New Democrats for Fair Voting
opening post
Comments
Thomas Mulcair has said the words out of his mouth as you'll find in #8 in this thread, are you accusing the multiple people who've asked him at meet and greats of lying or the candidate himself?
You are not trying to pick a fight, are you? Thomas, is that you?
I'm not accusing anyone of lying, just that as I've said before, some vaguely remembered comments somewhere isn't enough. People need to see a commitment on paper from their campaign, on the candidate website, or a solid commitment in a speech. Something concrete. It has to be a visible part of the platform of the candidate in order to signal that it is a priority, and not just something that the candidate might back-burner once they get in. That they are willing to be held to account for the commitment.
Is there video from these meetings where he said these things? Or a TV interview anywhere where he commits to bringing in proportional representation? I'd honestly love to see one.
I am looking for three things from the candidates on their commitment to proportional representation:
1. I am looking to see if they support proportional repreentation.
2. I want the candidates to explain why they support PR (or oppose it). I do not want to hear that it is NDP policy. I want a personal reason why they support PR.
3. I want them to explain how they would promote PR and how they would bring PR to Canada.
Note: I do not expect the candidates to support a particular PR system.
Your concerns should be directed to Mulcair's campaign, at
Feel free to post any reply you get.
I have sent several messages to the Thomas Mulcair campaign. So far, I have not received any replies. I have informed the Thomas Mulcair campaign several times that if I do not receive any meaningful replies from the campaign that I will place Mr. Mulcair last on the preferential ballot. So far, no replies.
I am wondering if I would want to choose an NDP version of Stephen Harper.
But there still isn't anything from Thomas Mulcair, and it is getting late in the race. There are rumors that he says things in meetings, etc., and assurances from his campiagn team, but nothing solid from the horse's mouth. His power base is in Quebec, where he could actually lose seats under proportional representation. Is Mulcair throwing proportional representation overboard for expediency?
I have no reason to suspect this. He has been consistent in his statements. There should be something in writing soon. I've seen a comment "we're literally wall-to-wall with our 10-person campaign team." I'm sure it's coming.
Quote:Your concerns should be directed to Mulcair's campaign, at
Feel free to post any reply you get.
I have sent several messages to the Thomas Mulcair campaign. So far, I have not received any replies. I have informed the Thomas Mulcair campaign several times that if I do not receive any meaningful replies from the campaign that I will place Mr. Mulcair last on the preferential ballot. So far, no replies.
I am wondering if I would want to choose an NDP version of Stephen Harper.
Maybe you are framing your messages in to negative a light. If you just tell them that if you don't get a reply, you'll put Mulcair at the bottom of your ballot, they'll get the idea you don't like him anyways so their is no point in trying to reply to you, because they might think your mind is already made up. Instead, perhaps, try it a more positive way, saying if you DO get a reply, you'll consider putting Mulcair at the top of you ballot. I'm not sure that'll work for you, but that's sort of like what I did, and I got a reply the very next day.
Just a thought. = P
there's not really any daylight between the candidates, with the possible exception of Cullen's plan
I've removed the context of DSloth's comment, because as a standalone remark it provides a cogent summary of the entire leadership race.
If Mulcair is chosen leader, we might better have allowed the members of the caucus choose their House leader themselves.
Just wanted to say that the quote is accurate, to the best of my recall. I was listening carefully because this is arguably the issue I care about most, other than job creation / anti-austerity.
I can also see how an actual public statement (e.g.: a press release, even a youtube video) would give reassurance. It's notable that we've had 5 provinces with NDP governments, and 0 provinces with proportional representation. People have every right and every reason to be cynical.
I am looking for three things from the candidates on their commitment to proportional representation:
1. I am looking to see if they support proportional repreentation.
2. I want the candidates to explain why they support PR (or oppose it). I do not want to hear that it is NDP policy. I want a personal reason why they support PR.
3. I want them to explain how they would promote PR and how they would bring PR to Canada.
Note: I do not expect the candidates to support a particular PR system.
This is what I'm looking for as well. I think a lot of members are. Anyone notice that in the debates and public meetings the candidates speak in, that some of the biggest applauses come when any of them commit to changing our broken voting system? That says something about who will get votes.
Looks like candidates have been continuing to talk about proportional representation and flesh out their policies on it on it (good for Peggy Nash!), except, notably, for Thomas Mulcair. Someone posted here that he only has a 10-person campaign team and that's maybe why he hasn't answered any emails about it or campaign surveys, but I think thats a lame excuse. The leading candidate has only 10 workers able to answer emails or surveys? They can't even put up a short statement on the website, or facebook or tweet something, committing to bringing in proportional representation? Bogus.
Stop making excuses for these people. They want your vote, they should have to earn it with good policy. If Mulcair can't even get his act together on a key issue like this for New Democrats, what hope does he have of managing a zillion issues if he becomes leader?
PS - please don't tell me any more about rumours of something he or anyone else may have heard him say at a meeting somewhere. Video or it didn't happen! Or we need it in black & white from the candidate themselves.
Peggy Nash has signed the Declaration of Voters' Rights and answered Fair Vote Canada's Questionnaire to all NDP Leadership candidates.
1. Have you signed the Declaration of Voters' Rights at www.fairvote.ca?
Yes.
2. If elected Prime Minister would you, in your first mandate, undertake a process that includes public consultation to make the federal electoral system fairer and more proportional to the popular vote?
Yes. I think public consultation will lead to better policy-making on this issue and will generatethe popular support needed to make it a reality. In the coming week I will be putting forward a specific plan to move Canada forward towards a system of proportional representation.
3. As NDP Leader, would you make a process (which includes public consultation) to make the federal electoral system more proportional a necessary condition for supporting any minority government?
Setting out absolute deal-breakers before entering into negotiations, is not always possible, but I will commit to making the implementation of proportional representation a top condition for supporting any future minority government. I think it should absolutely be one of the key issues on the table in any agreement between parties during a minority government. A number of very important measures were implemented in the past because the NDP was able to use its leverage during minority parliaments and I think we should do the same for proportional representation if the opportunity presents itself.
A website for reference materials:
http://www.ndfv.ca/
And a Facebook page which got 91 likes overnight:
https://www.facebook.com/NewDemocratsforFairVoting?sk=wall
French versions of each are about to go up.
And a yahoo group which is not too active yet:
http://ca.groups.yahoo.com/group/ndpfairvoting/
Great to see this thread. I brought this up on a previous thread but got no real answer to my questions about some Leadership candidate's positions (or lack of a position) on bringing about electoral reform. Glad to see that some New Democrats still recognize how important this issue really is.
The NDP might only get a single chance to bring about real electoral reform, just like the opportunity the Rae Government failed to take in 1990. If Rae's NDP had actually done something, they wouldn't have been wiped out quite so badly in 1995, and Harris wouldn't have been able to rule like a dictator for years after that.
But it's no good posting dusty party policy statements or old resolutions that have already been forgotten. People want to hear it right from the candidates mouths: is fixing our democracy a priority? And if so, how would you do it?
As mentioned on this thread Cullen, Topp, and Dewar have all said they would move on proportional representation quickly, and I watched Nash get a big ovation for saying she would do so too at the Toronto debate. But I haven't heard anything from the other candidates or seen anything on their websites.
Notably Thomas Mulcair.
Of all the candidates, I'd be most suspicious that Mulcair would throw democratic reform under the bus. His Quebec power-base benefits from FPTP's unfair distortions as much as Harper's western base does. Mulcair would have the most to lose from moving to fair elections. If power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, will Thomas compromise democratic principles and NDP policy for political expediency? In doing so he could squander the NDP's only chance at giving Canadians the democracy they deserve.
Only a clear committment from Thomas Mulcair to move towards proportional representation will ease my suspicions.
He has made it, publicly. But there is still nothing on his website about it, so far.
Your concerns should be directed to Mulcair's campaign, at
Info@mulcair.ca
Feel free to post any reply you get.
I'm really glad you've brought this to my attention Wilf! I e-mail all of the candidates about this awhile back (though not the ones I knew already that supported it), though so far I have only heard back from the Nash Campaign. They sent me two reply actually.
= P
I'll copy and past them below...
Hello Jordan,
Thank you for your message last month, and congrats on joining the NDP. Please accept my apologies for the very late reply on this. The response has been quite something, and I am behind in my work!!
I can tell you though, that Peggy is 100% in favour of proportional representation, and is very much inspired by Helen Clark, the former PM of New Zealand, who was elected in a system like ours, and then brought in PR.
As for your other questions, I'll leave those to the amazing but overworked policy team, so that someone can get back to you in greater detail. They're responding to questions like yours on a wide range of issues.
Thank you for your patience and engagement, Jordan!
All the best,
Beverly Taft Peggy Nash Leadership Campaign 2012
Hi Jordan, Thank you for writing. I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to your policy questions. First, as Bev pointed out, Peggy supports electoral reform - specifically a mixed member proportional system. It is a top priority for Peggy is to ensure that Parliament reflects the political preferences of Canadians. Further to your interest, Peggy recently spoke in support of MMP in a recent interview on CTV's Powerplay: http://watch.ctv.ca/news/powerplay#clip596688 In addition, Peggy has also promoted electoral reform as an essential tool to increase women's representation in Parliament.
On the Senate, Peggy and the NDP support abolition in accordance with NDP Party policy that was democratically adopted by our membership. All Canadian provincial legislatures have done this many years ago, abolishing their un-elected second chambers to the benefit of democracy. In the meantime, to limit Senate abuses, Peggy will bar failed candidates and party insiders from being appointed to the Senate, and ban senators from fundraising for political parties. While created to be a chamber of "sober second thought" the Senate has a history of being used as a tool of patronage in the hands of the party in power. In addition, we believe that the Senate has failed to protect regional or provincial interests.
Again, thanks for writing. Be sure to check out our newly re-vamped website www.peggynash.ca to get the latest from our campaign.
Best to you,
Etana Cain Peggy Nash for Leader
Can you point to where? A link to an article where he makes it? Video? I have been looking and found nothing solid.
I have not yet got a reply from his campaign, but will post it when I get it. I'll get my friends to write too because I think it is likely Thomas Mulcair and the other candidates who have avoided committment on democratic reform won't say anything unless thye see it is important to people.
But really, I need a public committment and not just an email. I've had too many emails from elected Liberal representatives promising the moon to believe mere emails anymore. I don't think I'm alone. People need to see a public affirmation that the candidates will take significant steps towards proportional representation in their first mandate as prime minister, or they won't believe them. Lack of action by provincial NDP governments have put doubt in everyone's minds about it.
See the second post in this thread. By the way, I have not yet decided who I will make my first choice, and do not plan to commit to any candidate.
http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-leadership-75
Agreed. And even Peggy Nash, whom Google will find supporting proportional representation during this campaign, still has nothing on her website except her most recent statement "Campaign on exciting ideas like proportional representation to inspire hope that the democratic process in Canada can be improved and that there is a reason to participate in the process." Good, but nothing about implementation.
If you go to this site, you will see the three who have such statements. Click on each of the names to see their full website statement. Note that Cullen's website (Nov. 29 statement) still says hold a referendum, while Topp's says "ask for a mandate in the next election to introduce a mixed proportional electoral system."
http://www.ndfv.ca/
Thanks Wilf Day. I read the second post on that thread and it doesn't give me confidence. Mulcair is vague and ambiguous on anything to do with electoral reform. He says things like "I agree with the party platform"
I agree with KenS who says "The fact that a plank exists somehere in the platform does not constitute seeking a mandate."
If the candidate doesn't bring it up themselves in the campiagn and make an issue out of it, I think its fair to say that it is not a top priority for them, no matter what it says in the party policy manual.
In response to all the Mulcair questions I'll quote this recent post from the Leadership thread. Full disclosure I was not there and cannot vouch for the accuracy of the quotation myself but enough people tweeted about Mulcair discussing the issue at the time that I'm fairly confident he said something very close to this.
That to my ear is as good as any of the other candidates has promised. I'm particularly pleased by the "simple passage of legislation line." It would be nice if all the candidates got asked at one of the debates if they believe either a Constitutional amendment AND/OR a referendum would be necessary to pass electoral reform.
Agreed.
But it would be even better if they would post statements on their websites (or in Cullen's case, update his November statement if he no longer proposes a referendum).
By the way, I love this little video which is worth sharing: Empty Feeling:
http://www.fairvote.ca/en/node/15532
That's a very good ad for fair voting. Pass it on, everyone.
Regarding PR and Senate reform: it's worth considering that a triple-e Senate, together with MMP in the Commons, may be useful for reconsideration and reconciliation of regional, national, and linguistic verities, including those of First Nations. It is noteworthy that the Parti Québécois has recently run this very idea up the proverbial flag pole, by suggesting the institution of a bicameral legislature for a sovereign Quebec.
If we reform the Senate, instead of abolishing it, Senators should be elected using a PR system, most likely STV.
A Senate elected by PR would be more democratic than our current House of Commons that's elected through FPTP.
Or even if they do bring it up.
http://www.fairvote.ca/en/10-low-points-in-canadian-elections
Wilf wrote: "In 1984, when competing for the Liberal leadership, Jean Chretien tells reporters in Brandon, Manitoba, he would introduce proportional representation "right after the next election" if he became prime minister. In 1993, Jean Chretien wins the election and begins his ten-year reign as prime minister. In three elections, he never wins more than 42% of the popular vote, but still forms "majority" governments thanks to the current voting system. He never gets around to introducing proportional representation."
Elsewhere, you wrote this: "In Quebec, Levesque was set to proceed with PR after 1980 when his caucus veto'd it. Trudeau's 1980 throne speech promised a parliamentay committee on electoral reform but his caucus veto'd it. More recently, Charest promised a draft bill for a PR system which then took about 12 months to get through his caucus, and his MNAs polluted the model to the extent that everyone else rejected it as a partisan poor version. So it's possible that the caucus are the problem, not the solution; they were elected from the party strongholds, and "if the party's voters in other regions got no representation, why should I do them any favours if it may hurt me?"
Is it possible that Chretian attemptd to introduce PR, but was blocked by his caucus!?
There is nothing to suggest that a "reformed senate" would be "more democratic" that the House of Commons. In fact there is EVERY indication this would not be the case.
First, in practicality, senate members will most likly be elected at large in province-wide elections (as they are in Alberta). This means that you will need much larger levels of financing to run in a senate campaign (as you see in the US).
Next, Senate representation is EXTREMELY ANTI-DEMOCRATIC. As an example, New Brunswick has 10 senators to represent 750,000 people. BC has six senators to represent well over 4 million people. The "Triple E" senate is only a marginal improvement and would leave Canada with an extremely skewed representation favoring the Atlantic provinces over Ontario, the western provinces and Quebec. (EDIT: Actually, it is debatable whether the "triple-E" senate is on balance, an improvement over the rediculously skewed representation that we have now, since under the "Triple E" firmula, PEI gets the same number of senators to represent 140 thousand people as Ontario gets for 12.8 million people).
Thirdly, there is nothing to suggest that it will in any way be "easier" to obtain PR in the senate than in the House of Commons. In fact, since ANY comprehensive reform on the senate requires amendments to the constitution, then it almost certainly is far more feasible to get PR in the House of Commons, since this does not require a constitutional amendment. And it should be obvious to anyone that as bad as our FPTP system is, the House of Commons is the only body which has any democratic basis.
The Senate is an archaic and anti-democratic institution. And it is redundant. Canada has been debating Senate reform for well over fifty years and we are in fact no closer to any national consensus on any "senate reform" proposal today than we were in 1970. This lack of progress is what has lead the Harper government to their strategy of senate reform through the back door (unilateral changes passed by the federal government) which will almost certainly be challenged at the Supreme Court if they go through.
Hopefully most provinces will continue not holding these kinds of bogus elections. And even if a provincial government holds an election, subsequent governments are under no obligation to continue holding them.
Harper has been smart enough to make sure that his changes to the Senate are within the constitution because his changes are all non-compulsory. His Senate reform plan allows the Governor General to still be able to appoint anyone, whether they've been elected or not. Under Harper's plan, the Governor General is also able to choose people who have not voluntarily promised to limit their term to 8 years. Most importantly, Harper's reform does nothing to stop subsequent prime ministers from reverting to the current system. Harper's Senate reform plan is much like his term limit plan, good political pr but little substantive change.
The only way to abolish or substantively reform the Senate is to have a federal-provincial agreement where all ten provinces agree to substantive change. Alberta will never go along with abolishing the Senate, so that solution is effectively off the table. An NDP government could attempt to unilaterally abolish the Senate by just not appointing Senators but a subsequent non-NDP government could just start appointing senators again.
The Senate's constitutional status quo will be maintained until all the provinces and the federal government come to an agreement on its reform. If all the provinces and the feds don't agree to abolish the Senate, the next best solution would be for them all to agree to a Senate elected via PR/fair voting.
Well Harper is doing his best to provide an "out" on this, but it remains to be seen if the courts will agree with his logic. Note that Harper is himself totally free to choose whoever he wants (or rather, submit any name he chooses to the GG) because he will not be bound by the legislation - just as he was not bound by legislation on fixed-term elections.
I disagree that Harper's Senate reform plan is "good political PR". Why? Because most constitutional experts already have concluded that his changes will have a net negative effect on the operation of government. Some are even suggesting that the whole thrust of the strategy is to create a "national crisis" down the road - which will "necessitate" constitutional change to rectify.
It is possible that Canada might survive such a deliberately manufactured crisis, but I think it is more likely that we will just limp along with an even more dysfunctional federal government - thanks to the devious meddling of the Harper government. So any "short term positive PR" could ultimately backfire on the Conservatives.
I would partly agree with that, although I think it is presumptive to believe that Albertans will never go along with Senate abolition. I do agree that the Conservatives in Alberta are pretty "wedded" to the idea of the old 1980s idea of a "Triple E" senate. But I think over time, most Albertans will realize that they get absolutely nothing out of the Senate. For one thing, Alberta is one of the provinces which has been under-represented for most of its history, in both the Senate and the House of Commons. Its under-representation in both houses is tied to the archaic senate provisions in the Canadian Constitution. This "democratic deficit" will continue to grow as long as Alberta's population grows faster than average and as long as we have a senate.
If we are stuck with the current Senate, I'd say the best solution might be to appoint senators for fixed terms using a national lottery. That way we remove all politics and corporate influence from the selection process. Also, while we are at it, we don't really have any need to modify the provincial seat allocations since they can be ignored. As an example, Harper selected Mike Duffy, a Toronto resident, to sit as a PEI senator. If we select senators by a random method, then we probably get a body which is far closer reflection of Canada than we have ever had in the House of Commons. (or obviously the Senate with its curious assortment of failed candidates and old party hacks).
I suppose you might make that arguement, but I reiterate that the Senate is redundant and that its arbitrary representation formula which makes it fundamentally anti-democratic as a governing institution. So it really makes no difference if you put in PR to make it appear more democratic - thats just "putting lipstick on a pig" (to use an unfortunate metaphor).
At this point, there seems to be the suggestion that the method of senate elections will be entirely left to each province. In which case, I can easily imagine the scenario where provinces like Alberta will have province-wide contests where a full slate of Conservatives is elected using FPTP (which shuts out NDP, Liberal and Green parties). Perhaps you might get PR in provinces like Quebec or Ontario. The net result could be an even more firmly entrenched "false Conservative majority" in the Senate and House of Commons.
Until we get PR implemented in several provincial government elections or in the elections to the House of Commons, there will be no over-riding concensus to proceed with introducing PR into theoretical senate elections run by the provincial governments.
Note: I noticed that according to the latest polls, the NDP would get about 75% of the seats in BC if an election were held now, due to the split between Liberal and Conservative parties. (Even though the NDP is currently at about 42% support). I'll bet the BC Liberals are kicking themsleves for ensuring the failure of PR by placing such onerous majorities in the first PR referendum in BC.
That's the best short term solution I've heard while the best long term solution seems to be a federal-provincial agreement on Senate reform.
In the short term, an NDP government could appoint Senators via a lottery system while holding out the option of a long-term fix via a provincial-federal constitutional agreement. In the federal-provincial negotiations, the NDP would be free to support abolition as being the best solution.
I know candidates in the Leadership race have said they would get rid of the Senate. That is the NDP position, after all.
But none have said how they would actually do it. It would require opening up the constitution (a place where few choose to tread) or getting the consent of the provinces to abolish the Senate (which isn't going to happen). Even an overwhelming referendum result to scrap the Senate wouldn't be enough.
People aren't dumb. Most know the only realsitic way to acheive electoral reform in our lifetime is to reform the voting system used to elect Members of Parliament. According to this site that tracks candidate statements, many of the Leadership candidates have made some promises with regards to changing our voting system.
But there still isn't anything from Thomas Mulcair, and it is getting late in the race. There are rumors that he says things in meetings, etc., and assurances from his campiagn team, but nothing solid from the horse's mouth. His power base is in Quebec, where he could actually lose seats under proportional representation. Is Mulcair throwing proportional representation overboard for expediency?
It actually requires opening the Constitution, the cooperation of provinciial govenrments and very likely referendums. The only real good news is that electoral reform is a seperate issue that doesn't require any of the above.
This statement is contradictory Thomas Mulcair has said the words out of his mouth as you'll find in post #8 in this thread, are you accusing the multiple people who've asked him at meet and greats of lying or the candidate himself?
It's a fairly wonky (though in no way unimportant) issue and there's not really any daylight between the candidates, with the possible exception of Cullen's plan for a referendum, so it's not a prominent part of anyone's campaign. Feel free to find your way to a Mulcair event and ask him yourself if you're legitmately concerned.