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

[Jay Judkowitz]

I'd work on provincial if that gives us a chance to move forward.  Federal
is clearly stalled for now.

On Jun 28, 2017 2:13 PM, "Anita Nickerson" <anitann88 at gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't know how interested folks are in provincial PR with the ON
> election coming up next year.
>
> From what I gather Horwath is not very interested in PR and there is no
> leadership on this coming from the ON NDP again. They just had a policy
> convention which produced a 40 page document heading into the next election
> that has zero mention of PR.
>
> The obviously explanation, unrelated to what the leader thinks (which, as
> we know, is important) is that the NDP thinks the ON Liberals are toast and
> they might get their own false majority.
>
> We saw this with the BC NDP in 2013 - after helping defeat PR-STV in 2005
> and 2009 while saying they support PR (just not *that *PR), PR was
> nowhere to be found in their 2013 platform with polls showing they were
> headed for a false majority. (Ditto to the Alberta NDP, who removed PR from
> their platform a month before the election).
>
> *With the ON Liberals polling so low, the recent prominence of this issue
> with the broken promise, the strong leadership example by the federal NDP
> on it, so many FVC supporters in Ontario, and the BC NDP showing they are
> willing to do something now, this is the perfect time for the ON NDP to put
> PR front and centre*.
>
> They may be in a position next year to negotiate on it, and the ON
> Liberals may be more open than in past.
>
> Note the ON Liberals at least gave municipalities the ability to use
> PR-STV if their politicians want it (which the BC NDP will not agree to so
> far).
>
> More importantly, the ON Libs are* actively courting progressive voters*
> with versions of basic income, free tuition and pharmacare.
>
> I think if the ON NDP came roaring out the gate with a PR platform, we'd
> see a miraculous interest from the ON Liberals in some kind of committee
> and more public discussion of the issue :). That helps us at the federal
> level, too!
>
>      Laura Mae seemed very genuine also, but definitely new.  Seems like a
> good idea to make contact and see if we can nurture that relationship.
>
> I mentioned this to Laura Mae, who yes, seems very nice but very new! She
> said that about four people had come to her table and brought up PR (GREAT
> WORK FVC WATERLOO TEAM!!). And she said she heard quite a few people
> talking about PR at the ON NDP convention.
>
> Since she wants to build support she's quite motivated to meet people
> right now, so it might be worth meeting with her as a group to see if
> she'll become an advocate.
>
> Anita
>
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Jay Judkowitz <judkowitz at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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/m
>>>> ailman/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/m
>>> ailman/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_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/20170629/d4dad5ea/attachment-0002.htm>