The NDP not serious about proportional representation - #5

84 posts / 0 new
Last post
hsfreethinkers hsfreethinkers's picture
The NDP not serious about proportional representation - #5

Sealed shhh, quiet now...

hsfreethinkers hsfreethinkers's picture

Last post from previous thread...

 

KenS wrote:

You said, no one is going to do it [create traction] for the NDP. No one asked for that. And if I did want a free ride, I wouldnt be looking for it here. Because here you have people who act is if criticism is not only the first step to figuring out what to do. They act as if the act of criticsm has utself shown the way to what to do.

 

Well, I'm not a profession PR (public relations) person nor a professional political advisor, so you can't expect a complete plan from me. Criticism is mostly what you'll get. Constructive criticism hopefully. I've said this before (ages ago), that the thing that's holding me back from being a gung-ho NDP supporter is the kind of stuff siamdave mentions. The NDP are too cautious and they are morphing into the Liberals. I don't want to vote for Liberal policies, or Liberal light. I'd like to see the NDP present more like the Greens - more open and with policies clearly laid out for all to see like in Vision Green. The NDP ought to be more savvy is they are truly representing the "left". I mean, where are all the artists and the hip city folk? Can't the NDP get some talent to start some campaigns on some key issues? The NDP ought to focus on no more than five key issues and start some NDP campaigns - here's three: (1) proportional representation, (2) environmental protection and global warming, (3) monetary reform. Those key issues should be the ones they want the public to vote for them for. They have to convince the voters to vote for them because of these key issues, identifying the problem that the NDP intends to fix. It isn't rocket science. The problem is, if the NDP doesn't actually have any principles then they can't ever settle on any key issues. And what if polls suggest voters don't want XYZ - or what if the Liberals or the media makes fun of them? Can't have that. See - the NDP is chicken shit it seems to me. Playing the cynical political game that people have lost interest in. Dobbin mentioned home heating in a recent article. Home heating?! Ha!

 

 

hsfreethinkers hsfreethinkers's picture

TRACTION - there's some!

I haven't noticed anything from the NDP, for example some encouragement for Elizabeth May and Fair Vote Canada? All I see on the main page of the NDP site is stuff about home heating. Here's an opportunity to make some noise. It's news. Where's the NDP?

Fidel

How much of the Green Party's resources are spent on promoting ER while they take runs at the NDP vote in FPTP election campaigns?

Will the GP's leader recommend their voters vote Liberal in Nova Scotia same as E. May did last time?

FYI, the Liberals don't have ER as a plank in their election platform. Sealed

Apparently there is a strong connection between:

1.  The Liberals(and ReformaTories same net effect),

2. The phony majority machine, and

3. The Green Party of Canada

scott scott's picture

Fidel wrote:
How much of the Green Party's resources are spent on promoting ER while they take runs at the NDP vote in FPTP election campaigns?

I don't know how much it is costing, but Elizabeth May will be an intervenor in a court challenge arguing that the first-past-the-post electoral system contravenes the fairness required by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Quote:
"We desperately need a renewal of democracy in this country," said May. "This may mean forging ahead with proportional representation and taking lessons learned by other countries who have done the same to come up with an electoral process that is truly meaningful and engages all Canadian voters. It is a big step and we may need a push from the courts to point out that our current system is not respecting the spirit of the democratic rights and freedoms that our Charter guarantees."

Can we expect the NDP to join Fair Vote Canada and the Green Party of Canada in this challenge?

__________________________________

One struggle, many fronts.

Fidel

I didn't know about that one. Good for them. My tuque is off for the Greens and Fair Vote. Hope something positive results.

In">http://archive.ndp.ca/scandalsheet]In March 2007, The Conservative government began a public consultation process on "the challenges facing Canada's electoral system and democratic institutions." But the Conservatives aren’t interested in hearing from working people on how to improve our democracy. Instead, The Conservatives have contracted-out our democracy to a private think-tank for almost a $1 million contract. The Frontier Centre for Public Policy's website includes links such stirring defences of the status quo as “Why I'm a Recovering Electoral Reformer,” “The Unintended Consequences of Electoral Reform” and “Canada Should Keep `First Past the Post' Voting System.”

It's the democracy gap.

KenS

If all that was involved in having TRACTION was issuing press releases, statements and court challenges, I would never have brought it up. And we wouldnt be having this discussion, because if that kind of stuff did the trick we'd have PR already.

There are no lack of those.

Anyone can do them.

The NDP has plenty of those.

The trick for the NDP, and anyone other advocate of PR, is to get beyond the capability to issue statements that have almost no reach beyond the people already looking and watching about the issue.

remind remind's picture

hsfreethinkers wrote:
TRACTION - there's some!

I haven't noticed anything from the NDP, for example some encouragement for Elizabeth May and Fair Vote Canada? All I see on the main page of the NDP site is stuff about home heating. Here's an opportunity to make some noise. It's news. Where's the NDP?

LOL, seriously the most amusing posting I have ever read at babble.

The day that the NDP had anything up on its website about the Green Party's antics to get attention, is the day I would consider voting independant.

hsfreethinkers hsfreethinkers's picture

remind, credit for launching and persuing that court case doesn't go to the Green Party.

remind remind's picture

Even funnier,  my this is a humouress board this am.

 

Imagine that; credit to EMay that does not go to the GP.

lolol

hsfreethinkers hsfreethinkers's picture

remind wrote:

Even funnier,  my this is a humouress board this am.

 

Imagine that; credit to EMay that does not go to the GP.

lolol

 

It's even funnier yet. Credit doesn't go to E May either, but rather to the "l’Association pour la Revendication des Droits Democratiques". You can read up on it here (or watch a video).

 

psmith

KenS wrote:

If all that was involved in having TRACTION was issuing press releases, statements and court challenges, I would never have brought it up. [...] The trick for the NDP, and anyone other advocate of PR, is to get beyond the capability to issue statements that have almost no reach beyond the people already looking and watching about the issue.

 

Well the Quebec Superior Court challenge is news, and will be much more so if it gets to the Supreme Court. Looks like the NDP is missing that train though. But if they wanted to they could tie electoral reform to anything these days and make it relevant, because it's a compounding factor to so many of our underlying political problems. Consider just a few acute irritants:

  • Federal politicans getting a little too partisan? Blame the FPTP system - it discourages cooperation between parties and rewards the politics of division. And things are getting worse over time.
  • PM being a little dictator again? You need an empowered parliament to take some of that power back (yes, PR can empower parliaments).
  • Still debating the same bills parliament debated two years ago? That's because not much gets passed when bills take 2-3 years to become law, and there's an election every 2 years wiping all progress out. FPTP = unstable in a 5-party reality.
  • Frustrated that the will of most Canadians just isn't being translated into policy (in fact, many times the opposite is; eg. on environment, Afghanistan, health care, international relations, you name it)? That's because you have about 22% of the voters (the right wing) running the whole show right now (59% voter turnout x 37% Con vote) and you'll always have something like this in the future until you get a system that actually encourages true coalitions representing a true majority of voters.
  • Civility in parliament at an all-time low? Blame the lack of women elected (which PR would help a lot), and the vicious scrabbling for the last few % to get that illusive majority (which wouldn't make that much of a difference under PR, so there's no motivation to get so nasty).
  • Upset that Canadian politics is now almost wholly focused on short-term gains, without any seeming ability to plan for the long term anymore? You guessed it - any party proposing short term pain for long term gain is cutting their own throats in the political climate FPTP has set up.
  • Tired of living the most unstable democracy in the western world? It's the system, stupid.

People tend to blame the actors on stage at any particular time for what ails us, and character does play a role. But in the end politicians are only playing by the rules set for them. The FPTP script just happens to have set up a race to the bottom, discouraging cooperation and encouraging strife. It has already cost billions, and may very well end up costing us the whole country in a region vs region break-up.

In the past the NDP has helped change the country because even though voters may be slow to pick up on things, they're not stupid. The NDP could easily tie our dysfunctional system to many (most?) scandals/problems that come up. They have alwys been the ones to speak truth to power. No longer, it seems.

 

scott wrote:

Can we expect the NDP to join Fair Vote Canada and the Green Party of Canada in this challenge?

 

No, the NDP would actually have to have more than pretty words on a forgotten policy statement somewhere for them to get off their asses and do something like support the court case against the Elections Act. Ideally, the NDP democratic reform critic, David Christopherson (who has done absolutely nothing with the file in years and people are starting to think he's actually a Liberal) should be asking for intervenor status in the case and arguing in support of it. Great arguments would be easy for him to come up with - few voters have been screwed so hard for so long as New Democrats in Quebec! The Green Party is an intervenor, as is Fair Vote - it speaks volumes that the NDP is MIA.

Actions speak louder than words.

hsfreethinkers hsfreethinkers's picture

The Future of the Canadian Left - you'd think the NDP would want to be part of that, eh?

Dr. Dawg wrote:
The primary objective of the Left, in my view, must be electoral reform. 

 

KenS

Quote:
No, the NDP would actually have to have more than pretty words on a forgotten policy statement somewhere for them to get off their asses and do something like support the court case against the Elections Act. 

Court challenges like this and policy documents are pretty similar in their practical utility of being part of change. Both of them are not nothing. And they are necessary or useful tools. But tools with nothing to do if they are not rooted in outreach work with intent and means to break out of existing confines.

I'm not even sure how a court challenge is supposed to segway into political action. If there is a way, the challenge itself has no more potential than a policy document.

And this is not about speaking truth to power. I think thats even barking u the wrong tree. Its the opposite of spectacular- getting people to want to priorize and own something that is so far from being concrete.

KenS

Its always about how much we NEED electoral reform, therefore it should be the priority.

Needs dont have wings.

Never about how its to become the kind of need people priorize. The list above is at least a recognition that has to be done. But those arent concepts for connecting to where people are and getting them to ponder. They are for all the good intent, sterile elaborations of 'WE must have electoral reform.'

psmith

It's safe to say that democracy in this country is in a shambles. It took another major hit today with the Senate debacle (killing a bill the democratically-elected House passed (TWICE) without even debating it - a Canadian first).

http://www.rabble.ca/babble/environmental-justice/senate-kills-c-311

This is just the latest in a series of affronts to democracy. People are getting angry. Those politicians that keep giving excuses like "we all agree change is needed but it's too hard to do", or who try to blame our problems on their political opponents, risk the wrath of the electorate.

JKR

Globe & Mail - Vote: What's the next discussion Canada needs to have?

Changing the electoral system is in second place.

siamdave

What is more interesting is what is NOT on the list - not a word about the policy of letting commercial banks create and control our money supply, which is the direct cause of every fiancial problem we see in the world and country today. And which problems are only going to get worse as time goes on. The walls of the box are as high and strong as ever.

Polunatic2

Quote:
 But those arent concepts for connecting to where people are and getting them to ponder.  Sterile elaborations of 'WE must have electoral reform.

I don't fine them sterile at all. I think psmith is making a great point about helping Cdns make the connections. It's not as if we're starting with a blank slate. The issue is not as remote to Canadians as KenS and others suggest. Over a million voters have already marked an "X" for PR in provincial referendums. The Council of Canadians released a poll in April showing that 62% of Canadians support PR. That's triple the NDP's support. 

Most want proportional representation

Quote:
In addition, the strong support for PR is consistent across the country -- from a low of 59 per cent in Alberta to a high of 65 per cent in Quebec. Young voters -- prominent at the anti-prorogation demonstrations in January -- were the strongest supporters, with 71 percent favouring a change to PR.

Too bad that no province governed by the NDP has ever done a thing to advance PR. Last time I heard Layton speak, I was glad to hear him mention the need for electoral reform. He had no problem squeezing two short sentences into a 5 minute speech. Of the 4 parties in Parliament, the NDP is the only one that supports PR. And the public is on side. So why not step it up as psmith suggests? 

Policywonk

JKR wrote:

Globe & Mail - Vote: What's the next discussion Canada needs to have?

Changing the electoral system is in second place.

Climate change and the environment is in first place.

Policywonk

Polunatic2 wrote:

Quote:
 But those arent concepts for connecting to where people are and getting them to ponder.  Sterile elaborations of 'WE must have electoral reform.

I don't fine them sterile at all. I think psmith is making a great point about helping Cdns make the connections. It's not as if we're starting with a blank slate. The issue is not as remote to Canadians as KenS and others suggest. Over a million voters have already marked an "X" for PR in provincial referendums. The Council of Canadians released a poll in April showing that 62% of Canadians support PR. That's triple the NDP's support. 

Most want proportional representation

Quote:
In addition, the strong support for PR is consistent across the country -- from a low of 59 per cent in Alberta to a high of 65 per cent in Quebec. Young voters -- prominent at the anti-prorogation demonstrations in January -- were the strongest supporters, with 71 percent favouring a change to PR.

Too bad that no province governed by the NDP has ever done a thing to advance PR. Last time I heard Layton speak, I was glad to hear him mention the need for electoral reform. He had no problem squeezing two short sentences into a 5 minute speech. Of the 4 parties in Parliament, the NDP is the only one that supports PR. And the public is on side. So why not step it up as psmith suggests? 

Far more than one million have voted against specific PR proposals. It is not just a question of getting people to support PR, but getting a PR system that a majority or supermajority (if the rules aren't changed) can support on the ballot. Those of us that support PR need to find out what people are most likely to support, and ensure that the political parties don't mess up the proposals to make them less popular (closed lists versus open lists, etc.). The HST referendum in BC is setting a precedent for a simple majority referendum next time, at least in BC.

psmith

Ironic that electoral reform is a close second on that Globe & Mail poll... to the one thing (climate change) that the lack of democracy in this country recently scuppered. The Senate killing the only national climate change legislation is the poster child for the desperate need for some measure of fair democracy in thos country.

Re: a specific PR proposal people will vote for. Simple - get them to agree first the current system isn't working. Have a referendum on it: Keep the status quo or reform the system? Since not too many people are happy with the way things (aren't) working now, in the next referendum, Canadians can chose one of the shiny new systems on offer.

Get people to focus on the problems all around us as a result of the current system first, then ask them what they'd prefer after they've made a commitment to make some changes.

KenS

Good plan.

Even if the details are different about the best way to effect each step- I think those are the essential steps.

IE- those are the steps even if you dont think a referendum per se is the way to go in the first step. Though I think it makes sense that it would at least be the 'cap' to the first step.... where you build support first to the point that you are pretty confident the referendum will win, rather than holding the referendum when you know the victory margin will have to be built during the campaign.

Fidel

siamdave wrote:

What is more interesting is what is NOT on the list - not a word about the policy of letting commercial banks create and control our money supply, which is the direct cause of every fiancial problem we see in the world and country today. And which problems are only going to get worse as time goes on. The walls of the box are as high and strong as ever.

Bay Street paid for those changes to the BoC Act in 1991. Tories and Liberals just pay back the favors they owe to rich people and corporations funding their parties.  If you're going to take on Bay Street more than the NDP already does, then you'd better have lotsa money in the campaign war chest. The fat-cats and their friends in the newz media etc will eat you for lunch otherwise. The NDP has to walk a fairly narrow line when it comes to steering clear of big money interests. Bay Street has their 22 percent tin pot dictatorship in power and with a LPC their supporting cast. And it's a bargain for them. Talk is cheap, S.D. The actual political battle is all sweat, blood and tears.

Snert Snert's picture

I don't want to drift the Wrath of Kwan thread, and this thread seems the perfect place to re-express my surprise that Carole James voted AGAINST Proportional Representation.

If the Libs and Cons opposed it, that's not really surprising.  But the NDP leader??  Can anyone offer any insight into that?

George Victor

If it's based on a public poll that shows the Great Unread is Unready to go that route, it would be called being political...as opposed to sacrificial. It's how the Cons and Libs play it.Wink

Some would drag out the term "pragmatic"...if it suited their case.

Fidel

Why not. It's a Canadian politics thread. And everybody knows that 'Canadian' is synonymous with provincial politics and especially when it comes to avoiding discussion of neoliberalism in Canada. So go for it.

KenS

I seriously doubt if the reason is that James and crew thought that support of the plan in BC [which is not the same as supporting PR] was that it would cost them votes.

But I dont know the reason.

George Victor

Laughing

KenS

I guess I was assuming George that was your surmise. On that basis, I say it doesnt make sense.

But if its more than your surmise...

George Victor

Ken, I believe that our opposition hereabouts has no idea about the public attitude toward PR in B.C. or Mars. And clearly, neither of us does.  It has to be a freeing feeling to judge political opponents with the freedom of that class in phil. 101, when the prof invites you to comment on a question from cosmology. Politics in the real  world has to be played along more mundane lines...and I assume that New Democrats in B.C. are not given to policy announcements based on speculation. My old "Vote MMP" black T shirt hangs in the closet where it was put after the Ontario campaign three years back. If a firm connection could be drawn between re-structuring our political system and bringing jobs to Ontario (the loser again in November, we're told this morning) it would be a winning idea.  Deadly, without that connection. Laughable, really.

KenS

I'm not sure I get that. I'm operating a more basic level. To wit:

You appear to be suggesting that James voted against the PR initiative because it would cost the NDP votes. Correact?

I'm scratching my head because as far as I know, most people do not see it as a defining issue. So how is the NDP supporting the initiative going to cost votes in the [then] coming election?

George Victor

"If a firm connection could be drawn between re-structuring our political system and bringing jobs to Ontario (the loser again in November, we're told this morning) it would be a winning idea.  Deadly, without that connection. Laughable, really."

 

 

And the opposition is not going to do anything with a party's platform... C'mon Ken, that's naive nonsense. And WHY would you put forward something not knowing how many people ARE opposed to the idea? Forget your "defining issue" theory. Put yourself in the shoes of a dumbed-down, frightened voter looking for uncomplicated answers to threats to her way of life.

KenS

1.] You are projecting from generalized models you have of how specific ideas work on voters. There are problems with that.

2.] I'm only positing about the existence of defining issues [hiearchy of concerns], and then about whether this particular issue fits into a general type of an issue that isnt going to drive people. You seem to be saying there is no such thing- that in principle any issue can become a threat to a voter.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:

You appear to be suggesting that James voted against the PR initiative because it would cost the NDP votes. Correact?

 

In Ontario our referendum was part of an election, and was thus a secret ballot. Was it not the same in BC? Were voters in any way obligated to say which way they voted?

George Victor

KenS wrote:

1.] You are projecting from generalized models you have of how specific ideas work on voters. There are problems with that.

2.] I'm only positing about the existence of defining issues [hiearchy of concerns], and then about whether this particular issue fits into a general type of an issue that isnt going to drive people. You seem to be saying there is no such thing- that in principle any issue can become a threat to a voter.

I'm saying if you are ignorant of the public stance on an issue, and whether or not it would hurt or advance your position, you should leave it the hell alone.  That's politics 101.  The Conservatives know what toothpaste you buy...along with everything else. They have been using American polling and campaign tactics with success, for some time now...  Screw the models and the hierarchy of concerns. That's a product of your imagination, which seems committed to making this into an exercise in obfuscation and diarreaic detail.

KenS

What was suggested was that the BC NDP would be reluctant to support the initiative because voters who did not like the PR initiative would be riled enough that it would influence whther or not they voted for the NDP.

And I'm suggesting that because few voters put much priority on the issue [or as I guess George would suggest, can be manipulated into caring enough against PR], this just is not plausible.

KenS

Lets say we dont agree about that pragmatic politics 101 George. And leave it at that.

thorin_bane

Peggy Nash just mentioned that more important than c-12(new seats in al, bc, on) should be Proportional rep. Of course kinsella said it was a non starter.

Fidel

Snert wrote:
In Ontario our referendum was part of an election, and was thus a secret ballot. Was it not the same in BC? Were voters in any way obligated to say which way they voted?

I think Angus-Reid calls it polling or something like that. Statistics and whatnot. It's all numbers and such nowadays.

Pssst! Once it became clear to the Liberal Party of BC by the mid 2000s  that FPTPhony majority machine wasn't working in the NDP's favor as it was in the late nineties, they were off of electoral reform altogether for some reason.

Complete mystery. Anyone?

 

JKR

thorin_bane wrote:

Peggy Nash just mentioned that more important than c-12(new seats in al, bc, on) should be Proportional rep. Of course kinsella said it was a non starter.

 

Politicians will never be in a position to fairly decide these kind of issues. Politics shouldn't take precedence over basic fairness so the courts should mandate basic standards of democracy.

The courts have already mandated that the correlation between seats and population not veer too far. The courts should also mandate that the correlation between votes cast for political parties and seats alloted to them should not veer too far.

The courts should mandate:

- The correlation between percentage of vote cast and seats attained by parties should not be greater then 20%.

- Parties that have 5% or more of the votes must have some representation.

- Only parties that come in first place overall can become single-party majority governments. No "wrong winner" majority governments.

- Those elected in single-member ridings must have majority support in that riding.

 

Once the courts make these basic requirements, the legislatures will be free to establish electoral systems that meet these requirements.

Maybe a referendum should be held asking voters to vote on these kinds of basic requirements?  The vast majority of voters would vote for requiring that the correlation between percentage of votes cast and seats attained by parties should not be greater then 20%.

 

Hopefully the Quebec Court of Appeal will support basic democratic rights:

FVC intervenes in challenge to Quebec Elections Act - hearing set for February 8

 

Brian White

Nobody in Canada needs a referendum to bring in pro rep.  You just need a party which supports it to  win a majority in a provincial election.

Then they bring in whichever version they like. So you  might have stv in BC, mixed member pro rep in Ontario, etc etc. Eventually one or more of them will be liked by the voters and will stick and spread. There is also the potential for a testing ground in municipal elections.

So forget about referendums. Gordon campbell could have brought in STV after it got 59% and lost! a referendum.
He made 40 no votes equal to 60 yes votes because no NEW electoral system ever got 60% approval anywhere in the world.

Think about what he did. It is the same as giving one side 1.5 votes each! It was cheating and the loyal opposition was all in favour of that cheat.

If the NDP really is in favour of pro rep, they should make it a central plank of their party platform AT ALL LEVELS.

So next time the ndp form a provincial government with a majority, they bring in pro rep.  No if's ands or buts.

Spare us the bullshit.  If you support it, support it for real.

psmith wrote:

Ironic that electoral reform is a close second on that Globe & Mail poll... to the one thing (climate change) that the lack of democracy in this country recently scuppered. The Senate killing the only national climate change legislation is the poster child for the desperate need for some measure of fair democracy in thos country.

Re: a specific PR proposal people will vote for. Simple - get them to agree first the current system isn't working. Have a referendum on it: Keep the status quo or reform the system? Since not too many people are happy with the way things (aren't) working now, in the next referendum, Canadians can chose one of the shiny new systems on offer.

Get people to focus on the problems all around us as a result of the current system first, then ask them what they'd prefer after they've made a commitment to make some changes.

Brian White

STV is listed as a pro rep system by political scientists. And no matter how much smoke comes out of asses, that is not going to change.

James did not support it but 2 federal NDP mp's on vancouver island did.  Polls showed that both times ndp voters supported it much more than bc lib voters.

James and her provincial party leaders feared that it would put more power in the hands of elected mla's. And as we have seen, they work pretty hard to restrict mla power.

They also feared that voters might choose independents or greens in a system that allows more than 2 choices.  So even though they usually lose to the BC Libs they prefer being the biggest loser to being the major party in a left of center coalition.

KenS wrote:

I seriously doubt if the reason is that James and crew thought that support of the plan in BC [which is not the same as supporting PR] was that it would cost them votes.

But I dont know the reason.

Fidel

Brian White wrote:

Nobody in Canada needs a referendum to bring in pro rep.  You just need a party which supports it to  win a majority in a provincial election.

The NDP believes switching to PR should be a democratic decision made by well informed voters and not a tin pot government with dictatorial phony majority power. Ramming bills through federal and provincial legislatures by phony majority without democratic debate or consultation of the public is how the two old line parties operate not the NDP.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Spare us Fidel...Would love to see the Fed NDP support this everywhere.

Fidel

Apparently some of us totally don't get basic democracy in general let alone the modern kind.

The federal NDP does support PR in federal elections as well as scrapping the very undemocratic senate, an obsolete old white boy's clique from a bygone era of British colonial rule.

The federal NDP supports MMP to be used for nation wide federal elections, like exists in Chavez' Venezuela.  It's in their campaign platform.

The NDP really stands for creating stronger central government in Ottawa and not a weak decentralized setup we have now where provinces are pitted against each other and reliant on pandering to big business for investment, jobs, and to replace revenues robbed from the federal social transfer since the 1990s .

The NDP brought a motion before Parliament to restart the federal study on electoral reform, and guess which two Bay Street parties of pretentious democrats voted it down.

Brian White

I presume you are tongue in cheek with that comment? 

"Lets have a fist fight,  but first, can you tie my hands behind my back?" 

Who do you think will win?  Thats right, the guy who is not a complete idiot.

Even if the NDP did it your noble  way, nothing stops the next majority government from reverting to fptp. 

  And up until now, the well informed voters have not exactly been inviting the ndp in, have they?  

If the ndp makes a good system, the voters will be engaged and they will refuse to part with it.

Its a lot better than "vote for us, we are wimps". or  "We could do more, but we don't"

Fidel wrote:

Brian White wrote:

Nobody in Canada needs a referendum to bring in pro rep.  You just need a party which supports it to  win a majority in a provincial election.

The NDP believes switching to PR should be a democratic decision made by well informed voters and not a tin pot government with dictatorial phony majority power. Ramming bills through federal and provincial legislatures by phony majority without democratic debate or consultation of the public is how the two old line parties operate not the NDP.

Brian White

Guess what, fidel, the next NDP government is going to be a phoney majority government.

And you are basically telling me that they will not bring in Pro Rep because they are not a real majority?

I cannot believe the mental mutilation that people put themselves through.

Suppose we had slavery here. Or public stoning of Gays.

Would you put that to a vote too?

I though you did stuff because it was the right thing to do?

You can educate people afterwards.

Wilf Day

Fidel wrote:
The NDP believes switching to PR should be a democratic decision made by well informed voters and not a tin pot government with dictatorial phony majority power. Ramming bills through federal and provincial legislatures by phony majority without democratic debate or consultation of the public is how the two old line parties operate not the NDP.

To be more precise, the NDP says

Quote:
New Democrats believe in:

  1. Reforming Canada's electoral system through mixed member proportional representation
  2. Ensuring electoral reform is based on a transparent process with wide citizen involvement

That doesn't mean there has to be a referendum, or there has to be a Citizens' Assembly. Those are good ways to have wide citizen involvement, but they aren't the only ways.  

Fidel

Thanks Wilf. And I think number two would be important to not having electoral reform reversed by another government at some point.

NDP wrote:
2. Ensuring electoral reform is based on a transparent process with wide citizen involvement.

Number two is not how the two oldest political parties in Canada have operated according to the political record. I think Canadians would find a first-time ever federal NDP government to be a refreshingly new experience in a number of new and interesting ways. And I think millions of non-voting Canadians would become enthusiastic about democracy in Canada.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

I agree completely with Brian White that voting legislation is just another law, not a constitutional or even quasi-constitutional matter. It was put in place and has been amended by simple votes of the various legislatures, and it can be changed again on such a vote. I can see no more logical reason to require a referendum on proportional representation, or any voting system, than to have a referendum when the Criminal Code is amended, or the Highway Traffic Act. In fact, if anything really deserves approval by referendum, it is the ratification of treaties which permanently decrease the sovereignty of Canada, such as NAFTA, WTO, and coming right up, ACTA. However, I never hear the crony-capitalism parties, or their obedient servants in the press suggesting that.

 

Pages