NDP and proportional representation?
Comments
There have been countless policy resolutions in favour of PR passed at NDP conventions and support for PR has been a centrepiece of the NDP platform in the last three (if not more) elections. I guess maybe that isn't "official" enough for you.
I have asked three times for someone to reference the policy document, and no one has been able too. Instead of doing so, you come up with more argument, for some reason.
I have asked three times for someone to reference the policy document, and no one has been able too. Instead of doing so, you come up with more argument, for some reason.
5.2 Renewing Canadian DemocracyNew Democrats believe in:
- Reforming Canada’s electoral system through mixed member proportional representation
- Ensuring electoral reform is based on a transparent process with wide citizen involvement
- Assisting under-represented and marginalized groups to participate fully in the political process
- Protecting the right to vote by ensuring that regulations on voter identity do not unduly restrict a citizen from casting a ballot; and
- Investing in public education addressing democracy and politics, primarily for young people.
... but again, 'explanation' IS engagement - not a lecture, just an ongoing, systematic effort to tell Cdns what the hell is happening here, and why they should be changed - I have been writing about this for years.....
Being the dogged type myself, I'm inclined to see intinsic value in this kind of persistence.
That said:
No one person can expect to have much impact. But you arent the only one pursuing this line/path. You think maybe the lack of results might be saying something about the method being used rather than the apparent intractability of the audience? Or, as much as that intractability?
And you have to at least admitt that 'explanations' are inherently a didactic discourse. And agrred or not, there's an argument this itself is a fundamental proble. You just cant say explanation IS engagement. Its only engagement if 'the other side' is, well, engaged. And we agree they arent.
But I dont think this is the place for that discussion- which is why I moved the post you are responding at to the thread mentioned.
I think we should admit that PR is DEAD in Canada. It will never happen. Period. Its time to move and explore a system that would be a big improvement over the status quo and would be difficult for anyone to make an argument against - Australian-style preferential voting.
Really? Well PR seems to be more popular than the NDP, does that mean that the NDP is dead in Canada?
There's a New Democrats for Fair Voting group (thought I'd mention), but I wonder whether the New Democratic Party is that keen on proportional representation given the fact that PR will particularly benefit the Green Party. The passage from this article got me thinking about this question. If none of the major parties really care for PR, are we stuck with FPTP for the foreseeable future?:
Geez, its a good thinh i know you dont have any ill intentions.
But the NDP supports PR. Period.
And while it would certainly benefit the GPC, it would benefit the NDP more. For one thing MANY of us are awre that we wouldnt have to begrudge losing that 2% in a riding to the GPC anymore. Under FPTP that HAS to be a practial concern, no matter how much you support PR specifically and plralism in general.
There are a TON of things that the NDP and Dippers want, and dont do much about actively getting.
Do you assume that all of the things they dont pursue that they want the opposite of what you ask?
Short answer: I cannot see how we get out of FPTP until either the Liberals or Cons are dragged into at least really talking about it.
How that is done is the question. Hot air form the GPC and NDP isnt going to change that.
I think we're stuck with it for the forseeable future because the electorate didn't really care for it. In BC, and here in Ontario, it was a ballot flop. One would assume that if the electorate wanted change, and were offered change, they'd have marked their "X" accordingly.
That's right - I'm certainly not hyper-partisan as you know from my blogging.
No, I'm actually not sure whether the NDP is strongly in favour, lukewarm, or cold on PR. I'm suspecting they are lukewarm, and I wonder whether the gist of that passage may have something to do with that - or whether in fact the NDP generally would agree with that passage. Of course, I hope the NDP is indeed strongly in favour of PR, because if they aren't it'll be status quo for quite some time I should think.
Me neither.
Perhaps someone can find the policy statement of the federal NDP on the issue.
The amount you hear about is a product of the fact that it doesnt interest the public.
Theres not much purchase to push with. Which is a big part of why it fails on ballot initiatives.
Is that leaderhsip, no.
[Insert brick bats here.]
Is not making it a priority a measure of how much the NDP wants it, also no.
As is evident in the 'not really about polling thread' I think its necessary for the NDP to take a lot more leadership.
Since even if there was more of that, there arent resources to push uphill on every issue, this wouldnt be my choice for one of them.
Glad you cleared that up for us. Here I thought that a complete lack of information from the government and an out-and-out campaign against it by the MSM were the deciding factors.
Although I didnt witness the referendums close up, even with all the organized hysteria, I think the results showed up a lot of problems that will dog any referendums in the future. Both the margin of defeat, and how hard a nut is the difficulty of non-junkies understanding the basics.
- the 'disinformtation' (to be very polite) spread by the MSM about PR has certainly, it would seem, played a very large role in the resistance of the wider public to this change - but you can't really downplay the role of the NDP either - that is to say, the almost deafening silence about educating the public about the problems of FPTP, and what it would mean to switch to some useful form of PR. The 'public' does not get educated about something during some short campaign, it gets educated over a long period of time - and that the NDP is not doing this does not lead one's thoughts into good places.
To which NDP are you referring? I think it's fair to say that the Federal NDP would like to see PR but is unwilling to invest any political capital because they think it will cost them more than it will get them. Political cowardice.
The Ontario NDP are all in favour of PR AND they are willing to come out and campaign for it. Bonus.
People generally still regard the Rae years as disastrous and the NDP have pretty much no chance of winning an election. So, they don't have much to lose.
In BC, PR is supported by the membership. However, it's opposed by the party elite who prefer waiting around for the second coming of the right wing vote split to cutting a deal with the Greens.
I grant you the western parties are not good on this issue. The federal party has pushed the issue in parliament, so I don't think that political cowardice is an appropriate description of their behaviour. Is it as much a priority with the party as I would like? No. But that's different.
In BC it wasn't the NDP who fell off the STV bandwagon. It was the Liberals. They were outraged by a pervious NDP phony majority before winning one themselves. It wasn't so bad then. The NDP supports PR in Canada's largest province.
Modern democracy has to be supported by at least two of the three mainstream parties. Jack has talked about how our electoral system is broken. We need a modern, competitive electoral system if we want competitive economies and leaders who appeal to the majority and not special interest groups with money to fund election campaigns and political influence.
OK.
But the NDP was never on the bandwagon. Their leader admitted publicly to voting against PR last time. This time, she talked up a version of PR that wasn't even on the ballot. Prominent NDPers came out publicly against PR. Hardly a proud time for NDPers who are in favour of democracy.
I'm all for long term education projects. [I've copied this post, plus some earlier written stuff to a new thread: Educating the Public
But it doesnt help to treat this as if its just some wave of the hand. If nothing else, this: " that the NDP is not doing this does not lead one's thoughts into good places." Sounds like you are saying that since they could, but they arent, leads one to beleive they dont want PR.
Its not the imputation of motive that bothers me. Its the background assumption that doing long term public education is something that you just turn on the tap.
Doing long term education at all requires a 'hook' in aspirations that already broadly exist among the public. Very little of the public gives the slightest hoot about PR. So if you take the misguided typical left approach of "explaining" it to them... read lecture... they wont hear you.
There is out there an aspiration for meaningful democracy that can be tapped into. But the hook for tapping into that would not be PR itself- it would be part of the package. People would see its merits at some point after they see the merits of something in the window that is more immediately appealing than PR.
Engagement, not explanation.
Even people who care abut how we are governed are most of them not political junkies. You cant talk to them like they are. And you cant lecture them anyway.
Any didactic excursion- what we call "explaining"- is a lecture, however you varnish it with euphemisms or pretty words.
Actually both are wrong. The NDP in ONtario came out against MMP. I remember seeing Dave Cooke the supposed former education minister and MMP for my riding saying the NDP was negative on MMP because of some of the drawbacks....I was thinking "Are you out of your fucking mind" But I remembered he was one of the liberals that had co opted the NDP from the Rae government.
So no the ONDP are not or at least were not onside with PR last time around.
http://www.tvo.org/cfmx/tvoorg/theagenda/index.cfm?page_id=3&action=blog...
First comment down
They will never support such a system as MMP. That is why both Sean Conway and Dave Cooke opposed it on your show. It is why John Tory opposed it, as did McGuinty, I am sure. Janet Ecker only voted for it because it might bring more women into politics. MMP would be good for Ontario, but it is not in the interests of the established parties, even the NDP, perhaps, to support it, because it would permit the Greens and one or two other small parties to enter the Legislature and compete with them. They are essentially protecting their old boy's club.
While I don't think its about the greens so much. In ontario I think the NDP thought they could squeeze up the middle again. I don't see that happening but you never know. They certainly didn't do much when they had their majority. The thinking could be along the lines of "If we get a fake majority we don't want to have to water down policy any more than we know we already will."
This is how it should go. Federal initiative with the one referendum question across Canada.
"Does Canada require a different method for representation in Paliament?"
No one can argue against the way it is worded. I could have said A More Fair Method or something to that effect....but it is a neatral statement asking people if we need a new way of representing parties. I would love to change it to something indicating how lop sided the percentages work out, but that would be the job once the question is approved.
Then we have a vote on type of PR- STV MMP or otherwise...I am not in favour of preferenctial balloting. Might as well just give it to the libs at that point.
Some individual NDP members may have come out against MMP in Ontario. The leader did not, the party as a whole did not.
Part of this was a strategic decision by the Fair Vote group to not have the NDP emphasize their support in order to have the campaign run on a non partisan basis.
A big chunk of the issue in that referendum was simply the campaign. It was the worst political campaign I was ever involved with. I have worked on A team campaigns, I have worked on B team campaigns, this was somewhere between C and D. A major reason for that was because it was during an election campaign. Everybody who really knew what they were doing were busy with their parties.
The amount I hear about what? The federal NDP policy statement on Proportional Representation? Is that what you mean? You are saying it exists, and that there is just not a lot of public interest in the official NDP policy platform supporting PR, and that is why we never hear about the official NDP policy statement supporting PR?
I am "the public" and I am interested in it... so where can I find a copy of it? I know that Layton and some others have said somethings that sounded somewhate positive about it, but I would be interested in a breakdown of the precise details.
Go to the website and you'll find it.
I am consistently and firmly of the belief- I judge all parties equally on this- that if an issue is one of the party's priorities you want have to go to a website. Even the Green Party can make at least one issue/theme something people associate with them.
So I dont put any stock in whats on a website or in the policy books. I'm not saying thats unimportant. But we are talking about how much is put into the issue.
Its worth noting by the way, that even though this is obvioulsy more central to the Greens, for utilitarian reasons and for its substantive links to the overall program....
if you test GPC supporters in general, let alone the general public, you'll only find PR higher up the list of named important issues, then you would with NDP supporters. First on the GPC supporters named items is "doing politics differently," and thats in practice what is the GPC priority investment.
I think we should admit that PR is DEAD in Canada. It will never happen. Period. Its time to move and explore a system that would be a big improvement over the status quo and would be difficult for anyone to make an argument against - Australian-style preferential voting.
I think we should admit that there is no official Federal NDP policy position supporting PR.
There have been countless policy resolutions in favour of PR passed at NDP conventions and support for PR has been a centrepiece of the NDP platform in the last three (if not more) elections. I guess maybe that isn't "official" enough for you.
PR has been under discussion in this country for at least 25 years (the PEI legislature had committee hearings back in the mid-80s at which I participated - 23/25 presentations supported PR, the finding was that nobody else in the country was doing this, and by golly PEI certainly wasn't going to be first ... now thank you all for your participation in this democratic exercise, etc etc). PR would be immensely beneficial to the NDP. PR would be an inconvenience, to say the least, to the capitalist rulers and their tweedledee-dum Lib-Con dominance of the legislatures of this country, and they have been doing all they could, with their puppet media, to ensure Canadians know as little as possible about this, let alone demand it (hard to see the passive, apathetic Cdn voter herd demanding anything at all the MSM doesn't tell them to demand, at all, but that's another story). The NDP seems pretty content to by and large react, like everyone else, to the 'hot button' ""issues"" as identified by the MSM. There is no good reason at all to believe that the NDP 'brass' are not making an issue out of PR because they do not want their access to the MSM cut off. In my opinion. It's not a matter of 'turning on a tap', it's a matter of making a principled decision, and then getting on with a long-term program. I kid you not - it looks very much to me as if the NDP is quite content with the way things are - just playing in the box, taking their perks, and letting the country and future unfold as Bay St wishes it to. I could level the same charge at Rabble, really. Nobody appears to really want change here - talk talk talk, but no useful talk, and no talk about organisation and education. And I guess I'll close this rant now - I well understand it is not something most people want to read.
- again, I disagree - for better or worse (worse, really), the modern 'public' is more or less a tabula rasa upon which the MSM writes as they will - and if the NDP is serious about getting their own message out, they need to get serious about claiming some share of this tabula. You don't need a hook in the mind of the public - you CREATE the hook - that's what PR is all about - examples are endless, even Bush understood you need to 'catapult the propaganda'. Very few people had any broadly existing desire to invade Iraq, for instance - Bush and the MSM sold it - and sold it - and sold it - and sold it. The neocons know what they want - and they go and get it. The lefties - well, some of us on the ground see quite a lot, but the 'progressive leadership' seems very unable or disinclined to undertake any real opposition to what has been happening these lasst 30 years - who's been winning, anyway? Most Cdns do not agree with this agenda - but the progressives cannot seem to get through to anyone what is really happening - which may have something to do with the fact they don't actually seem to be trying.
- well, I've written enough - but again, 'explanation' IS engagement - not a lecture, just an ongoing, systematic effort to tell Cdns what the hell is happening here, and why they should be changed - I have been writing about this for years, but nobody listens, and nothing changes - there is a short election campaign with great flurries of actions, the results are entirely predictable, and then the "progressives" go back to sleep again until the next election campaign is called - not a word of serious education taking place. As I said, just look at Rabble - reaciting to what the latest MSM 'hot button issue' is, massive amounts of completely meaningless chatter, and nothing in terms of broader education, etc - and when I write something that tries to explain things and get people motivated - the Rabble mods tell me not to spam their news stories. (What Happened? http://www.rudemacedon.ca/what-happened.html ) (not that they have much to worry about, the discussion about this was short and raised no interest whatsoever). You may be interested in a longer article about this I wrote a few years ago - still relevant - http://www.swans.com/library/art11/dpatt01.html . But all I really see is a bunch of passengers on the Titanic pool deck, trying to enjoy themselves and not think about much serious stuff at all. Quite successfully.