Why I Dislike Ranked Ballot Voting & Why I Support It

After four years studying Political Science at Laurentian University and over thirty years working for the House of Commons I tended to approach electoral reform more as a political scientist than as a typical voter. My preference has always been for a Proportional Representation system that provides that the political party preferences of the voters is reflected proportionally in the House of Commons or provincial legislatures.

I still believe that but I can see how voters that are used to selecting a single representative for each constituency would find a system of either multi-member constituencies or added representatives from party lists to be foreign to them and that Ranked Ballot Voting would be easier for them to understand and accept.

I had believed that we might only get one chance at electoral reform and so we should use that chance to fight for the best solution, Proportional Representation.

However I now believe we must look at the context of the current times and at what is necessary and achievable.

The current times include much of America’s embrace of Trump MAGA alt-right extremism and it’s overflow into Canada resulting in an opposition leader with no policies, whose only appeal is FUCKTRUDEAU, leading the polls and extreme right wing provincial governments elected with majorities when 60% of the electorate oppose them.

This is a situation where many of us are deciding that preventing the election of representatives and governments that are the people’s least wanted is imperative even if it means putting hopes for truly representative legislatures on the back burner.

What I do not like about Ranked Ballot Voting is that it tends to favour the centre. Liberals love it because they believe they are every other party voter’s second choice. They believe it will confirm the Liberal Party as the natural governing party. It will likely lead to less representation from the left and right,

I have always preferred Ranked Ballot Voting for municipal elections where political parties do not exist, because with large numbers of candidates on the ballots often councillors are elected with ridiculously low pluralities, such as 15% of the votes and often those elected may be most voters last choice.

Governments, especially extreme right wing radical ones, elected with a minority of voters support are now a clear and present danger and can potentially do irreversible harm. Our priority now becomes stopping that and doing it before the next federal election.

If Prime Minister Trudeau were to bring back his Ranked Ballot Voting proposal I hope it would get enough support to be implemented before the next federal election and we could stop right wing extremism from doing irreparable damage, at least at the federal level, and perhaps provide an example to the majority of voters at the provincial level so that it can be done there as well.

A side effect and benefit for future more representative electoral reform is that without voters having to vote strategically as their only choice, the results of voters first choices will tell us how political party support really is distributed by party overall and if the results of Ranked Ballot Voting do not reflect that it will provide evidence of why we need to move further towards true Proportional Representation at both federal and provincial levels.

To summarize, the main disadvantage of Ranked Ballot Voting is that legislatures likely will not represent voters political party preferences proportional to the number of seats (which they do not now). The main advantage of Ranked Ballot Voting is that it prevents the majority of voters last choice as candidates or government from being elected.

At the moment the imperative is to prevent Armageddon.

The Election Issue That Dare Not Speak It's Name

What election am I referring to – whatever one is next in whatever jurisdiction you are in.

Yes I am talking about that which we dare not speak – the need to change our economic system before its ultimate collapse.

Karl Marx predicted the collapse of capitalism, and it was happening, only to be rescued by of all things socialism – the pooling of the masses resources to rescue their exploiters.

However unless we act to change the system we can only put off the ultimate demise of capitalism as we know it.

It is not so much private ownership or even profit that I am speaking of, although they contribute to the problem. I am speaking of something much more fundamental – the need to redefine what we consider to be a successful economy. The problem is we currently measure economic success as continuous and increasing unsustainable economic growth based on the continuous unsustainable exploitation of finite resources.

Capitalism also only values wage employment discounting all activities not done for a paid wage as economically meaningless, including the caring for children by parents and volunteer work or other unpaid creative work. How capitalism values work is also subjective and very fucked up, someone playing playing a game earning a million dollars a year contributes 10 time as much to the economy as someone earning 100 thousand dollars a year finding a cure for cancer. The actual value of work to society has no relation to the economic value capitalism gives it.

We also have to rethink our historic attitudes to what we call civilized and primitive. I was brought up within a society that taught that our industrialized societies built on dominating and exploiting nature were far superior to those “primitive” societies where people lived simpler lives in harmony with nature. Unfortunately our civilization is bringing our society and planet to the edge of collapse.

Capitalism has it’s religious tenets as well, the most revered being the belief (very much in a religious sense, being based on faith rather than evidence) that competition is superior to co-operation and promotes innovation.

The belief is if you have a problem and tell ten people to solve it, it will be solved faster if each person works separately inspired by the fact they will make a fortune if they succeed or become a bankrupt failure if they don't. Indeed under capitalist dogma money is the only possible motivator.

The rational understanding that ten smart people working together, and off of each others ideas, striving for the common good, will be more successful sooner than ten individuals working separately is simply capitalistic heresy. The idea that people might be motivated by something other than money is anathema to our greed based economic system.

According to theory competition is supposed to result in multiple campaniles competing for customers business resulting in the ones that provide the best value for money thriving. In reality we see that what happens is the most powerful (most ruthless) driving out the weakest in an increasing move to a more monopolistic economy, with a few dominant corporations that are deemed to big too fail and must be saved by the socialism of taxpayer funded corporate bailouts.

Whether it was the aim or expectations of it’s creators, the most important and evil result of capitalism has been the rapid increase of inequality to the point of immorality.

We have moved along way from the original promise of capitalism, if it ever existed, where entrepreneurs formed businesses to make products or supply services to customers at decent quality for a decent price paying workers an honest days pay for an honest days work, in return for a fair profit. Today’s corporations (with a few exception) are only in one business, maximizing shareholder profits.

And that is not serving the needs of society or the people.

The only real election issue (except perhaps where democracy itself is the election issue) should be what do we replace capitalism with.

What If We Had A Different Non-Political Form of Representative Government

I have been thinking about what a non-political from of representative government might look like and whether it could be considered democratic or not.

One model came to mind, a Council One Hundred that would set policy, provide Cabinet Ministers and oversee the government administration.

With 50 peoples representatives chosen randomly in a process similar to jurors that would serve four year terms with 50% changing every two years to provide continuity.

• 10 youth representatives comprised of citizens 12 to 24.
• 20 general representatives representing citizens 25 to 64.
• 10 elders representatives representing citizens over 65
• 10 representatives of non-citizen permanent residents

And with another 50 selected representatives chosen by organizations representing various areas of knowledge.

• 10 representatives of indigenous peoples
• 10 representatives of experts in the physical sciences, social sciences and humanities
• 10 representative of workers organizations selected by organized labour
• 10 representatives of social movements including environmental organizations
• 10 representatives of small business and self employed workers

The big question is whether this would be more or less representative, more or less democratic, more or less beneficial to the people than our current system.

Postscript

Immediately after writing this post I realized this would make an interesting configuration for a reformed Senate.

 

Can Proportional Representation Save Our Parliamentary Democracy

           Parliament - Etymology

The English term is derived from Anglo-Norman and dates to the 14th century, coming from the 11th century Old French parlement, "discussion, discourse", from parler, meaning "to talk".[2] The meaning evolved over time, originally referring to any discussion, conversation, or negotiation through various kinds of deliberative or judicial groups, often summoned by a monarch. By the 15th century, in Britain, it had come to specifically mean the legislature.[3]   Source:Wikipedia

The very essence of our Parliamentary system is talking, and more importantly listening, and debating and elected representatives actually changing their opinions. Parliament and the provincial legislatures is where policy and laws are supposed to be made.

We have let our system become one where policies are made by political spin doctors designed not for the good of the people but for the purpose of winning the most votes. Individual Members (MPs and MPPs) have become meaningless with all the emphasis on the parties and particularly the leaders.

We have this situation because we have a system where a party can win a majority of seats with a minority of votes and where party leaders, particularly leaders of the governing party, have almost absolute control of their parties making individual Members nearly irrelevant.

Supporters of our current system like to claim a Proportionate Representation electoral system would give fringe parties excessive power, But what it would really do is give individual MPs or MPPs power. One party and one leader would no longer have absolute power but the elected Members would have to work together to build consensus, meaning individual Members would actually matter.

The one benefit of the current First Past The Post/Single Member Plurality (FPTP/SMP) system is that we elect local constituency representatives. We can still have that with a Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) electoral system with the addition of extra Members to align the membership of the legislature with the votes by party overall. Everybody’s vote would count even if you lived in a constituency were the party you support has no chance of winning. Your vote would still count and you would still be represented., Indeed you would actually have a reason to vote.

We could actually have a system where the elected Members govern and we do not simply elect a dictator (usually with a minority of votes) every four years.

For a more comprehensive look at our parliamentary democracy and how to improve it see On Democracy.

Does Canada Need a Head of State

        From Twitter
        Adrian Harewood
        @CBCAdrianH
        23 Jan
        Why in 2021 is a Canadian Prime Minister, the leader of a #G7 nation, still reporting to a #Queen who                doesn't live in his country and has never lived in his country? #JuliePayette #JustinTrudeau #Canada

This is just one response to the latest “scandal” involving the monarchy. In this case it was the Governor General. In others it has been members of the Royal Family. In each instance we seem to see a flurry of criticism of the monarchy. Although the misbehaviour of individuals is not necessarily a good reason to question an institution such behaviour always acts as a catalyst for questioning the role of the monarchy in Canada.

The usual response is a “debate” over whether we should get rid of the monarchy and replace it with something else, presumably a republic with a president rather than a monarch. That of course is not the only option.

One option I have never seen discussed is whether or not we actually need a Head of State.

Could we essentially retain our system of government without a Head of State, in effect a constitutional monarchy without a monarch.

Is this not the ultimate evolution of democracy. While governments need leaders should a nation state not be led by the people, not by a designated privileged individual. Would this not be the ultimate expression of the rule of law rather than the rule of man.

How would this work in practice.

The constitutional parliamentary duties now performed by the Governor General, granting royal assent, prorogation and dissolution of Parliament, etc. would be performed by a body that actually has constitutional expertise, a panel of Supreme Court justices. When it is necessary to canvas the House of Commons to determine who has the confidence of the House that function could be carried out by the Speaker and confirmed by a confidence vote.

The Prime Minister would continue to speak for the government and the Speaker of the House of Commons could speak for Parliament and when appropriate on behalf of the country as a whole.

Our system of a constitutional monarchy and parliamentary government reflects our history and it works. If we are tempted to change it we should be bold.

On Inequality, Democracy and Taxing the Rich – A Modest Proposal

No doubt many raised in our capitalist society, where inequality rules and excessive incomes and wealth are seen as a right (and where even the NDP only proposes a measly 1% tax on excessive wealth), will consider this proposal to be radical but it is actually quite a modest proposal.

So what is excessive income and wealth. There are many ways to measure that, many statistical, but I propose a simpler definition – the amount of wealth and income where increases have no discernible effect on ones way of life or standard of living, where the increase is simply not noticeable in one's day to day life. Let's be generous to the wealthy in determining such levels. I propose an annual income of $1 million dollars and total assets of $100 million as the level that triggers “excessive income and wealth”. Above that no one notices without reading their financial statements.

The thing about excessive wealth is that it makes minuscule difference to the recipients but could make all the world of difference to the poor and underprivileged and to society as a whole if used for the common good. I will not even attempt to list what all that excessive wealth could do if devoted to the common good of society .

But there is another side to excessive income and wealth – it is highly undemocratic. The rich do not cling to their excessive wealth because it makes a difference to their daily lives. They cling to it because it gives them economic and political power. It is not just a matter of economic inequality, is a matter of political inequality.

Democracy is based on equality, one person one vote. Economic power is political power. Excessive wealth skews political power so that the wealthy have more of it. Excessive wealth is inherently undemocratic.

So what do we do with this excessive wealth so that it benefits society. We tax it away so that it can be used for the common good.

This sounds radical at first. But what do the wealthy lose in this proposal. Their standard of living and quality of life does not change. They only thing they lose is their excessive economic and political power, power that undermines our democracy.

Postscript

In taxing away excessive wealth we cannot just require it's conversion to cash to be paid as taxes. That would obviously be very disruptive to the economic system. Society (through the government) will take ownership of these resources in kind and in many cases maintain them while applying revenues from them to the common good. In some cases they may need to change the policies of entities that are not acting in the public interest or divest ownership of entities where that serves the public interest.

Also this proposal does not address all the problems with our tax system. For it to be truly progressive we need to raise the income level that triggers the payment of taxes and increase the higher marginal tax rates, including adding marginal tax rates at higher income levels (between $200,000 and $1 million).

Is American Democracy Fucked ?

So is the American political system completely dysfunctional.

I suppose the easy answer is to say they elected Trump so case closed, but of course it is much more complicated than that.

What advanced developed democracy cannot manage to keep it's government functioning.

The obvious answer should be “none” but of course we know that is incorrect.

Even countries that require months of negotiations after elections to form a coalition government do not let their governments shut down. They understand that government is more than just politics, that government is a good thing that provides vital services to the people. They have processes to allow the everyday work of government to continue while the politics is sorted out.

Take Canada for example. If a government cannot get its spending plan (in the form of an Appropriation Act) approved it is considered a loss of confidence in the government by the legislature and an election is called. However the Prime Minister and Cabinet (whom are all Members of the legislature) retain their positions and what are referred to as Governor Generals' Warrants are issued to fund the day to day operations of government. Government continues in a caretaker mode with no new policy initiatives undertaken until a new government is formed.

However the American system seems designed for deadlock with no confidence mechanism to break deadlocks by electing a new government. They have an executive with a Cabinet appointed and led by a President that is not responsible to the legislature and a bicameral legislative process, requiring the two legislative bodies and the President to agree for legislation, including government funding bills, to become law.

Currently the two legislative bodies are controlled by two opposing parties and the President who, while nominally the leader of one of the two main parties, is in reality a rogue actor with no political allegiance except to himself and no discernible political philosophy except for his own incoherent version of populism. This is a recipe for the chaos that is the current American political situation.

I can only suppose that when the founding fathers drafted the American Constitution they put a great deal of faith in the good will of the political participants to put the good of the American people ahead of petty politics.

Now let us look at the American electoral system.

We will start with Election Day when most (but not all as there are variations between states) Americans vote for federal, state and local officials. They could not design a better way to overwhelm voters leading them to take the path of least resistance and vote a “straight party ticket”. Just the mechanics of voting for that many officials (including many positions that should be public servants), without even considering the time and effort to consider local, state and federal issues and make meaningful voting decisions, must be completely overwhelming to voters.

Americans also elect prosecutors and judges. This raises the whole other issue of the politicization of the justice and judicial systems all the way up to a very politicized Supreme Court. This could be the subject of a treatise all by itself.

Looking at elections for federal office we have the absurd situation where the states set the rules and procedures for federal elections and these vary from state to state. So a federal election is not a consistent process with consistent rules for all Americans.

But the most egregious fact is that it is state politicians from the state's governing party that control the federal election process in that state, including the drawing of the electoral map with that infamous American institution of gerrymandering (to manipulate the boundaries of an electoral constituency so as to favour one party). This also includes the use of various voter suppression methods to reduce voting, usually of black and other minority voters.

Then we have the electoral college system which routinely elects Presidents that are not the choice of the majority of American voters. The system is somewhat designed to do that by giving smaller states relatively more electoral college votes but is made worse by the fact that in most states all of a state's electoral college votes go to the candidate with the most votes in that state. So if a presidential candidate gets 60% of a states votes he gets 100% of the states electoral college votes further skewing the results away from the popular vote.

Another concern is the primary system used to select the individual parties candidates, including the presidential candidates. Again we have an inconsistent system of primaries and caucuses that are different for each state. But perhaps the biggest problem is the timing of these primaries at different dates for each state. It makes for great drama and entertainment but the results of earlier primaries cannot help but affect the results of later primaries. There is a reason election results are not released before all the polls are closed – so that earlier voters do not influence later voters. The primary system seems designed to do just that.

A consistent federal election process overseen by an independent non-partisan agency (similar to Elections Canada) would go a long way to solving the structural problems with the American electoral system. The cultural problems of political corruption are another matter.

And we have not even looked at the role money plays in American elections which is a huge subject all by itself, especially the role of wealthy donors, PACs (Political Action Committees) and SuperPACs. No one in American government can possibly govern without constantly thinking about where the money is coming from for their next campaign. It is very hard to argue that that will not affect their decision making.

And it is almost impossible to do anything in the form of political financing reform as the Supreme Court has ruled that money equals free speech, effectively ruling that the wealthy have a greater right to free speech than ordinary citizens and a greater ability to promote their preferred candidates for election.

So with all of these fundamental problems how can American elections be fair. If American elections are not fair, they are not democratic, and if the electoral process is not democratic then the whole governing structure is not democratic.

American democracy is fucked.

On Democracy

What a better way to restart The Fifth Column than by a treatise on how to make our democracy actually democratic. Hopefully this will be the first posting in a newly regenerated Fifth Column.

I write this at a time when there are so many examples of democracy failing us from the “republic” to the south to our own provincial government in Ontario. Much of the emphasis has been on our First Past The Post (aka Single Member Plurality) electoral system but the problem goes much deeper than that.

Democracy Defined

But what is “democracy”. Wikipedia actually has a pretty decent definition here:

Democracy - Wikipedia

Democracy (Greek: δημοκρατία dēmokratía, literally "rule by people"), in modern usage, has three senses—all for a system of government where the citizens exercise power by voting. In a direct democracy, the citizens as a whole form a governing body and vote directly on each issue. In a representative democracy the citizens elect representatives from among themselves. These representatives meet to form a governing body, such as a legislature. In a constitutional democracy the powers of the majority are exercised within the framework of a representative democracy, but the constitution limits the majority and protects the minority, usually through the enjoyment by all of certain individual rights, e.g. freedom of speech, or freedom of association.

Direct Democracy

Let us first dismiss the idea of a direct democracy, not just because it can too easily become the tyranny of the majority but because modern government is too complex for us to all have the expertise and knowledge required to govern our societies while maintaining our normal lives. That is to say governing has become a full time job if one wants to make rational informed decisions. Thus we have invented representative democracy where we chose from among ourselves those we trust to have the wisdom to make judgments in our best interests, usually those are people that share our philosophical approach to society. I fear, in this day and age direct democracy, such as a system of online voting on individual issues (similar to the “initiatives” used a great deal in the aforementioned republic to the south), would turn voting into shopping where the best marketing campaign wins.

Representative Democracy

Choosing representatives that are accountable to us and represent the views of all of the voters, not just the majority, to meet and debate and make laws is what distinguishes democracy from electing a dictator every four years, which is what the present state of our democracy appears to be moving towards.

Public Participation

So we have our first big problem. Democracy requires the participation of all the people to work. Just looking at voting statistics, never mind greater participation in the political process such as choosing candidates and influencing political parties policies. We have barely over a majority of citizens participating. Adding the fact that the wealthy and privileged have a greater participation rate, not to mention greater political influence, than the poor and vulnerable in our society and we can see that our democracy is not truly representative.

So how do we increase the participation of the public in the political process. We have to look first at what is suppressing it, and to that I see a conspiracy of sorts, not a conspiracy of secret meetings and plots but a conspiracy of shared interests on behalf of the ruling class that control our media that influences public opinion. There is a concerted effort to turn government and politicians into an evil them and taxes into our money that they take from us. There is a concerted effort to distance the people from their government and turn it into the enemy. Ironically that allows the “ruling classes” to take control of it and make that claim come true while discouraging the general population from becoming engaged and involved in evil politics.

Government is the People

The truth is quite simple. Government is how the people as a whole make collective decisions for the common good and taxes are how we spend our money collectively for the common good. It is your government and your money. Don't let them convince you there is something evil about it. It is your right and your responsibility to participate.

First Past The Post (aka Single Member Plurality) Electoral System

The other big factor discouraging public participation is that many feel that with our First Past The Post (aka Single Member Plurality) electoral system their votes do not count, that they do not help determine the composition of the legislature if they do not vote for the winning candidate, or they feel forced to vote strategically against the candidate (or party) they least favour rather than for the candidate (or party) they prefer.

Political Parties

So let us talk about political parties. Political parties have become the way that we elect our representatives, at least at the federal and provincial level. There have been exceptions of independent MPs or MPPs, but in most of those cases they have been individuals who were elected as a member of a party and then left it.

Political parties allow individuals with similar ideas to come together to select candidates to seek election on policies agreed to by the party members. They also allow elected members with similar ideas and policies to caucus and work together in the legislature. And not of least importance they finance election campaigns so candidates do not have to be wealthy in order to run for office.

Political parties are what makes modern democracy work but in many ways they are it's biggest problem.

Back in my day, when I was politically active, political parties were run by party activists, the ones who attended meetings, canvassed during elections, called voters and put up signs. These were the people that voted for the parties policies, chose the candidates and elected the leaders.

Nowadays political parties have decided that it is expedient to use nomination meetings and leadership votes as a way to recruit new members. Whoever can recruit the most new members tends to win nomination votes and leadership candidates that can sign up the most new members tend to win leadership contests. It is no longer long term members choosing party candidates and leaders but new members that tend to make the difference when it comes to these decisions. And during election campaigns the policy is not taken from the party policy book but dictated by the leader.

The Loss of Responsible Government and the Cult of the Leader

We are supposed to be a Westminster style Parliamentary government with responsible government. Our Prime Ministers and Cabinets are supposed to be responsible to and accountable to the elected legislatures and can only hold power when they retain the confidence of the elected MPs (or MPPs) and they must answer to them with in the legislature, through such means (but not exclusively) as a daily question period.

However the power of not only individual MPs but also of Cabinet has been decreasing ever since Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau called MPs nobodies off of Parliament Hill and started centralizing power in the Prime Minister's Office. This practice was extended by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and taken to new heights by Ontario Premier Doug Ford, whose caucus and Cabinet seems extremely reluctant to put any form of common sense restraint on his exercise of power.

So we have an Ontario Premier who is only in power because of the votes of new members signed up by the anti-abortion/anti-sex ed lobby to support their pet candidate who transferred her support to Ford which tipped the balance of support to him. He did not originally have the support of the majority of the Tory caucus or a majority of long term Ontario PC members. Yet now he seems to rule by decree with neither his cabinet nor caucus willing to exercise their constitutional role of actually governing.

The Effect of the First Past The Post (aka Single Member Plurality) Electoral System and The Power of Party Leaders

But this, of course is only an extreme case. The more routine situation is for a party to gain a majority of 60% of the seats of the legislature with 40% of the total votes. It needs to be noted these are votes cast for individual members in different constituencies. However most voters are voting for the party, if not the leader, rather than the individual MP or MPP.

This leads to one party with 100% of the power and with that 100% of the power more likely than not to be exercised by the leader, Prime Minister or Premier.

It is not only the sense of fealty that individual MPs (or MPPs) feel to the leader that gives him power but party leaders' powers start with a veto over who can be nominated as a candidate and extend to allotment of question period time and committee memberships and critics roles, and paid positions as Cabinet Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries for Prime Ministers and Premiers, not to mention caucus membership. No wonder few MPs or MPPs go against the leader.

Electoral Reform, Mixed Member Proportional (MPP) and the Power of Parties and Leaders.

There is a way to eliminate the absolute power of parties elected with a minority of votes and

the absolute power of their leaders while electing a legislature that reflects the will of the voters. It is called Mixed Member Proportional or MMP.

Wikipedia actually has a pretty decent definition here:

Mixed-member proportional representation - Wikipedia

Mixed-member proportional (MMP) representation is a mixed electoral system in which voters get two votes: one to decide the representative for their single-seat constituency, and one for a political party. Seats in the legislature are filled firstly by the successful constituency candidates, and secondly, by party candidates based on the percentage of nationwide or region-wide votes that each party received.

Canada is not a two-party state. We have a wider variety of political views than that and a reasonable number of political parties expressing them. The main effect of a proportional representation system is that the make-up of the legislature actually reflects views of the voters and no party gains a majority of the seats with a minority of votes and and no leader has absolute power. The government must actually be responsible and accountable to the legislature. Critics say this is inefficient and a bad thing. But if efficiency was our goal for government we would not be looking at a democracy at all.

The fact that a government must be responsible to legislators from other parties means its own caucus members will expect the party and leader to be responsible to them also. Indeed there is not one governing party but a governing legislature as it should be in a democracy. Practice meets theory.

How would this work in practice. Federally I would propose a Parliament of 300 members elected as they are now from individual constituencies using the Single Member Plurality (SMP) system and 100 members allocated proportionally so the make-up of the legislature reflects the voters party vote preferences. Each voter would have a vote for an MP representing their constituency and a vote indicating their party preference.

The proportional representatives would come from party lists known to voters ahead of time. To ensure greater democratic representation voters could be given the option to rate the names on their party's list preferentially and that would be used to select the priority in which the proportional members are selected from the lists.

Both constituency candidates and party list candidates must be chosen by a democratic process and not just selected by the party leader, nor should the leader have an undemocratic veto over the candidates chosen by this democratic process.

To those concerned about the increased size of the House of Commons and greater number of politicians I would also eliminate the Senate so that overall their would be fewer federal politicians than there are now.

Fringe Parties and Proportional Representation

One of the criticisms of proportional representation is that it empowers fringe parties, either of the frivolous kind or more dangerously those espousing bigotry and hate, providing them with a voice in the House of Commons (or provincial legislatures).

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides that its provisions are not absolute

1.The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. 

 

The same principle can be applied to the electoral system and the concept of proportional representation. We can build provisions into the system to prevent the empowerment of frivolous or hateful fringe parties. The most likely provision being a requirement that parties receive at least 5% of the popular vote before they receive representation under the proportional representation portion of Mixed Member Proportional (MMP).

Parliamentary Reforms

If we want to make party leaders, and Prime Ministers and Premiers, accountable to Parliament and the Legislature we have to decrease the powers party leaders have over individual MPs and MPPs. We can start with eliminating their control over question period access and committee appointments by making them based on seniority (but still distributed by party according to percentage of members that would now be based on popular vote) and having that administered by the Clerks at the Table. Party critics appointments should be determined by a democratic process within caucus, not simply by the leader.

Also only a vote of caucus should be able to expel members from a party caucus, not the dictatorial power of a party leader.

And most importantly party leaders (including Prime Ministers and Premiers) should not be determined in a dubious process by a small number of newly recruited party members but chosen by the people's elected representatives, the members of their Parliamentary or Legislative caucus and be accountable to them. With this process the Parliamentary and government leaders are not determined till after the election by the people's chosen representatives. This puts more emphasis on the people we actually vote for, no longer leaving them as a second thought as we vote according to party leaders. While this will perhaps require a great deal of political will it puts the representative and responsible back in our democratic system.

And of course Prime Ministers and Premiers (and their Cabinets) must also retain the confidence of a majority of members of The House of Commons or provincial legislature.

The House of Commons (and legislatures) should also establish a review of all parliamentary rules aimed at ensuring the role of the democratically elected members are strengthened and enhanced.

These proposed electoral and Parliamentary reforms are designed to ensure that we have a truly representative democracy and not simply a process to elect a dictator every four years.

Municipal Elections and Preferential (aka Ranked Ballot) Voting

Some may have noticed that I have not yet written about preferential or ranked ballot voting where voters list their choices in order of preference, 1st, 2nd, 3rd choice etc. The main advantage of such a system is that it prevents the election of the candidate disliked by the most voters from being elected, as often happens with the First Past The Post system. But it depends on voters second and third choices to elect the winner and can, and likely will, result in an even greater discrepancy between the number of MPs or MPPs elected per party and the popular vote (according to first choices) received by each party.

This of course is why it was Justin Trudeau's choice for electoral reform. Liberals see themselves as a centrist party and everybody's second choice. They believe preferential voting would likely ensure them easy victory in every election and even more dominance in the House of Commons and power for their leader. When it became clear that federal electoral reform was not likely to take that form they quickly abandoned their promise of a new electoral system for the next election.

But there is a place for preferential voting, and that is where parties are not involved, as in most municipal elections in this country.

Without parties competing municipal elections tend to be about the popularity of the incumbent. The other thing about municipal politics is that a large part of the job of a councillor is considered to be about participating in community events and being out and about in the community meeting constituents. In other words, incumbents are paid to campaign for the next election as part of their job.

Defeating an incumbent is very difficult. Even when most voters want to throw out the incumbent their votes are usually divided among several candidates. Preferential ballots allow in effect, holding simultaneous run-off elections until one challenger is left competing against the incumbent thus somewhat levelling the playing field where incumbents have so many advantages.

So I would certainly endorse preferential or ranked ballot voting for municipal elections.

The Ultimate Solution to Electoral Reform in Canada

Yes indeed, I do have the ultimate solutions to all of our electoral system problems and I will share them with all of you. Now some of you might think this is too comprehensive and complicated to propose all at once, but for voters it will be just a simple two step process and will eliminate the most difficult part of the voting process.

We need to do this fully and comprehensively because people have a reluctance towards change when it comes to our electoral system. They are not going to want to make multiple incremental changes. We have to do it once and we have to do it right.

The Problem

My proposals are aimed at solving the most important flaws in the process, those that make it undemocratic:

• - the pressure for people to vote strategically, rather than for their actual preference, to try to avoid the next two factors
• - the possibility, and likelihood in many cases, for the last choice of most voters to get elected because of "vote splitting" among like-minded voters
• - a House of Commons whose party seat distribution does not reflect the popular vote
• - an unelected, unaccountable and unnecessary Senate

The Solution

My proposals are based on these principles:

• - maintaining the constituency representative system as the main basis of House of Commons membership
• - eliminating the need and pressure for strategic voting
• - a House of Commons whose membership, by party representation, reflects the total popular vote
• -solving the Senate problem

A Constituency Representative Based System

The vast majority of Members of the House of Commons would be elected, as they are now, as constituency representatives. But, to avoid the necessity for strategic voting and the possibility of the least popular rather than most popular candidate being elected, a transferable vote system will be used where voters rate the candidates in preferential order, rating as many or few candidates as they wish.

A House of Commons Reflecting The Popular Vote

In order to ensure the party representation in the House of Commons reflects the popular votes a number of seats will be added to the House of Commons, and the members selected from party lists in a manner that brings the overall party representation equal to the popular vote.

This will be done by having voters select a party preference separate from a candidate preference.

The Numbers and Solving The Senate Problem

Looking at the last federal election we see that with 308 constituency representatives we have to add 107 Members of Parliament from party lists to get a fully representative House of Commons. However we can actually do this without adding any additional federal representatives by eliminating the Senate and the 100 Senators and limiting the number of constituency representatives to 300 and the number of list representatives to 100. This might not always enable adjustments to get the party representation fully equivalent but certainly enough to prevent any one party from forming a majority government without a majority of the popular vote. Note that current plans call for increasing the size of the House of Commons to 338 while retaining the Senate.

And yes eliminating the Senate may seem like an impossible task but all that it really requires is political will and is making our government truly democratic not worth finding that political will.

The End of Strategic Voting

The two new parts of the system - transferable votes and separate votes for party representation remove the most difficult part of the voting process - the antagonizing decision by voters on whether to vote strategically, an act that is itself undemocratic. Voters should be able to vote for the candidate and party of their choice and not feel that they have to vote against someone or some party to avoid the worst of all possible outcomes.

The transferable vote allows voters to rank their preferences so that in the end everyone gets to choose between the two candidates left on the ballot and no one loses their vote.

The separate vote for party representation means that no matter how votes divide up by constituency the parties representation in the House of Commons reflects their support nationwide.

These provisions also allow voters to choose independent candidates as their constituency representative without losing their ability to affect the party representation in the House of Commons.

Municipal and Provincial Elections

The transferable vote provisions are ones that should also be adopted in municipal elections. Since most municipal elections do not involve political parties the likelihood of many candidates with similar views running is even greater than in federal and provincial elections and the pressure to vote against the least desirable (rather than for the most desirable) candidate is even greater. A transferable vote prevents the last choice of most voters from being elected due to vote splitting because in the end everyone gets to choose between the two candidates left on the ballot and no one loses their vote.

The full proposal (except for elimination of the Senate) could also be adopted and adapted for provincial elections.

Representation by Population and Community Representation

One of the effects of our attempt to maintain representation by population (rep by pop) as much as possible without even further enlarging the geographic size of rural and remote constituencies has been the continual increase in the number of Members of Parliament. Current plans call for the House of Commons to increase from 308 to 338 with no end in sight.

One of the things that the separate ballot for party representation will ensure is that the House of Commons party representation reflects the popular vote of voters. This makes pure representation by population, which we have never had, somewhat less important and enables us to put more focus on making constituency representatives community representatives.

To achieve this we should put a limit on the number of Members of Parliament at 300 constituency MPs and 100 list MPs. We should also redraw constituencies, taking rep by pop into account as much as possible, making constituency boundaries more consistent with actual community boundaries as well as keeping geographic size manageable for an MP to represent. We should retain these configurations for much longer periods so these new community reflecting constituencies do not change with every election.

We should also retain PEI at 4 constituency MPs and Quebec at 75 constituency MPs for historical reasons.

We have to recognize, of course, that the list MPs will come from across Canada and are not necessarily going to accurately reflect rep by pop, though I suspect they may be more urban than rural somewhat correcting the effect of limiting rural and remote constituency geographic sizes.

There is going to be, as there always has been, a trade-off between rep by pop and ensuring effective representation for less densely populated parts of the country. However with the separate vote for party preference based on popular vote that becomes less of a problem.

The Benefits of List Representatives

There has always been criticism of the concept of having Members of Parliament selected from party lists but there are also significant benefits of it beyond ensuring that the House of Commons party representation reflects the popular vote.

We have to remember, that just as voters take into account candidates party affiliation when choosing a constituency MP, voters will also take into account who the parties have placed on their lists when choosing a party preference. Thus the parties will need to be mindful of this when drawing up their lists.

One aspect that might be criticized is parties placing people who could not get elected as individual MPs on the list. I think that is a good thing. There are undoubtedly many competent qualified people capable of doing an excellent job as an MP who would be a complete failure as a political candidate. It would not hurt to have some MPs who are lousy as "political operatives" in the House of Commons.

It might also not hurt to have MPs who are less partisan in the House of Commons and I would encourage political parties to place capable candidates that might not be card carrying members but share the parties philosophies on their lists.

There is a question as to whether parties should be allowed to place individuals who are seeking election as constituency representatives on the list. While I understand that parties might want to "protect" key candidates it is somewhat offensive that candidates rejected by their constituency voters could end up in the House of Commons (somewhat like appointing failed candidates to the Senate).

Towards a New Co-operative and Democratic House of Commons

Most individual voters would probably say that they want a majority government led by (and composed only of) the party they support. But what do the voters collectively want. It is rare that a majority of voters votes for one political party and when they do the seat representation is far from proportional to the popular vote.

The last time Canadian voters gave one party over 50% of popular votes was in 1958 when Diefenbaker's Tories received 53.7 % of the votes and 78.5 % of the seats, although Mulroney's Tories received 50% of the votes and 74.8% of the seats in 1984. (Source: Canadian Election Results: 1867-2006)

We usually get majority governments, not because we vote for them but, because of how our political system is structured.

This proposed new electoral system will ensure that voters get the representation they want and will almost always reflect the fact that their is a wide variety of political preferences in our country.

We might all be very surprised by how much better a governing process and government we get if our elected representatives are forced by the voters to actually compromise and work together without one party, or even one man, controlling the agenda.

Although we have become used to it, an "elected dictatorship" is not necessarily the best way to run a country.

We Must Stop Stephen Harper and the 20% from Destroying Canada

There has been lots of discussion about how Stephen Harper's majority only represents 40% of voters because of the way our electoral system works. But, in reality, his agenda has much fewer supporters.

We must remember that the Conservative Party is a coalition. It is not a coalition in the sense that the proposed Liberal-NDP coalition (with an accord with the BQ) was. That proposed coalition was the product of compromise and an agreed to written common program.

This Conservative coalition is a coalition of perceived necessity where the old Progressive Conservative Party supporters have been convinced that the only way to keep the Liberals out of power is to support a Reform Party Canadian Alliance dominated Conservative Party. It is clear that Stephen Harper's agenda does not represent the values of the former Progressive Conservative Party, but it did get elected with the votes of it's supporters.

So now we have a ReformaTory government dominated by the 20% of Canadians who support the extreme right wing American-centric Reform Party Canadian Alliance ideology of Stephen Harper.

And they want to turn Canada into a mirror of our American neighbour, clearly a failed state if there ever was one. Have no doubt about it. Stephen Harper was not lying when he said we would not recognize our Canada when he was finished with it.

Stephen Harper's values are not Canadians values.

Canadians chose Tommy Douglas as the Greatest Canadian because he gave us Medicare, our public health care system, and we have consistently stated (as documented by public opinion polls) that public health care is the most important Canadian value and the most important thing that defines us as Canadians.

Stephen Harper wants to destroy our national health care system. He is on record as wanting to eliminate the Canada Health Act provisions that require provinces to meet national standards to receive federal funding. The next step will be to eliminate all federal funding, likely under the guise of trading tax points for direct federal funding. He has stated, using constitutional provisions as a justification, that the federal government should turn health care completely over to the provinces. We all know he wants to do that to promote more privatization and weakening of the public system and it's deterioration into a two-tier system, or worse.

Stephen Harper and the 20% do not represent Canadian values and what the vast majority of Canadians want when it comes to our cherished public health care system.

Stephen Harper believes that there are Canadians whose lives are less worthy of protection than other Canadians. He believes this because he believes in dividing Canadians into good people and bad people and those that are addicted to drugs are bad people that should be punished rather than provided with the treatment they need.

He opposes harm reduction measures (more properly called lifesaving measures) for addicts such as safe injection sites and needle exchange programs, even though they have been proven to save lives and even help rehabilitate addicts, because these programs may inconvenience or offend "good Canadians". He knows the "bad Canadians" these programs serve do not vote Conservative, because they do not vote.

But this is all part of the ReformaTory Conservatives war on drugs and tough on crime agenda that has been proven to be such a failure in the United States that even right wing governments and politicians in states like Texas are abandoning it. But Stephen Harper likes it because it fits in with his anti-science anti-fact ideology-based strategy that preys on peoples fears.

And even though crime is declining in Canada, the reporting of crime in the media is increasing, as is it's depiction on American television shows, and some Canadians do fear our country, and especially our cities, becoming the crime-ridden places they see portrayed in the media.

Of course logic would say that if you were really concerned about crime your policies would emulate those countries where crime is lowest, not the country where crime is highest. But facts and logic are not part of Stephen Harper's ideology. Fear and the desire for revenge are better vote-getters, so Stephen Harper thinks.

Stephen Harper and his 20% of supporters are clearly out of touch with Canadian values. What we have seen so far is only the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. If he is elected to another majority, no matter how phony a majority it is, he will see it as a mandate to finish the job of destroying the Canada that we all know and love.

Stephen Harper and his 20% must be stopped. We must put our political differences aside to save our country.

We need a one time electoral coalition agreement for the next election that provides that Liberals and New Democrats do not run against each other in any constituencies that the Conservatives have any chance of winning.

This coalition agreement should be short term only to allow for the election of a government pledged to undo the worst of the Harper ReformaTory measures and bring in democratic and electoral reforms that will see the next election run under a form of proportional representation.

Because it will be short term, with an agreed to program, and will be followed by an election under proportional representation, neither the NDP nor Liberals need worry if the candidate selection process is not perfect. There is no need to let partisan protectionism come before the necessity of saving our Canada from Stephen Harper's desire to destroy it. That is what it is about and we must put all partisan differences aside to save our country.

The next election will then be run under proportional representation and will be the first to elect a truly representative House of Commons. I have my own ideas on how such a proportional representation system should be structured which I will write about in a future post.

This election will, in all likelihood, not produce a majority government because all Canadians do not think the same way, but most do share similar values and the elected representatives will reflect this.

This new way of electing governments will require parties and Members of Parliament to work together. It will eliminate one party, and more importantly one despotic leader, from having complete authoritarian control of the government. Indeed it will, no doubt, reduce the powers of all party leaders and increase the powers of individual Members of Parliament.

We have, not only a chance to not only save our country from Stephen Harper, but a chance to reform our electoral system so that 20% of the people that want to destroy our country will never be able to seize power again.

We must seize that opportunity or our children and grandchildren will never forgive us.

Let us make one thing perfectly clear

Ontario is parliamentary democracy, albeit within it's own constitutional jurisdiction. As such it is the Ontario legislature that determines who will be in the government and form the Cabinet. As in all parliamentary democracies a government is legitimate if, and only if, it has the confidence of a majority in the legislature. This majority can be made up of members of one party or, as is actually more common in western democracies, be made up of a coalition of members of several parties.

There is nothing illegitimate about a government that represents, and has the confidence of, a majority of the members of the legislature. Indeed, it is the only form of government that is legitimate within a parliamentary democracy.

It's too bad none of our political leaders are willing to stand up for democracy.

Realigning Canada's Political Spectrum

Canadians have traditionally held social democratic values while supporting centrist political parties. Canadians support universal single payer public health insurance, public pensions and a social safety net, all of which, at the federal level, have been proposed by leftist political parties but legislated by centrists political parties. These parties traditionally were the Liberal Party, slightly to the left of centre, and the Progressive Conservative Party, slightly to the right of centre.

The new extreme right wing federal Conservative Party of Stephen Harper (and Ontario PC Party of Harris and Hudak) are historical anomalies.

But the rise of the New Democratic Party in the recent election, and the rapid decline of the Liberal Party are signs that a change may be underway.

Some are suggesting a move to a two party left/right alignment with a merger of the Liberal and New Democratic Parties, but I do not see that happening.

What I see happening is a realignment closer to the traditional Canadian model.

I see the demise of the Liberal Party with it's right wing moving to the Conservatives and it's left wing moving to the New Democrats. I see the right wing Liberals joining with the former progressive wing of the Conservatives to move that party closer to it's former position slightly right of centre, while the New Democratic Party fills the position formerly held by the Liberals but somewhat further left of centre.

This would mean that the centre of Canadian politics would move to the left leading to more progressive future governments.

But I also see a further possibility of a New Democratic Party government bringing in proportional representation so that a true left wing party could emerge, with political representation equivalent to it's public support, along with a similar right wing party. The Greens would also get representation equivalent to their public support.

Their would be the potential for a more democratic system that made majority governments unlikely and co-operative (rather than confrontational) politics not only possible, but a necessity.

The NDP, The Quebec Question and 50% + 1

Much has been made of Jack Layton's "controversial" comments on a possible Quebec sovereignty referendum.

The fact is that it is a very rational and defensible position. Based on the closest precedent, the entry of Newfoundland into Confederation, Quebec has followed the same rules, keep on holding referendums hoping to get the result you want with 50% + 1 required for passage. After all, otherwise we have a minority deciding Quebec's constitutional status.

That position, however, has it's problems. Other constitutional precedents require greater than 50% + 1 to make constitutional changes. As well, if support is that close the results of a referendum can vary from day to day.

That is why I tend to support requiring something like 60% support for such changes in constitutional arrangements, to ensure that the new constitutional arrangement will have continuing support. However that position also has it's flaws because in the case of, for example, a clear and continuous 55% support for sovereignty, the minority that opposes the change in status would effectively decide the fate of Quebec.

That is why the real focus needs to be on maintaining strong support for federalism in Quebec, support that has just recently been very effectively expressed by the people of Quebec in choosing a federalist social democratic party over a sovereignist one. We need to work on building and strengthening a strong federalist consensus in Quebec.

This will not be done by "giving Quebec whatever it wants" but by giving Quebec respect and building a strong Canadian community. This starts with recognizing Quebec's nationhood and it's right to decide it's own fate. Can we have a country within a country. It seems to work well enough for England, Scotland and Wales, within a unitary state. When have you ever heard Scots refer to themselves as "United Kingdomers" but their loyalty to both their country of Scotland and their nation state of the United Kingdom does not seem to be in conflict.

We have the best opportunity ever to set aside separatism in Quebec and build a strong Canada that includes Quebec. Quebec has spoken in the election and chosen federalism. All we have to do is work with the Quebecois to build a strong united Canada with them.

And The Contempt Continues

Before Parliament even resumes Cabinet Ministers are issuing decrees to Parliamentary committees:

"Industry Minister Tony Clement said Thursday he will ask oil industry refiners, distributors and retailers to appear before a parliamentary committee to explain their 'opaque' pricing methods once Parliament resumes."

Music For A Sunday Afternoon

Why You Must Vote on Monday May 2, 2011

ShitHarperDid.com

ShitHarperDid.com

Rant For Canada

Are You Voting For Canada

The Debate: Canadian Values Win

The most interesting thing I noticed about the debate was where all the leaders, or at least all of the federalist leaders, agreed.

These were on what I would consider to be the most basic of Canadian values, but values that many of us suspect are not dear to the heart of Stephen Harper, yet he provided vigorous defences of them - public health care and multiculturalism.

It speaks well to their broad support among Canadians that not even Stephen Harper would publicly oppose them knowing it would be political suicide.

The other issues I particularly noticed were the ones that were only raised by Jack Layton, electoral reform, particularly proportional representation and aboriginal issues.

Jack also gets some points for language, being the only leader to use the term ""hashtag" in the debate and "commentariat" during the post debate scrum.

Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dumber Pushing for Two Party System

It started with Ignatieff joining Harper's anti-coalition bandwagon, the common message being that the big boys don't share power with the little guys and it's extended to the push for a debate between just Harper and Ignatieff because they think that they lead the only two parties that really matter.

It is clear that the fight for a more democratic Canada and a more representative electoral system that recognizes that voters have the right to choose who governs them (not just the right to go through the motions of choosing between two establishment parties) will have be a hard fought battle led by the voters themselves.

It starts with refusing to give any party a majority, even if our flawed system is designed to give parties a majority of seats with under 40% of votes.

This election is about democracy.

Democracy Election

While thousands worldwide sacrifice their lives for the right to free elections Canadians complain about having one.

That is not to say there are no reasons for some Canadians not to want an election. Certainly if you support the Reformatories you have it pretty good right now. With a minority in the House of Commons (and an even smaller minority of public support) they have control of the government with a majority opposition that lets them govern as if they have a majority. On the other hand if you voted for the opposition parties you twice elected a majority of Members of Parliament (representing a majority of the public) that has refused to exercise the democratic power the people gave them and lets the Reformatories govern as if they represented the majority. So what is the point of doing it again.

If there is going to be another election it must be about democracy and bringing the government back under the control of the majority of the House of Commons and establishing a more democratic electoral and governing process.

If the opposition parties are going to force can election they must pledge to form a government that represents a majority of the House of Commons and a majority of voters.

Why are they so scared to say that. Just because Stephen Harper thinks the concept of the majority of the legislature governing, as it does in the vast majority of western democratic countries, is illegitimate does not mean the opposition parties should accept that absurdity. Coalition is not a dirty word. Political parties and Members of Parliament actually co-operating to provide a democratic majority government is a good thing. It is certainly better and more democratic than the current tyranny of the minority that currently governs this country.

Perhaps the voters are collectively smarter than we give them credit for and have discovered that the concentration of power in any one party, no matter who it may be, may actually be bad for democracy. If the people want power to be spread amongst many parties rather than concentrated within one that is their democratic right and it is the responsibility of the political parties to co-operate and provide the people with the government they have chosen.

But we need more than just regime change.

I call upon all political parties and candidates that consider themselves to be progressive (and that can include Members of parties that have removed progressive from their name) to pledge to join together after the election in a democratic coalition pledged to improve democracy in Canada.

The number one priority of such a government should be to establish a more democratic electoral and governing process in Canada.

The first thing such a government should do is initiate the Parliamentary processes, including public consultations, to consider and implement the following measures, along with others that they decide are necessary, to improve democracy in Canada:

- eliminate the use of government advertising for promoting government polices and restrict it to information on how to access government programs and benefits

- ensure the independence of all Officers of Parliament, including the Chief Electoral Officer

- ensure and increase the House of Commons right to and ability to access government information, including provisions for access to confidential and classified information on an in camera basis

- establish a fixed election date every four years with the House being dissolved earlier only when a government cannot be formed that has the support of a majority of the House of Commons (to be effective after the next election)

- strengthen measures to ensure the fairness of elections so that financial resources, rather than individual capabilities and policies, do not determine the outcome of elections

- reform the electoral process into a more representative and democratic process where the number of seats a party has represents the number of votes they receive nation wide, while retaining constituency representation, paying particular attention to the systems of proportional representation used in western European countries

Following the implementation of these measures the government should then resign to allow a new election to be held under the new more democratic and representative electoral process and such an election should include a referendum on whether voters want the Senate to be abolished or reformed.

Establishing real democracy in Canada only takes, what sometimes seems to be the rarest of all things, political will. Do we, as politicians, voters, and a nation, have it.