I really love what Fair Vote Canada is doing but I do think they are taking the wrong approach by simply taking up the century-old term for their side of the electoral reform debate : Proportional Representation or PR.
It sounds mathematical, because it is.
It also sounds like calculus and complicated.
And difficult and cold hearted and mechanical.
Most kids hate math and most grow up to be voters, who still hate math.
The other side will freely and cheerily admit their voting system is less fair than PR but that it is much less complicated ---- and so will win.
Because the simplest electoral reform proposal will win - make no mistake about that.
But who says we can't make our side, the PR/Fair Vote side, the simplest side ?
We can simply say that in an inclusive society like Canada, we also need inclusive voting : IV instead of PR.
And that in an inclusive society there should be a voice in parliament for every voter.
Make the others defend all their (inherently) complicated exclusivity voting systems.
Why do I say that exclusion voting systems are inherently complicated ?
Because it always takes far less words to say "all welcome" than to say "this is a gated community : no dogs, jews or negroes admitted (all tradesmen use the back door) --- suit and tie/ formal evening wear is required to enter the dining hall --- no women permitted in the smoking and snooker hall."
In terms of grammar, as well as math, the word inclusivity is a sweepingly simple and absolutely inclusive term - in fact the very definition of one.
Inclusivity is like a simple rule while exclusivity is all those pesky complicated exceptions to simple rules.
Exclusivity is that darned fine print at the bottom of every insurance contract.
People hate the policy payment voiding exclusions found in all that small print even worse than they hate math --- if we people on the PR side of life --- and that includes Kelly's crew at Fair Vote - only but give them a chance to....