Resisting the pull of cynicism since 1969.

Wednesday, April 04, 2007

Sinister Greg renders me superfluous

Greg has written the best post of his life, completely tearing Ian Urquhart from the Toronto Star to shreds over his latest column on the Ontario Citizens' Assembly for Electoral Reform.

For once I have, quite literally, nothing more to add. Go read Greg.

8 comments:

Mike said...

Gawd I miss being able to post comments over there to sing his praises in person.

I would love for a Mainstream paper to pick this up and publish it, but I suspect none out there back the MMP idea either.

Mark Dowling said...

Since the linked blog doesn't take comments...

I emailed Urquhart noting that Ireland has had fewer governments since 1987 with its "oddball" system than Canada has had with "FPTP" and that maybe he should reconsider his use of the term referring to a stable EU/OECD country which has used STV for 86 years - his reply was to suggest the term "whacko" instead.

My subscription dollars well spent :(

JimBobby said...

Whooee! Not quite superfluous, IP. At least we can chime in here an' say the SinisterFeller's done a good job o' slappin' down that Irksome Irkheart.

It might be a good sign that the Trawna Star is even payin' any attention to electoral reform. The publick sure as hell needs educatin' but if they're gonna give the naysayers all the column inches, it won't be good.

I see there's some PR advocates who's less than enthusiastic with the proposal from the CA. Anybuddy who's been payin' attention knows there's more than one PR idea out there an' pro's an' con's fer each. Trouble is... not too many have been payin' attention an' they could get all confuddled an' choose to keep the devil they know.

JB

Idealistic Pragmatist said...

mike (and others),

Leave the praise here--he'll see it.

JimBobby,

The assembly didn't make every choice I would have made, either, but the question Ontarians have to ask themselves is this: would the new system be enough better than what they have now that it would be worth switching? And anyone who's truly being neutral about evaluating both systems and their repercussions would have to say YES.

Greg said...

I saw them. ;)

Pete said...

From my limited circle most people agree with the proposed changes--that is as much information on them that has made it to our ears and computer screens. It is more through the blogging commmunity within and without Ontario that I've been able to keep up to date on the progress of the Assembly.

Cheers

Jason Bo Green said...

Meh, I did like the post and think Ian Urquart is a dishonest rhetorical-hatchet wielding bullshitter in a bad tie, but - I just don't like sites without comments.

derrida said...

I'm surprised the required "supermajority" threshold of 60% hasn't been the subject of more discussion. Personally, I'm outraged that the Ontario Liberals unilaterally imposed this condition on electoral reform. It's an insult to the Citizen's Assembly, and an insult to the people of Ontario. While I commend these Liberals for running for election in 2003 on electoral reform and opening up the possibility of such change, I cannot but condemn these self-same Liberals for virtually making it impossible to pass such reform. Lately McGuinty claimed a "neutrality" on the subject wanting rather the voice of the people to be heard. He wants the people to decide but is willing to accept their decision only if extraordinary conditions are met. I sat in the gallery of the legislature and watched as McGuinty shocked everyone, even members of his own caucus (who evidently also remained unawares of this stipulation and showed their disgust by walking out), by imposing this nearly unprecedented prerequisite of a “supermajority” on any referendum on electoral reform. It’s classic run from the left govern from the right Liberal politics. It’s also a mere pretense of democracy. What do you think?
From the Fair Vote Canada: http://www.fairvotecanada.org/
Dr. Dennis Pilon, University of Victoria political scientist and FVC National Council member, spoke to the committee via teleconference.
“Apart from the recent PEI and BC referendums, no voting system change decision in Canada was ever subjected to a super-majority rule. In fact, the establishment of all Canadian federal and provincial voting systems was by a simple majority vote of the designers…[and] all western countries have seen the establishment of their voting systems or any changes in their voting systems handled either through a simple majority vote of parliament or a simple majority vote in a referendum.”