Author
|
Topic: It's not just sour grapes
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 11 December 2007 09:21 PM
I just handed this in as a writing assignment for a journalism class I'm taking, so I thought I'd post it here too, in case anyone's interested or would like to comment. It’s not just sour grapes
The results are in, and Ontarians have voted overwhelmingly for First Past The Post as their preferred voting system. Electoral reform has been soundly rejected by the masses, and our current system is widely loved and strongly endorsed by most Ontarians. At least, this is what most media pundits and No MMP campaigners – excuse the redundancy – would have us believe. At the risk of being characterized as a sore loser, I will explain the major reason why this referendum was rigged from the start. Let’s start with the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform. This group of randomly selected Ontarians were given the task of learning as much as they could about electoral systems, to listen to people across the province in town hall meetings and through written submissions, and then to recommend whichever system of voting they thought would be best, backed up by their research and reasoning. As we know, they rejected the current system and recommended a Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) system. They created an excellent booklet and information pamphlet explaining the new system, and their reasoning for choosing this new system. Then, everyone in the province was asked to vote on the Citizens’ Assembly recommendation laid out in these materials. But…their recommendation was not distributed to Ontarians. We were asked by the Government of Ontario to vote on a recommendation that they refused to distribute to each household in Ontario. Instead, the government printed them up, and waited for people to call Publications Ontario and order their free copies for delivery, assuming that everyone in Ontario would somehow know that these publications existed and were available. When those of us working for the Vote For MMP campaign attempted to do the government’s job and distribute the materials across the province ourselves, we discovered that Publications Ontario had stopped printing the recommendation more than a month before the referendum, the pamphlets in particular. They printed only a fraction of the number necessary for each household in Ontario to have a copy. The reasoning behind this was that the government wanted Elections Ontario to inform Ontarians about the referendum, implying that the Citizens’ Assembly materials were “biased”. The Citizens’ Assembly proposal, the very thing we were being asked to vote on, was deliberately kept from us because it might “bias” us. The Elections Ontario materials didn’t explain MMP adequately, nor did it tell Ontarians why the Citizens’ Assembly made the recommendation they did. Instead, voters were informed about MMP by an almost uniformly hostile news media. Because apparently negative media spin and no access to the Citizens’ Assembly’s proposal itself was the best way to ensure that people were educated on the issue. That was supposedly the best way to ensure that there would be no bias. Given the way the government made sure that many Ontarians would know little, if anything about the Citizens’ Assembly recommendation beyond the negative reactions of the media, it is amazing that MMP got as much support as it did. They might as well not have had a Citizens’ Assembly at all. It was paid for with our tax dollars, which might as well have been flushed down the drain since they weren’t going to bother letting us know what they decided and why before asking us to vote on it. Ontarians don’t love First Past The Post. If they loved it, they’d come out in droves on election day and feel like they really had a say. You’d never hear people saying that it doesn’t matter whether they vote or not because their candidate never gets in and their vote is thrown away. You’d never hear people complain about majority government “dictatorships” for whom most of the people didn’t vote. But we do hear those complaints – a lot. People are not happy with the system, and it shows in low voter turnout, and contempt for politicians. People voted for First Past The Post because it was either that or vote for a system they didn’t understand, or had heard nothing about except for negativity, due to the deliberate suppression of the Citizens’ Assembly recommendation. Electoral reform was definitely defeated. But it was defeated by the Government of Ontario, not by the citizens. [ 11 December 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214
|
posted 12 December 2007 04:31 AM
Well, don't forget that the parties were not really allowed to campaign for or against MMP or for the continuance of the Family Compact System.The trick in a complex issue like this is to get it across to people in a simple way without losing the truth of it. You know, if I was doing a larger article along journalistic lines, I'd do a comparison between what the "arms length" stock portfolios of M.P.'s and Cabinet Ministers yield, and the yields of average investors in Canada. I'm not sure, but I think all that info is available-- but undoubtedly hard to find. It would test, and add research skills. Someone in the States did that a few years ago, and found that Senators and Representatives had much better returns on investments than the system would otherwise indicate they should have-- implying that they are fed inside information, and illegally transmit that info to the people who are supposedly running their investments at "arms length." I deeply suspect that Canada being Canada, we'd find even more dramatic discrepancies.
From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michael Hardner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2595
|
posted 12 December 2007 09:14 AM
I would say that the results were rigged when the citizens assembly was charged to investigate 'electoral' reform only.I don't see how the distribution of a few pamphlets would have made much difference. And I'm starting to think that low electoral participation might not be such a bad thing either. It's hard to get people excited when they're fat and sleepy. Yawn...
From: Toronto | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 12 December 2007 03:39 PM
quote: Originally posted by Michelle:
When those of us working for the Vote For MMP campaign attempted to do the government’s job and distribute the materials across the province ourselves, we discovered that Publications Ontario had stopped printing the recommendation more than a month before the referendum, the pamphlets in particular. They printed only a fraction of the number necessary for each household in Ontario to have a copy.
I knew about the pamphlets, and that we could ask for bunches of them to distribute on our own time. But I did not receive a CA pamphlet in the mail. quote: Instead, voters were informed about MMP by an almost uniformly hostile news media. Because apparently negative media spin and no access to the Citizens’ Assembly’s proposal itself was the best way to ensure that people were educated on the issue. That was supposedly the best way to ensure that there would be no bias.
The former newspaper editor of my hometown's main paper gave a big-long commentary on MMP. And he botched it all and explained it bass ackwards. I think he must have been tutored in how to make advanced democracy sound like the most repressive idea since press gangs and stockades. Or something. I just couldn't believe how the two oldest political parties kidnapped the election campaign with yammering on about religious school funding. What a depressing thing to have another phony majority Liberal dictatorship. At least Campbell agreed to distributing the CA's informational pamphlets to every household. And look at the response they received to STV. We're being kept in the dark in Canada's largest province wrt proportional democracy. I think they had a scare with over 57 percent of British Columbian voters in favour of STV. And I think our Liberals embarrassed themselves with the 37 percent result for MMP. According to newspaper columnists in our largest newspapers, MMP suffered a "resounding defeat" with 37% support, but McGuinty's Liberals won a "landslide majority" with 42% of the vote ... 66% of legislature seats and 100% of power for another four years. Something more than just a referendum proposal was defeated in Ontario. [ 12 December 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
DonnyBGood
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4850
|
posted 12 December 2007 05:33 PM
I think there is a positive spin to all this. Imagine what would have happened if the recommendations were made available to all households. Look further and you see that the old line parties new that if promoted they would lose out - hence MMPs actual popularity. Why would they fear it is it were a bad idea to begin with?Moreover, the election process forbade any party from promoting it or discussing it or funding the referendum. The old line parties were hoping for an inoculation against the scheme. Now they could argue that the people have spoken and the issue is dead - long live mis-representative democracy! Good article on a great issue - let's not give up- Cognitive dissonance in a good cause is a good cause and all that!
From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 16 December 2007 01:56 PM
quote: Originally posted by Lord Palmerston:
Howard Hampton said that he wasn't surprised by the results as it was pretty much deliberately set up to fail. Certainly the NDP could have spoken out against the 60% threshold earlier but maybe they didn't campaign that heavily for MMP(though they were clearly on record supporing it) because they didn't want to make it seen as a partisan issue.
This is what one of several ONDP website pages had to say about electoral reform: quote: The McGuinty Government set the threshold for success in the referendum at 60 per cent support and a majority in at least 60 per cent of ridings – clearly setting it up to fail.New Democrats support mixed-member proportional representation but parties are prohibited from campaigning for the Yes side.
I think McGuinty's Liberals did a really bad job of it considering it was our first referendum since 1867 or whenever the last one was. [ 16 December 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052
|
posted 16 December 2007 02:25 PM
quote: Originally posted by Michael Hardner: I would say that the results were rigged when the citizens assembly was charged to investigate 'electoral' reform only.I don't see how the distribution of a few pamphlets would have made much difference. And I'm starting to think that low electoral participation might not be such a bad thing either. It's hard to get people excited when they're fat and sleepy. Yawn...
If you're so bored with the subject then why do you keep posting anti-ER arguments everytime it comes up here?
From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michael Hardner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2595
|
posted 16 December 2007 02:42 PM
quote: If you're so bored with the subject then why do you keep posting anti-ER arguments everytime it comes up here?
It was self-deprecating humour actually... read the last few sentences again. I post anti-ER arguments to remind casual readers who haven't made up their mind that there are some obvious questions that are continually glossed over. i.e. It's always assumed that reform = electoral reform. I think that this assumption, in the least, needs more discussion. Even if you buy that electoral reform needs to be examined, then the next level of discussion seems to be in how the process was fixed so that the PR proposal would fail. I think the Liberals could have done pretty well whether the proposal succeeded or not. That, in my opinion, is the definition of a 'fix'.
From: Toronto | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 18 December 2007 03:31 PM
Leading the way to a fair system quote: On February 19, NDP MP Catherine Bell will tabled a motion to get the ball rolling on electoral reform. This motion mandated Parliament to consult with Canadians and choose a fairer voting system like proportional representation.The last Parliament actually adopted NDP MP Ed Broadbent’s reform process, but the Liberal government broke its promise to move forward. Make sure votes aren’t wasted any longer - urge your member of Parliament to support the NDP’s campaign for a fair voting system
Sign the petition
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|