The NDP & proportional representation - #2

A couple of points. The federal NDP support one particular kind of proportional representation. On the provincial level, we're all aware that not once has an NDP government ever taken efforts to reform the system. In BC they worked against PR ostensibly because they didn't like the model. In Ontario, well, we'll have to agree to disagree on how "supportive" the NDP were. The indication I get is that they have learned from the experience that writing off the campaign and sitting it out before it even got under way may not have been the best approach. 

I fully agree, and have stated so myself in the past, with the idea that the NDP could do much better in educating their own base and the voting public about the undemocratic nature of the FPTP voting system. That is the issue of principle here - first past the post is not a representative democratic system and we see the results whenever public policy does not reflect public opinion.  We see the results with the growing cynicism, mistrust and apathy among voters. 

I don't buy the "inside the beltway" arguments put forward that suggest that voters don't care about the fact that in any given election, half of the votes go to electing no one. I have never voted for a winner on the federal level. Not once. Maybe I should move? While the 4 referendums held at the provincial level were all losers, there are now a couple of million people who have voted for PR. Why doesn't the NDP build on that? 

By doing so, the NDP doesn't have much to lose. As voters become more aware of the benefits of electoral reform, that can put pressure on the Libs (and Cons?) to reconsider their position. I disagree with the view expressed by some that by putting increased focus on PR , the NDP would be abandoning all their other issues and would then pay a price at the polls. Sounds like an excuse. 

Also, voting habits would change under FPTP. One of the reasons the NDP (and Greens) don't get as many votes as they should is that voters think that they would be "wasting" their vote - especially in ridings where  the NDP is not competitive. While we can point the finger at the self-serving obstinacy of two Bay Street parties, that should not exempt the NDP from doing the right thing for voters - supporting the advancement of democracy by consistently and loudly advocating for equal votes for all Cdns. 

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.

Since conter-arguments have been made before, I'm not going to repeat it. You've summarized a lot of territory there.

"Sounds like an excuse." For wha? Presumably you mean we're just saying that it is because we dont see how to roll boulders uphill, and working hard at it anyway takes resources from other things, so no thanks.  The "real reason" being that we dont want PR. [Or that if we really wanted it we would... this is circular isnt it?]

Did someone somehwre say that we'd have to abandon all the other issues to tak about PR?

No they didnt. Thay said what I just said [again]: you cant by fiat say it isnt boulder rolling. And the resources of what the NDP can do ARE limited. I've said extensively that the NDP needs to put more into campaigns that do not produce near term benefits in votes. But when and if that is done, the choice of what issue will have to be very carefully made. I know that PR would not make it to the top of my priorities. And stop trying to portray that as some kind of moral lassitude.

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.

- trying to keep it short, a couple of points of what I would consider flawed reasoning here -

- I have never made such a claim, nor do I really recall reading it - many people (40% didn't vote the last election, as I am sure you know) seem to be very unhappy with the results of our elections - that is not the same as being discouraged by the electoral system. I suspect most people have no clue about the electoral system, or how it operates to give the results it does. We never hear an election result such as "Cons get 40% of the vote and 60% of the seats!!!' - no, we hear' Cons win great majority!!'. And when PR gets into the news, we hear AM Tremonti and Michael Enright - speaking to the 'intelligent' part of the country on the CBC - saying that they don't know anything about this PR stuff, just too complicated to understand..' - and you don't, as far as I recall, hear anything about it at all in the NP or Sun papers. As I noted elsewhere, there have been studies that have shown that people who actually understood PR were highly in favor of a change.

- if you don't think the MSM is a factor in the way people think, I can only suggest you start doing some reading - Chomsky, Postman, Lippman, Bernays, Ellul might get you going -

- the current system only makes sense because it has been presented to them all of their lives as the greatest democracy in the world - and they believe what they are told. The idea that Cons and Libs would get fewer seats is not entirely true, all elections are different - that does sound like an MSM talking point for telling people they don't want to go there, however. How about the fact that the Libs have 5 seats in western Canada - but under PR they'd have 20? How about the fact that the separatist Bloc have 50 seats in the national parliament under FPTP to break up our country - under PR they'd have 25? And etc. Ask most people if they think a party with 20% of the vote should get 20% of the seats - or if some parties with 35% of the vote should get 50% of the seats, and other parties with 10% of the vote should get 0 seats, and see what they say. It's got a lot to do with how questions are framed - yours don't seem to be very honest. The MSM is certainly not honest in their portrayal of what goes on in this country, and certainly not only electorally.

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?

Our two dirty old line parties have to want to fix our dysfunctional, inefficient, vote-wasting, obsolete and mathematically absurd electoral system. If only the NDP supports ER, then it's unlikely voters who vote for either of the two dirty old line parties will support it.

In other words, ER has to be a democratic decision by all main parties and their support bases, including those other two parties which tend to not be so democratically minded, and especially whenever there is Parliamentary discussion about fixing Canada's dysfunctional, inefficient, vote-wasting, obsolete and mathematically absurd electoral system aka "the phony majority machine" and which is now just "the phony minority machine" as of last three federal elections.

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...)

Chomsky on the uses of concision in the media: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cceC3DeFcY

- 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 ...

It's been pointed out by some in the first part of this thread that only elecoral system nerds / grad students care about proportional representation, and our voting system.

This was the excuse given for the NDP's lack of movement on the democratic reform file in recent years: that it would cost more votes than it would bring in, and therefore isn't worth the effort. Blame was laid at the foot of grassroots Canadian electoral reform organizations like Fair Voting BC, le Mouvement pour une democraie nouvelle, and Fair Vote Canada for failing to motivate the citizenry sufficiently. Quel dommage.

But this argument seems to assume that Canadian voters are dumb. They are not. The root cause of our dysfunctional parliaments and our lack of women/minority representation merely has to be pointed out to them: our winner-take-all voting system. Experience has shown that once people are educated on the facts, they all of a sudden support proportional representation. From close to zero support 10 years ago before grassroots organizations like Fair Vote Canada were formed, polls are now showing that a majority of Canadians support PR:

Environics/Council of Canadians Poll: Majority of Canadians Support Proportional Representation

It takes time to move national public opinion, and that's real progress. Even better news is that the stongest supporters of voting system reform tend to be young people ...and they stay strong supporters. With trends like this, it's may be a safe bet that it's only a matter of time before proportional representation is looked at seriously by the poitical classes. The question for us is: will the NDP lead on this trend, or follow?

What NDP naysayers should realize is that educating people (starting with NDP supporters) is key to defining the debate and leading on the electoral reform file. For all the positioning on being in favour of PR, I haven't seen one iota of that in the past number of years. And if the NDP isn't serious about educating their own supporters on proportional representation, how serious can they be at pushing the issue nationally?

All signs point to a "following" strategy. Or even worse: it would be understandabe if voters thought that the NDP was in favor of the status quo! Critic David Christopherson has said just about nothing on electoral reform since taking over the file years ago. Just look at the ridiculous situation we now find ourselves in: Conservatives, with all their talk of Senate reform, have assumed the position of the party most active and in favor of electoral reform - stealing the crown from the NDP long ago.

The Liberals and Bloc will probably never lead on this file... it's up to the NDP to propose a different path in answer to the Conservatives "democratic reform" agenda. So far they haven't proposed any alternative.

Instead of being reactionary ("we'll talk about it if others bring it up, or if some inexperienced citizens organizations do the groundwork for us"), maybe the New Democratic Party could be proactive for a change, and be a leader on an issue that actually is increasingly important to Canadians.

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? 

David Christopherson is my MP. I have just sent him an email:

I will post any reply that I receive.

Shortly after the British Columbia second referendum on electoral reform [16] (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.

If it was ignorance of the proposal, how could people say they support it? Wouldn't their answer be "what do you mean by 'proportional representation'? I don't know what that is"?

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...."

Indeed, 44.3% of those who voted for first-past-the-post in the referendum responded [20] they are in "favour of replacing first-past-the-post with a voting system in which the percentage of seats a party gets in the legislature is more in line with their percentage of the popular vote". That makes 66% of BC voters in favour of some proportional system [21].

Just as was done in New Zealand [22]:

Part A

I vote to retain the present First-Past-The-Post system: 15.3%.

I vote for a change to the voting system: 84.7%.

Part B

I vote for the Supplementary Member system (SM) 5.6%

I vote for the Single Transferable Vote system (STV) 17.4%

I vote for the Mixed Member Proportional system (MMP) 70.5%

I vote for the Preferential Voting system (PV) 6.6%.

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?

@KenS - How do we know whether or not there's traction if we don't talk about it? The circle can go either way can't it?

How is it that in the course of just a couple of weeks, Harper was able to get traction on the census - an issue which no one really cared about before? Or any of the other issues that he's pulled out of the hat? 

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?

Well Ken, the voting system is pretty fundamental to a democracy, and the NDP should be talking about PR regardless of whether they think it has "traction".

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 ....

Theres a big difference between long term thinking and long term strategy- doing. And calling it merely a big difference is an understatement.

I'm glad you included Rabble as being equally defficient with the NDP on long term strategy. But its understated. Becasue there is ZERO long term strategy. And I'd include you, but that might be stretching it. Long term thinking is not long term strategizing.

Theres plenty of long term thinking around here, and in the NDP. Long term thinking says "we need to go here."

Long term strategizing is developing a plan about where you want to go.

People not only dont do that here, they wave away the discussion of it, as if what we want is ALL that matters.

So what it takes to move on an issue is for all intents and purposes a discussion that cant happen here.

Its not a discussion that happens withing the NDP either. Different reasons, but that doesnt really matter.

It takes a lot of resources to move on an issue that isnt already out there with 'handles' already... the kind Layton's NDP has become very proficient at running with.

I'm merely arguing the hypothetical that if the NDP did long term development on ANY issue, this wouldnt be one of my top three choices [nothing beyond three would have a chance of happening]. And I'm guessing that that is not just with me, though at least a very significant minority of Dippers would disagree. Thats a debate we'd have, if we were going to do any such long term development.

And if a push on democracy was going to be what the NDP chose to devote long term development to, I guarantee you that PR would not be the leading edge of the campaign. Precisely because its skin dip in traction out there. PR might well be the central accomplishement you were aiming for, and would be part of what you talk about form the beginning.... but it wouldnot be the leading edge of the campaign. As an initial hook to get people behind the campaign it would be a dud. 

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.

Wrong. You dont hear much about the NDP on climate change, not because they dont have a really good policy [I think its excellent politically as well as substantively], or because there are things in it people dont want to hear. And while its not a hot issue at the moment [sigh], you didnt hear about it in any depth from the NDP when it was a hot issue. And the reason you didnt even then is because its too complex for the kind of message delivery the NDP does. And it WOULD be a lot of work making that otherwise [let alone it would be more uncertain for the people involved]. And that WOULD mean less work going into the kind of [quick and dirty] things that have got you where you are, and which you have not reached the end of.

I dont think for a minute that means the long term development stuff should not be done. But you dont just wave away what it takes. [Wich if I'm not mistaken you do as if it was already being done. Saying "Climate change policy easily taken care of" does seem to imply its already being taken care of. Not. Having a policy means squat.]

This is a good example of the accomplishment of moving people on an issue.

But its not the example people think it is of how it was done. [Although I think the problem is more that people don't think about how. They see that it happened, and the how leaps out self evidently. Not in your case Dave- in our case we would disgree about how.]

This is a cse where you did have right wing think tanks and other well placed 'big thinkers' applying themselves to how they were going to move the agenda.

But knowing that is just knowing that. It doesnt tell us squat about how WE are to do the same thing.

After THEY decide what they want, they dont need committees of implementation or anything. Circulating and developing like minded is good eonough.

Mostly because its an organic one way flow from them to the MSM. The rest follows.

The rest does not follow.

A CRUCIAL aspect of 'the rest follows' is that when the Reform Paty comes along they have a ready made package handed to them. they dont have to take any risks or anything. the way has been paved for them.

Its so common here for people to say "look at what the Reform Party did". They should said there stuff, stuck to it, and things came around their way.

Thats a delusion.

and saying the NDP should do the same [same what?] is a debilitating delusion.

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.

The Right did not get its way by Reform, or any kind of 'public face' for that matter, going out there and saying what they wanted.

They were enabled to say that because the way had been prepared for them.

The way prepared for them obviously means some(s) startegized and implemented. But it wasnt the parties of the right.

Not only do we have to do the same thing- its going to be harder than it was for the Right. Double bind: its harder, and we have done less.

The fact that it is harder for us, will have to be done more overtly, leads me to think that if anyone is going to do it, its the NDP. Being the only ones close enough to having the tools.

That does not mean movement organizations couldnt or shouldnt. I just dont think they are even possibly up to it.

Its more than too bad the NDP isnt, but at least its feasible- even taking into account the obvious insitutional/bureaucratic 'drag' against doing so.

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.

{{RESPONSE TO KEN'S 23 - THIS STUFF GETS TOO LONG IF EVERYTHING IS QUOTED AND RESPONDED TO THAT WAY}}

- you seem to be jumping around without a lot of consistency ( first you say "..Theres a big difference between long term thinking and long term strategy- doing.." - and then a couple of sentences later you say "..Long term strategizing is thinking about a plan about where you want to go..." - Mmmm???? - they're not the same, or they are ??)

- and then you say "..Becasue there is ZERO long term strategy. And I'd include you, but that might be stretching it..." - but I have never said anything about *details* of any long term strategy I might suggest, I have simply noted the lack of any apparent long term strategy - so accusing me of having none is completely unwarranted, you have no idea of what my suggestions for an actual strategy might be. Believe me, I am not without ideas ....

And you say "..And if you dont have the tools to be able to definitively lay out the steps- .." - again, I don't quite get this - we maybe cannot lay out any 'definite' strategy - but on the other hand, who could? Is there any such thing as a 'definitive' strategy? I can't really imagine one - the best I would ever hope for is a good plan to begin with, that considers what we want and how to get there - and that has some thoughts about how to modify that plan according to whatever happened after we started - for we can be sure that whatever we do is not going to be unopposed, and if we are not prepared to adapt - we lose. Get Sun Tzu someday and spend a bit of time with it. And Machiavelli - believe me, again - our enemies are familiar with this stuff, and if we are not, we are just lambs at the slaughter.

You say "..Prople not only dont do that here, they wave away the discussion of it, as if what we want is ALL that matters..." - you don't directly refer to my post, but given the context you would seem to be including me - and again, completely unfairly, as noted above - but you cannot decide on *how* to go about implementing a plan, until you have decided to have a plan in the first place and get the general thing layed out - so accusing me or anyone of not talking about implementation is completely unfair. Let's decide what we would like to do - and then we talk about HOW to do it - you cannot talk about *how* until you decide on *what* - that's hardly rocket science, and attacking me for my lack of specifics on 'how' is, again, completely unwarranted. You have no idea on what I might say about 'how'.

But that was preamble - what I am most curious about now is this - you say "..And if a push on democracy was going to be what the NDP chose to devote long term development to, I guarantee you that PR would not be the leading edge of the campaign. Precisely because its skin dip in traction out there.."

- well - that leads me to two things - first, what exactly would you place as the three issues? it seems to me that no matter what the NDP or anybody else wants to do in terms of 'issues', increasing their seats in parliament would be by far the best way to ensure they have more say in what happens - which PR would do, in spades, for the NDP - and -  

- second, very related - you seem to be misunderstanding or avoiding the point I made about the neocons - they did not say that they do not have a hook so they should forget about something (attacking social programs or anything else) - their strategy was, to **create** their own hook - that is how it works, you **create** whatever you need to create - that is the long term strategy - if you are going to look around for tools to exploit, you might as well forget it - the neocons control everything right now - if you are going to have any chance to win here, you need to go on the offensive, and quit reacting to what they are doing - that is playing their game in their ballpark, with their rules, and your chances of winning are in the neighborhood of zero. You don't look for 'a hook' that you can attach your star to - you *create* the hook, and then get on with selling it - that is YOUR ballpark, and if you have the right plan, you can win, or at least have a good shot at it.

Well, enough for now, but *focus* is another important thing - one thing at a time - well, enough, as I said.

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.

This seems like a rversal of expected positions, but I'm not into doing what is going to give the NDP the most seats.

But its no coincidence that I also beleive the most seats lies in speaking to people about what matters to them most. [Albeit, we may have to stretch what they feel concretely in terms of programs and policies that meets up with what they/we value the most.]

As to what that would be. For me, sustainability. Because it builds on broadly held values about matters to us all. And because doing anything about it is going to require the taking of deliberate steps... the kind of evaluation that we currently do almost none of in civil society.

But for me, thats the cart before the horse. First we come to sufficient agreement about where we want to go and how- whether that happens in the NDP [for me]- or elsewherere. "How we get there" is going to quickly lead to the questions of which issues. So which issues would be best, is in principle yet to be determined. 

[That last paragraph by the way would be an operating principle, or a 'place,' where Cueball and I are very similar.]

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

hang on. I'm bringing something else in that at least might have something to agree or disagree about.

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.

Taking out the conflicting uses of 'thinking' was easy. But that mixing on my part is probably related to the fundamental prblems with the larger part I struck out and to which you responded. The strikeout function shows up in the edit box, but not when I post it. Its the part within the brackets [ ] .

I agree with that.   And I strck out the part of my text that you were responding because it was hopeless. And part of the reason it might be hopeless....

Its not a question of people not being able to 'plan'- as much as we need or is appropriate. Its more like the depth of enquiry that goes into the plan or the framing.

The current example of this being people thinking that the right wing shifting the debate about taxes is a model we should look to that.

That they decided to do it, yes. But thats the easy part. How to do it, even the most basic general elements, its not a model available to us.

I think this comes down to a profound lack of discipline. Emphasis on that word 'think'. So park that as a side point only possibly useful- even as something to disagree with.

If mistakes in enquiry such as thinking the Right on shifting thinking on taxes is a model for us- model even of 'just' the basic 'hows'.... then what is there to say about what that is built on?

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.

I'll add however that this speech is at least partly on the right track:

http://www.ndp.ca/toward-economic-vision

It is silent on specifics about how to implement key issues it raises like tax policy and jobs policies but it is a good start and those specifics would not be expected to be here-- they should be part of a proper campaign platform.

I would hope that the party produce those specifics then as well as the glitzy ads that we can afford more of now than previously.

This is not a condemnation of the aprty but a direction of what we need more of.

@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.]

That's true, and maybe I'm being too pessimistic. However, I'm 63, and nothing that has happened in Federal politics in my lifetime has hinted at a possibility of breaking the monopoly of the Liberal and Conservative parties on government. In fact, the only reason we have had minorities in the last decade, rather than more false majorities, is the anomalous existence and success of the BQ. Call me a doubting Thomas, but I just don't see how things change with the current electoral system. It may well be that nothing much will change with a better electoral system either, but at least there seems to me a possibility.

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.

With the BQ and the Liberals inability to govern now an opportunity to get PR-- if the BQ were to fail that window would fail as both the Cons and the Liberlas would see no purpose and together they have enough power in preventing it. At least now the Liberals might see a purpose and at least not block it...

Interestingly the BQ seems to have no trouble with PR in spite of the obvious cost to them of it.

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.

Ken, I think this is where some of us differ. I think that the NDP screws up or disappoints often enough but do not question the intent and therefore continue to support the NDP.

Others, have drawn other conclusions. These are both legitimate points of view and there is little to convince the other since these are judgments of trust more than actual facts on the ground. As well they are questions of priority and value-- I don't agree with everything the party does but acknowledge that they do enough to justify my support.

I can acknowledge the possibility that my judgment could be wrong but based on what I know it is the best conclusion I can make. I think in most cases there are few differences about the facts and a lot more about speculation about motives.

Of course there are others who think the NDP can do no wrong and they are also unreachable and not useful to the party as they cannot prompt any progress and positive change if they always pronounce satisfaction.

In the end those supporters who believe the party needs to change but believe it worthy of support are not as different from those who believe it needs to change but do not deem it worthy of support. Beating each other up for this difference is hardly worth it-- I would encourage those who feel the party is not worthy of support to do what they are doing, mostly, do other non-partisan things and re-evaluate if we can get the changes we want. I'd prefer that they stayed in the party and helped that change happen but I can't change the judgment they have made since it is based on more than facts-- it is a conclusion, no better and no worse than my conclusion. And interestingly both conclusions are based on very similar facts and ought to be respected on both sides.

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.

Sorry Ken-- I did mean the more general.

When it comes to PR, the NDP can respond but cannot lead this alone because the reaction has always been you will do anything that gets you more seats. Put another way the Federal NDP cannot promote it too much if the provincial NDP governments won't as they have less to gain other than democratic principles because they have won power without it. Looks too self-serving.

I think that from comfortable armchairs it is easy to say the NDP should or should not. I try to think about what the party could realistically achieve that it is not already. I can think of some things but PR, as much as I like the idea, is not one of them. As well, PR should come as a non-partisan democratic reform with a fiar bit of traction before a single party can adopt it as policy-- I agree we are not there-- unfortunately.

Above, I was speakign about the pro-anti-NDP arguments that seem to be hinging on that slight bit of difference in terms of trust or priorities more than concrete factual differences. This is why, while I am a solid NDP supporter, I can understand and respect most of the strong-voiced NDP critics here at least when things are reasonably civil. And when they are not the problem is often on both sides. In the things that matter we are allies so I was just commenting on this given all the blood-letting in many threads.

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.

Link? The PQ has made noise about PR in the past but have never followed through. 

I think that what SiamDave, HSFreethinkers, myself and others are trying to say is being over-complicated by KenS and others who are defending inaction and elevating it to some kind of strategic choice. I have said numerous times on babble that it would be great if the NDP added some resources to its website that would educate the party's membership and perhaps non-supporters who come to the website. I would have no problem if electoral reform was part of larger set of resources that includes other democratic deficit issues. All it requires is a researcher, writer and someone to post to the website. I have also acknowledged many times that the NDP cannot succeed in reforming the voting system on its own but that's no reason not to do the legwork. I think that the party may be underestimating the public's desire for some profound improvements to Canada's (and the provinces) democracy. 

Not doing the education groundwork (even if it takes years) will lead to a lot of confusion (including in the NDP base) when the time comes for a real discussion on the national level. People need to understand that the Alternative Vote (run-off voting) is not a proportional system and not the solution that we need (with all due respect to Stockholm). 

My earlier comment about Harper getting traction on the census was a bit muddled but what I was trying to say was that Harper was able to round up about 27% of support in no time at all. Not a majority, but also not an insignificant number. Obviously the opposition, media and others were also able to get traction on an issue which no one ever thought about before. 

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.

Overcomplication was mentioned. Only tossed in my direction.

This in particular is not something that we have run into. So you are saying that the NDP shys away from PR, because the inconsistency of the NDP provincial governments is going to show up and be a drag? Whether or not you mean it as the main reason for not wanting to pursue it.

Where would we find evidence of this, or to refute it? Even indirect evidence.

Intuitively, it doesnt make sense to me. Plausible? Yes, of course. But I dont see it as likely.

I think that if the NDP could get traction enough on PR that people were paying close attention, it wouldnt come up in any big way. The federal NDP is out of synch with what the sections and governments do on a regular basis. It does make fodder for those taking whatver position opposes what the federal NDP wants to do, but it doesnt stop the federal NDP from talking up the issue.

I just dont see this as a potential problem. And if it isnt, its not going to inhibit the federal party pursuing PR.

If that were true then the federal NDP is supportive because no one expects it to win under FPTP.

The only way that the NDP is a combination of its sections is on the level of on the ground organizing- that no one outside the party even sees, and a lot inside the NDP dont really notice it either. The federal NDP and its sections routinely are on different policy paths. I already said dont think this would be a problem. Maybe someone would explain to me how it would be or some kind of evidence based on more than people's suspicions.

And I actually dont think the NDP has ever vigorously promoted PR. As long as Ed was around and pursuing it, he talked about it. And thats the extent of it, hardly vigorous promotion, or even close. My guess is that with Ed gone there is no deference to putting time into it because Ed wants to, and/or because there is Eds credibility to get it some notice. At any rate, without Ed it gets down to a harder calculation of is this going anywhere?

This is outright pure specuation. And not even good speculation.

"Dion's coalition"- which probably came more from Layton- came after an election. Where was the "breakthrough possibility" under FPTP? And the possibility was over in under 60 days, so where is/was this phantom influence?

And shots at a false majority in 1972, 2005 or 2008- who knew?

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.]

Liberal Party leaders must take up the cause for ER or we're doomed as far as advancing the case for democracy goes. No one working under the NDP banner will be successful in convincing very many LPC supporters of the need for ER. Democracy is an idea that has to come from within that party itself. At that point we add their numbers to our's, and then we can ice a decent team. Remember, it's all about democracy and not what the NDP can force onto voters supporting other parties. Attempting to coerce them on ER at this point will only antagonize 'em. They have to conjure up the force within.

Summon the force, Liberals. Want it! Ask and you shall receive. ER is an issue not so unlike the gun registry or SSM. ER is a no-brainer.

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.]

The NDP championing ER as a single issue election campaign would be like trying to wage war on two fronts in Europe. It doesn't work. Look what happened with FTA debate from 1988 to 1993. We would need an alliance with at least one other major political party and for them not bail on voters once they are elected.

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.

I think the NDP is doing what it needs to do considering the dynamics of FPP campaigns and elections. We alone are not going to incite millions of non-voters to suddenly start voting. Those jaded Canadians have attended one too many shitty house parties thrown by the other two that they won't be coming back. That leaves the NDP to appeal to the narrow 59% who are bothering to vote. We put forward fiscal responsibility Tommy Douglas style, and we keep doing the little things really well, like reducing ATM fees and bank charges in general, green policies for the economy, and supporting the troops in our own way. Yes we will.

Remember, FPP rewards those parties that do the little things really well. Harper has the most well funded campaign war chest of all three parties, and they've tanked! ReformaTories are dead-even with the Liberals still after plying Canaidans with such tantalizing enticements as more vicious toadying in Afghanistan and census forms shananigans. We just go hard. Keep plugging away. Talk the talk where and whenever we can. And pound the pavement come election time. And remember to be really polite even if they slam the door on us or talk nonsense in the face of reason. Courteous and polite will win the day.

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 [62]. 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."

Okay-okay, Jack and the NDP could do more. But again, I think the choice to support ER has to come from within each of us as well as within each political party. I've changed my mind now and believe that ALL THREE or four political party leaders must support ER in order that enough people take notice. We need a federal level public information campaign over some reasonable period of time. But there has to be all-part support for ER, which is critical to the very essence of democracy itself. But we will not be successful in any attempt to impose our will on others, and those millions of Canadians will not take instruction from just the NDP on the issue.

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?

Post of the thread #58!

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.

- agree in spades

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.

I haven't heard that. Link?

I have heard claims that Trudeau offered Ed Broadbent PR in 1980, which I do not believe is true. He did offer Ed a coalition, with several NDP cabinet ministers, as a result of the Liberal wipe-out in the West, which Ed and the caucus turned down. But as for PR, Trudeau's 1980 Speech from the Throne promised a parliamentary committee on electoral reform, but then his own caucus shot down even a committee, so he could not have offered PR to Ed.

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.

Well I'm impressed to know that their supporters think as highly of PR enough to want to imagine that it happened. It's a good sign.

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

Here's my thoughts on PR, and I have a feeling they are going to be controversial:

I find it hard to care.  It seems to me like it is promoted by people in the NDP simply because they want more seats.  It seems to me like the NDP wants PR federally and for every province but BC, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Nova Scotia.

Some people think that if the NDP gets PR then it will get more seats (not just from PR itself, but they're convinced that there are a lot of people voting strategically, or who would switch if the NDP ever overtakes the Liberals just once) and lead to a new era of progressive social change.  Fair enough on the "more seats" part, but it's a big mistake to assume that simply getting more increasingly Blairite NDPers elected will solve all your problems.  It hasn't been working in provinces with NDP majority governments, and it sure as hell won't work to just bring the federal NDP caucus from 30-something to 60-something.

So, my opinion is electoral reform, sure (FPTP is a crappy system), but don't pretend it's something more than a new way to divide the spoils of electoral politics between black, white and orange cats.

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.

In my opinion, genstrike, you couldn't be more wrong if you tried. Many of the posters who have been most strongly in support of PR, including me, are not NDP members, and only vote for that party because we have an FPTP system. If we had a PR system, there is a good chance we might have a true left wing party that could get 5% or more of the vote, and thus 16 or more seats. In that case, I'd be putting my vote there, instead of with the NDP.

And, while I don't personally support the Green party, the million or more people who do support them also deserve to have their votes count. Same goes for right wing, even religious parties, which I abhor. Despite my opinion of them, if this is to be a democracy, they deserve representation in parliament as well.

Most importantly, the false majorities which have made almost all the important decisions in Canadian history would be a thing of the past. Maybe getting closer to actual democracy isn't of much importance to you, but it sure as hell is to me.

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

Please do indicate what examples you gave....

So, we have Layton signing on to save the Martin government in 2005 with no PR in the deal. We have Layton agreeing on a multi-point policy agenda with Dion in 2008 with no PR in the deal. Is that sufficiently clear?

LOL

You know what I love about you, remind? The respect, precision and sophistication with which you engage with people who do not agree with you. If only our whole democratic socialist movement could be modeled on the high calibre of discourse that you model.

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.

Stuart on the history in the NDP. I also dont think you are right about Trudeau and Lewis. I dont have definite knowledge of that, but I do pay attention, and Wilf Day pays more attention than me. Both of us dont think that sounds right.

Now I know you are dead wrong and winging it on what you impute about the last several years. The only evidence you have is talk in the NDP increasing on the theme of overtaking the Liberals. At best, thats not evidence that it realigns peoples thinking on what is best for the NDP. In other words, and again at best, you only have a plausible case of motive.

I know or know of some of the people who engage in that kind of talk. For one thing they are a minority in the 'inner circle. Its certainly considered credible, but not bought into by everyone- especially as something 'just around the bend'. and even those who buy into it going on doing the day to day stuff and planning for next month as if such ideas had nothing at all to do with strategy. In fatc, they think they can get there by doing this incrementalist stuff. Keep doing it, and one day we're there. Doesnt even make sense to me. But thats neither here nor there. The point is that watching them do what they do, you dont see even evidence they take seriously the big talk.

Let alone 1972, you named 3 times in the last several years when you think the NDP was getting jazzed up about the big breakthrough that was coming under FPTP condidtions- "so we wouldnt want to spoil that". You've given no evidence at all of even one of those.

"So, we have Layton signing on to save the Martin government in 2005 with no PR in the deal. We have Layton agreeing on a multi-point policy agenda with Dion in 2008 with no PR in the deal. Is that sufficiently clear?"

You think that is proof? Sure sounds like you think so.

Occams Razor: even Dion- as desperate a possible tool as we could ever hope to have- would not take supporting PR as a condition from the NDP [it would secure him a certain deposing, as opposed the maybe deposing he got]. And as badly as the Liberals will need the NDP when Harper doesnt get his majority, demanding anything more than a plebiscite would be a non-starter, and my guess is that even a plebiscite might be a deal breaker [though they are getting progressivley more fearful of their future]. And Martin? Martin refused to even negotiate on privatizing healcare. So the NDP demanding PR as a condition is a joke.

Circumstantial evidence is what yoiu have at best- if you could make a case that PR could have been extracted from the Liberals.

"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?"

First of all cut down the framing to appropriate size: people dont advocate vigorously for FPTP because they dont have to. They do nothing. [And if you want PR, let you stew over them as the inconsistency.]

Like I said, we dont need them. You are right, they wont help. But thats very small potatoes next to other obstacles.

Remember that I'm the one who said its not as easy to REALLY put PR into play as people think. And that is just not a contributing problem.

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.

You're kidding, right? Here's a "starter plan" that might require a policy person for 25-50% of two days, a writer for a couple of hours and a webmaster for a couple more hours.   

1) Set up a section on the website called "proportional representation" or "electoral reform" or "voting system reform". Perhaps make it a sub-tab of "Governance" on the "Vision" menu. 

2) Write a short introductory statement that unequivocally states that the NDP will support ANY form of PR that it can negotiate with the other parties because ANY FORM OF PR has got to be better than FPTP and that's because, as Fidel says, it gives all voters equal votes. Stubbornly clinging to one type of PR does make the party look self-serving and gives the party an out (e.g. BC referendum)

3) Link to all existing federal & provincial policies on PR including the 2003 policy that does not seem to be available. 

4) Link to Fair Vote Canada, other groups and academia where detailed resources about PR models exist on their websites. 

5) Update the section periodically when there is new content to post. 

6) Ensure that all MPs have PR talking points that they can use at the appropriate times but as often as possible. 

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.]

Why thank you Stuart, I am surprise that you realized the extent of my economy of words in respect to your empty positions. It is a skill I have honed over the years of dealing with men who are too full of their own privilege, though I shoulda started using it here sooner.

As I leave the long rebuttal diatribes over nonsense to the other male posters these days, as opposed to wasting my time.

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?

I liken PR to SSM rights and women's rights, children's rights etc. It's a no brainer and shouldn't even be up for debate. We need to help/cajole the two oldest political parties in Canada to recognize equal voting rights in our fair country. The struggle for democracy continues.

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.

PR has been a platform plank of the NDP's for years. The NDP declared a motion to restart the federal study on electoral reform in May of 2007. Of course, it was voted down by the two oldest political parties like every other Parliamentary motion originating from the NDP.

The NDP still does have to play by FPP electoral dynamics, an obsolete method of voting which tends to punish voters not voting for the two mainstream parties. The NDP has to strike a balance between all promoting all progressive issues and doing what it takes to have as many democratic voices in Parliament as possible and speaking out on behalf of the widest range of progressive issues on behalf of Canadians as possible.

The NDP knows what the results are when it puts all its eggs in one basket and becomes a one issue party. The FTA-NAFTA debates are a bad example of that happening with the majority of Canadians betrayed on those major issues of trade and economic sovereignty. Those people wishing the NDP to please commit FPP electoral suicide by transforming itself into a one issue party will probably continue to be disappointed. The NDP is still an important voice in Parliament regardless of how distorted the vote to seat counts are. The NDP owes it to its support base to win as many seats as it can every FPP election. It's what the NDP will attempt  to do every election. The NDP will probably not become a one issue party anytime soon. I think it would be political suicide for the NDP to abandon the fight for medicare and women and children's rights to focus on an issue which the two mainstream parties are not ready to deal with. That decision has to come from within those two parties for ER and PR to stand a real chance in Canada. As it was with the FTA-NAFTA and GST debates, the NDP simply does not have the resources to do an effective public information campaign for PR. If I am not mistaken,  in every country where ER-PR was successful, there was a national level effort to educate voters.

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 agree that PR is in both the interests of the NDP and GPC. [And people have suggested only plausible motives that the NDP leadership does not really see PR as in their interests.]

And I also have made the point that even though the GPC says more than does the NDP about PR, it isnt categorically more. And by the same way I judge the NDP- the actions of the GPC leadership shown in what issues they actually put time into, by that where-is-the-beef measure, PR isnt really a priority.

So in bothe parties' case, its in their interest, but they dont make it a priority.

How do people explain that?

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? 

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of the NDP taking a huge gamble on ER-PR as psmith suggests. I just know that it would be political suicide for the NDP to focus off of the wide range of issues to concentrate on ER. It's a huge gamble and one that I think would not reap the rewards people like psmith suggest it might.

In fact, if the NDP were to lose very many seats, the pressure would be off the Liberals and Tories to even consider ER-PR. That's all those two parties care about right now is winning the much coveted phony majority dictatorial power in Ottawa and transforming even more Canadian votes into frustrated non-voters. The idea here with FPP is to punish and frustrate voters who support all three parties in general, but at the same time, it's good to punish voters of third and fourth parties even moreso. And the best way to frustrate NDP and Green party voters is to make every FPP as hard a go as possible. There is a marathon poker game in progress ever since Layton became head of the party.  And he has the two big money players at the table sweating a little. I at least want to see how this game plays out. FPP is like a card game of baseball poker, or perhaps bullshit poker. Or is FPP more like a box of chocolates? Stale and moldy chocolates?

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. 

Agreed, Very much.

We dont agree. And as you said, hard to even agree about what we dont agree about. But not hopeless.

We probably agree at least that there is a gap between people care about how politics is done, and connecting that to PR as a solution. [Though it would be nice if people would acknowledge that they arent the same thing.]

The difference would be in how much it takes to close that gap.

Obviously, it takes more work.

How do you resolve the difference around 'more work alone doesnt cut it?' I dont know the answer to that.

One thing I'd add is that part of the difficulty in the gap between people desiring better done politics and PR as solution, is that a lot of the 'gap' to be covered is around the fundamental lack of faith even in what it is you want to reform. "What good is PR going to do?" Damn good question. There is a lot of chicken and egg in this that isnt aced by PR.

True of everything important. and...?

Which of course gets back to what the disagreement is about, and from my side, truth telling is not sufficient. If it was, we wouldnt be where we are.

And of course people dont mean it as simplistically as literaly just truth telling- "I speak, they hear". But I think you do mean in practice something far enough down the continuum, that just does not work for us.

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?

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.