<div dir="ltr">Well, today at the ERRE committee both Nathan Cullen and Alexandre Boulerice were mentioning Kingsley's model and how it could be made proportional (AKA the FVC proposal). So it's not some out in the fringes distracting proposal and it certainly doesn't prevent the committee from choosing something else.<br><br>The reason it's gaining traction is that there are real challenges with both MMP and STV in terms of riding sizes in rural ridings and those who need to vote yes to get us PR. I know it's not a problem for you, Laurel, to live in an STV rural riding with 10 members but it's a problem for enough people in those areas and enough MPs that we have to be creative. Even making ridings 60% bigger with MMP gets major pushback in some places.<br><br>Yesterday one of the MPs asked at ERRE how many MPs you'd have to add to get proportional results with MMP if we could just keep all the ridings the same and just add MPs, because in QC he said (where he pushed for MMP) one of the reasons the project stalled was opposition to changing boundaries. The answer would be about 125. To me, that is a political non-starter.<br><br>There's a sense that any PR has to be tailored for Canada. <br><br>RU-PR is really just MMP and STV brought together to do just that.<br><br>Some people will really like RU-PR as a very proportional compromise that incorporates aspects of MMP and STV. Some people will not like it <i>because </i>it's some kind of compromise. Believe me, introducing a new model at this stage of the game was not even on the radar a year ago. FVC is responding to what we see is needed right now. <br><br>For voters in the ridings that will still have a single member MP locally, it's really no different than MMP for you in practice. You'll have the local guy, and then you'll have regional MPs. Yes, there are far fewer top-ups than MMP, but unlike MMP they will be allocated to the part of the region where those voters need that representation the most. So just like MMP you'll have a choice of representation. <br><br>It's actually more proportional for smaller parties than either the MMP or STV models on the table. As a Green voter, you're a lot more likely to elect a Green MP with this model in your region. <br><div><br></div><div>If you listen to the ERRE committee most days it's anything to do with systems (with the exception of the one day they had the Irish experts) it's all MMP MMP MMP.<br><br>For years when it came to what system all you heard from FVC was MMP MMP MMP. </div><div><br></div><div>Like, "PR is a principle and has lots of options. Here's how it could work (describe MMP). Oh yes, that other thing is too complicated." I did it, too.<br><br>For the public, for communications with most people who have never thought about this or only marginally, we are doing what we've always done - focusing on 30%=30% and make every vote count. <br><br>But we're at that stage where in 3 short months the committee (we hope) will recommend a specific system. So at this stage it is very important that the ERRE committee and every MP hears not just that FVC likes the principle of PR and considers that top priority (they know that - we push that hard) but what the 3 concrete options are we are bringing the table. <br><br>All three models are in our submission to ERRE and we stand behind all three. <br><br>Anita<br><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Jennifer Ross <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:2jennross@gmail.com" target="_blank">2jennross@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><div><div>We are very specifically not selling our new system, Laurel. It does happen to be my favourite, but while I'm expressing a preference like everyone else in FVC does, I am very sure to always say that any PR model will make me happy. I walk around with the three systems at all times and never show one without the other two.<br><br></div>Perhaps your favourite system is MMP, which is why you haven't been bothered that for the last five years at the least, FVC has been 'selling' MMP. <br><br></div>Are you sure you understand RU-PR though? Because it isn't you get AV and the rest of us get representation. It isn't that at all. You basically get MMP if you are a single member constituency (which, Kitchener Conestoga very likely wouldn't be. I actually can't see how it can be.)<br><br></div>And I've already said I'm going to the New Hamburg meeting.<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div class="h5">On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Laurel L. Russwurm <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:laurel.l@russwurm.org" target="_blank">laurel.l@russwurm.org</a>></span> wrote:<br></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div class="h5">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div>As long as I have been listening to FVC
the mantra has been: Fair Vote does not support a single system,
but the principle of ProportionalRepresentation.<br>
<br>
Now FVC has not only designed its own system.<br>
<br>
As someone who knows well what it's like to be a rural person
lacking representation, I hold a great deal of personal dislike
for this particular system which I see as throwing rural folk
under the bus in much the same way they were in the hybrid system
we had for a time in parts of western Canada did. So I complained
a bit, and I understand urban dwellers don't get it, but rural
dwellers are in a minority, so it doesn't really matter as far as
getting PR goes. That said, I understand the reason for having
such a system as a choice. <br>
<br>
The problem is Fair Vote seems to be running around actively
selling its new system every chance it gets. I get that... I
understand people I know and respect have been actively involved
in the system's development, and that these folks are proud of the
system in which they have invested so much time and energy. <br>
<br>
At any other time it wouldn't be a biggie, but at *this* time what
it is doing is distracting from getting PR.<br>
<br>
The biggest single issue with getting PR is that, even though most
Canadians know something is wrong (why getting rid of FPTP
resonates) most people don't know what is wrong. People don't
know the jargon, something made worse by the fact there are no
standards so different people use different words for the same
thing or the same words for different things. You can't even have
a conversation without teaching the person you are talking to what
the issue is even about.<br>
<br>
Which is why I see no value (and in fact, distinct detriment) in
Fair Vote adding to the confusion by pushing a specific system.
As I understand it, system vs system factions contributed to the
failure of the Ontario and 2nd BC electoral reform referenda. <br>
<br>
Teaching people basic STV and MMP is plenty to start with.
Getting tangled up in the weeds isn't good.<br>
<br>
It is fine for the Committee to take submissions on systems, but
the ERRE Committee has some idea of what is being talked about. <br>
<br>
By pushing a specific system, FVC stops being a lobby group for
ordinary Canadians and starts being a lobby group for FVC.<br>
<br>
Much as I dislike your Rural Urban thing, I will suffer with it if
it is ultimately chosen (tho it replaces Mr Dion's P3 as my own
pick for worst PR). The poiny is <b>this is not the time for
arguing specific systems</b>. This is the time for educating
Canadians, this is the time for arguing the need to implement PR
during THIS administration.<br>
<br>
Because if we don't get PR this time, I very much doubt we will
get it at all. <br>
<br>
If you still don't understand why I see pushing your Urban-Rural
system as having a serious potential to derail the chance of
actually getting PR , please go watch
<h1 style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:normal;font-size:20px;vertical-align:top;width:618px;line-height:normal;word-wrap:break-word;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Roboto,arial,sans-serif;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background:rgb(255,255,255)"><span dir="ltr" title="Proportional
Representation vs. Alternative Vote" style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-size:20px;background:transparent">Proportional Representation vs. Alternative Vote<br>
</span></h1>
<br>
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bu31U5fogzU&index=2&list=PL66aOelRZ1qsEgqfd2BbE1CLL7EeDTCZ7" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?<wbr>v=bu31U5fogzU&index=2&list=PL6<wbr>6aOelRZ1qsEgqfd2BbE1CLL7EeDTCZ<wbr>7</a><br>
<br>
You don't have to watch the whole thing again, skip ahead to the
audience questions where 2 people waylay the discussion by getting
into the nitty gritty of the pet systems they developed. Most of
the audience was not remotely keen to go there (nor was the panel)
and that was an audience that has some idea what is being talked
about. Even if they hadn't going in, Dennis Pilon explained it
all nicely, so to start those folks would have been better off
than the average Canadian who is listening and certainly confused
by all this. <br>
<br>
It took me a couple of years before I understood PR well enough to
talk about it; even then, it took another year before I discovered
AV was the same as IRV. (And another couple of years before I
twigged to the act American electoral reformers lump IRV & STV
together as Ranked Choice Voting... being able to use Cambridge's
STV results to make AV city results look more diverse). <br>
<br>
Step away from your hobby horse, get out of the weeds and push for
PR. There are too many people actively working to stall, delay,
derail and generally make sure no meaningful electoral reform
happens without Fair Vote muddying the water further. <br>
<br>
Bob tells me Fair Vote Waterloo is spending a pile of cash to
bring Mr. Kingsley in. Presumably to push his new system. While
I get that electoral reformers and political junkies may get a
tingle at bringing in such a guest, frankly I doubt very much that
the wider public will have a jot of interest. <br>
<br>
In light of everything else I've said above, you'll understand I
might think this is not only a waste, but a detriment to what I
want, which is getting PR.<br>
<br>
The worst is the fact you've scheduled this event to compete with
(and this undermine) one of FVCwrc's own Public Library
presentations. I get that Waterloo Region Libraries only serve
the rural population, I mean who cares about New Hamburg? Well, I
have to tell you, the New Hamburg Election Debate was the only
debate where Conservative MP Harold Albrecht had to face an angry
constituency. You know, he's the only Waterloo Region MP who is
NOT holding his own town hall or lifting a finger to inform his
constituents. <br>
<br>
So, how many Fair Vote folk are going to go to New Hamburg to help
deliver the Make Every Vote Count message when they can instead be
political groupies at the Kingsley event instead? <br>
<br>
If you still don't get what I am saying, maybe this Winnipeg Free
Press article will help:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/analysis/debate-over-electoral-reform-about-values-391834921.html" target="_blank"><b>Debate
over electoral reform about values </b><br>
http://www.winnipegfreepress.c<wbr>om/opinion/analysis/debate-ove<wbr>r-electoral-reform-about-value<wbr>s-391834921.html</a><br>
<br>
I'm wondering if Fair Vote needs to figure out what it really
wants.<br>
<br>
I know I want PR. <br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Laurel Russwurm<br>
<br>
PS: I am not looking for an argument here. I've said my piece;
Fair Vote can ignore it or not.</div>
</div>
<br></div></div>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
This is the fvc-wat-disc mailing list<br>
Post a message: <a href="mailto:fvc-wat-disc@listserv.thinkers.org" target="_blank">fvc-wat-disc@listserv.thinkers<wbr>.org</a><br>
Unsubscribe: <a href="http://listserv.thinkers.org/mailman/listinfo/fvc-wat-disc_listserv.thinkers.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listserv.thinkers.org/m<wbr>ailman/listinfo/fvc-wat-disc_l<wbr>istserv.thinkers.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:10px;background-color:transparent;font-style:normal"><span><font color="#888888"><font size="1"><span style="font-family:tahoma,new york,times,serif"><span style="line-height:10.909090995788574px">No other Western democratic country concentrates as much political power </span></span></font><font size="1"><span style="font-family:tahoma,new york,times,serif"><span style="line-height:10.909090995788574px">in the hands of one person as Canada does with her Prime Minister. </span></span></font></font></span></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
</font></span></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
This is the fvc-wat-disc mailing list<br>
Post a message: <a href="mailto:fvc-wat-disc@listserv.thinkers.org">fvc-wat-disc@listserv.<wbr>thinkers.org</a><br>
Unsubscribe: <a href="http://listserv.thinkers.org/mailman/listinfo/fvc-wat-disc_listserv.thinkers.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listserv.thinkers.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/fvc-wat-disc_<wbr>listserv.thinkers.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>