<head></head><body data-blackberry-caret-color="#00a8df" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: initial;"><div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Well said.</div> <p style="font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.</p> <table width="100%" style="background-color:white;border-spacing:0px;"> <tbody><tr><td colspan="2" style="font-size: initial; text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> <div id="_persistentHeader" style="border-style: solid none none; border-top-color: rgb(181, 196, 223); border-top-width: 1pt; padding: 3pt 0in 0in; font-family: Tahoma, 'BB Alpha Sans', 'Slate Pro'; font-size: 10pt;"> <div><b>From: </b>Bob Jonkman</div><div><b>Sent: </b>Wednesday, June 29, 2016 5:51 PM</div><div><b>To: </b>FVC Waterloo Region Discussion</div><div><b>Reply To: </b>FVC Waterloo Region Discussion</div><div><b>Subject: </b>Re: [fvc-wat-disc] The Record column by Luisa D'Amato</div></div></td></tr></tbody></table><div style="border-style: solid none none; border-top-color: rgb(186, 188, 209); border-top-width: 1pt; font-size: initial; text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"></div><br><div id="_originalContent" style="">-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----<br>Hash: SHA1<br><br>Donald wrote:<br>> the public should be consulted on this issue<br><br>And they are being consulted. This is what our postcards are for: to<br>send our opinions to the All-party Parliamentary Committee on<br>Electoral Reform. While it may help to send another postcard to your<br>local MP and to the Minister of Democratic Institutions, I'm told they<br>just forward them to the Committee. If anyone reading hasn't sent a<br>postcard yet, pick one up at one of the festivals this summer, or let<br>the FairvoteWRC Executive know at executive@fairvotewrc.ca and we'll<br>get you one. Or several, if you have friends. You all have friends, right?<br><br>Although the public should be consulted, it's not in anyone's best<br>interest for the public to make the decision. We saw the results of<br>the four provincial referenda on electoral reform (BC held two), the<br>outcome of the fluoridation referendum that completely ignored best<br>public health care practices to the detriment of all Waterloo<br>residents, and the Brexit referendum that was decided by people with<br>no knowledge of global economics or foreign policy (I've read that<br>some people thought the "Leave" option was to make the Muslims leave<br>the UK).<br><br>The only way a referendum might work is in three parts: 1) Do we want<br>to change the current system (and that's already been decided in the<br>2015 election by the 63% of voters casting a ballot for a party<br>supporting electoral reform); 2) after extensive study and education,<br>asking which one of these voting systems (maybe STV, MMP, P3) should<br>be used; 3) after two or three election cycles asking if that system<br>should be changed (and if "yes", then start the whole process over again).<br><br>But Canada's electoral system does not allow a referendum on this<br>question[1]. There would have to be a new bill passed in parliament to<br>modify existing referendum legislation, and *that* will take months to<br>pass, never mind the time taken for the referendum itself.<br><br>Besides, Canada has a representative democracy, where we elect<br>representatives (our MPs) to study these matters and make the best<br>decision for their constituents. But that doesn't stop me from letting<br>my MP know what would be best for *this* constituent!<br><br>- --Bob.<br><br>[1]<br>http://globalnews.ca/news/2745915/reality-check-can-the-liberals-call-a-referendum-on-electoral-reform/<br><br><br><br>On 2016-06-29 04:54 PM, Donald Fraser wrote:<br>> I guess we have to get used to journals chopping our<br>> contributions. Maclean's does it all the time. However, they<br>> publish pieces of each<br>of our<br>> letters (sometimes all), so if we keep at it, we can get the whole<br>message<br>> out several times.<br>> <br>> Here's my response to D'Amato's column.<br>> <br>> I HAVEN'T SENT IT ... basically because I stated that a referendum<br>> is OK ... but ONLY if there is widespread public education ... NOT<br>> without ... (and that won't happen)<br>> <br>> See if sends the right message, and let me know.<br>> <br>> ============================<br>> <br>> Dear Editor,<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> Re: Despite Brexit, we need a referendum on electoral reform_Luisa <br>> D’Amato_June 28,2016<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> Philosophically the public should be consulted on this issue, but<br>> not without widespread public education about Proportional<br>Representation (PR).<br>> First educate the public, then hold a vote.<br>> <br>> <br>> There have been three provincial referenda on PR in Canada<br>> (British Columbia May 17, 2005, Prince Edward Island Nov 28, 2005,<br>> Ontario<br>Oct 10,<br>> 2007). All three failed, not because PR benefits were rejected but<br>because<br>> the public was not informed properly.<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> Without country-wide public education, a referendum should not be<br>> held. Rather, the decision should be left to the committee based on<br>> public<br>input,<br>> because an uniformed referendum vote will most certainly reject<br>change no<br>> matter how beneficial it may be.<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> Public education should consist of 3 parts.<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> First, the ballot should be shown. Most voters fear that voting<br>> will be confusing. A Mixed Member PR ballot consists of space to<br>> vote for<br>the local<br>> candidate as we do now and then another space to vote for the party<br>> of choice (which can differ from the party of the chosen candidate<br>> if the voter wishes) ... simple.<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> Second, voters should be encouraged by the major benefits of PR.<br>> <br>> · Every vote counts toward giving the voter's party of<br>> choice the same percentage of seats in Ottawa as the party received<br>> in national<br>vote<br>> count.<br>> <br>> · Strategic voting which can produce false majorities (a<br>majority of<br>> seats without a majority percentage of votes) becomes unnecessary.<br>> A citizen can vote for the party that most matches his/her ideals<br>> and be assured that that party will get its fair share of seats.<br>> <br>> · Parties can present their true platforms instead of having<br>> to compromise them to get elected.<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> Third, voters should be encouraged by learning the major countries<br>that use<br>> PR successfully such as Germany, Denmark, Japan, Netherlands, New<br>Zealand,<br>> Norway, Republic of Ireland, Scotland, Sweden, Wales and many<br>> more.<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> Yours Truly,<br>> <br>> Donald A Fraser,<br>> <br>> 184 Forsyth Drive,<br>> <br>> Waterloo, Ontario,<br>> <br>> N2L1A2,<br>> <br>> 519-576-9210<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> On 29 June 2016 at 09:13, Bob Jonkman <bjonkman@sobac.com> wrote:<br>> <br>> It wasn't so much upsetting as disappointing. I'm convinced Ms.<br>> D'Amato fully understands the subleties of both sides of the debate<br>> on Electoral Reform, and knows the legal requirements and<br>> restrictions on holding a referendum. But MainStreamMedia pays her<br>> salary, and she'll be restricted to writing within The Record's<br>> editorial policy. That, or her work will be edited until it does<br>> match editorial policy, something which may already have happened.<br>> <br>> But you're right, any mention for Fair Vote is beneficial. I just<br>> wish we were more media-savvy so that we could spin "Any press is<br>> good press" as well as our pro-FPTP colleagues.<br>> <br>> --Bob.<br>> <br>> <br>> On 2016-06-29 07:04 AM, Les Kadar wrote:<br>>>>> Dear Bob.<br>>>>> <br>>>>> While upsetting, at least you were quoted and FVC was<br>>>>> identified to the public as a viable entity in the process.<br>>>>> <br>>>>> What is clear to me at least, governments are not willing to<br>>>>> bite off the hands that elect them too easily by changing the<br>>>>> way the ballot can be marked. At the municipal level, all<br>>>>> clerks in the region are meeting to discuss how and what to<br>>>>> present to councillors on the topic. This recommendation will<br>>>>> surely be accepted by the majority if not all councils, but<br>>>>> may not necessarily be the best it could be in order to bring<br>>>>> proper electoral reforms to the system.<br>>>>> <br>>>>> One can change the sheets on the bed, but after a good many<br>>>>> years you also need to turn over the mattress. If you are the<br>>>>> mattress, that may not be what you want done and that is why<br>>>>> governments and their staff should NOT be allowed to<br>>>>> determine their own destiny on this topic. A rushed and<br>>>>> uneducated of the issue referendum, is but window dressing to<br>>>>> show they are trying, but the people unfortunately are not<br>>>>> willing as you pointed out, to make the changes.<br>>>>> <br>>>>> Item 3 to do with " rights " you mention below, clearly has<br>>>>> a different meaning to those already in office that make the <br>>>>> decisions than on behalf of the voters that put them there.<br>>>>> <br>>>>> <br>>>>> Thanks for efforts none the less.<br>>>>> <br>>>>> <br>>>>> Les Kadar iPad email<br>> <br>> <br>> On 2016-06-29 12:23 AM, Jennifer Ross wrote:<br>>>>> Yes, very disappointing. I couldn't believe you guys were <br>>>>> tweeting it to make people read that piece of rubbish. I'm<br>>>>> sorry you had to be the poster-boy for "but I did get a<br>>>>> second viewpoint" journalism.<br>> <br>> <br>>>>>> On Jun 28, 2016, at 4:11 PM, Bob Jonkman<br>>>>>> <bjonkman@sobac.com> wrote:<br>>>>>> <br>>>>> I get quoted in today's column by Luisa D'Amato:<br>>>>> <br>>>>> <br>> <br>http://www.therecord.com/opinion-story/6743051-d-amato-despite-brexit-we-need-a-referendum-on-electoral-reform/<br>>>>> <br>>>>> <br>>>>> <br>>>>> <br>>>>>>>> D’Amato: Despite Brexit, we need a referendum on<br>>>>>>>> electoral reform<br>>>>> <br>>>>>>>> Bob Jonkman, co-chair of the Waterloo Region chapter of<br>>>>>>>> Fair Vote Canada, says there is barely time to put a<br>>>>>>>> new system in place, let alone ask people what they<br>>>>>>>> think of it<br>>>>> <br>>>>> Ms. D'Amato and I had a 20 minute conversation yesterday and<br>>>>> that's only a brief and under-representative quote of what we<br>>>>> spoke about. Among other things, I expressed my opinion that<br>>>>> a referendum on Electoral Reform isn't necessary because:<br>>>>> <br>>>>> 1) Parliament (and provincial legislatures) may change the <br>>>>> electoral system with a vote in parliament, as they have done<br>>>>> for every other electoral reform issue such as giving the<br>>>>> vote to women (1917-1918) or First Nations people (1960!)<br>>>>> <br>>>>> 2) A referendum on electoral reform is not a constitutional <br>>>>> requirement. The only issue that affects consitutionality is<br>>>>> seat allocation to the provinces, and that requirement is<br>>>>> easily met by not extending electoral boundaries across<br>>>>> provincial lines. (We didn't discuss it, but there have been<br>>>>> many electoral boundary changes, notably before the 2015<br>>>>> election, which didn't go to a referendum and were perfectly<br>>>>> constitutional)<br>>>>> <br>>>>> 3) That an effective and equal vote is a right, and that the <br>>>>> First-Past-The-Post system violates that right, and rights<br>>>>> issues are never decided by referenda.<br>>>>> <br>>>>> I spoke of the rarity of referenda in Canada, that the only <br>>>>> national referenda have been on issues like prohibition (I<br>>>>> thought that was in the 1930's, but it was in 1898), and the<br>>>>> separation of Quebec (1992). Ms. D'Amato pointed out that we<br>>>>> had a municipal referendum on fluoridation, and pointed out<br>>>>> the many provincial referenda on electoral reform.<br>>>>> <br>>>>> We talked about the 2007 referendum in Ontario -- that<br>>>>> example is a great reason to avoid referenda on these topics.<br>>>>> Although the McGuinty Liberals made it an election promise in<br>>>>> 2003, the Citizens' Assembly wasn't formed until 2006,<br>>>>> leaving them only six months to become experts in voting<br>>>>> systems and make a recommendation. Elections Ontario did not<br>>>>> have enough information documents available; Fair Vote<br>>>>> Waterloo members went door-to-door, and we ran out. Elections<br>>>>> Ontario themselves were prohibited from giving out<br>>>>> information on the proposed voting system, and when voters<br>>>>> went to the polls in October most didn't even know there was <br>>>>> a referendum on.<br>>>>> <br>>>>> I expressed dismay that it took the Federal Liberal<br>>>>> government eight months to form the current All-party<br>>>>> Parliamentary Committee, that the Committee's proposal is due<br>>>>> on 1 December (and consultations need to wrapped up by 1<br>>>>> October), that the time it would take to move a bill through<br>>>>> parliament could be as much as year, what with debate,<br>>>>> multiple reading, and senate approval, and that Elections<br>>>>> Canada will need a year to re-tool for a new electoral<br>>>>> system.<br>>>>> <br>>>>> And that whole conversation was distilled down to the one <br>>>>> sentence.<br>>>>> <br>>>>> --Bob.<br><br><br>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----<br>Version: GnuPG v2<br>Comment: Ensure confidentiality, authenticity, non-repudiability<br><br>iEYEARECAAYFAld0QoEACgkQuRKJsNLM5eonEwCfZjRwBcZO6MRCBru/HQT0Ljan<br>iagAoOTo/kW6rc30Rhh/oskCmIbWth30<br>=PlxQ<br>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----<br><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>This is the fvc-wat-disc mailing list<br>Post a message: fvc-wat-disc@listserv.thinkers.org<br>Unsubscribe: http://listserv.thinkers.org/mailman/listinfo/fvc-wat-disc_listserv.thinkers.org<br></div></body>