The Official Canadian Electoral Reform Thread
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Liberals Are Misleading Canadians On Electoral Reform
Democratic Institutions Minister Maryam Monsef is misleading you.
She is misleading your elected representatives.
And she is casting doubt on the sincerity of the Liberal government's pledge to change the way Canadians elect their MPs.
For several months now, the minister has been an invited guest at town halls across the country. She has held her own consultations from coast to coast to coast. She has followed -- I assume -- the work of the all-party committee that she struck with a mandate to study, consult and recommend a new voting system.
Overwhelmingly, the Canadians who showed up at these town halls and at the committee hearings (and I'm not suggesting that these individuals are necessarily representative of the country as a whole) mostly said one thing: they want MPs to be elected by a proportional system.
That is, they believe that if a political party obtains 40 per cent of the popular vote, that party's members of Parliament should have 40 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons.
Everybody -- the NDP, the Conservatives, the Green Party leader, Monsef's own advisers -- agrees that this is what the people who showed up said.
Everybody, that is, except the minister.
Monsef wrote to the committee last week telling them: "Canadians have not expressed a consensus on a particular electoral system to replace the one we have now."
Monsef stated that while she had heard "the most passion" from advocates of proportional representation and first-past-the-post (the current system), she said: "I have not yet heard a consensus around one particular system over another."
This is untrue.
What may be worse is that it comes from a minister who last month told a Victoria town hall that the prime minister has a preference for a new electoral system and that she too has a preference.
But she refused to say what is favoured -- under the bizarre reasoning that it would interfere in the independence of the committee's work.
Unusual step
Yet, Monsef has no problem interfering now in the committee's work. She has essentially instructed the Liberal MPs who sit on that committee -- and who continue discussions this week with opposition colleagues on their upcoming report's recommendations -- that she wishes to see no consensus in their report. (The Grits, of course, do not need to listen to her).
This, after Monsef repeatedly said she respects the committee's work, suggested that she would like to see the all-party committee come to a consensus, and stated that if there were a unanimous report, it would be hard to ignore.
One cannot help but wonder why the minister decided to take this unusual step.
Was it because the NDP last week, emboldened by the recent result of a referendum in Prince Edward Island that called for new proportional system, agreed to the Conservatives' longstanding call for a referendum on any new voting method?
Was it because a consensus appears actually to be forming at the all-party committee?
Was it because a consensus is forming not around a ranked ballot -- which is what Prime Minister Justin Trudeau previously said he preferred -- but rather around the NDP and Green Party's preferred option of a proportional system as long as Canadians, in a referendum, say they want it?
In June, the minister gave the committee the task of recommending to the government the "best method of ensuring that any proposal has the full or broad support of Canadians."
"The government will not proceed without the broad support of Canadians," she said at the time and continues to repeat now.
Not liking the broad agreement that has emerged, Monsef, it seems, has now decided to consult a possibly wider spectrum of Canadians. Reports suggest that the Liberal government plans to send postcards to each household across the country asking people to engage online on the "values" they want to see reflected in their democracy.
Monsef provided very little detail of this plan in her letter to the committee. She confirmed reports already in the news media and stated that "this project has been planned for some time."
It is unclear whether Monsef will actually ask Canadians what new system they prefer or if they favour the status quo. (In fact, something quite different -- relating more to Canadians' values -- looks likely).
It is also unclear how transparent the result of this new consultation will be.
By focusing on the values Monsef says Canadians want, such as accountable local representation and greater voter participation, the minister is giving herself a very long leash to propose a voting system that few may desire.
Note how she doesn't suggest that one value Canadians want is for their vote to be better reflected in the overall composition of the House? That was a value Trudeau appeared to promise during the election campaign when he said: "We will make every vote count."
Last month, the prime minister hinted that he may have had a change of heart regarding reforms to the voting system. Canadians' desire for a new electoral system has waned since the Liberals are in power, he told Le Devoir.
Monsef has been saying since September that a consensus hasn't formed. One cannot help but wonder if she has been listening at all.
Will she listen now?
Liberals Are Misleading Canadians On Electoral Reform
"Will she listen now?"
I truly doubt it.
Democratic Institutions Minister Maryam Monsef is misleading you.
She is misleading your elected representatives.
And she is casting doubt on the sincerity of the Liberal government's pledge to change the way Canadians elect their MPs.
For several months now, the minister has been an invited guest at town halls across the country. She has held her own consultations from coast to coast to coast. She has followed -- I assume -- the work of the all-party committee that she struck with a mandate to study, consult and recommend a new voting system.
Overwhelmingly, the Canadians who showed up at these town halls and at the committee hearings (and I'm not suggesting that these individuals are necessarily representative of the country as a whole) mostly said one thing: they want MPs to be elected by a proportional system.
That is, they believe that if a political party obtains 40 per cent of the popular vote, that party's members of Parliament should have 40 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons.
Everybody -- the NDP, the Conservatives, the Green Party leader, Monsef's own advisers -- agrees that this is what the people who showed up said.
Everybody, that is, except the minister.
Monsef wrote to the committee last week telling them: "Canadians have not expressed a consensus on a particular electoral system to replace the one we have now."
Monsef stated that while she had heard "the most passion" from advocates of proportional representation and first-past-the-post (the current system), she said: "I have not yet heard a consensus around one particular system over another."
This is untrue.
What may be worse is that it comes from a minister who last month told a Victoria town hall that the prime minister has a preference for a new electoral system and that she too has a preference.
But she refused to say what is favoured -- under the bizarre reasoning that it would interfere in the independence of the committee's work.
Unusual step
Yet, Monsef has no problem interfering now in the committee's work. She has essentially instructed the Liberal MPs who sit on that committee -- and who continue discussions this week with opposition colleagues on their upcoming report's recommendations -- that she wishes to see no consensus in their report. (The Grits, of course, do not need to listen to her).
This, after Monsef repeatedly said she respects the committee's work, suggested that she would like to see the all-party committee come to a consensus, and stated that if there were a unanimous report, it would be hard to ignore.
One cannot help but wonder why the minister decided to take this unusual step.
Was it because the NDP last week, emboldened by the recent result of a referendum in Prince Edward Island that called for new proportional system, agreed to the Conservatives' longstanding call for a referendum on any new voting method?
Was it because a consensus appears actually to be forming at the all-party committee?
Was it because a consensus is forming not around a ranked ballot -- which is what Prime Minister Justin Trudeau previously said he preferred -- but rather around the NDP and Green Party's preferred option of a proportional system as long as Canadians, in a referendum, say they want it?
In June, the minister gave the committee the task of recommending to the government the "best method of ensuring that any proposal has the full or broad support of Canadians."
"The government will not proceed without the broad support of Canadians," she said at the time and continues to repeat now.
Not liking the broad agreement that has emerged, Monsef, it seems, has now decided to consult a possibly wider spectrum of Canadians. Reports suggest that the Liberal government plans to send postcards to each household across the country asking people to engage online on the "values" they want to see reflected in their democracy.
Monsef provided very little detail of this plan in her letter to the committee. She confirmed reports already in the news media and stated that "this project has been planned for some time."
It is unclear whether Monsef will actually ask Canadians what new system they prefer or if they favour the status quo. (In fact, something quite different -- relating more to Canadians' values -- looks likely).
It is also unclear how transparent the result of this new consultation will be.
By focusing on the values Monsef says Canadians want, such as accountable local representation and greater voter participation, the minister is giving herself a very long leash to propose a voting system that few may desire.
Note how she doesn't suggest that one value Canadians want is for their vote to be better reflected in the overall composition of the House? That was a value Trudeau appeared to promise during the election campaign when he said: "We will make every vote count."
Last month, the prime minister hinted that he may have had a change of heart regarding reforms to the voting system. Canadians' desire for a new electoral system has waned since the Liberals are in power, he told Le Devoir.
Monsef has been saying since September that a consensus hasn't formed. One cannot help but wonder if she has been listening at all.
Will she listen now?
Liberals Are Misleading Canadians On Electoral Reform
"Will she listen now?"
I truly doubt it.
Democratic Institutions Minister Maryam Monsef says she hasn't yet found enough support to change how Canadians elect their MPs, and won't move ahead with electoral reform without it.
Monsef has led consultations across the country at the same time a special House committee heard from more than 700 witnesses about different methods of reform and whether Canada should keep the existing first-past-the-post system. MPs were also invited to host townhalls on the issue and report back to the committee, which will present its own final report to the House this week.
In an interview with Evan Solomon, host of CTV's Question Period, Monsef said she hasn't heard consensus on whether the government should change the electoral system.
video
No electoral reform until enough Canadians want it, Monsef says | CTV News
Monsef has led consultations across the country at the same time a special House committee heard from more than 700 witnesses about different methods of reform and whether Canada should keep the existing first-past-the-post system. MPs were also invited to host townhalls on the issue and report back to the committee, which will present its own final report to the House this week.
In an interview with Evan Solomon, host of CTV's Question Period, Monsef said she hasn't heard consensus on whether the government should change the electoral system.
video
No electoral reform until enough Canadians want it, Monsef says | CTV News
I love how the wacky left always wants to rush their agenda into policy without a rational discussion. People like Mentalfloss have realized that they don't get to win every discussion if the discussion is allowed to be rational.
We desperately need to move to proportional representation so that those twats in bumfukk Alberta finally have a say.
If we move to proportional representation, the twats in Alberta will have LESS representation, not more but it seems that damned few of the twats know much about the demographics of the country and their relative place in them.
If we move to proportional representation, the twats in Alberta will have LESS representation, not more but it seems that damned few of the twats know much about the demographics of the country and their relative place in them.
I'm of the old school if it ain't broke don't fix it, and so far the system seems to be working just fine. Just leave well enough alone! Most of the time when it's decided to change something too many retards 'get an oar in'.
Liberals call all-party electoral reform committee 'radical' and 'hasty' after it recommends referendum
OTTAWA — The special House of Commons committee studying electoral reform is recommending a referendum on changing Canada’s voting system to proportional representation.
A report released Thursday morning recommends a proportional representation system, where the share of seats more closely reflects the percentage of the popular vote each political party gets. That’s opposed to first-past-the-post, where candidates who win the most votes in a riding are automatically elected.
It meets the objectives of both major opposition parties: the NDP want a proportional system, while the Tories have been gunning for a referendum.
In a supplementary report, the Liberals on the committee said they don’t believe Canadians are engaged enough, and the committee recommendations are “rushed,” “too radical” and “unnecessarily hasty.”
The Liberals also suggested the recommendations could undermine the legitimacy of the process “by racing toward a predetermined deadline” — a deadline the government itself had set.
Liberals promised in their campaign the 2015 election would be the last using first-past-the-post. But they’ve lately stated they want to see “broad support” from Canadians before making changes. An online consultation is coming.
The whole committee report wasn’t supported unanimously. Different groups of MPs voted together on the various recommendations in the report.
Liberals call all-party electoral reform committee ‘radical’ and ‘hasty’ after it recommends referendum | National Post
A report released Thursday morning recommends a proportional representation system, where the share of seats more closely reflects the percentage of the popular vote each political party gets. That’s opposed to first-past-the-post, where candidates who win the most votes in a riding are automatically elected.
It meets the objectives of both major opposition parties: the NDP want a proportional system, while the Tories have been gunning for a referendum.
In a supplementary report, the Liberals on the committee said they don’t believe Canadians are engaged enough, and the committee recommendations are “rushed,” “too radical” and “unnecessarily hasty.”
The Liberals also suggested the recommendations could undermine the legitimacy of the process “by racing toward a predetermined deadline” — a deadline the government itself had set.
Liberals promised in their campaign the 2015 election would be the last using first-past-the-post. But they’ve lately stated they want to see “broad support” from Canadians before making changes. An online consultation is coming.
The whole committee report wasn’t supported unanimously. Different groups of MPs voted together on the various recommendations in the report.
Liberals call all-party electoral reform committee ‘radical’ and ‘hasty’ after it recommends referendum | National Post
I wouldn't use National Post as a reference point in this matter.
The truth is that a referendum is divisive and most people aren't well informed (see Brexit).
The government should just educate Canadians about alternatives and then implement the committee's decision.
We all want proportional representation anyway and if that's not the case, then we can vote for a party who will change the system back.
The truth is that a referendum is divisive and most people aren't well informed (see Brexit).
The government should just educate Canadians about alternatives and then implement the committee's decision.
We all want proportional representation anyway and if that's not the case, then we can vote for a party who will change the system back.
Electoral reform committee calls for referendum on voting system - The Globe and Mail
Electoral Reform Committee Calls For Proportional Voting System, National Referendum
The Truth is that without a referendum there will be NO electoral reform in Canada. The Truth is that Canadians are already divided on electoral reform.
Maybe in your fascist dreams.
WE...........what's with this WE ****? So funny you. So, so Funny............I laugh, I truly do.
As long as voting can be done on a secure server all Canadians over 18 should be voting on a lot of referendums as it should be all one way or the other way. If an elected MP was even needed after that he could be there to deliver the vote count collecting at his riding HQ rather than cast his vote as being for more than just himself.
Yes, let's just move on and get it over with.
First past the post is almost as bad as the electoral college in the US.
These systems just end up causing a divided country that elects a leader to reverse what the previous leader did.
It's obviously stupid and we need to evolve.
Liberals call all-party electoral reform committee 'radical' and 'hasty' after it recommends referendum
OTTAWA — Liberal minister Maryam Monsef accused a special committee studying electoral reform of not doing its job Thursday, even as committee members called their 333-page report an unprecedented show in cross-partisan co-operation.
During a raucous question period the Minister of Democratic Institutions reiterated there’s “no consensus” on reform, drawing ire and mockery from the opposition.
In a report released Thursday morning, the special House of Commons recommended a referendum on changing Canada’s voting system to proportional representation, where the share of seats more closely reflects the percentage of the popular vote each political party gets. That’s opposed to first-past-the-post, where candidates who win the most votes in a riding are automatically elected.
It meets the objectives of both major opposition parties: the NDP want a proportional system, while the Tories have been gunning for a referendum.
In a supplementary report, the Liberals on the committee said they don’t believe Canadians are engaged enough, and the committee recommendations are “rushed,” “too radical” and “unnecessarily hasty.”
The Liberals also suggested the recommendations could undermine the legitimacy of the process “by racing toward a predetermined deadline” — a deadline the government itself had set.
Liberals promised in their campaign the 2015 election would be the last using first-past-the-post. But they’ve lately stated they want to see “broad support” from Canadians before making changes. An online consultation is coming
The whole committee report wasn’t supported unanimously. Different groups of MPs voted together on the various recommendations in the report.
Liberals call all-party electoral reform committee ‘radical’ and ‘hasty’ after it recommends referendum | National Post
And now we know how this government reacts when they don't get the answer they want. How much did they spend on the committee and the report and how much more are they spending on millions of postcards that will be filling our mail boxes.
After losing her cool in the House today and berating the committee, Monsef went on to outline some of the points raised in the report but not once did she mention that the committee recommended holding a referendum............not bloody once. So much for seeking consensus.
As Joe Oliver said on CTV today, the Liberals want consensus when only when it falls in line with what they want. Right on Joe.
OTTAWA — Liberal minister Maryam Monsef accused a special committee studying electoral reform of not doing its job Thursday, even as committee members called their 333-page report an unprecedented show in cross-partisan co-operation.
During a raucous question period the Minister of Democratic Institutions reiterated there’s “no consensus” on reform, drawing ire and mockery from the opposition.
In a report released Thursday morning, the special House of Commons recommended a referendum on changing Canada’s voting system to proportional representation, where the share of seats more closely reflects the percentage of the popular vote each political party gets. That’s opposed to first-past-the-post, where candidates who win the most votes in a riding are automatically elected.
It meets the objectives of both major opposition parties: the NDP want a proportional system, while the Tories have been gunning for a referendum.
In a supplementary report, the Liberals on the committee said they don’t believe Canadians are engaged enough, and the committee recommendations are “rushed,” “too radical” and “unnecessarily hasty.”
The Liberals also suggested the recommendations could undermine the legitimacy of the process “by racing toward a predetermined deadline” — a deadline the government itself had set.
Liberals promised in their campaign the 2015 election would be the last using first-past-the-post. But they’ve lately stated they want to see “broad support” from Canadians before making changes. An online consultation is coming
The whole committee report wasn’t supported unanimously. Different groups of MPs voted together on the various recommendations in the report.
Liberals call all-party electoral reform committee ‘radical’ and ‘hasty’ after it recommends referendum | National Post
And now we know how this government reacts when they don't get the answer they want. How much did they spend on the committee and the report and how much more are they spending on millions of postcards that will be filling our mail boxes.
After losing her cool in the House today and berating the committee, Monsef went on to outline some of the points raised in the report but not once did she mention that the committee recommended holding a referendum............not bloody once. So much for seeking consensus.
As Joe Oliver said on CTV today, the Liberals want consensus when only when it falls in line with what they want. Right on Joe.
Colby Cosh: Did Maryam Monsef actually read the whole electoral reform report?
In the stormy Thursday press conference in which mealy-mouthed Democratic Institutions Minister Maryam Monsef somehow managed to unify election reform opponents and supporters in a grand coalition against her, she at one point held up a sign with an intimidating mathematical expression on it. I think “intimidating” is a fair description. I am reasonably sure that no full-time journalist in the country knows more math than I do, but I still get a touch of nausea at the sight of a Greek letter sigma in an equation.
Despite having an undergraduate degree in science, Monsef complained that the equation she was waving around was “an incomprehensible formula” that her electoral reform committee was trying to foist on the public as a new ultimate basis for Canadian government. The Liberal committee members themselves accused their colleagues of “recommending that Canada’s electoral system be determined by the … formula.”
You may have two questions about this scary assertion. Is it true? (Hint: no.) And what does the formula mean?
One of the goals a lot of people have for election reform is to make House of Commons representation “more proportional” to vote totals when it comes to party affiliation. We all have different ideas about how important this feature should be. Some of us feel strongly that MPs ought to be elected as individuals, and the wishes of voters in the riding next door, or in another time zone, should not matter. But most citizens and experts who talked to the committee thought overall proportionality was a highly desirable feature of an electoral system.
More.........Colby Cosh: Did Maryam Monsef actually read the whole electoral reform report? | National Post
In the stormy Thursday press conference in which mealy-mouthed Democratic Institutions Minister Maryam Monsef somehow managed to unify election reform opponents and supporters in a grand coalition against her, she at one point held up a sign with an intimidating mathematical expression on it. I think “intimidating” is a fair description. I am reasonably sure that no full-time journalist in the country knows more math than I do, but I still get a touch of nausea at the sight of a Greek letter sigma in an equation.
Despite having an undergraduate degree in science, Monsef complained that the equation she was waving around was “an incomprehensible formula” that her electoral reform committee was trying to foist on the public as a new ultimate basis for Canadian government. The Liberal committee members themselves accused their colleagues of “recommending that Canada’s electoral system be determined by the … formula.”
You may have two questions about this scary assertion. Is it true? (Hint: no.) And what does the formula mean?
One of the goals a lot of people have for election reform is to make House of Commons representation “more proportional” to vote totals when it comes to party affiliation. We all have different ideas about how important this feature should be. Some of us feel strongly that MPs ought to be elected as individuals, and the wishes of voters in the riding next door, or in another time zone, should not matter. But most citizens and experts who talked to the committee thought overall proportionality was a highly desirable feature of an electoral system.
More.........Colby Cosh: Did Maryam Monsef actually read the whole electoral reform report? | National Post
A bit of electoral reform material for your weekend reading............
- PressProgress highlights (link is external) how the Libs are attacking their own campaign promises in order to preserve an unfair electoral system, while Jonathan Sas compares (link is external) the Libs' scorched-earth approach and incoherent response to the remarkable level of consensus and success achieved by members of all parties on the committee.
- Craig Scott generously calls (link is external) the Libs' approach one of "noble failure" - and that may have been the intention initially.
- But the "noble" part seems to have been sorely lacking, as Michael Stewart calls out (link is external) the Libs' mockery of both the MPs who worked on a broad consultation process, and the tens of thousands of Canadians who participated in it.
Althia Raj notes (link is external) that the Trudeau government's insults are particularly egregious since they're directed at people trying to fulfil their own promises - while also reporting that Trudeau and his inner circle would likely have been happy to accept a committee recommendation for a ranked ballot which was rejected by all parties.
And Ryan Maloney points out (link is external) the Libs' aversion to inconvenient math when it would help to achieve improved representation.
- PressProgress highlights (link is external) how the Libs are attacking their own campaign promises in order to preserve an unfair electoral system, while Jonathan Sas compares (link is external) the Libs' scorched-earth approach and incoherent response to the remarkable level of consensus and success achieved by members of all parties on the committee.
- Craig Scott generously calls (link is external) the Libs' approach one of "noble failure" - and that may have been the intention initially.
- But the "noble" part seems to have been sorely lacking, as Michael Stewart calls out (link is external) the Libs' mockery of both the MPs who worked on a broad consultation process, and the tens of thousands of Canadians who participated in it.
Althia Raj notes (link is external) that the Trudeau government's insults are particularly egregious since they're directed at people trying to fulfil their own promises - while also reporting that Trudeau and his inner circle would likely have been happy to accept a committee recommendation for a ranked ballot which was rejected by all parties.
And Ryan Maloney points out (link is external) the Libs' aversion to inconvenient math when it would help to achieve improved representation.
NO "first past the post" is as good as any system, it works well and people should just leave well alone. I'll be the first to admit if the system was different Justin boy may not be where he is but you Can't go changing systems based on that philosophy. The whole process was studied from stem to gudgeon about 10 years ago and it was decided then what we have is as good as it gets. Let's no squander more money on the stupidity!
Liberal government launches online survey meant to spur electoral reform conversation
The survey closes on Dec. 30 and the total cost of the initiative won't be known until the new year.
They will not be asked to respond to specific electoral systems or descriptions of those systems.
Based on earlier reports that hinted at the survey's design, opposition MPs have already complained the questions are too vague.
Monsef said that, based on the experience in other countries, the belief is that the reform debate should first be about values. The hope now is to have "an open conversation about the values [Canadians] want at the heart of their democracy."
Insofar as only 40 per cent of respondents to that Forum survey were able to identify first-past-the-post as our current electoral system, it might make some sense to avoid hitting the public with the particulars of various options. But it remains to be seen how engaged the general public will be unless or until there is something specific on the table.
Liberal government launches online survey meant to spur electoral reform conversation - Politics - CBC News
The survey
https://www.mydemocracy.ca/
The survey closes on Dec. 30 and the total cost of the initiative won't be known until the new year.
They will not be asked to respond to specific electoral systems or descriptions of those systems.
Based on earlier reports that hinted at the survey's design, opposition MPs have already complained the questions are too vague.
Monsef said that, based on the experience in other countries, the belief is that the reform debate should first be about values. The hope now is to have "an open conversation about the values [Canadians] want at the heart of their democracy."
Insofar as only 40 per cent of respondents to that Forum survey were able to identify first-past-the-post as our current electoral system, it might make some sense to avoid hitting the public with the particulars of various options. But it remains to be seen how engaged the general public will be unless or until there is something specific on the table.
Liberal government launches online survey meant to spur electoral reform conversation - Politics - CBC News
The survey
https://www.mydemocracy.ca/
Just finished taking the poll and answering all the following questions. According to the site, I am a Guardian type.
Did you watch her West Block interview where she cheerfully went on about accepting any decisions the panel would conclude?
Now the Libs will keep retooling the questions until they get the answers they want to hear.
Now the Libs will keep retooling the questions until they get the answers they want to hear.
Liberal electoral reform survey roundly mocked online
The Liberal government’s new electoral reform website, MyDemocracy.ca, is being roundly mocked online as critics take to Twitter to express disappointment with what they call misleading and simplistic questions.
Democratic Institutions Minister Maryam Monsef put out a press release early Monday morning announcing the launch of the site, which was created by Toronto-based Vox Pop Labs as part of the government’s effort to consult Canadians on what kind of electoral reform they want. But while they might have wanted the survey to get people talking about electoral reform, they may not have anticipated the derision that would be aimed their way as a result.
“The first rule of engagement, the Liberals should learn, is not to treat Canadians like they’re stupid,” said NDP democratic reform critic Nathan Cullen in the Commons today, pointing to the barrage of tweets ridiculing the initiative.
Conservative democratic reform critic Scott Reid also joined in, likening the survey to a “dating website designed by Fidel Castro.”
Monsef defended the survey, noting 8,000 people have taken part so far.
“MyDemocracy.ca is a new, engaging initiative that will allow all Canadians to have a say,” she said.
The quiz runs to 20 questions on reform preferences and several more on values and priorities before asking participants to fill out a brief profile that asked for their genders, incomes, professions and postal codes, whether they’re members of a minority and whether they’re allowed to vote in Canada.
It then sorted them based on those responses into one of five categories: Guardian, Challenger, Pragmatist, Cooperator and Innovator, each roughly grouping those who prefer the status quo and those who would like to see a significant change in how Canadians vote.
That approach was likened by critics to the simplistic style of online personality quizzes and spawned the hashtag #RejectedERQs, where critics created mocking and simplistic questions of their own to poke fun at the what they suggested was a process either designed to fail or to favour the prime minister’s preferred option of a ranked ballot voting system.
More on mocking and simplistic questions............
https://ipolitics.ca/2016/12/05/liberal-electoral-reform-survey-roundly-mocked-online/
After this debacle, it will be interesting to see how juvenile the questions are on the postcard that will soon hit my mailbox.
If you have a spare 15 or 20 minutes pete........check out the survey. No wonder the panel on Power Play was all but laughing over it.
The Liberal government’s new electoral reform website, MyDemocracy.ca, is being roundly mocked online as critics take to Twitter to express disappointment with what they call misleading and simplistic questions.
Democratic Institutions Minister Maryam Monsef put out a press release early Monday morning announcing the launch of the site, which was created by Toronto-based Vox Pop Labs as part of the government’s effort to consult Canadians on what kind of electoral reform they want. But while they might have wanted the survey to get people talking about electoral reform, they may not have anticipated the derision that would be aimed their way as a result.
“The first rule of engagement, the Liberals should learn, is not to treat Canadians like they’re stupid,” said NDP democratic reform critic Nathan Cullen in the Commons today, pointing to the barrage of tweets ridiculing the initiative.
Conservative democratic reform critic Scott Reid also joined in, likening the survey to a “dating website designed by Fidel Castro.”
Monsef defended the survey, noting 8,000 people have taken part so far.
“MyDemocracy.ca is a new, engaging initiative that will allow all Canadians to have a say,” she said.
The quiz runs to 20 questions on reform preferences and several more on values and priorities before asking participants to fill out a brief profile that asked for their genders, incomes, professions and postal codes, whether they’re members of a minority and whether they’re allowed to vote in Canada.
It then sorted them based on those responses into one of five categories: Guardian, Challenger, Pragmatist, Cooperator and Innovator, each roughly grouping those who prefer the status quo and those who would like to see a significant change in how Canadians vote.
That approach was likened by critics to the simplistic style of online personality quizzes and spawned the hashtag #RejectedERQs, where critics created mocking and simplistic questions of their own to poke fun at the what they suggested was a process either designed to fail or to favour the prime minister’s preferred option of a ranked ballot voting system.
More on mocking and simplistic questions............
https://ipolitics.ca/2016/12/05/liberal-electoral-reform-survey-roundly-mocked-online/
After this debacle, it will be interesting to see how juvenile the questions are on the postcard that will soon hit my mailbox.
If you have a spare 15 or 20 minutes pete........check out the survey. No wonder the panel on Power Play was all but laughing over it.