babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » rabble content   » news by the rest of us   » It's not just sour grapes

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: It's not just sour grapes
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 11 December 2007 09:21 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 11 December 2007 09:37 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Electoral reform was definitely defeated. But it was defeated by the Government of Ontario, not by the citizens.
...by the Liberal Government of Ontario. Let's just lay it on the line here.

From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 12 December 2007 03:03 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It's a difficult subject to squeeze into a short article, and I think you did a good job of driving home the point under those circumstances, Michelle.

And, your closing line is a real keeper-- with due respect to Lard Tunderin' Jesus, if the tories were in power, the process and outcome would be the same-- if they would have allowed it in the first place.

And, the ONDP had their chance to do something about it, too, way back when.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 12 December 2007 03:44 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thanks Tommy. And LTJ, I thought about that very thing when writing it. I decided against it, since there were quite a few Liberal Party MPPs and members who really tried to push it hard, as opposed to the Conservative Party who, as Tommy_Paine says, not only wouldn't have struck a Citizen's Assembly to begin with, but came out as a party and endorsed FPTP during the last week of the campaign.

And the NDP really didn't do much either besides acquiesce to an unfair 60% threshold, and use the issue as a way to campaign against the Liberal Party. They were too busy trying to convince people that MMP was dead to fight against the moves that killed it. (After all, we wouldn't want people donating time and money to a "doomed" MMP campaign that they could donate to the NDP instead.)

[ 12 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      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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      Profile for Michael Hardner   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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      Profile for DonnyBGood     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 16 December 2007 03:58 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The rules did NOT forbid the parties from discussing it. It forbade them from FUNDING the MMP or FPTP side. It definitely did not stop them from taking a stand on the issue and publicizing their stand.

But thank-you for the compliment. Okay, maybe I am a bit bitter.

Fidel, yes, that's correct - the reason you didn't get any CA materials in the mail is because the government decided not to distribute them to Ontario households.

Grr...

[ 16 December 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lord Palmerston
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4901

posted 16 December 2007 01:44 PM      Profile for Lord Palmerston     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
And the NDP really didn't do much either besides acquiesce to an unfair 60% threshold, and use the issue as a way to campaign against the Liberal Party. They were too busy trying to convince people that MMP was dead to fight against the moves that killed it. (After all, we wouldn't want people donating time and money to a "doomed" MMP campaign that they could donate to the NDP instead.)

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.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 16 December 2007 01:56 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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      Profile for Michael Hardner   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 16 December 2007 03:02 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well I was an opponent of BC-STV last time around myself, but I've changed my mind somewhat since then. (yes it can happen in politics) But then I supported Electoral Reform in general before, even if it doesn't touch some political problems directly (like corporate funding of the electoral process say, or monolithic political coverage), as being forced to vote for what we believe is the 'lesser of two evils', because of old structural defects, is still one of the main barriers to getting more representative government. Front running parties that generally benefit from skewed voting results have no incentive to alter anything.
From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michael Hardner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2595

posted 16 December 2007 04:06 PM      Profile for Michael Hardner   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Uh huh...

I'd like to see the Greens with at least a seat, and some better press coverage but I don't know that MMP is the best way to make that happen.


From: Toronto | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 16 December 2007 04:19 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well I personally think MMP (open list, regionally nominated optimally) is the best of the lot, but thanks largely to the machinations and biases of Ontario's political establishment it's a longshot now. I don't think we need another thread on the relative merits of each system though, most everyone who follows the issue can now agree that FPTP is the system which most favours established minorities.
From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 16 December 2007 05:18 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Great summary, Michelle.
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
And the NDP really didn't do much either besides acquiesce to an unfair 60% threshold . . .

You're getting confused with the BC NDP, which did endorse the 60% threshold, as opposed to the Ontario NDP, who argued against it and voted against it.

From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 18 December 2007 03:31 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca