<div dir="ltr"><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><font color="#000000">Dear Laurel,</font></span></div><div><font color="#990000"><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></font></div><div><font color="#990000"><span style="font-size:12.8px">"What I am talking about is what looks to be a disproportionate amount of FVC promotion of this specific system in social media."</span><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></font><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><font color="#990000"><br></font></span></div><div><font color="#000000"><span style="font-size:12.8px">Do you follow the @FairVoteCanada twitter account? And our facebook page? (<a href="http://www.facebook.com/FairVoteCanada">www.facebook.com/FairVoteCanada</a>). I'd like to see the disproportional amount of promotion of RU-PR. Because I haven't noticed that at all.</span></font></div><div><font color="#000000"><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></font></div><div><font color="#000000"><span style="font-size:12.8px">I am personally sharing RU-PR a lot for the simple reason that the 2% of people who are paying most attention to this and/or are the decision makers considering systems have heard of MMP and STV (sometimes, over and over) but they have never heard of the third option. But there's not exactly a ton of us doing that! <br><br></span></font><span style="font-size:12.8px"><font color="#990000"> Oh, sure, that MP over in that city is supposed to make it proportional, but that is not how it will look or feel to rural folk. </font></span><font color="#000000"><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></font></div></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><font color="#990000"><br></font></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><font color="#000000">If you are in one of the rural single member ridings, and lets say that all three of them in that rural area go to Party A, leaving voters for Party B and C unrepresented, then the best runner-up in RU-PR would come from that rural area where those voters most need them, not from the city.</font></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><font color="#000000"><br></font></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><font color="#000000">Anita</font></span></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Laurel L. Russwurm <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:laurel.l@russwurm.org" target="_blank">laurel.l@russwurm.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div>Dear Anita:<br>
<br>
Yes, I understand all the arguments for the system, Anita, my
concern is rural voters who are already disenfranchised with a
monopoly MP will continue to be stuck with a monopoly MP. Oh,
sure, that MP over in that city is supposed to make it
proportional, but that is not how it will look or feel to rural
folk. With luck I'll be living in an urban riding that will
benefit wildly from getting STV with MMP top ups. This isn't
about me, Anita. I'm simply providing a rural perspective the
system designers don't seem to have taken into account. Frankly,
I think DMP would be better because it at least frees voters from
monopolies. And yes, I am well aware FVC has defaulted to MMP,
and have long understood the chance of getting the system I
actually want is slim to none. I'm not sure where your idea of 10
member STV rural ridings comes from; the numbers I have heard
being bandied about for STV from FVC folk in urban areas has been
more like 5 - 7 MPs (which I think should be 7 - 9). My goal is
PR, I have ZERO expectation of getting my favored flavor. <br>
<br>
You've misunderstood my complaint: I don't have any problem at all
with FVC including this or any system in its submission to the
committee. Submitting 3 potential systems is great. In fact I
have been wondering when a Fair Vote witness will present.<br>
<br>
What I am talking about is what looks to be a disproportionate
amount of FVC promotion of this specific system in social media.
BTW, even when FVC used MMP as the default, it was still always
pushing proportional representation. It wasn't me who decided to
keep FVC system neutral, that happened long before I knew anything
about PR. And But that worked really well because FVC wasn't
selling something, it was promoting a principle. I understand its
fun to talk about a new system, you all are understandably tired
of saying the same things over and over about the same old ones.
But most Canadians are still new to this, and it is VERY
daunting. Which is why now more than ever before FVC needs to be
system neutral. <br>
<br>
Regards, <br>
Laurel<div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
On 09/01/2016 03:09 PM, Anita Nickerson wrote:<br>
</div></div></div><div><div class="h5">
<blockquote type="cite">
<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>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>
<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><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" 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>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>______________________________<wbr>_________________
This is the fvc-wat-disc mailing list
Post a message: <a href="mailto:fvc-wat-disc@listserv.thinkers.org" target="_blank">fvc-wat-disc@listserv.<wbr>thinkers.org</a>
Unsubscribe: <a href="http://listserv.thinkers.org/mailman/listinfo/fvc-wat-disc_listserv.thinkers.org" target="_blank">http://listserv.thinkers.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/fvc-wat-disc_<wbr>listserv.thinkers.org</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
</div></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div>-- <br>
<a href="http://laurel.russwurm.org/blogs/" target="_blank">Laurel L. Russwurm,
Author</a> § <a href="http://about.me/laurelrusswurm" target="_blank">about.me</a>
§ <a href="http://libreleft.com" target="_blank">Libreleft Books</a>
</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>