babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
I don't agree with you there. But I'm not going to get dragged into a debate about who means more per word said or is more sincere about PR when they talk about it - the NDP or GPC. It doesn't matter anyways. One thing that the NDP could do at any time that the GPC can't is table legislation on PR, or raise it in debate in the House of Commons. Heck, they could at least put a couple of web pages on their website up about it. Or talk to the NDP base about PR. But they haven't done any of these things since around the turn of the milennium. So forgive us former or wavering New Democrat supporters for doubting sincerity. Many of us live in provinces with NDP long-standing governments who are just as dead-set against PR as any Liberal or Conservative government has ever been ...and thus some doubt whether being a New Democrat is right for them. Yes, we see the "actions/words" hypocrisy as plain as day.
If PR really is an NDP important policy like some people here are saying, how come not a single New Democrat provincial government has implemented it - or even put it forward as a proposal? Nothing could help the cause of PR in Canada more than a province adopting it, and showing other Canadians over time that it isn't the devil incarnate and can actually work. One single New Democrat government doing that could really douse burning fears Canadians have about PR (enflamed by Lib/Cons and others wanting to keep the status quo).
I'd like to hear the apologists come out with their reasons/exuses for that one.
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.
I didnt want to get into degree points either. You did say in your post its in the NDPs interest too. so I took it from there.
We agree that the GP isnt putting as a high a priority on PR as you would think given its in their interests.
You think that even if PR is in the NDPs interest, its not in the interest of the people in the NDP that matter. Thats close enough for our purposes to what you said. So leave the NDP out. Why doesnt the GPC make it a higher priority?
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.
They're too busy trying to stand out as the greenest party in the land. And look at the results. I'm not scoffing at a party that takes environmental issues so seriously. It's just that the environment really is a high priority, and look how FPP rewards a one-issue party. It's a travesty of democracy. The Greens should be an important democratic voice in Ottawa, and they aren't there. Not a single MP.
WE NEED A UNITED FRONT ON THE LEFT if we are to make good things happen in this country. We have to play their game and be better at it than them.
In school, kids learn that homework and long term goals require a lot of work. Inch by inch it's a cinch. But mile by mile, it's a pile. There are few shortcuts to democracy. It's not going to be easy. Bay Street and rightwing think tanks won't make it easy for us.
Jack is fully open to shortcuts to democracy and has indicated to the Liberal Party in the recent past that his door is open to discussions. That's the only short cut that I know of. ER-PR has to be a democratic decision though. This is a basic truth and isn't going to change soon.
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.
The NDP should come up with their preferred system. This would come in handy if and when the NDP ever finds itself in negotiations with the Liberals over support of a coalition or minority government. The NDP officially supports MMP but has not come out in favour of a particular form of MMP. Coming up with a detailed version of MMP would move electoral reform forward.
Most people who support PR seem to prefer either an open list system like Bavaria's or a best near-winner version like Baden-Wurttemberg's. Personally I prefer Baden-Wurttemberg's best runners up version. Baden-Wurttemberg's system would probably be the easiest sell in Canada. I would make one change to Baden-Wurttemberg's system; I'd use AV instead of single member plurality to select constituency members.
For many people who support PR the debate over the best system seems to have whittled down to Bavaria vs Baden-Wurttemberg or open list vs no list/best near-winner.
The NDP could be at the fore-front of democratic reform if it came up with an excellent model of MMP. And NDP members in Manitoba. New Brunswick, and, BC, could immeasurably help the process along if they ensured that NDP provincial governments implement PR ASAP.
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.
The courts in Quebec have said that ER is a political issue. I think they are on to something. I think referendum would legitimize such an important issue as ER. We wouldn't want them to ram a bill through Parliament without any debate to hand all federal powers of money creation and credit to six large privately owned banks would we? In fact, they did it in 1991. No debate, and no referendum either. We should not resort to their dictatorial methods. Choice is an important underlying theme of populism and the very essence of democracy itself. There are other important reforms which need introducing as well, like transparency and accountability in government, and a non-elected senate still representative of a bygone era when rich land owners were the only ones considered fit to rule over the common rabble. Harper lied
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.
Polunatic, why are you even trying? The argument being advanced that it would take a lot of time or effort for NDP staff to come up with something - anything - on electoral reform, or that nothing can be said about PR because it would cost the NDP votes, these are red herrings.
They are only being thrown out there because making it look difficult/costly is the only defence party apologists have for the party doing nothing. It's a smokescreen and a distraction.
The simple truth is the party has done nothing, and they don't realise it's costing them some support. So party policy people will defend the inaction in any way they can. They already know it would take only a day or two for one of their 100+ policy/communications/legislation staff to put together a major policy initiative on this issue. And no, they wouldn't have to drop health care or pensions (or anything else) to do it. Your starter plan should be obvious to anyone who has a job at that outfit.
- 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.
Who is the "they" who are doing nothing?
You're dreaming. "Major policy initiative"??? It would probably take a day or two to come up with a complete list of the people who would need to be involved, and it would probably take more than a day or two in order to schedule an inital conference call.
If you think it takes a day or two to come up with a "major policy initiative" then why don't you spend a day or two doing it? Then BOOM, the NDP could use your complete plan for a major policy initiative to benefit all Canadians.
You think the federal NDP has 100+ people employed on policy/communications/legislation work?!?! Are you kidding??!?
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.
I think we're saying the same thing, but just be explicit:
Whether or not the NDP would even raise PR in the negotiation conditions would be a reflection that it is known it would be a deal breaker for the Liberals. You undermine your leverage if you blue sky with things you know the partner will never except- that bluntly speaking, you dont bring enough to the table for them to think of going that far.
In the case of the Martin government, after agreeing to what they needed to give to survive that confidence vote, the Liberals werent interested in bending again, period. Let alone to consider even a little wedgie slice of talking about PR.
And whatever Dion's personal proclivities might have been were irrelevant- he was in a very tenuous position for his mandate to do the Coalition thing.... so Topp, or earlier on Broadbent, would know even bringing up PR as a possibility would kill the process.
The Bloc would have been a problem too. But any talk among the New Democratics about PR in the coalition mix would have fallen on what the Liberals could even optimistically be expected to stretch too... before possibilities about the Bloc would even be entertained.
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.
Closing for length.