I've been watching Joel Harden in politics since I was in University and he was with the CFS. He did a decent job during the free dumb convoy, and I suspect he'd be interested in both electoral reform and party reform. I look forward to your perspective on what happens in your riding.
I just wanted to see who some of the people are in person, and see how they present.
------
The electoral reform conversation will be interesting if we end up having it.
The establishment NDP (provincially and federally) has decided that Party Lists and a narrow focus on “party popular vote” are mandatory for any reform at the provincial or federal level.
This is exactly the opposite to what is needed. It is party lists that Allan Gregg was referencing when you brought up "Ranked Ballots" (He assumed all electoral reform is about party lists and a tunnel-vision focus on "party popular vote", as that is the bait-and-switch that Fair Vote Canada, the NDP and the Greens have been using).
Allan Gregg brought up Israel and Greece, but lets look at the even more messed up system used by Ukraine.
Even if Joel Harden as an individual has a different perspective, it will be hard for him to push back against the entrenched ideologies within the party. The same is happening with the classic Democrats in the USA where the establishment party continues to block reform that would make the party more effective, or at least allow splinter groups to separate and build something better.
In the ERRE study, the NDP/Greens put forward a supplemental report that said they wanted to add party top-ups to FPTP (this is what MMP is -- take FPTP and add party top-ups) as well as STV (Single Transferrable Vote is already proportional to support for PEOPLE, but their narrow focus on "party popular vote" had them making the ludicrous suggestion of adding party top-ups to STV).
Their position was not built on evidence presented to the committee, but due to a narrow tunnel-vision lens where they weren't able to observe or understand any contradicting evidence. A form of confirmation bias on steroids.
Ya, Allan's response was steeped in prejudice for first past the post. I found it disappointing. I wonder if Harden will run for leadership when Singh resigns after a terrible federal campaign. 👀
It is perfectly reasonable for people to emotionally reject any conversation about "electoral reform" because in Canada that has become a conversation about a narrow interpretation of "proportional representation" focused on optimizing for "Party Popular vote". This idea is toxic to those of us trying to move away from strict hierarchies and the cult of leadership.
The failures of these hierarchies should be obvious.
There are alternatives which aren't FPTP (vote splitting leading to the winners regularly being the most *different* candidate, rather than the most *supported* candidate, causing dissimilar parties to merge, etc) and are also not "Party Popular Vote".
I had a related conversation with Michael Chong when he was running for CPC leadership. He has largely given up talking about electoral reform because of the narrow focus so many have on "party popular vote" and party top-ups.
Michael Chong was behind the "Reform Act". A good idea and a step forward, but hasn't seen much impact given corporate parties (the part of parties outside of parliament, as opposed to caucuses) are allowed to dispense of the reforms.
I've been watching Joel Harden in politics since I was in University and he was with the CFS. He did a decent job during the free dumb convoy, and I suspect he'd be interested in both electoral reform and party reform. I look forward to your perspective on what happens in your riding.
I attended the campaign opening at the office they have for the campaign https://www.joelharden.ca/campaign_opening
I just wanted to see who some of the people are in person, and see how they present.
------
The electoral reform conversation will be interesting if we end up having it.
The establishment NDP (provincially and federally) has decided that Party Lists and a narrow focus on “party popular vote” are mandatory for any reform at the provincial or federal level.
This is exactly the opposite to what is needed. It is party lists that Allan Gregg was referencing when you brought up "Ranked Ballots" (He assumed all electoral reform is about party lists and a tunnel-vision focus on "party popular vote", as that is the bait-and-switch that Fair Vote Canada, the NDP and the Greens have been using).
Allan Gregg brought up Israel and Greece, but lets look at the even more messed up system used by Ukraine.
Even if Joel Harden as an individual has a different perspective, it will be hard for him to push back against the entrenched ideologies within the party. The same is happening with the classic Democrats in the USA where the establishment party continues to block reform that would make the party more effective, or at least allow splinter groups to separate and build something better.
In the ERRE study, the NDP/Greens put forward a supplemental report that said they wanted to add party top-ups to FPTP (this is what MMP is -- take FPTP and add party top-ups) as well as STV (Single Transferrable Vote is already proportional to support for PEOPLE, but their narrow focus on "party popular vote" had them making the ludicrous suggestion of adding party top-ups to STV).
https://www.ourcommons.ca/documentviewer/en/42-1/ERRE/report-3/page-438
Their position was not built on evidence presented to the committee, but due to a narrow tunnel-vision lens where they weren't able to observe or understand any contradicting evidence. A form of confirmation bias on steroids.
Ya, Allan's response was steeped in prejudice for first past the post. I found it disappointing. I wonder if Harden will run for leadership when Singh resigns after a terrible federal campaign. 👀
Re: federal NDP leadership
I've been partial to Leah Gazan for a long time. Unfortunately racism and misogyny are huge factors in Canadian politics.
Charlie Angus was a better choice in that leadership race, but I think he is too radical and outspoken for the party establishment.
https://charlieangus.substack.com/
-----
Re: Allan's response
Language is a mess, and there are often emotional responses that assume a false binary.
See: https://substack.com/@russellmcormond/note/c-101670570
It is perfectly reasonable for people to emotionally reject any conversation about "electoral reform" because in Canada that has become a conversation about a narrow interpretation of "proportional representation" focused on optimizing for "Party Popular vote". This idea is toxic to those of us trying to move away from strict hierarchies and the cult of leadership.
The failures of these hierarchies should be obvious.
There are alternatives which aren't FPTP (vote splitting leading to the winners regularly being the most *different* candidate, rather than the most *supported* candidate, causing dissimilar parties to merge, etc) and are also not "Party Popular Vote".
I had a related conversation with Michael Chong when he was running for CPC leadership. He has largely given up talking about electoral reform because of the narrow focus so many have on "party popular vote" and party top-ups.
https://r.flora.ca/p/why-i-joined-cpc-to-vote-for-michael
Michael Chong was behind the "Reform Act". A good idea and a step forward, but hasn't seen much impact given corporate parties (the part of parties outside of parliament, as opposed to caucuses) are allowed to dispense of the reforms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Act_(Canada)
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/annualstatutes/2015_37/FullText.html