How to get the message out

Quote:

You're right about education, or rather the lack of it in matters civic. That's certainly a factor. Are you going to blame the electorate for that?

Yes.

People who want to buy a new big-screen television typically take a bit of time to educate themselves about the differences between, say, plasma and LCD, or 720i and 1080p.

There exist magazines, that people spend their good money on, that do nothing but compare products so that consumers can get the best value for their money.

If people aren't interested in the way that they're governed and the way they elect representatives to do that governing then I suppose that's their choice, but once you're an adult, it's really your job to educate yourself. If someone wants to help, fine (though that person 'helping' probably has an agenda of their own, so watch out!) but I really can't blame anyone else on this. It was the government's job to put the options on the ballot, just as they put candidates on the ballot, but I don't see it as their job to campaign for the yes side or the no side. And my point throughout much of this thread has been that if people are really as disenfranchised as you and others claim, there should have been no need for anyone else to "educate the masses"... their own discontent with the system should have been more than enough motivation to take the time to bring themselves to where they could make a decision.

If by "in" you mean, will I vote for some flavour of PR if given the chance and will I take the "pro" side in discussions with friends, family and co-workers, I'm in!

If by "out" you mean am I unwilling to spend my nights licking envelopes in the hope of schooling my fellow adults, and am I unlikely to spend my Saturday afternoon waving a sign and marching around with 30 other PR supporters, I guess I'm out.

As for moving forward, I would suggest that long before it's time to get out the calculators and see whose particular flavour of PR is the One True Shining Path, trying to incubate a little general interest in governance would be in order.  Asking people to choose among three different electoral models when they don't really care that much about electoral models is probably a non-starter.  This might mean having to mend fences between the STV and MMP crowd.  Is that like asking Evangelicals to partner with atheists?

Snert wrote:

If by "in" you mean, will I vote for some flavour of PR if given the chance and will I take the "pro" side in discussions with friends, family and co-workers, I'm in!

If by "out" you mean am I unwilling to spend my nights licking envelopes in the hope of schooling my fellow adults, and am I unlikely to spend my Saturday afternoon waving a sign and marching around with 30 other PR supporters, I guess I'm out.

As for moving forward, I would suggest that long before it's time to get out the calculators and see whose particular flavour of PR is the One True Shining Path, trying to incubate a little general interest in governance would be in order.  Asking people to choose among three different electoral models when they don't really care that much about electoral models is probably a non-starter.  This might mean having to mend fences between the STV and MMP crowd.  Is that like asking Evangelicals to partner with atheists?

I was just suggesting you come out to the meeting and support change as a warm body if nothing else. It isn't a battle of the PRs as far as I can tell from the publicity.

I think those who are interested already have the information -- and they may not all agree.

The key question is how to get the informaiton out to those who might be interested but aren't-- even a documentary on TV -- assuming you could get it on air may not work for many as it would be watched by those who are already interested and likely informed. A news brief may be something aso creating news may be one strategy although that is easier said than done- there are lots of ways to do it though focussing on what the media want rather than your message-- so they want pictures so give them something visual. Have forums get highschool kids in.

But the best way to get someone who is not interested is to spend some personal goodwill and convince a friend because I'll listen to a friend on almost anythign -- for a bit.If each person convinced ten other people over a year then you would have a movement... Its really the only way.

You could plug it on facebook-- that is a bit like the personal one only less effective on an individual basis but with more reach so might work but many people have to do it.

Snert wrote:

I really can't blame the electorate's ignorance on anyone but the electorate.

The pollsters concluded that had the public been adequately informed “the result would have been 63 per cent for MMP and 37 per cent for the existing system - exactly the mirror image of the actual outcome”.

My two favourite anecdotal bits of evidence:

1.  The PC campaign worker I met who had just voted in the advance poll because he would be pulling the vote on election day. I was in their campaign office restocking their supply of Citizens' Assembly leaflets -- the ones the government refused to distribute. He had not seen one, and when I quickly explained the recommendation his eyes lit up: "Oh, it's top-up! I would have voted for it if I had realized that. I thought the Liberals would get 40% of the list MPPs, and I couldn't see the point."

2.  The woman who was getting her hair done the day after the vote, and asked a friend of mine in the next chair "what was that second ballot for, the one about Hydro?" Hydro? She had asked the poll clerk, who had replied it was about electoral reform, which she misheard as "electrical reform." 

skeiseid wrote:

There's no guarantee that the Assembly would have significantly changed their design given any more time.

But the CA Chair did tell the Fair Vote Canada conference that he believes the CA would, given another three weekends, have changed the model as to province-wide or regional lists, and as to closed or open lists. That's not a guarantee, but it's an extremely well-informed opinion. It amounts to saying the final model would likely have been regional open-list, which I think is correct, and would have been the right model. It still would have failed to pass the undemocratic 60% threshold, given that most voters knew nothing about it until they saw the ballot. That's mainly because of the CA's second problem: the Democratic Renewal Secretariat had planned for it to be held a year earlier, which would have given us all lots of time to absorb and debate it.