The NDP & proportional representation - #2

But I thought the electorate already wanted a change?

In any discussion of voting and voter turnout, the claim is sure to be made that the electorate is discouraged and disenfranchised by the unfairness of FPTP. If that's true, why would the government need to do more than what they did (which, at least in Ontario, consisted of a mailout that explained the difference between FPTP and MMP -- did you get yours? Was it insufficient?)

And again, assuming people actually do want a change, why would the MSM be a factor? If people want lower taxes, and the National Post says "no, we should have higher taxes", I'm going to expect people's own wishes to win out... again, assuming those *are* people's wishes. Who needs a newspaper coaching them to choose what they already want to choose?

Personally, I think the reason the electorate is lukewarm on PR is that the current system makes sense to them (the person with the most votes wins the riding, the party with the most ridings forms government) and because, frankly, PR is only going to mean that most voters' preferred party (Cons or Libs) gets *fewer* seats. That's not a great incentive. I don't think most Con or Lib voters are feeling all that altruistic toward Elizabeth May.

I believe it was Liberal governments in both BC and Ontario referendums insisted that no parties would campaign for or against STV or MMP.

Can we at least agree that Liberal governments wielding phony majority dictatorial powers in both Ontario and BC at those times supported neither MMP nor STV when "agreeing" to hold referendums on electoral reform? Really, though, I don't think the NDP had much of a say in either case, but Howard Hampton did have a page on ontariondp.com endorsing MMP and CA's choice at the time. Nothing on the other two parties' web sites though.

BC Liberals were high on electoral reform after 1996 when the NDP won a phony majority with less than 40% of votes. Campbell gets in and corners the market on phony majorities, and so Liberals gradually lost all interest in ER by the late 2000s.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that the MSM is an inert body. I just don't believe that if people want something, the MSM can make them unwant it as easily as (I assume) you do.

Here's my guess: "Uh, which party would be getting the 50%?" But now I'm curious... you seem to believe that the electorate has an innate sense of fairness, independent of any partisanship. So then why didn't that result in a "yes" vote for PR? Is it your belief that the MSM convinced people NOT to support something they believed to be more fair than the current system? Or is it your belief that the electorate is fair-minded but didn't understand that PR is more fair than FPTP and needed to be coached to vote Yes?

Again, I can only suggest a bit of reading - it is pretty widely believed by many people that the MSM has a major influence on the way 'modern' people think, and what I see going in the US and Canada does nothing to challenge that idea (Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent is the main modern study, but there's a lot of other related stuff out there). Studies from the US are easier to come by, but there is no reason to think Canadians are that different. I am sure you know how the Bush et al propaganda drive (he admitted himself he was 'catapulting the propaganda') had most Americans believing Hussein had WMD, when of course all of the "evidence" was simply fabricated and he had none at all - I forget the % offhand, but a lot of Americans still believe Saddam either did the 911 attacks himself, or cooperated with al Quaeda in those attacks - again, complete fantasy. And why did/do they believe such things? Because the MSM encouraged an open and impartial debate between Bush and the many even then who were saying this propaganda sounded very suspicious - or because the MSM was on message with Bush 24/7, TELLING Americans (and everyone else - I am sure you could find enough Canadians even today believing the same crap) that Bush was right, etc? In the modern world, people are trained to believe what they hear on the tv and read in the press - and most do. Such training also has some impact on the 'reasoning' faculties - sitting passively in front of a television 4-5 hours a day is NOT good for exercising the critical reasoning faculties - and it shows - so they are more susceptible to non-questioning acceptance of what they see on the tv, or read in the MSM. We have, in Canada, for krissake, at least one elected MP who believes the earth is 6000 years old and man and dinosaurs shared the planet back then - amazing. And he was 'elected' - this is not great reasoning and critical examination at work.

- it's not a matter simply of people wanting something and the MSM cannot make them 'unwant' it - it's a matter of the MSM telling people what they want or don't want - or instilling them with what they know or don't know about our society and what is going on here - in the first place. For example, poll after poll shows that most Canadians really want a good health care system. Both main parties are making excuses to dismantle that system, and Canadians continue to vote as always - the MSM, along with the parties, tells them they have no choice, and they seem to believe it. I have talked elsewhere about the massive theft of the national debt scam - and even on rabble I cannot raise any interest - I can only guess at the reasons, but the fact this is not being talked about in the MSM, and people believe what they read in the MSM (or not) more so than what some lonely voice in the wilderness tells them, would likely be a factor, it seems to me. (Feel free to have a quick read, and then tell me you understand the situation, and truly believe that my ideas are crazy, and allowing private banks to create our money, and our turning over a couple of trillion dollars to them in 'service charges' over the last 30 years, and an ongoing tens of billions each year, is the best way to manage our money supply, we have no better alternative, etc - What Happened? http://www.rudemacedon.ca/what-happened.html )

- I don't believe in 'the electorate', and have never referred to anyone that way. What I believe is that the average Canadian has an innate sense of fairness, and if they had any idea what was going on with the electoral system, would vote to change it - which is why the MSM spends so much time telling them things are fine, PR is too complicated, etc - and as a well-trained citizen who trusts in the integrity of their media, they leave it there - such busy lives everyone leads today, no time for independent thinking or research - not needed anyway, when your media tells you what you need to know and you believe them. One of the main problems progressives face, this very misplaced belief in the integrity of the MSM (I am a bit surprised to see so much touching faith in the integrity of the MSM even here on Babble, but I suppose I shouldn't be ...).

Again, these people are very, very good - they've been working on this for most of the last century, since Lippmann and Bernays, among others. They know that they can leave you alone most of the time, so you feel free - they only want to influence you now and then, with the important stuff, or keep you altogether away from some things like understanding anything about how completely you are controlled by allowing private banks to control the money. They also don't want you questioning your 'democracy', so that kind of thing is never permitted - when people themselves start asking some hard questions about their 'democracy', which is becoming so dysfunctional it is obvious, they start with the misdirection - hey, we'll give MPs more free votes, that's all we need! and etc - but any talk of getting closer to real democracy, such as through PR, is squelched as much as possible - as I have noted, to hear supposedly intelligent CBC senior hosts telling their listeners that they don't want PR, it's too hard to understand, the old system is fine - makes it pretty clear the MSM speak with one voice, and Cdns are not going to get PR anytime soon.

So as for the question - "the people" did not / do not KNOW that FPTP is a very unfair system, and PR would be much more fair - all they 'know' is that most people in the MSM are telling them it is too complicated and they don't need it, things are just fine as they are, and as most people believe what they are told in the MSM, they saw/see no reason to accept it. Which is why a long-term, non-MSM education program is needed, to make people aware of this situation, so if they get a chance to change their voting system again sometime, they can actually make an informed decision. I do not really think the word 'coached' is the word I would use - it is what the media does, coaches them with lies and fear-mongering to vote the 'right' way without undrstanding anything - myself, what I think needs to be done, is for somebody with the resources, such as the NDP, to educate the people through long-term information provision and discussion so they actually understand what is being discussed. At which time (this is getting into Aliceland, as I don't really expect such a time to come), I would expect them to vote for PR, a system which much more accurately reflects the way 'they' all together have voted. I may be wrong, but I do think most Canadians really are fair people - it's part of what was making our country great before the neocons decided they were going to take it - part of neocon-NWO-capitalism, of course, is destroying fairness and encouraging priviledge for some and serfdom for others, and getting the people to fight for scraps (divide and conquer), which many are embracing, some out of approval (they think they deserve better), but others because they perceive they have no choice in a dog-eat-dog world, in which they want the best for themselves and their families they can manage, and if that means a 'me first f*** you' capitalist attitude towards their life and world, then they will do it. but that's another story.  

Again, this grows long - but like any serious issue in our society, twitter just doesn't cut it for useful dicussion (odd how twitter is being given such media attention - they really want people out there twittering mindless slogans and soundbites and useless chatter, rather than getting involved in any useful discussions...)

- nice clip - haven't seen Chomsky looking that young in awhile - and the drivel from the mouth of the 'host' mocking Chomsky - awesome, as they say. Sad to think how many people seem to agree with him ...

For what? For doing nothing about it. A one liner on the website saying that the NDP supports MMP without even explaining the statement is not an "inordinate amount of time". The purpose of the thread is to explore "why". It is true that many electoral reformers do wonder about the NDP's commitment because these arguments do not really make sense. "The proof of our support for PR is our silence about it." 

Yes they did or am I misreading, misrepresenting and misquoting? 

Shortly after the British Columbia second referendum on electoral reform (which failed to pass) a poll found that a majority of voters supported PR, which leads to the conclusion that either general ignorance of the proposal or disike of the particular scheme was at work.

I gues that a lesson from this would be that a future vote should be in two parts - the first a choice between FPTP and PR, then a second vote to choose a PR system. it is very easy to shoot down a specific system. especially if the the current system does not need to be defended.

__________________________________

One struggle, many fronts.

Referring to post12-

"Sounds like an excuse for what?" Answered: excuse for doing nothing about PR.

Two common accustaions are levelled at the NDP about working on PR, and its hard to keep them straight when people dont specify.

By the context I thought this was accusation #1: that the NDP doesnt WANT PR, so pretends various things.

The other accusation is that the NDP does nothing or at least way too little.

The reply to that by Dippers is that it isnt as easy to get traction on, spend your time talking to nobody and you get nowhere on nothing. Pick your battles.

So its to THAT you are saying "sounds like an excuse." This is inherently circular.

We say its not a higher priority because we dont think there's traction in this battle. We cant do all things, this doesnt make the cut.

Then you say that saying there isnt traction on it is an excuse for not making it a higher priority. No its the REASON for not making it a higher priority. We DISAGREE about the evidence of how much traction there is on the issue. Dont treat us like we're stupid [not looking at the facts], or making excuses [which is circular].

As to my question "Did someone somehwre say that we'd have to abandon all the other issues to tak about PR? No they didnt.":

You are right, one person did. And you've been around here long enough to know that Stockholm is a master of rehetorical excess. And its obvious its rehetorical excess: he did not say we'll have to drop everything else. He said, "What do you want...."

It's interesting how support for FPP in NZ could jump from just 15% in 1992 to 46% a year later. What the bleetin heck?

Harper didnt get traction on the census at all.

That was one thought they could pull through without anybody caring. Thats the biggest part of governing they do other than the sprinkling of goodies. They often get what they want, but they also miscalculate an awful lot. The census thing was suppossed to be a costless 'freebie' for the core. Instead its costing them pretty substantially.

More fundamentally you are showing a lack of awareness what fundamental messaging and possibilities of what you can get is all about.

You and a lot of other people around here think its just a matter of throwing your weight around. "Look what happens when Harper makes clear and tough stands. But it is entirely different what a government can do- getting in under the radar to get something you want is something you can do as a government. Whether or not you succeed, you can try.

Thats just not available as an option to anyone else.

We did by the way talk about whether there is traction available around building support for PR directly. Various people quote statistics that show how many people favour PR. That gets countered with specific arguments about what that does and does not translate into as far as traction available. I call that a disagreement, which strikes me as the respectful thing to do. You and others dismiss it as making excuses for doing nothing and/or covering for not wanting PR in the first place.

Shall we repeat that for another round?

Just a couple of thoughts for the mix.
I agree with hsfreethinkers - PR is very fundamental to democracy (at least the kind of representative democracy we have in Canada and most western countries, which are more in the line of faux-democracies, but given that this is what we have to work with, and one step at a time ..) - and also it would mean almost certainly a substantial rise in the number of NDP seats in the government, with the attendant increases in money, media time, influence, etc - it kind of baffles me why this isn't essentially a no-brainer, esp when you consider that any studies that have examined the situation seem to indicate that the better people understand PR, and how FPTP screws all the results in favor of the Libs and Cons and against the NDP and smaller parties, tend to strongly favor it. That most Cdns do not have this understanding is something the major parties, and their MSM, are of course happy with and don't plan to do anything about - and thus if anybody with any voice at all in the country is going to start the long-term program to get people informed about PR, it's going to be the NDP.   

Exactly what other 'issues' do the NDP place above this one, in terms of long-term strategy? Whatever the issues, obviously the NDP is currently a very small voice, and substantially increasing the seat count (almost doubling it, actually) would make that voice stronger in all other issues - so surely focusing on a long-term strategy like getting PR known and accepted by Cdns would be a more useful use of resources than simply responding to short term hot-button issues promoted by the major parties and/or MSM? I am not at all suggesting the NDP become a one-issue party - but you don't need to spend a lot of time figuring out what to say about, say, the gun control issue, or even bigger long-term issues like climate change - they can be easily dealt with, in terms of the NDP position.

The whole meaning of 'long term strategy' is just that - long term thinking - I don't actually seem to see much of that in the NDP. Or Rabble, for that matter (occasional talks like this being a bit of an exception, sometimes in some ways - although rejecting PR is not, in my opinion, obviously, very good long-term thinking..). Understanding the importance of PR, and getting it more or less top and center and front in the long term strategy, would seem to me to be about the most effective thing the NDP could do for long term growth. Not a one-issue party at all - but just a continuing, consistent policy that over time everyone will know about, and learn about, and eventually support. As an example from the other side, how often do we hear about tax cuts and the 'benefits of the free market' from the capitalist parties? Every time they open their frigging mouths wouldn't be a great exxageration, even while doing all the other stuff they do - and it has become a meme in western societies - and now even people who should have more sense (including a lot in the NDP), now accept these things as givens. And this did not happen by accident.

25 years ago, when the neocons officially took over Canada, they were not thinking 'Golly, Cdns like their 'socialist' state, so trying to change their minds would be useless' (a central argument against PR in the NDP strategy seems to be similar - Cdns know nothing about PR so it would be too difficult to teach them) - they thought 'Canadians like their socialist state - but we want to get rid of it - so here's the plan, and let's get at it, long-term strategy begins today'. And 25 years later - that's where we are. (Something actually beneficial to our 'democracy' like PR would be an easier sell, I think - if somebody actually got trying to sell it in a systematic way. (related advantage would be that once the understanding that PR is actually a better way of doing things became widely accepted - well, which party would be associated with it? right.)
- really, I cannot see any downsides to making PR a central strategy plank of the NDP, and many upsides. So why aren't they/you doing this? Maybe I'll step out on a big limb and address this later ....

If the Liberals spend too much more time in phony opposition, then I think there could then be more talk of electoral reform within that party. And that's what's actually needed to get ER on the RADAR in Ottawa - AT LEAST two of the three main parties must support ER if ER is to become a democratic decision made in this country. And this is why the NDP is content to have ER as a platform plank. We need to unite the left across Canada since the right unified as a singular army of darkness under the ReformaTories. And Jack has tried to reach out to the phony opposition a couple of times now.

There has been NO response from the phony opposition though. LPC has given Jack the cold shoulder. What else can the NDP do when the official opposition party acts more like the official court jesters?

The Liberal Party of Canada has to come to the realization that neoliberal ideology they've championed for the last three decades is broken-down with four flat tires in the rhubarb patch, and it's simply not the democratic way forward. The fact that Conservative party had to unite under one banner and then rely on a phony opposition party to prop them up is proof enough for me that the neoliberal ideology is inherently undemocratic. The NDP needs to continue plugging away at the LPC and thieving their supporters where possible, and-or,  hope that more traditional LPC voters continue to stay home on election day. Either way the Liberal Party has to do about face and stop trying to be a redundant conservative party. They aren't fooling so many Canadians anymore.

How can the NDP even compete with issues such as the census form, or the frickin' gun registry? Who wants to talk about the democracy gap-canyon when those other two hot topics of discussion are raging in news headlines and coffee shops and dinner tables across our Northern Puerto Rico?

In fact, few outside those ~40% or so of eligible voters who selected the Harpers and cold Liberal leftovers warmed over last election are discussing Canadian politics at all much less Census forms and much less electoral reform. There are millions of Canadians who tuned out from politics years ago, after the great sell out of 1988-89, and then millions more Canadians realized its only a rubber chicken democracy after  and the treasonous betrayal of 1993-1994. Canadians are done with political shock therapy and can't handle any more quackery.

I think Jack did his part in trying to forge an alliance with the Liberals leading up to Perogy fest part one in Ottawa. They know Jack and the NDP are open to a majority alliance again if the situation arises. Jack's not the one with his arms crossed and refusing to talk turkey. ER is nice, but it would would still be years in the making. An alliance or partnership of some kind in the mean time is the shortest path to democracy.

I'll go back and edit, being more careful about my use of words around long term strategizing to try to root out what is just misunderstanding. When and if I do, you might edit or remove your blocks of text on the subject. Remove them, and do a new post if you disagree with the clarification.

To the point of what the Right did:

The example of the tax issue, theyy did not create a 'hook' around the issue of taxes.

Remember the discussion context here: what people think Reform did is used many times as an example of what the NDP should do, and would if it had guts, or whatever it is deficient in.

I made the point that not only did Reform not have to do anything like create a hook- I said NO 'public face' of the Right ever had to do that. Becasue they dont have to. Their think tanks speak, and the MSM gradually spreads, until it becomes a flood. Not everything they want, but plenty enough. FAR more than will ever be available to us. Certainly including taxes and the role of government.

We dont get that benefit. We'll have to do it another way. And saying the NDP should be like Reform, is not merely wrong, its a distraction from finding our way. Because neither Reform, nor ANY right wing public group had to do anything as deliberate and calculated as we'll have to do.

It was sufficient for them to talk. Just talking, and the 'spreading' happening more or less organically... that generally doesnt work for us on 'tough issues' [as tax cutting was for theRight when they started talking it up].

That said: the Right did indeed decide what they had to do, and they did it. Which we have not done. But the model for what to actually DO is not there for us in what the right did.

Am i making that clear yet? Not whether you agree- clear.

- well, I see we're not at all on the same page. good luck

Traction does not come by magic -- nor does it come simply from content. In part it comes from credibility.

the NDP ought to produce some clear economic priorities-- stick to them over time rather than remaking a platform from scratch each time.

Having a sseries of imediate proposals for current situations is one thing but long term policies like taxation policy and a jobs policy ought to be more consistent and built over time.

also I find the amount of effort the NDP puts to trivial issues designed clearly to get votes rather than change lives is a distraction.

I do support the NDP as the best thing in town but I also wish it would be more coherent with left of centre economic policy options and stop running away from proposals when they get heat or creating half-assed proposals. Examples: the inheritence tax option should have been kept and explained; the proposal to take eveyone under 20k off the income tax roles without regard to their existing credits was stupid (it effectively would ahve erased seniors and handicaped benefits for low income people when a smarter move would have been just to bring up the basic exemption and leave the other credits in place).

You don't need half-assed policies if you keep the well-thought out stuff over time instead of runnign from it when the first media hit comes out negative.

I admit the NDP has been somewhat better at this in the last couple years but I'd like to see a longer track record of consistency on pocket book issues that matter and not just smaller issues like bank fees which are a nuisance to be sure but not life-changers.

Re KenS @ 31:

I am profoundly more pessimistic than you are about progress on any substantive issue without first having a voting system which produces more representative results than FPTP. In fact, I think this is the main difference between you and most of your antagonists in this subject. You believe that progress can be made with the system we have. I think the chances of that are similar to the chances of winning a lottery.

@MM:

Well here is where the 'movement thinker' comes in. If people want something, you can sell them on it, even if at the outset they dont understand excatly what you are trying to sell them on.

So if there is traction on an issue, you can sell them. And I think there is on 'sustainability' and what surrounds it.

I do also think that people could be sold on really caring about democratic reform that would include PR. But I think its harder with something that does not already have enough existing 'handles' in enough peoples values. And I'm just not willing to take the indirect route that others see as a utilitarian pre-requisite.

There is a difference there about seeing PR as a pre-requisite to getting anything else. On that we'll have to agree to disagree. But I sure hope people will stop the unspoken running together of that feeling that it is a [utilitarian] pre-requisite, with notions that there is some broad appetite for it.

The CCF got medicare in Saskatchewan. With FPTP, and with citizens not being ready at the start for what they ended up with. [And they did it with a gradual discussion, moving the bar in steps.]

Yes, apparently the NDP is supposed to campaign as if the electoral dynamic is that of PR. And it's a formula for disaster. It wouldn't matter if Jesus was leader of the party and we had the stone tablets as platform planks. Canadians who do vote tend to vote for the sake of tradition. Meanwhile millions of Canadians' who do vote are frustrated by wasted votes, and the other 40% of Canadians not voting are just jaded altogether.

With FPP, several dollars equals one vote not one person equals one vote. The problem is that money + politics does not equal democracy.  The red chamber has no place in a modern democracy either. These are tight times right now politically, and I think the Liberals are keeping low profile because the banks have instructed them to continue propping-up the Harpers. Their hands are tied by big money Bay Street interests, and so are the Harpers. The NDP is the only party of the four that doesn't owe favours to Bay Street or the American fossil fuel industry helping Canadians by taking the oil and gas and massive amounts of electric power off our hands for a song and a bottle.  Actually, they need at least a few NDP MPs in Ottawa to make the whole setup appear legit while robbing us blind.

Its worth noting that if the tone shifts to "if the NDP did more about democratic reform and PR specifically we would get something out of it", rather than "if the NDP really cared ,or its suspicious that the NDP....."  

Then I would no longer have an interest in arguing that you categorically have no idea how hard it is to get some movement.   And when I make that argument its not because I want to defend the NDP. Rather, because as I think should be apparent here, I see the thinking that it is a tap turned on [or not] to be a fundamental obstacle in us making progress.

You should specify whether you are referring to what has been said about PR, or about taking that and what the NDP does to a much more general scale.

For what its worth, while I think I have good grounds for saying there is not as much existing traction on PR as a lot of people seem to think... I know thats an arguable point.

I only strenuously argue against notions that there is some kind of tap that the NDP just isnt interested in flipping over.

Which is related to the discussion around what people think Reform achieved- an admittedly bigger issue. And one that is not just about the NDP. And on that one I think I'm on really solid ground: that Reform did not do what people think it did, which the NDP could also do.

There is a general axiom for discerning how supportive parties are of PR and how hard they work to enact it. Their support varies inversely with the probability of victory under first past the post. As long as the federal party must function as a coalition of provincial parties including the Saskatchewan, Manitoba and BC NDP, its support for PR will be tepid and short-term. Layton's interest in vigorously promoting the system lasted one electoral cycle.

The problem is that the very moments when the federal party is sufficiently influential to get PR through are when there is a political crisis in Canada and it looks like the party could make a breakthrough under FPTP, case in point, Dion's coalition. Ultimately, whether in 1972, 2005 or 2008 the "this is our shot at a false majority and a European-style realignment," thinking overwhelms historical perspective and principle.

Sorry I don't have time to go back and find it but I do remember the BQ as being clear about support for PR if there was ever an opportunity.

The rest of your post I can agree with mostly-- especially the part about making resources available. It is also possible to create a report using international data on the subject.

I totally agree with the complaint that the NDP gets a platform and for some reason wants an entirely new one each election. It makes it difficult to see what the party stands for and leads to the impression that the answer is not much.

There needs to be a core program and that can include a series of democratic and accountability reforms and there is no reason why the party has to remake them each election.

Part of the problem is the misconception that you have to make news with your platform each time. You don't and there are many other ways to make news. The idea that each party has to eek out a platform piece by piece and all has to be original and secret before the campaign leads to very poor public policy and poor political choice.

All you are looking for is something between 25 and 50% of policy staffing resources. Reallocated from where? what issues?

But your last point about the possible underestimating of potential is still valid, even if your guess of what could be put in is way off. Ed Broadbent would by no means not be the only one who would agree with you. Would include some MPs, no idea how many or what proportion. But then there's people like me, who think the limited resources would best be used elsewhere. [And dont worry, the resources arent wasted on fluff like developing communications around initiatives for lower ATM fees. It shouldnt surprise anyone that sort of thing does not take any policy staff time, and little communications time.]

Earlier in the discussion people have put out statistics from polling of how many people support PR.

Counter-arguments were made about why this cant be counted as support the NDP can be built on. I didnt pay attention to how far that went because its a discussion that requires some difficult approximations of weighing of apples versus oranges. Not a question we could resolve here.

I also expect it is something that has been queried by NDP Caucus staff- and didnt look promising enough to warrant it being more than one among other things the NDP promotes.

But then I'm very confident that the NDP Caucus universally wants PR. Its just too much in the interest of the federal NDP. It even dovetails with the party's limited incrementalist approach to politics... being the shorter road to some kind of greater power. Screw what the provincial sections might want or not- they dont say anything, and wont be in the way. Even their bad example wont be substantially in the way.

I'm surprised that it isnt just the habitual strong critics of NDP positions who think the Caucus is just too conflicted to want to pursue PR. So I'm not sure what to make of that, or that I see it so differently. [And while it might not look like it here, I'm not exactly known within the NDP as someone who goes along with groupthink.]

I think Seans right that a weakened Liberal Party might open up enough. Even if there is a new minority government after the next election and the Liberals do nothing more than give it lip service then... presuming they come out of that government still not back to being the LPC of old.

But thats not the point in this discussion. The discussion has been about what the NDP does or doesnt do in the here and now, with even openess from the LPC being not on the horizon.

As am I. I also feel very confident that Jack personally wants PR every bit as much as Ed Broadbent, if not more. Ed was never able to bring the party along with him. But the same convention that elected Jack passed a resolution supporting PR, and not just a quick rubber-stamp, but a major debate on a report from a committee that had worked for two years, with a floor debate on an amendment (an unofficial minority report) to add a reference to a 5% threshold, which carried. In short, the party willingly made PR a priority in 2003.

The question is, will the federal party take any action to help move the issue forward? It can't be done by one party alone. But silence makes it look like a Green Party issue. The Alberta and Quebec Liberals, who need PR both provincially and federally, cannot be expected to stick their noses out too far when they look to be voices in Elizabeth May's wilderness. Every poll, even the botched referendums, showed PR more popular than the NDP. There's just no downside, except in the minds of the odd strategists who think medicare is our only signature issue and can't imagine Jack being "the Tommy Douglas of Democracy." But whenever Jack is in a scrum and PR comes up, he is passionate and eloquent. Unleash Jack!!!

The BQ is the key but not for that reason.

True, they know PR is democratic. Duceppe has personally been a PR advocate as long as Jack. But the PQ is conflicted, because Charest's caucus came out with a poor PR model that would have helped no one but the Liberal Party, so many in the PQ started saying "PR yes, but after independence." The Bloc used to support PR, but it is gone from their website. In 2006 when Ed got a parliamentary committee to start the PR ball rolling, the Bloc wrote a perfectly accurate comment:

An exact prediction of what Harper did when he got the anti-PR Frontier Centre for Public Policy to conduct a fake consultation.

No, the Bloc is the key to the Liberals, because the Bloc benefits from FPTP even more than the Alberta and Saskatchewan Conservatives. The majority of Canadians voted Liberal, NDP or Green in 2008. The Bloc would not have won the balance of power in 2008, nor in 2006, nor in 2004, under PR. The Liberals may finally wake up to this. For comparison, the federal PCs were the worst victims of FPTP in 1993, 1997, and 2000, and they finally woke up and supported PR at their Edmonton convention in 2002. (But then they were conned into "unite-the-right" instead.) They were somewhat slow learners. But the western Liberals have needed PR since 1979. After the Quebec Liberals needing it for three elections, the Party may have learned. As Chantal Hebert recently wrote: "If the Liberals are serious about restoring their status as a national institution, it is time for them to abandon their faith in short-term electoral short cuts and rethink their approach to a more proportional voting system." There will be Liberals who agree - let's give them a reason to come forward.

Polls showed most voters in B.C. and Ontario support a system based on proportional representation, they just didn't like the systems on offer in those referendums. The UK's Jenkins Commission gave a colourful explanation that accurately predicted why closed province-wide lists would be rejected in Canada: additional members locally anchored are "more easily assimilable into the political culture and indeed the Parliamentary system than would be a flock of unattached birds clouding the sky and wheeling under central party directions."

Our anachronistic single-member plurality electoral system has created a situation whereby Canada now has the least democratic government in the developed world!

Now that Australia and the UK have coalition governments, Canada has the most illegitimate government in the developed world.

Is it too much to ask that Canada's governments represent somewhere near half of the voters?

This is the time to move on PR, and if the NDP doesn't see it then I have to wonder about their judgment, instincts and principles.

Agreed. But these different policy paths are not normally nearly as high-stakes. The NDP backing structural reforms federally that are both desperately needed and corrosive to its power provincially is a higher cost, more problematic action, than differing over something like the long gun registry.

I don't accept this reverse onus. Your "prove it!" standard is not one you are self-applying in this debate. How about offering us something better than "I don't think that's what's going on"? We're offering a reasoned theory; you're offering bald denial. So let me put this to you: why do you think that people who rely on FPTP provincially and advocate vigorously for that system at the provincial level would have no problem functioning as good faith PR supporters at the national level?

You're preaching to the choir, Ken.

Why not demonstrate rather than assert this then?

Under Dion's leadership, when we nearly came level with the Liberals in the polls, the same kind of discourse swirled around the NDP that I remember from the 1985-1988 period when it was speculated by New Democats that the country was about to undergo a European-style realignment whereby the Liberals were reduced to a rump and New Democrats finally became Canada's proper SDP. This, I imagine, had a lot to do with the policy agenda fronted by Dion and Layton not including any PR and the NDP appearing to make only the most minor efforts.

Trudeau offered Lewis PR and the NDP turned it down. That's pretty much an established fact. He did so in the wake of the 1972 campaign disaster "the Land is Strong," when New Democrats felt that looking like they had achieved economic results for people would be more likely to produce the magical realignment in '74.

So yes, I stand behind my claim that given a choice between a plausible fiction of imminent realignment and principled support for PR, the NDP consistently chooses the former.

Oh, so stuart you are taking an example from 30+ years ago to bolster  your  nonsensical premise of the NDP consistently choosing FPTP and denying PR.

~

...it is becoming pretty damn sickening around here in respect to the fabrications, and distorations,  in respect to the NDP and indeed the name calling, actually labelling would be more accurate, of those who are NDP partisans, in a real way, is actually verbal abuse.

Only if you ignore the other examples from the past five years that I put in exactly the same post.

Except the orange cats are really mice and not enjoying any cheese donations or influence pedaling by the fat-cats on Bay Street.

PR is about one mouse equaling one vote in mouseland, and nothing more complicated than that.

56. We should at least have had 56 seats in '08 if rep was proportional. Under an actual PR system, the seat counts would be different altogether.

One person one vote -that's all we want. FPTP is election fraud.

Just re-read your post again, and indeed saw no such thing.

Please do indicate what examples you gave....

LOL

That's true but there are a lot of people outside of the NDP that support PR because they want to see an improvement of our archaic democracy. I'm surprised the only people you know who support PR are NDP partisans, that's certainly not the situation in BC.

That's also true and as it's been pointed out by others on here the NDP has blown it on this issue and has very little credibility left. There are clearly too many in the party's brass who take the Stockholm analysis of Canadians that they are stupid and oblivious to both the broken nature of our democracy and blatant hypocrisy.

Thats an attribution of positions to people. Its not even accurate about what Stockholm said, let alone its a dismissive tactic to take what one person says as representing everyone else with a similar position. It sure as hell isnt remotely like anything I said, and I object to being included in your charicature.

But you are welcome if you want to back that up with actual people saying that Canadians are stupid and oblivious to the problems of our democracy.

There is a misunderstanding. Or multiple. You listed some staff resources. As it read, it would take that much of the staff resources.

Apparently that isnt what you meant. But even if you did mean it, as I assumed at the time, in quoting me you left out the part where I said doesnt matter, I'll take it as you saying more could be devoted.

The website is pathetic all around, so judging what it doesnt have on any issue is kind of pointless. The "little things" like that are not done on countless issues.And the lack of interactivity goes beyond the website.

ETA on point 6) :

There wont be opportunities to use the talking points if the NDP does not make them happen. They arent lying out there. The present situation being bad is not iin itself an opportunity to talk and be heard. Those opportunities happen when you prepare the ground. [And none of your previous 5) would subsatantively contribute to doing that.]

This is a big part of the problem, the difference here.

People think that you move an issue by talking, having talking points, issue press releases.

When you do all that, and its an empty room, what next?

Bravo. Recently NDP strategists have been copying the unsuccessful strategy of the Green Party on this. Every election, I end up arguing with Green Party activists that put 75% of their time and effort into making noise so that Elizabeth May gets into the TV debates. If they spent as much time & energy to educate Canadians on why electoral reform was so important, they would be much farther ahead in the long term. But like NDP activists (and leadership, apparently), they can't see beyond the latest hot-button issue.

For a minute let's set aside the obvious democratic and policy advantages that proporational representation could offer Canada, and look at naked self-interest. The NDP have to start playing the long game, and they have to start realizing that for them to get real power to change things - consistently for every election going forward - there has to be fair and proportional voting system in place. No other single policy reform will put the federal NDP closer to the levers of power, forever.

New Democrat apologists sometimes give excuses for the party paying lip service to electoral reform by telling you that it's not an issue that Canadians care about (so why bother with it). If Canadians indeed couldn't care less about proportional representation, it's not electoral reformers who have a major problem, it's the NDP - they are the ones that will pay the biggest price by being marginalized for as long as we have first-past-the-post. No other party in Parliament is hampered more by lack of true democratic representation in this country.

If there's progress to be had, the NDP has to start taking ownership of the issue. Start educating voters, start moving on the issue. It's good politics for the long-term, and it's just plain good policy.

Straw man argument. I haven't read a single person suggest that the NDP should campaign on ER as a single issue election campaign. Some people on this thread who are apologists for the party doing nothing on ER in the last few years seem to think that's what the pro-PR people are asking for. It is not, as far as I've read - just make it a principal part of a whole election platform. Important - not the be all and end all. Because right now it's been relegated so far back on the burner that people have to wonder about the sincerity.

I think we're having a hard time understanding each other and that's unfortunate. 

I don't agree that the room is empty. Nor would I say that it's full if you're referring to voters. Life is complicated and people are able to have views on multiple issues at the same time. Awareness of PR has probably never been higher in Canada. Most of our society is politically apathetic, except at election time. For a lot of people, politics has become a bad reality tv show and the notion of civic responsibility (and engagement) has become just another consumer choice. They mistrust politicians and political parties. They're barraged with sound bites and gimmicks. It's a sad state of affairs.

So "what's next"? I guess the answer to that question depends on the objectives and being able to have effective short, medium and long term plans - to operate strategically. "What's next" includes prioritizing "democracy" itself as it is under steady and vicious attack by the Harper Conservative agenda. How politics are done is probably just as important to the voters as good (or bad) policy. Build it and they will come. Let it erode and it might die. There are new generations of voters and citizens coming of age who don't like what they see and need to understand why politics appear so fucked up. Who's going to tell them the truth about our rotten electoral system and our rotten economic system? 

Puh-lease Fidel. Even if you actually believe that anyone is promoting a "one issue party" (without a shred of evidence); and even if you believe that it could result in "electoral suicide", the tactic of casting aspersions ("those people wishing") on the motives of people with whom you disagree is sleazy and unnecessary. You are labeling us as enemies as a way to win an argument. Please stop it. 

I think I will leave FPP strategy to the strategists. And I'm sorry, but FPP is still very much in play in Canada. We meed shrewd leaders in the NDP not kamikaze strategy IMHO. I'm not labelling anyone as enemies, and I resent that remark.

The NDP has obligations to the widest range of Canadians to stick to our guns and try to be a democratic voice for as many people as possible. IMO, we would lose support if all we did was focus on ER-PR. Under FPP, every party has to appeal to as many voters as possible, and the best way to do that is to multi-task. Spend too much time on one issue, and the results are simply not worth it. I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is with FPP.  And I don't see the NDP as slackers when it comes to addressing the widest range of progressive issues as possible. The NDP is working very hard right now. And as everyone who knows PR should also realize, the NDP has to work a lot harder than the other two parties for every seat we do win. We can't give them an inch, or there will be even fewer NDP MPs representing all of those platform planks including ER-PR. And then where will we be?

Yep, here we go with the FPP politicking again. Fooey on that. psmith, here's your chance to make fools out of all those provincial NDP governments dictating things to Ottawa. Support PR and vote NDP federally, and let's someday force provincial NDP governments to see the light on ER on a national level.

Again: no-one is saying the NDP should spend all their time on this one issue. All they are saying is please please spend some time on this issue. As has been pointed out the party has spent zero time on it lately: the Critic hasn't done anything, it hasn't been brough up in Parliament at all, and there isn't even any communications with NDP supportrs on it at all (which should be preaching to the choir). And as Wilf Day pointed out, when Jack speaks on it he is both passionate and eloquent, why not use that?

Would one single press conference, amongst many others during an election campaign, be so much effort to make for an "important policy plank"? Would Harper or Ignatieff be more credible than Layton to Canadians on this issue? All that has to be done is to frame the issue as Parliament and the system is "dysfunctional" or "not working" and is "increasingly unstable" and this reform is a fundamental part of the cure... not exactly difficult messaging for people to grasp, and it would at least open up a debate on the issue. Proroguing laid the groundwork.

I disagree with your assumption that talking about PR will lose the NDP votes. It will energize the party faithful and outside the party will appeal most to young, educated voters, especially women, if it is spoken of in moderation with other issues (exactly the demographic that mostly votes Liberal right now).

What's sad is that the NDP seems to want to sweep PR under the rug completely right now.

Since the fairness of the electoral system is a basic democratic right, it should not be subject to a referendum.

The best way to establish electoral reform is for the political parties to put it in their platforms and establish it when they are in government.

Another way to establish PR would be to take the issue to the courts and have the Supreme Court support PR as a basic part of democracy. The one million people who vote for the Green Party and get no representation would have a very strong argument.

Make you a deal: if the federal NDP moves significantly at all on the issue to show that they're serious about it (eg. like introducing legislation before the next election, or focusing on it for one single day or a single major announcement during a 5+ weeks-long election campaign) then I will be reassured and can support the federal NDP in that effort. But as things stand right now, there's just no evidence that they give a hoot federally, or will push the provincial governments on it. Ever.

You probably think I'm just about alone amongst Canadians in this being important (even now after all the proroguement drama, the increasing dictatorial concentration of powers in the PMO, and successive unstable minority parliaments, all circling the issue). But you'd be wrong. I'm here talking about it because I was turned onto it by friends over coffee.

And no, I'm not an electoral reform wonk and don't have a grad degree in voting systems. I don't even have a degree, even if I do take an interest in politics and I'm concerned about what's happening to this country. I have a mortgage and drive a pickup and drink coffee at Tim Horton's. Remember those polls showing that more & more Canadians are turning on to PR and the issue as a whole in recent years? I'm one of them.

Countries that have PR received PR the way we received single-member plurality (SMP). Just like here in Canada, political elites established their electoral systems.

New Zealand is one notable exception where a referendum was required.

In countries where the political elites have felt that minorities must be respected, PR has been established.

- that's probably a good idea - I am sure that quibbling amongst 'those who know' about which PR system is best has had the effect amongst at least many of  'those with no idea' of causing them to throw up their hands in frustration and join the pack who say that PR is just too complicated, the old system is fine, etc - the MSM line. If we got together behind one of these systems, any united front would be much stronger than the 'arguing amongst ourselves' front, if you can call it that at all, of earlier times. Any of the *better* PR systems (emphatically NOT including any form of STV, which is just a system to legtimize FPTP and doesn't seem to have any PR in it at all) would be better than what we have today with FPTP

- and Fidel, may I add my protest to your continued assertion that those of us trying to get people to pay attention to PR are advocating the NDP become a one-issue party - that is simply not true, and *nobody* is saying that, as you have been told repeatedly. Find something else to hang your hat on.

I am part of New Democrats for Fair Voting, urging the federal party and federal caucus to do more about PR. So I agree with the thrust of many posts here. However, I'll add a few details.

Actually I didn't go that far on 1972, I just asked for a link. But it would be remarkable. Trudeau certainly knew all about PR. But in 1972 hardly anyone wanted it but Levesque. In 1970 in the PQ's first election it had come second in the popular vote but fourth in seats, winning only 7 seats, 6% of the seats on 23% of the vote. Trudeau seldom said "me too" to Levesque. But I haven't searched the history; it's possible he did.  

I'm not certain whether the NDP team ever raised PR in the negotiations. Brian Topp's book doesn't say they did, although he himself says Dion's infamous video should have said that this was "the start of a new era of responsive, accountable government that would actually enjoy the voting support of a clear majority of the Canadian people, and not simply be the lucky recipients of the undemocratic quirks of Canada's antiquated electoral system." Within the NDP Caucus, PR was/is seen as Ed's issue, and Ed was at the centre of the Coalition negotiations, so I expect they would respond that PR wasn't doable in these quickie negotiations -- for one thing, the Bloc would not have been keen. But I don't know what was said on the topic.

As noted earilier, in the last Saskatchewan election the NDP, belatedly but at last, proposed a Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform. At least four years too late. But they did propose it.

I totally agree the NDP should propose an open-list MMP system, as the Law Commission of Canada proposed.

I actually agree Baden-Wurttemberg's best runners up version would probably be the easiest sell in Canada. Few people talk much about it. It would probably appeal to Conservatives, but I have not heard Hugh Segal, Rick Anderson or Patrick Boyer say so publicly.

The 2003 and 2006 resolutions have been replaced by the new Policy Book, which states as already mentioned above.

And speaking of the Bloc, and I would say even if serious talk about PR comes up at a time when the Bloc seems permanently weakened, some Quebec federalists will take their position anyway.... the devil in the details about what FORM of PR is going to make the discussions around this in Ontario an BC look like childs play. Because the form has to suit Quebec's narrow long term strategic balance interests... as well as everything else.

Which I guess its one of the many reasons that if at all possible PR has to be rooted as something people want as a general principle, not by holding out a model. Which of course runs counter to the general operating principle that it is easier to rally people around something specific and concrete.

Maybe the "fireside chat" approach is what is required. Where the leader or leaders [whatever of] sit down and talk out what everybody knows: system is broken, which them works to how FPTP helps perpetuate that, etc.

But when Tommy Douglas or Franklin Roosevelt took that approach to "big picture needs"- they had the authority and mandate that gave them the undivided ear of the people. Replicating that dynamic without having the position that made it possible, would be no mean feat.

Uncharted territory.