liberals*:
>>
>>    - Spoke with president of the riding association, Brenden Sherratt
>>    - He said that electoral reform was important to him personally and
>>    that he was working it from the inside.  He encouraged me to join the party
>>    if I wanted to help :-)
>>    - I shared my oft repeated concern that Canada's Trump, if he/she
>>    ever comes, will come because of lack of PR.  Brenden saw the point and
>>    seemed to share some of that concern.  If 39% of votes get you 100% of the
>>    power, what happens when it's the wrong 39%?
>>    - I asked when he thought the Liberals would take up the mantle and
>>    slipped and sarcastically added, "... after the conservatives win again?".
>>    Brenden was not that amused but another volunteer laughed pretty loud.  The
>>    rest of the conversation, I was much better behaved...
>>    - Brendan confided that he wished that the Liberals had run on "AV"
>>    and not "electoral reform".  The broader promise got lots of folks (like
>>    us) excited and won them more votes, but the more narrow promise would have
>>    been more honest and, if the Liberals were elected anyway, they could have
>>    claimed a mandate and just done AV without any studies like ERRE.
>>    - So, in Brendan's world, breaking the promise was a good thing.
>>    With over 50% of the seats, the Liberals could have pushed AV through.
>>    They did not push AV because ERRE was solidly against it and they did not
>>    push PR because the Liberals themselves were against it.  He felt they
>>    should only push something if there was a real mandate for it.  He's sort
>>    of right on this, actually - Trudeau did show some restraint by calling for
>>    the report and not just cramming AV down the country's throat.  It was nice
>>    having another perspective to humanize the Liberal leadership and not just
>>    looking at them as cynical promise breakers.
>>    - In the end, Brenden was really encouraging.  He said that we should
>>    keep doing what we're doing.  The more minds we change at the grass roots
>>    level, the more the change becomes inevitable.
>>
>> *NDP:*
>>
>>    - Spoke with Laura Mae Lindo, the new MPP candidate for Kitchener
>>    Centre
>>    - I told her that I understood that the NDP was for PR but that I was
>>    disappointed in their performance on the May vote.  Only Nathan Cullen
>>    seemed really invested in this.  What I would have hoped to see was a joint
>>    press conference of all the leadership candidates saying how united they
>>    were in PR and what an important vote it was.  Even if it did not change
>>    the result, it would have shone a spotlight on the matter.  She thought
>>    that was an interesting idea and wrote it down as something to share up the
>>    ladder even though it was too late for this time.
>>    - I asked her when PR would be in the NDP platform.  She thought it
>>    already was.  But, she admitted that she was just appointed as the local
>>    MPP candidate and the handbook with the official NDP positions was still in
>>    the mail.
>>    - I asked her which NDP leadership candidate was going to be the
>>    strongest supporter and she said that Niki Ashton had some things to say
>>    for PR recently.
>>    - Long story short, it seems that PR is not a really big, urgent,
>>    high priority item for the local NDP right now.  My guess is that they are
>>    concerned with more short term achievable policy objectives.
>>
>> *Conservative:*
>>
>>    - I grabbed a random guy at the very lonely Conservative booth.  It
>>    happened to be ex-MP, Stephen Woodworth, which was pretty cool for me.  In
>>    the US, you don't just run into federal legislators, current or past.
>>    - I asked the party's position and he said they were for a referendum
>>    and if it won, they would dutifully implement it.
>>    - But, without being asked, he offered that he was against PR
>>    himself.  His position is that PR solves the wrong problem.  Being a right
>>    of center person, he's all about the individual and his big problem is that
>>    individual MPs have their arms twisted to vote with the party and that if
>>    MPs had independence, they would represent their constituents better
>>    regardless of party.  He feels that PR forces people to think about party
>>    as if all people in the party are one in the same.  He wants elections of
>>    people and not parties.
>>    - Personally, I found his opinion naive in today's world of
>>    centralized opinion making, but it does speak to my own ideals.  It took me
>>    years to get converted to PR because of this ideal specifically.  I do
>>    wonder if there is a broader non-partisan good governance movement here -
>>    one that could encompass both party fairness and individual agency in MPs.
>>    One would think that MP candidates of all parties would like some more
>>    freedom to vote their consciences and their constituents interests.  Maybe
>>    there is a way to work with some Conservatives on this.
>>    - He had arguments for everything I had to say except on the point
>>    about Greens not getting any seats with 1 million votes but the Bloc
>>    getting 49 seats with 1.3 million votes.  I asked why an interest should be
>>    punished for being diffuse rather than concentrated.  He changed the
>>    subject rather than admit to this problem.  So, this is a powerful argument
>>    that maybe we should invoke more.  Instead of the specter of party power,
>>    we can talk about national interests and making sure all the interests are
>>    represented in proportion to their adherents regardless of how closely
>>    together or far away they live.
>>    - The argument he gave that really upset me and that I defeated
>>    handily by bringing up the Federalist Papers (of all things) was the one of
>>    accountability.  He feels that a party that comes to power with >50% of the
>>    seats is accountable for their promises (and he loves bringing up Trudeau's
>>    broken promises).  But, if you have multiple minority parties you get
>>    horsetrading and compromise (as if that's a bad thing!?!) that leads to
>>    unpredictability and an unaccountable legislature.  Besides being silly
>>    (politics without compromise?) it undercuts his point from before that MPs
>>    should be independent.  Majority parties only have the accountability he
>>    talks about if the MPs vote in lockstep.
>>    - So, either way, I found him to be a bit disingenuous.  Either his
>>    reasoning for being anti-PR is MP independence or party accountability.  It
>>    can't be both.  The cynic in me says that Conservatives are against it
>>    because they are the #2 size party and can only win power with a "3rd party
>>    spoiler".  The would rather have complete control every now and then rather
>>    than being a large minority isolated right of the center 100% of the time.
>>    - That said, like I said before, maybe there is a non-partisan good
>>    governance angle we could work to find common ground with the personal
>>    accountability people from the Conservative party.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Jay
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.thinkers.org/pipermail/fvc-wat-disc_listserv.thinkers.org/attachments/20170628/4f354b74/attachment-0002.htm>