[fvc-wat-disc] Arguing for PR
Bob Jonkman
bjonkman at sobac.com
Sat May 6 19:33:40 EDT 2017
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Actually, Alternative Vote (AV) doesn't create Proportinal
Representation (PR) for anyone, whether there are parties or not. AV
is a winner-take-all system, and so it's OK for electing the Mayor
where you want only one winner. But choosing multiple Councillors with
AV when there's only one Councillor elected in a ward just entrenches
the winner-take-all aspect, and leaves many people with no
representation.
Instead, municipalities can combine wards so that multiple Councillors
are elected with a ranked ballot. This would be a form of STV. Doesn't
require more Councillors, doesn't require much redistricting, and
vastly improves representation for all voters, whether there are
parties or not -- you'll get a proportional representation of
Councillors who support LRT, and those who reject LRT. You'll get a
proportional representation of Councillors who favour protected bike
lanes, and those who believe roads are for cars. You'll get better
proportionality amongst Councillors in gender diversity, cultural
affinity, and religious orientation, even when those things aren't
explicitly labelled on the ballot.
AV doesn't make sense for any election where multiple positions are
elected.
- --Bob.
On 2017-05-06 05:06 PM, Dave Arthur wrote:
> FVC doesn’t support AV for good reason. It doesn’t create PR for
> political parties and therefore views of all voters. City councils
> are typically not party-based. AV makes sense for non-party based
> elections in that it ensures the winner collects over 50% support
> when second and third place votes are added in. Dave
>
> From: Anita Nickerson Sent: Saturday, May 6, 2017 4:23 PM To: FVC
> Waterloo Region Discussion Subject: Re: [fvc-wat-disc] Arguing for
> PR
>
> Kitchener and Waterloo city councils both voted no to AV - in Oct
> and in Feb.
>
> FVC doesn't support AV anyway.
>
> But we have some regional at-large seats that could use STV.
> Matthew Piggot and I met with a Kitchener or Waterloo city
> councillor (sorry, municipal is not my thing, I forget which one -
> ask Matthew) and she explained that to get STV for those seats,
> we'd have to campaign and convince EVERY city council in our local
> elections to go ranked ballot (AV - which two have already
> rejected) for the regional seats to come along for the ride,
> because it's all on the same ballot and she can't see how we could
> have FPTP for part of the vote and ranked for others. She
> reiterated this to me on facebook again the other day. It doesn't
> make sense to me why you can't have two voting systems on one
> ballot but anyway, I get the logic and think she's right.
>
> I think someone will soon start 123WaterlooRegion outside of FVC.
>
> I'm happy to stay out of that one.
>
> Anita
>
> On Sat, May 6, 2017 at 11:54 AM, Jay Judkowitz
> <judkowitz at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks everyone for all the insights. Glad I'm not thinking
> outlandish thoughts. I hope I can contribute in some way.
>
> As a side note, In Marwan's long and dismissive email, he suggested
> working locally instead of nationally. Seems defeatist to me, but
> there might be something to working locally in addition to
> nationally. Have we gotten any indications how Kitchener,
> Waterloo, and Cambridge govenments think about voting reform?
> London recently just chose ranked choice which is a nice first
> step.
>
> On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Donald Fraser
> <donaldafraser at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Welcome, Jay ... glad to have another warrior ... cheers, Don
>
> On 1 May 2017 at 14:25, <cdcampbell9 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It would be most credible coming from an expert who (as far as I
> know) has not sought public office, like Professor Byron Becker.
> Bob Jonkman would be construed to have ulterior, sneaky political
> motives. Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
>
> From: cdcampbell9 at gmail.com Sent: Monday, May 1, 2017 2:07 PM To:
> fvc-wat-disc at listserv.thinkers.org; Jennifer Ross; FVC Waterloo
> Region Discussion Subject: Re: [fvc-wat-disc] Arguing for PR
>
>
> At the Sunday afternoon meeting at St John's Kitchen, I said I
> thought that Bardish thinks PR will make it harder for minority
> ethnic and religious groups to win nominations and ridings. Bob
> said it would make it easier. I replied, someone should tell that
> to , Raj, Marwan and her. Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
>
> From: Dave Arthur Sent: Monday, May 1, 2017 1:31 PM To: Jennifer
> Ross; FVC Waterloo Region Discussion Reply To: FVC Waterloo Region
> Discussion Subject: Re: [fvc-wat-disc] Arguing for PR
>
>
> Hi Jay and everyone. We’re still hopeful that the campaigning and
> letter-writing will sway enough Liberal MPs to vote to go with the
> ERRE recommendations at the end of May. It’s a long shot. I have to
> believe most will vote the party line and with Justin’s decision. I
> think we all believe the Liberal promise was based on their vision
> that the change would be to alternative vote/ranked ballot that
> would give them, the centrist party, a huge advantage. When that
> was rejected by ERRE witnesses and town hall meetings as obviously
> self-serving, they looked for any way to avoid electoral reform.
> Despite the fact that there was clear consensus for PR from
> witnesses and Canadians who made themselves informed and attended
> the meetings, the Liberals used the unfortunate fact that many
> Canadians were not interested, were uninformed, or preferred our
> unfair system that gave their Liberal or Conservative parties an
> advantage, to claim there was no consensus. There is a reason
> Canada ranks low for voter turnout and for low percentage of women
> in parliament (although it is showing some improvement). Many of us
> have met with our local MPs. I’ve met with Bardish twice and been
> very disappointed with her style of engagement. Chantal Hebert’s
> recent column in The Star hit it pretty well when she said Bardish
> has perfected the art of giving unhelpful answers with a smile. The
> responses to my presentation to her were defensive, completely
> irrelevant and factually inaccurate. When I mentioned that 90% of
> EU and OECD countries use PR, she said “We shouldn’t change our
> system just because someone else does”. When I mentioned that the
> Ontario Citizens’ Assembly recommended MMP in the Ontario
> referendum ten years ago that lost, she said it was because “the
> voices against the change did a better job than the voices for”.
> This in spite of the fact that polls at the time showed 50% of
> Ontarians didn’t know what the referendum was about and 70% didn’t
> know what MMP was. This was in part due to the McGuinty
> government’s total failure in publicizing the issue or educating
> Ontarians. When I explained my great disappointment that they broke
> their promise and that, unless they demonstrate continuation of
> working toward reforming our voting system, I will not vote Liberal
> or campaign as I did with Leadnow in the last election, she said
> “Is that a threat?” It’s difficult committing to one party. The
> Conservatives are no longer “progressive”. The Liberals have not
> yet delivered. The Chretien Liberals signed onto the Earth Summit’s
> Kyoto Protocol in 1992 and then for 14 years did absolutely
> nothing. It’s interesting that some years ago the Sierra Club under
> Elizabeth May named Brian Mulroney Canada’s most environmental PM
> following the international and successful Montreal Protocol
> banning CFCs. With PR I believe Green support would jump
> considerably from the almost 10% support they received in 2008
> (which under FPTP won zero seats). Anyway, let’s keep doing what we
> can to move electoral reform along. Dave A
>
>
> From: Anita Nickerson Sent: Monday, May 1, 2017 12:19 AM To:
> Jennifer Ross ; FVC Waterloo Region Discussion Subject: Re:
> [fvc-wat-disc] Arguing for PR
>
> Hi Jay! Please do keep engaging with your MP and ask other people
> to do the same thing. On May 31 they can be heroes but to say they
> need a bit of a push is an understatement.
>
>
> People are doing the opposite of walking away, I mean to say.
>
>
>
> After Harper won his majority, that day in 2011 - everyone knowing
> that basically for four years there was no hope of anything
> happening - we had thousands of emails to FVC with people wanting
> to get involved. When something's unfair, when parties abuse their
> power, it makes people realize something's seriously wrong.
>
>
> One thing with the election promise and then the ERRE consultations
> is the government gave all our folks REAL HOPE - first they
> promised - and many PR supporters voted or campaigned for them -
> then they told us to show up here and here and here and we'll
> listen to you, all the while Trudeau repeating they were
> committed.
>
> People invested their time in this in good faith. When you invest
> your time in something, you get to care about it a bit more. People
> showed up at the town hall, the ERRE consultation, the Minister's
> tour. They wrote letters, they send long submissions to the ERRE
> committee on what they wanted and why and talked about isn't it
> great that you are doing this because they were told over and over
> that their feedback mattered.
>
>
> If the Liberals had just quietly walked away from their promise on
> October 20, 2015, as most people expected them to do, as most
> governments with a 39% majority would do, we wouldn't see what Jenn
> is talking about now.
>
>
> But because Trudeau kept the game going so long and with such
> intensity, a core of people really got personally involved so when
> Trudeau suddenly pulled the plug he fired up a community that is
> now somewhere between disgusted and furious at being used and lied
> to.
>
>
> A community with a long memory.
>
>
> Anita
>
> On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 11:55 PM, Jennifer Ross
> <2jennross at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi, Jay. Welcome to the movement (and the country!)
>
>
> I am a Liberal. I have tried each of those arguments many times;
> they sure make sense to me, and they made some sense to my Liberal
> friends prior to around October of 2016. After all, Sharon and I
> only wrote the "important" part of Resolution 31 (the policy that
> brought about the election platform on Electoral Reform); we
> couldn't have passed it through the policy gauntlet by ourselves
> and without buy-in from the membership, and particularly from the
> caucus.
>
>
> But, in a telling reason why we need PR to end hyper-partisanship,
> most Liberal rank and file no longer want to hear it, and Liberal
> MPs will "engage" with you without actually paying any attention to
> you. In fact, Francis Scarpaleggia actually said, out loud and
> during a press conference "platform promises are just a way to
> engage with Canadians." That's not what I was doing when I was
> helping our Liberals win government, I can assure you! I was
> highlighting the promise.
>
> Oh, and non-engagement of Canadian citizenry translates to they
> don't want to change the voting system, not that they are so
> non-engaged they don't even know other options are available. Or
> an understanding of what we have now for that matter. Or they
> don't feel they know enough about the options that they should
> weigh in on the decision-making (which I think is the majority).
>
>
> Maybe hearing about it from someone new will be helpful,
> particularly if you have some lived experience or a different
> perspective to inform your conclusions. Telling the story as to
> why you've come to believe it, as it were.
>
>
> But, we don't give up because I'm the Treasurer of Fair Vote
> Canada, and am right now going through our membership list for
> reasons that aren't important to the discussion. And I am totally
> blown away by the number of members whose membership had lapsed and
> they renewed after December 1st (when the Report of the ERRE came
> down) and the new members who signed up after February 1st (when
> Justin Trudeau pulled the plug on electoral reform). People are
> doing the opposite of walking away, I mean to say.
>
>
> We even have two members who DIED and whose family is still paying
> their membership dues. That is how important this issue is to
> some. So for those dear friends as well as everyone still fighting
> for the cause, please do all of it. :)
>
>
> The Record is good and we get our fair share of letters these days,
> I think. Even better are the Township papers who actually support
> PR (which you'd think would be the other way around but there we
> are). But you need to be a rural person to be published by them, I
> think. Then there's the Waterloo Chronicle and the Kitchener Post,
> which we don't tend to concentrate on so they may be ripe for the
> picking. We do have a letter writing group and I hope someone else
> tells you more about that.
>
>
> Where are you from? Because if there is a diaspora in the Region
> also from that country or region, it would be most valuable to
> connect with them and offer a PR 101 course for Canada (don't
> worry, we have people who are experts to do it).
>
>
> Thanks so much for stepping on board!
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 11:17 PM, Jay Judkowitz
> <judkowitz at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Fairvote folks,
>
> As someone new to the area and the country, I am wondering what the
> best way is to argue the case for PR and where we should be arguing
> it.
>
> I have mailed my MP, Mr. Tabbara, and received a long form letter
> in return that I'm sure most of you have seen (they did not even
> put my name on it and called me "Diana"). I replied to his mail,
> but am not anticipating a personalized engagement.
>
> Letters to the editor can get some visibility. What publications
> would you suggest I write to?
>
> What about opposing organizations? Is there any group in
> particular who it would be worthwhile to engage with to try and
> change their mind through open and honest discourse?
>
> As for arguments that would work and would not work, I am trying to
> put myself in the position of the Liberals since the Liberals are
> the ones with the power to make or break PR right now. And, in
> that mindset, there are three arguments that make sense to me. 1..
> Liberals have complete power now which is great, but it was only a
> short time ago when they had no power. Conservatives ruled for 10
> years while they waited. Wouldn't they want some say all the time
> rather than no say for a decade at a time. 2.. PR is a huge benefit
> to the party in the middle of a system with 3 relatively popular
> parties. Even when they can not just dictate policy, they can
> partner to the left or the right to make policy on any given issue.
> It would seem that PR would benefit them the most of any party in
> the long term. 3.. It's scary to let a party with 39% of the vote
> get 100% of the power. Imagine a situation like the US. Let's say
> 15% of Canadians (and I'm just making up that number) are really
> fed up with things and vehemently support a right wing demagogue
> like Trump and that demagogue manages to become the Conservative
> Party leader. Let's say at the same time the Liberals and/or NDP
> falter due to scandal, a bad candidate, an economic downturn, a
> terrorist attack, etc... In that situation, it's not hard to
> imagine another 24% of Canadians holding their nose and voting for
> the Conservatives led by that demagogue. They hit the 39% of the
> votes, get the 51% of the seats and 100% of the power. This does
> not seem like a likely event for any given election, but seems to
> be a certainty to happen eventually (based on the math and
> probability, not based on any notion I have of Canadian
> preferences). Wouldn't the Liberals want to do anything to
> prevent this sort of scenario from being even possible? I know the
> counter argument to this is that the right wing radicals would
> always be represented in a PR scenario, but I'd rather that they
> always have small representation and continually expose themselves
> than that they can lie in wait and eventually win a stunning
> victory like what happened in the US in November. Please let me
> know your thoughts on (a) where we should be making the case and
> (b) your thoughts on the case I'm making.
>
> 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_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
>
>
>
> Virus-free. www.avast.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
>
> _______________________________________________ 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
_______________________________________________
> 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 email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
> software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ 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
>
>
- --
Bob Jonkman <bjonkman at sobac.com> Phone: +1-519-635-9413
SOBAC Microcomputer Services http://sobac.com/sobac/
Software --- Office & Business Automation --- Consulting
GnuPG Fngrprnt:04F7 742B 8F54 C40A E115 26C2 B912 89B0 D2CC E5EA
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
Comment: Ensure confidentiality, authenticity, non-repudiability
iEYEARECAAYFAlkOXUUACgkQuRKJsNLM5erVSwCffBa17clH7H0A3h6JiFlFhxBo
sg0AoOWeI1sZjYuKaK+QeZJ8ZEMWSFmd
=F8k8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the fvc-wat-disc
mailing list