Dennis Pilon pillories the NoSTV campaign for spin-doctoring and fear-mongering
On their overall approach:
Quote:
Their advantages? Ruthlessness, campaign experience, media framing savvy and a recognition that in politics truth is less important than what people can be led to believe.
Quote:
And the No STV crew, themselves all veterans of major party campaigning, understand how to toss political bombs into the public discourse in such a way that reasonable public discussion becomes impossible.
On how NOSTV has argued on results for women:
Quote:
As demonstration of their techniques in research, in an April 17 press release they decried Yes STV attempts to highlight possible progress for women with STV by citing claims from two female politicians that STV has not produced results for women. But both women turned out to be on the No STV board of directors and neither had any credentials in research questions about women's representation. In other words, No STV cited themselves as the experts to back up their claims. Well, that makes things easy!
And on the credibility of NOSTV:
Quote:
What people need to understand is that No STV is a political organization. Their claims about STV or the current system make no sense in light of what we know about comparative elections and institutions across western industrialized countries. There is a reason it is getting harder and harder to find ‘experts' willing to endorse our existing FPTP voting system -- the present system is largely indefensible by any democratic criteria we might fashion. But No STV's arguments make sense when we understand them as part of a political battle to keep the status quo power arrangements in place.
It would be tragic if Dr. Pilon's eloquent commentary on the STV debate became the euology of electoral reform in Canada.
If you want proportional representation, vote yes to BC-STV.
Login or
register to post comments
Spin and fear? you are rich!
- It's your last chance! (again) = Lies
- Politicians hate it! = The yes side are feaverishly looking for as many as possible to endorse STV as I type. Lies
- Representatives "will" faithfully represent you? All I can say is the Maltese and Irish are laughing.
- Only insiders and hacks don't want STV they are scared? =Tieleman's biggest problem will be trying to find enough staff to keep up with the possibility of all the backroom shenanigans that would be going on in an STV system. The Schrecks and Tielemans will be just fine either way, you never have explained what will "scare" them. work load?
- No more safe seats? =Tell that to James Ryan, Seamus Pattison, and Paddy Smith, who held the same seats for 45 yrs,45yrs. and 54yrs. respectively, just to name a very small example grouping, I'm sure we in B.C would lap that up.
- And the assertion that it's somehow a "criminal act" to want clarity and transparency in our voting system,or a local rep that's identifiable to the average person, good luck with your campaign in the remaining days,with your bush league tactics your going to need it..
This is a quick note I sent to Craig Mcinnes, after he stated some of the same innaccurracies that many in the proSTV establishment like to throw around,
In his opinion column on STV, Craig Mcinnes failed to mention that in 2004 BC's Green Party provided one of the strongest submissions (#1231) the Citizens' Assembly received in opposition to STV. I know because I was a member of the B.C. Citizens' Assembly, BC's Green Party interviewed Ireland's Green Party (where STV is used) and where told "they can't openly disagree on policy" it would be national headlines if a TD (MLA) ever broke with the party line or spoke against it, they go even further and state that the Irish system could benefit from "change".
I am personally offended by Mcinness writing that: "The No committee, on the other hand, is led by people who have benefited as insiders in political parties ..." I am Vice-President of NO- STV. I have never belonged to any political party. My concerns come from an average voters perspective, it takes a fair amount of time to gather information on how STV actually functions in practice, and after my own research, discovered many negative effects of the STV voting system, this led me to oppose STV. It should also be noted the Ontario Citizens' Assembly (not political insiders),came to a similar conclusion.
Rick Dignard
From Dennis Pilon:
"Survey work on public views suggested that most people knew nothing about STV but voted in favour because 'citizens' had recommended. "
Thank you Dennis, you've laid out what the last referendum was about, (The CA)
Now, we know what this one is about, (STV)
Quite a ride this democracy thing.
Amazing fete of propaganda that was by Dr Pilion, especially his chastizing others for politcal bomb throwing while he himself was. I see also he was just over in Ireland, speaking at the University of Ulster, on Canadian electoral reform no less. Would love to see a copy of his speech.
Having said all of that, did we really need another STV thread? It seems some are starting them, when inconvienent truths are being posted. Like Ireland wants electoral change from STV as few women get elected, men hold seats for 45 years, and no work gets done in parliament because they all have to be in the riding 7 days a week, as it creates huge adversarial conditions.