It’s a sad story of manipulation and deceit. Let’s begin at the beginning …
Following the publication of new census numbers last year, a Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission was appointed, as required by law, to re-draw the map of Saskatchewan’s 14 federal constituencies.
The Commission consists of a Queen’s Bench Judge (Mr. Justice Ron Mills), a Professor Emeritus from the University of Saskatchewan (Dr. John Courtney) and the President of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities (Dave Marit). Their report was made public last week, and the Conservatives have been having a hissy-fit ever since.
Political parties may disagree with the Commission, but it’s the Commission – not any politician – that has the legal authority to determine where the boundaries go. That independent, arm’s length, non-partisan approach is fundamental to fair and honest elections.
Drawing electoral maps is a tough job. People can have differing views. The Commission had one dissenter, Mr. Marit. But the Mills/Courtney majority position was strong, clear and well-reasoned, with the backing of SUMA (the Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association) and a great many others.
The proposed new map provides Saskatchewan with a fair and balanced outcome that more accurately reflects the province’s reality, including six rural ridings (one more than before), five urban seats (instead of none before), and three rural/urban blends.
In a bizarre twist last week, residents of Regina and Saskatoon began receiving automated telephone calls attacking the proposed new boundaries. The tone was abusive, suggesting those who agreed with the new map – including the majority of the Commission – were betraying Saskatchewan’s values.
Conservatives immediately tried to distance themselves from these despicable robocalls. Local MPs and Conservative headquarters in Ottawa both denied having anything to do with them. “Not something we would do”, Conservatives claimed.
Complaints were filed with the CRTC (Canada’s telecommunications regulator) and once a forensic voice-analysis expert matched the voice in the Saskatchewan calls to the owner of the company that sent out the infamous Pierre Poutine robocalls, the Conservatives had to confess that these calls were, indeed, a Conservative scam. Their initial attempt to hide their involvement shows they knew what they were doing was wrong.
It was wrong to mislead Saskatchewan people and try to intimidate them. It was wrong to interfere with what was supposed to be a totally independent process. It was wrong to discredit the commissioners and their work. It was wrong to try to cover it up.
The last time a scam of this kind was discovered, the Conservatives had to admit to a deceitful “disinformation” campaign maligning Montreal-area MP Irwin Cotler. The Speaker of the House of Commons (Regina MP Andrew Scheer) quite properly called the Conservative tactics “reprehensible”. This latest escapade is no less so.
Ralph Goodale
Deputy Leader
MP, Wascana
Has anyone considered taking the CPC to court over this issue? At the very least, a publicized court proceeding would bring to light many of the inappropriate actions the CPC has been taking as of late.
what i dont understand is why the media has not acted in news coverage
and why this continues going on and on year after year, and no one is booted out charged or taken to court. why doesn’t the leberals or even the ndp take them to court?
Exactly, we need to stop shouting and complaining in Parliament and take them to task in court.
” a tangled conservative web ” … more like a dysfunctional government, with an opposition that is happy to shed light on the CPC’s activities but an opposition that’s not willing to follow their own values and principles and take action.
And the sad part is that this impacts the 99% !! :-(
It appears that you may be right. Proportional representation (PR) would make such robocalls ineffective. Our FPTP electoral system exaggerates the impact of a slight shift of votes to another party. This means that a few swing ridings usually determine the outcome of an election. So robocalls to those ridings can have a great impact.
For those who do not know what gerrymandering is, there is a lovely video of how it works in the animal kingdom:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mky11UJb9AY
The way to completely incapacitate gerrymandering and other flaws of FPTP is to have proportional representation (PR).
PR allows the number of MPs to be in proportion to the popular vote.
PR is the electoral system recommended by the Law Commission in 2004 (whose work began at the request of the LPC).
PR was also recommended by two Citizen Assemblies in Ontario and BC.
PR is used successfully in 70-80 countries in the world. It is the choice of new democracies.
Only three countries do not use PR in at least one of their main legislative bodies – Canada, US and Ghana.
Unfortunately, the LPC has chosen to support preferential voting (PV) is just a complicated form of our existing FPTP electoral system. PV is not proportional. PV will not counteract gerrymandering.
In fact, PV does not do much of anything different than the current FPTP except to try to convince voters that their MP who received less than 50% of the popular vote actually won a majority.
All of the other parties support true electoral reform – PR.
Since gerrymandering involves establishing the boundaries of electoral districts to your favour, I am not sure how a PR system would alleviate that problem. Are you suggesting that in a PR system that you are supporting, there would be no ridings per se but rather MP’s serving the province at large, similar to how senators currently represent provinces and not ridings?
Thanks for asking, Matthew. There are different variation of PR and they attempt to achieve proportionality in different ways. But the fact that proportionality is the goal means that the # seats won under a FPTP system is irrelevant.
Under most systems of PR, there are still electoral districts but they are usually much larger. These ridings may be represented by either multiple MPs or a single MP.
Under variations of PR, such as Dion’s P3 plan or STV, each district will have multiple MPs – which are selected according to the proportion of popular vote they receive. Ideally, the system results in overall proportionality so that each party has the number of seats equal to the total proportional vote received. The larger ridings and multiple MPs make gerrymandering very difficult, if not impossible.
Under versions of PR that use list systems, the seats are tallied as under FPTP or some other emthod. Then, the seats are adjusted to reflect the proportional vote held by each party. This is done by adding MPs from lists put forth by each of the parties. Technically, gerrymandering could still take place at the riding level – but to no avail. The # seats are subsequently adjusted as described.
I hope that explains it for you.
Thanks for the info, it looks like you have done a lot of research on this topic, although your comments seem more directed to electoral reform rather than gerrymandering. The issue of gerrymandering seems to be relatively simple to manage. Make sure the agency in charge is completely free from political interference and that set rules are in place to adjust based on census results (even if that means Quebec loses its percentage of seats).
Personally I don’t like the idea of “list” candidates in the PR option sitting alongside elected MP’s and having the same responsibilities. You would need to have two tiers of MP’s in that case where only elected MP’s could be in cabinet or for that matter rise higher than backbencher since list candidates are only filler. Those who are on the party lists are accountable to the party and not the people and that is one of the problems I have with the PR system involving “list” candidates.
I would much prefer a preferential ballot where you rank the candidates in your riding in order of preference since you are at least voting for your representative. In this case you vote for who you want, and if you want to keep a certain party out, you use your preferential selections accordingly. Just my opinion.
Thanks for the comments, Matthew. Gerrymandering would be a non-issue under PR. No need to police how riding boundaries are set. Also, robocalls would have no effect under PR.
There are many types of electoral systems that achieve proportional representation. Many of them do not use lists.
Dion’s P3 plan combine PV and PR to achieve proportional representation.
http://stephanedion.liberal.ca/en/articles-en/p3-voting-system-canada/
PV is not proportional and also can lead to majority governments with less than 40% of the popular vote. The results are not much different than those under FPTP. But sometimes, weird things happen.
In Australia, a third place candidate claimed the seat.
http://thoughtundermined.com/2010/08/26/australias-election-and-av-opponents/
PV will do nothing to change the behaviour of Parliament which is what upsets voters. PV will accomplish very little except annoy voters and delay the implementation of real reform.
http://thoughtundermined.com/2012/04/03/artificial-preferences/
Each system of voting has its strengths and weaknesses. Stéphane Dion’s proposal (see link below) is also worth considering. If PV is good enough to elect our leaders, then I am okay with it to elect our MP’s. Pure PR subjects our democracy to the influences of marginal ideological parties far beyond their representative support. We need look no further than Israel for the problems this can cause. It ends up not really representing the will of the people despite its intent.
http://ideefederale.ca/documents/Dion_ang.pd
Thanks for your comments Peter. Actually, PV when used to select a single winner get the same result as PR. So PV works well whenever for the leadership contest or to elect a mayor, etc.
Where PV does not work well is in a general election where a group is being elected to govern. In that situation, PV really does not do much of anything different than FPTP, although it can throw off some unexpected results. PV is not proportional. In fact, there is really no point in switching to PV unless you mistakenly believe it will give you an electoral advantage over another party.
You point out two of the myths of PR. Although 70-80 countries successfully use PR, the only ones talked about are Israel and Greece. Those 2 countries have particular circumstances and attributes unique to them.
Most of the remaining countries have governments that last longer than FPTP governments in Canada. Although there are frequently coalitions, they are very stable as there tends to be much greater continuity from one government to the next. This allows for long-term planning and the development of lasting, productive relationships.
The impact of marginal parties is a myth too. There is no way that the tail can wag the dog unless the main coalition partners are not doing their job. If a member of a fringe party wants to have any influence in Parliament, he/she needs to get with the program or get left out. Also, a fringe party will lose its seats in the next election if it makes unreasonable demands or proposes extreme policies – just like any other party.
PR puts more of the power back in the hands at the people. Political parties lose some. That is the primary source of all the misinformation that gets spun re PR.
I attended a debate at which Stephane spoke about his P3 plan a few weeks ago. I have also read his documents. I am fine with Stephane’s plan. The P3 plan attempts to ensure widespread representation of all the main parties in order to foster national unity.
But I disagree with implementing AV first as I fear that it will turn voters off electoral reform and PR will be deferred indefinitely.
Also, unless the Liberals get a majority, they will have no influence to implement any reform without the cooperation of other parties – all of which have PR in their platforms.
Canada cannot afford any more Harper or Harper-like governments.
Additional info: http://www.fairvote.ca/en/myths-about-fair-voting-and-proportional-representation
http://thoughtundermined.com/2012/04/03/artificial-preferences/
http://www.psa.ac.uk/PSAPubs/TheAlternativeVoteBriefingPaper.pdf
Here is another good article on PR by Andrew Coyne.
http://s.fairvote.ca/files/Andrew Coyne speech – 2008 AGM.pdf?q=files/Andrew Coyne speech – 2008 AGM.pdf
Patricia, thanks for the information and dialog on this point. I appreciate your enlightenment on this topic. You almost have me convinced. I might still need a bit of a further push. When the Liberals supported the past Conservative minority government over a period of time in various policies by abdicating our liberal principles we received a negative response from voters in the last election. If the plurality party in PR can’t find compliant partners, what then? Isn’t that no better than a minority parliament? I guess the media has emphasized the lack of success and instability of PR in the countries mentioned, including Italy, over more positive examples so that has caught my attention. Other than Fair Vote Canada, I do not hear much about this from all parties. I wonder how sincerely they hold to this proposal. The voters, including those in our party leadership campaign, need to make it an issue to awaken our politicians on the importance of this democratic desire. If we are democratically asleep, the parties see no reason to awaken us.
Hi Peter
It is so nice to speak someone with so much enthusiasm. I am relatively new to all this as well. So am learning just as you are – by seeking out information on the internet and talking to people.
I was not aware of the existence of this speech by Andrew Coyne – it is fabulous. Thank-you. It sums up so much of what I have learned in the roaming for answers.
John Deverell is the real guru on electoral reform. You will see some of his posts on this site.
So why have you not heard about it? Partisans are so focused on winning at any cost that they cannot wrap their brain around doing something because it is the right thing to do – especially if there is some uncertainty about how it will affect their own party. Coyne explains it perfectly.
Elections under FPTP are basically determined by a few swing ridings. That is why robocalls were focused on those ridings. If the difference between winning and losing is a small percentage of the votes in a few swing ridings, that is where all the attention is focused.
As for voters in general, it is pretty clear that for most electoral reform is not on their radar screen. They hate what is happening in parliament but have not yet connected the dots between the electoral system and the parties’ behaviour – as Coyne says.
Many think that referendums should not be used to change electoral systems. The issues are complex and there is so much misinformation and outright lies, that voters are easily scared off.
http://thoughtundermined.com/2011/05/07/a-referendum-if-necessary-but-not-necessarily-a-referendum/
You asked about what would happen if a coalition could not be formed. This blogger discusses how governments are formed under a parliamentary democracy and what the various permutations look like:
http://thoughtundermined.com/2011/10/02/understanding-government-formation/
In Canada, voters elect a Parliament. If no party has a majority, one or more parties must obtain the confidence of the House of Commons. Governments usually form quickly but they may not. Or the coalitions they form may fall apart. On the whole, governments elected under PR are very stable and last longer than the norm in Canada.
http://thoughtundermined.com/2011/04/12/its-not-about-the-most-seats/
http://thoughtundermined.com/2011/03/21/av-does-not-cause-hung-parliaments/
Governance does not cease because a government has not yet formed. Caretaker governments can carry on. In Belgium, a caretaker government was in place for over 500 days.
http://thoughtundermined.com/2012/12/13/the-situation-of-parliament-during-a-prolonged-period-of-political-crisis/
I would suggest that the panic over not having a majority comes from political parties – not citizens. Everyone likes to have control and do it their own way. It is easier than having to negotiate with other parties. But isn’t that exactly why we want to get rid of FPTP?
Just as minority governments now operate, a formal coalition is not needed to form a government. There can simply be some form of working relationship – which gets renegotiated whenever a new issue comes up. Parties become trigger-happy when they sense they might be able to pull off a majority at a time when another party is weak. But when the incentive to trigger another election is taken away, more areas of agreement will likely be worked out.
Parties that operate within a consensual system like PR behave differently that those that operate in a winner-take-all FPTP system; when the electoral system changes to PR, it may take some time for parties to learn how to operate on a consensual basis. So, there may be some bumps on the road. Parties may do much posturing and screaming that a no coalition is possible, but if the system demands that something is worked out, then that is what they will have to do – even if it takes a while.
I believe that New Zealand’s coalition fell apart after one of its first PR elections. That has resulted with some dissatisfaction with electoral reform as discussed here:
http://www.nzes.org/docs/papers/ejpr_2001.pdf
I expect that managing expectations is the key to voter satisfaction. If voters expect some bumps initially and understand that electoral reform is a gradual process, there will be less dissatisfaction.
Change is always hard. Does that mean one should avoid it? If we agree that the way that Parliament operates must change, and that electoral reform will help, then change is unavoidable. There is an opportunity in 2015 because so many voters want to get rid of Harper. The Greens are willing to cooperate with the Liberals to make electoral reform happen. The time is ripe. The sooner that changes are made, the sooner Canada will be enroute to better democracy.
Finally, will the parties honour their proposals to being in electoral reform? I understand that both Liberal and NDP MPs have been told to hush about electoral reform . Coyne explains that partisanship and the slightest prospect for victory kills the will for electoral reform. So you are right that the grassroots must exert much pressure to achieve electoral reform. It will also help in there is an either a minority government in 2015 or there is cooperation between the progressive parties to unseat Harper.
In the interim, we must inform the public on electoral reform so that they will not be misled by lies and mischief like we saw when Harper threatened to create a constitutional crisis by proroguing Parliament in 2008. He had voters believing that the coalition on the left was a coup when, in fact, it was a simply that the House no longer had confidence in Harper’s government. The opposition parties had every right to try to form a coalition.
There is tons of stuff on the internet about PR. New Zealand has had a few referendums on electoral reform. The UK had one in 2011. And of course, BC and ON had recent referendums. They all generated much commentary, some videos and studies. And of course, the issue is not new so one keeps running into papers and studies going back for years.
Then there are all the bloggers and groups promoting PR. Here are links to some more groups:
http://www.citizensforcrosspartycooperation.org/links.html
One of most comprehensive sites is a blog that I referred you to earlier:
http://thoughtundermined.com/2013/01/21/electoral-reform-not-hot-with-canadians-but-still-worth-pursuing/
There are many other articles on electoral reform in this blog – with lots of links to information elsewhere.
If you are interested in attending some talks / workshops on PR, there are a number coming up in the GTA. Liberal leadership candidate, Joyce Murray is at a couple events in Toronto this week.
Joyce is proposing both cooperation and PR.
Wow! Thanks, Patricia. If every Liberal was as passionate, action oriented and as well informed as you are, we would have stormed Parliament Hill long ago back into the Liberal column. Thank you for your interest and willingness to share your wisdom and views.
I hope this link works. The other one does not.
http://s.fairvote.ca/files/Andrew%20Coyne%20speech%20-%202008%20AGM.pdf?q=files/Andrew%20Coyne%20speech%20-%202008%20AGM.pdf
There is no perfect system for establishing electoral boundaries…and while Mr. Goodale’s comments are in favour of what was done in Saskatchewan, the reverse holds true for Quebec. In La Belle Province, the proposed map would have you think that the Conservatives prepared the draft, not only by significantly moving boundaries,which would hurt sitting Liberal MP’s, but renaming many of those in the Montreal area to potentially only add confusion for a future election.
That is one of the many reasons that proportional representation makes sense. Gerrymandering would have no impact under PR.
Want to fix Canadian democracy? (In four, quick easy steps.)
1) Go to JoyceMurray.ca and click on “Support”.
2) Sign up* as a Joyce Murray/Liberal supporter. Free! (no membership required)
3) You will receive a follow-up email asking you to register to vote. Registration is quick. That’s it. Your preferential voting package will be mailed to you in early April.
4) Make Joyce your first choice!
Why? Joyce is calling for a one-time electoral pact between the Liberals, the NDP and the Green Party in order to defeat Harper in 2015 and elect a majority of MPs committed to reforming Canada’s voting system. Future election results must reflect each party’s share of the popular vote.
Joyce has an inspired vision for a sustainable Canada. Read all about it at JoyceMurray.ca.
I appreciate your enthusiasm, Patricia, for Joyce Murray on this issue, as she appears to be the most concerned about democratic renewal due to her platform priorities. Stephan Dion did the same thing for the environment with his Green Shift proposals but the general public did not get on board. I wonder if this issue is a priority for Canadians? Not for enough Canadians it seems to me.
Joyce Murray is coming to the Toronto this week and this is a great opportunity for you to meet with her and learn more about her ideas. These are a few events already confirmed for this upcoming week:
• February 14th, 2013, from 5pm to 7pm @ The Duke of York (39 Prince Arthur Street, Toronto): This is an informal meet & great and a perfect occasion to meet Joyce in a more intimate environment.
• February 15th, 2013, from 5pm to 7pm @ The Centre for Social Innovation (215 Spadina Avenue, Toronto): This a fundraiser for Joyce. Light refreshments will be provided. Admission is free but a suggested donation of $50 would be appreciated. RSVP to info@enconsulting.ca. For more information, check the Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/events/508570585853105/
• If you are in the Guelph region, you can also catch up with Joyce on February 14th, 2013 at 12pm @ The Brass Taps (University of Guelph).
FPTP has one big advantage – the Single Member Constituency, but if three parties share the vote, it loses credibility.
If you want a form of PR, but see disadvantages in multi-member constituencies and party lists, and at the same time believe that MPs should be elected on merit, not just party label, you may like to consider Direct Party and Representative Voting (DPR). More at dprvoting.org
Thanks. I have not studied that one yet. But I see that there is a blog on it. So I will check it out.
It is nice to know some of the variations of PR that may address various issues.
I try not to get wedded to any particular form of PR. Electoral reform is not on most voters’ radar. It is difficult enough to get consensus on the concept of PR without delving into all the intricacies of design – which is best left to an independent body anyway.
Electoral reform is necessary because so many of the problems with how Parliament behaves stems from how it is elected – even if voters have not connected the dots yet.
http://thoughtundermined.com/2013/01/21/electoral-reform-not-hot-with-canadians-but-still-worth-pursuing/
http://thoughtundermined.com/2011/05/07/a-referendum-if-necessary-but-not-necessarily-a-referendum/
” Electoral reform is necessary because so many of the problems with how Parliament behaves stems from how it is elected – even if voters have not connected the dots yet.”
I disagree with your premise that the problems of Parliamentary behaves can be solved largely by electoral reform. There is no way that anyone can predict with absolute certainty that moving to PR will do that.
We the people do not hold our elected officials to a singular PURPOSE or PRINCIPLES. Neither exist. Nor are there consequences when elected officials and bureaucrats violate basic principles. Just look at Senators Brazeau and Duffy… they won’t get kicked out of the Senate, nor will they lose their income. What principle dictates their outcome? It’s up to Canadians to demand that elected officials adhere to a purpose and set of principles.
Why we believe that elections can change behavior baffles me.
That’s the issue isn’t it …ELECTIONS SHOULD CHANGE BEHAVIOUR! If government is not responsive to voters, there is a problem. Fixing the electoral system may not be the whole solution but until some control comes back to the voters, nothing else happens.
Patricia wrote: ” If government is not responsive to voters, there is a problem. Fixing the electoral system may not be the whole solution but until some control comes back to the voters, nothing else happens. ”
So how does control come back to voters by changing the electoral system? What principle(s) are you following when you suggest this?
Voters already have control… they just don’t exercise it. And, politicians already know this.
It’s not the just the behavior of elected officials and bureaucrats that need to change. It’s the public, who has the power, that needs to be more engaged.
The trouble with the voter is that they are incapable of having a discussion on purpose and principles largely because the “partisan crowd” quickly shifts the ground under their feet towards policy thus snuffing out potential engagement. People actually believe they are accomplishing something when they discuss ‘policy’ in the absence of principles and purpose… never mind ‘measurement’ of said policies.
Then when the elections are over, policies that were dangled in front of people are conveniently ignored. Some voters call this ‘lying’. :-) Remember the politicians who promised “no tax increase”.
When one is looking at any system, whether it is a business process or something even more complex, like government, it always helps to know what the end state is or what the purpose is. This holds true when we are talking about government. What is the purpose of government? If we do not know what that is, then all policy will be a reduced to tinkering at the margins and flailing.
Reform-Conservatives have a pretty clear, if sadly simplistic, view of what the role of government is. They will talk (endlessly and in an ever rising register) about how the federal government is only for the defense of the nation and that nothing else should really be in its purview. The problem with their assertion of provincial rights is that they don’t really want their provincial government’s to do a lot either. It is this kind of thinking that gets us into the situation where ReformCons want, as David Corn of Mother Jones said, “Small government and Big Oil”. Liberals and progressives don’t get off the hook that easily either.
I think that there is a need to reassert the balancing power of the government in terms of business. With re-emergence of mega-corporations we have another powerful actor in our nation that has power disproportionate to the individual. By discussing purpose and principles we can deal with that actor as well. Changing the voting system does nothing in how corporations act within government. If anything, PR gives them even more openings.
As a people we can speak our minds at will, up to and including arguing for the changing of the purpose and principles by which we want to be government. We just need to be speaking about the important thing… which btw is more than 600 years old… western society has just strayed from purpose and principles…. which really are timeless.
If we believe that dentists, doctors, engineers, and pharmacists should be well-trained and licensed, why is it that we don’t insist on the similar criteria for our elected officials? Why is the system set up so that an MP, MPP, Senator or Councilor can run for office without the right qualifications?
At least, if we the people demand that any elected person has to agree and work toward the purpose and principles that we the people have discussed, agreed upon, can easily articulate and implemented. If they don’t there has to be a mechanism that removes them from office… other than the next election. Having purpose and principles in place would attract a higher quality candidate.
Andrew Cowne says it all in this 2008 speech:
http://s.fairvote.ca/files/Andrew%20Coyne%20speech%20-%202008%20AGM.pdf?q=files/Andrew%20Coyne%20speech%20-%202008%20AGM.pdf
Amen, Patricia, for your last paragraph. Thanks for the links. I have come around to some form of PR with a minimum % of popular vote necessary to have seats. I would not want fringe parties to have undue influence as in the worst case example as in Israel. Worth trying out for a few elections to see how the electorate can compare the two systems. However, to do that would take a lot of political capital on the part of a Prime Minister. It really took the attack on Pearl Harbor to have popular Roosevelt finally end isolationist sentiment in the states. I think some significant political event in Canada will be necessary to jolt Canadians to consider such an initiative as PR. Right now PV is the official position of the Liberal Party is it not due to the last convention?
Peter,
Leadnow started a new campaign for cooperation today. It refers to the Liberal leadership campaign. To find out more about cooperation and proportional representation, please see http://cooperate4.ca/
You may also be interested in John Deverell’s article recently reported:
http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/gary-shaul/2012/03/why-opposition-parties-should-cooperate-2015
True – and what an embarassing resolution it is. It makes me ashamed to be a Liberal, it is so blatantly partisan and full of misleading statements.
http://convention.liberal.ca/governance/21-electoral-reform/
Check out the comments under Democratic Reform on Justin’s Soapbox:
http://justin.ca/soapbox/
The LPC has to change its tune. Nobody is bending to their will
anymore. I spoke to a senior NDPer yesterday. The NDP’s position:
‘They will absolutely win the next election. They do not trust any deals made with the LPC… the Liberals have to come to the NDP.’
There are dozens of small groups working for cooperation and PR. Leadnow and Common Causes are pulling them together. I am sure that they will eventually march in large numbers..if that is what it takes. These are not dewy-eyed kids. They are parents, professionals, businessmen, union workers…..
The Liberals have a major force for cooperation/PR in the K-W liberal assn but it is spreading quickly.
http://www.citizensforcrosspartycooperation.org/links.html
Patricia, I would be surprised if a senior NDP official said otherwise. The Nanos polls indicate NDP support in Quebec is very soft and I do not see them, currently, winning many seats in the prairies either with the FPTP system. I think the next election will decide the fate of who will be the other major party next to the Conservatives. I think the Liberals should be competitive with the right leader and strong local associations.
Yes, you are right. There is much legal posturing no matter who you talk to. But near-victory is a powerful drug.
The Liberals are also deluding themselves if they think that they will depose Harper on their own. I see no evidence of strong local associations here -especially where there is no sitting member. It took me 4 months to get on my local Ontario association mailing list. I have had no contact with federal association at all. On the other hand, the NDP seem to have vibrant associations putting in regular events.
I went to another riding AGM last week. Even though about 70 people came, the meeting lasted about 20 minutes because all positions were acclaimed. I still have not idea who the executive is except the new President who spoke for about 2 minutes. There was nothing to engage attendees. No refreshments. People just filed out of the meeting. What a wasted opportunity.
What riding are you in?
I am in Nanaimo-Alberni, here in Canada’s Hawaii, Vancouver Island. We have a great organization here arising from good leadership. Our past President resurrected the association into a viable entity and passed it on. Regular email and electronic media contact and frequent meetings as a riding association are part of the fabric. Your association is only as good as the people who come forward to contribute. Our policy chair also coordinates or bridges with other community groups events to which the public is invited so our brand gets exposed that way as well. Key members of our executive are very outgoing, warm and welcoming. I just joined over a year ago and felt readily attached and connected to this group. For instance, this Saturday up to 30 members will gather at a local private establishment for lunch and a beverage of choice to watch the Toronto debate. We did the same thing for the Winnipeg interviews. The best thing is sharing with fellow Liberals after in respectful conversation about political matters meaningful to us. You cannot just pick up the pieces at election time. Vibrant riding associations are essential premised on the good working relationships within them. That’s leadership. All for one and one for all. Ask not what your riding association can do for you, ask what you can do for your riding association.
It took more than 6 months to get a response from my local riding to get on the list.
The other morning I received an email telling me that there was an event being held that same evening with a speaker. How does one attend on such short notice. I couldn’t because of other commitments.
Wolf
Good post Peter. I have met one or two people who are very active in my riding association. After introductions and background sharing I’ve asked what can I do to help and found the response not that welcoming. I don’t have a good sense why that’s the case in my area. It’s good to read about your situation.
Hello Wolf & Patricia,
This link may be of interest:
http://liberaluniversity.liberal.ca/hijackers-guide/
Chances are if you think things are not going well in your riding, wherever it is, there are others who likely feel as you do that would work with you.
Wolf,
That will have to change if we want liberalism in the form of the Liberal brand to get traction. If we don’t welcome new supporters and engage them, then we can’t expect to be more successful. It would be great if associations sponsored low key socials, like watching a debate together, at some venue, to increase networking and support and build relationships so necessary in a campaign and thriving organization.
Here is how the last two federal elections would have worked out with the new redistribution of seats.
http://fed2013.pollmaps.ca/
In 2011, the Conservatives would have picked up 23 more seats (not like they needed them, since they already have 100% of the power), for a total of 189. In 2008, they would have won a majority government, not a minority. The Harper Conservatives have now re-distributed themselves into a PERPETUAL MAJORITY GOVERNMENT.
Mulcair? Trudeau? What’s your plan? You can find mine here. http://www.cooperate4.ca/ Vote for Joyce Murray – the only LP candidate who is advocating for one-time cooperation and proportional representation.