rs 2 a = G a. _ — ~ 4 aa DERA kicks off driv for ward referendum A major campaign has been launched in Vancouver for the holding of a referendum on the revamping of the city’s electoral system and the establishment of a ward system. Initiated by the Downtown Eastside Residents’ Association, a call was sent out last week signed by DERA president Libby Davies and vice president Bruce Eriksen, and thre city council members, announcing the holding of a meeting at DERA’s headquarters, 616 E. Cordova St.,on January 5, to , launch the campaign. The call to the parley is significant in that it represents a joint action by three members of council who can give the proposal considerable support at city. hall. The three council members signing the call are Ald. Mike Harcourt, Ald. Harry Rankin and Ald. Darlene Marzari. It is expected that the meeting early in January will kick off a drive to have city council adopt a motion to hear representation in favor of the ward system, and to adopt a motion to hold a referen- dum on the subject. The call has been sent to representatives of every segment of the population, including unions, community groups, church leaders, political groups, tenants and other organizations concerned with improving civic government in Vancouver. During the recent civic elections COPE candidates and_ in- dependents Harcourt and Marzari campaigned for the ward system. Now they have combined forces, providing new possibilities to win electoral reform in 1977. By ALD. HARRY RANKIN The ballots for City Council, School and Park Boards, with a total of 117 candidates which were handed to the voters on election day were utterly ridiculous. Many of the 117 candidates had appeared on the scene only weeks before the election; had absolutely no record of civic or community in- volvement; were virtually unknown and unheard of by the vast majority of eligible voters. The aldermanic ballot alone, with fifty-six candidates to choose from, made it almost’ impossible for a rational, intelligent choice. It was a difficult and confusing ex- perience for many voters, resulting in thousands of spoiled and rejected ballots and thousands more with only one or two choices indicated. Faced with this situation in every Vancouver civic election, is it any wonder that we have such a low voter turnout? Can we expect voters to turn out in droves to elect representatives, most of whom they never heard of? Can we ex- pect voters to relate’ en- thusiastically to issues and can- didates they cannot identify with their own circumstances and- communities? We say no! Mayor-elect Jack Volrich has suggested that the answer to this problem would be to require a deposit of $1,000 for mayoral candidates and $50 for all others, to ensure that only serious candidates would stand for election. We disagree! Large cash deposits would not ensure that civic can- didates were credible nor that they wouldrepresent the interests of the majority of the voters, or that they have no ties or obligations to private interests. Cash deposits would only guarantee the continuation of the present unfair, antiquated, un- democratic and confusing at-large system of electing our civic representatives and would further erode civic democracy by ensuring that only the affluent would be eligible to stand for election. We suggest to the voters of this city and to Mayor-elect Jack . “Civic electoral system needs complete change’ Volrich that the only answer to the problem of low voter turnout, an overabundance of candidates, and confusion at the polls is. a revamping of our electorial system, to allow for true democracy through area representation. In federal and provincial elec- tions, Vancouver is divided into constituencies. Yet in municipal elections, Vancouver continues as just one huge constituency of © 400,000 people with all of our representatives elected at large. Vancouver is the only large city in Canada that continues with the antiquated at-large system. It just doesn't make sense! Would we advocate electing our federal government at large to represent the twenty-two million people of Canada? Would anyone in their right mind consider electing our provincial government at large? Of course not! It4s clear that the voters of this ‘city must demand a referendum to allow revamping of our electoral system for truly democratic area representation through a ward or constituency system. The advantages of area representation are so numerous and obvious that they must no longer be denied. : Each area of the city would be represented on City Council, School and Park Boards. Voters would feel a real sense of par- ticipation in civic affairs and would turn out in droves on election day. Those elected would report back to and be accountable to the voters. McEwen column The Editorial Board regrets to advise its readers that long time columnist and former editor, Tom McEwen, has been compelled by recent illness to lay aside his pen for the time being. : Readers of the popular column and a host of friends not only in B.C., but across the country, will join in-wishing the dean of labor and Communist journalists a speedy recovery and a quick return to his weekly column. new low . allowing area Voters would demand that the needs or grievances of their communities be raised in Council and acted upon by their elected representatives. ee Voters would demand that their representatives have a wide knowledge of civic issues, i.e.: housing, rapid transit, GVRD liveable regions, and airport ex pansion, and that they would be able to communicate with other levels of government and elected officials. Candidates would have a real opportunity to debate the issues of the communities and demonstrate their knowledge of civic affairs, voters to choose | representatives in an intelligent, rational manner, based on knowledge of the candidates rather than personalities. The candidates would have to — live in and be a part of the com- munity and. be personally known by the voters. The ballots handed to the voters would have only a few names on it and the voters could easily be expected to be fully aware of each candidates record of participation _ in civic and community affairs, rather than being reduced to buying a “‘pig in a poke” as hap- pens under ‘the present system. Mayor-elect Jack Volrich and several of the newly-elected aldermen are opposed to area representation on the questionable _ grounds that the voters rejected the referendum several years ago. We might point out that the voters rejected two previous referendums ; on the five-year plan. Yet this didn’t prevent Council from re- _ introducing the referendum this | - year. ; It is our. contention that the previous ballot-put to the voters on representation was deliberately designed to confuse the voters. The voters do want democratic area representation and, that, given the opportunity to vote a simple “‘yes”’ or ‘‘no”’ to the question, “Do you favor area representation through a ward or constituency system’’?, the answer would be a resounding yes arn _ PACIFIC TRIBUNE—DECEMBER 3, 1976—Page 2 By MAURICE RUSH “Vietnam does not meet the humanitarian obligations of membership in the United Nations...” ] Ss it possible for decent-minded people to imagine anything more cynical or hypocritical than this Statement made Nov. 15 by the U.S. ambassador to the UN at a Security Council meeting where the U.S. used its veto to bar Vietnam from membership in the world body? It staggers the imagination to believe that the U.S. is so completely out of touch with world public opinion that ambassador William Scranton could, with a straight face and no. obvious embarrassment, mouth the above Statement as the reason why the people of Vietnam should _ be denied a voice in the world organization. ; This world power, the U.S.A., which invaded a small, backward nation without any moral or legal right, killed hundreds of thousands of men, women and children in the most inhuman and one-sided wars in history while em- ploying all the latest devilish inventions of destruction of which U.S. science was capable, now dares insult world public opinion with the claim that the people of Vietnam do not meet the ‘humanitarian obligations” to be ad- mitted into the world community. Surely ambassador Scranton must have felt some twinge of conscience when he held up his hand in the Security Council to cast the lone vote against Vietnam. Had he forgotten Mai Lai and other massacres of Viet- namese civilians, some of which will never be known? Had he no thought of the millions of Vietnamese left homeless and orphaned by U.S. bombings and napalm attacks; of the millions of crippled young men, women and children ; of the destruction of their land by chemical warfare which turned much of Vietnam into a desert. U.S. morality sinks to a - Struction of Vietnam. Having visited Vietnam in 1965, and seen destroyed towns, hospitals, kindergartens, schools, factories, and met with Vietnamese mothers who wept as they told of the death of their young ones, I could not but feel deep in- dignation and disbelief when I read Scranton’s statement. The reason given by the U.S. ambassador for voting against Vietnam was that it was withholding information about Americans missing in action during the Vietnam war, of which the U.S. claims there are 800. The Viet- namese have turned over extensive information about Americans missing in action, and have offered negotiations with the U.S. to solve _the remaining problems as part of resolving other issues left over from the war. But, as the Vietnamese observer at the UN pointed out, “‘The attitude of the American government shows no serious desire to solve this problem.” The U.S. government is obviously using the missing in action issue to continue its aggressive attitude towards Vietnam and as a convenient smokescreen behind which to block solution of the larger issue of the war: U.S. responsibility in meeting its obligations under the Paris Agreement to pay restitution and help in the recon- The U.S. could use this issue forever to hold up negotiations with Vietnam. Recognizing the nature of the war in Vietnam, with its jungle terrain, is it hard to imagine that some of the U.S. dead cannot and probably never will be accounted for? : Is it not true that in both Canada and U.S. monuments have been erected in memory of “the unknown soldier’ — those who died or disappeared without trace in the horrors of modern war? But in this case the U.S. is using it asa pretext for refusing to face up to its responsibility to pay the bill for its genocidal war in Vietnam. What if the situation were turned around and the Vietnamese demanded that the U.S. account for all the Vietnamese who disappeared and have never been ac- counted for in the areas under U.S. occupation during the years of the war? There’s no doubt that U.S. authorities would have to account for more than 800 Vietnamese, and Vietnamese are no less important human beings than Americans. If the U.S. has any doubt about where world opinion stands on this issue, it was cleared up last Friday when .the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution calling on the Security Council to favorably reconsider Vietnam’s application by a vote of 124 to 1 — the one vote being that of the U.S. Only Britain, West Germany and Israel ab- stained. Canada, to its credit, stood with the rest of the world and voted for the resolution. This latest caper shows how far U.S. morality has sunk. But surely by now Washington should begin to see the writing on the wall as far as Vietnam is concerned. : Editor — MAURICE RUSH . Assistant Editor SEAN GRIFFIN : Business and Circulation Manager — MIKE GIDORA Published weekly at Ford Blidg., Mezzanine No. 3, 193 E. Hastings St., Vancouver 4, B.C. Phone 685-8108 Subscription Rate: Canada, $8.00 one year; $4.50 for.six months, All other countries, $10.00 one year Second class mail registration number 1560 rrr