The NDP & proportional representation - #2

JKR wrote:

Polunatic2 wrote:

Quote:

All you are looking for is something between 25 and 50% of policy staffing resources. Reallocated from where? what issues?

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. 

 

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.

- 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.

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.

KenS wrote:

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.

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.  

KenS wrote:

"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.

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.

psmith wrote:

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?

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.

JKR wrote:

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.

I totally agree the NDP should propose an open-list MMP system, as the Law Commission of Canada proposed.

JKR wrote:

Personally I prefer Baden-Wurttemberg's best runners up version. Baden-Wurttemberg's system would probably be the easiest sell in Canada. . . 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.

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.

Polunatic2 wrote:

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

The 2003 and 2006 resolutions have been replaced by the new Policy Book, which states as already mentioned above.

Wilf Day wrote:

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.

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.