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.

Democracy Under Attack

Democracy is clearly under attack in Canada by those who always claim to be it's defenders, and led by the man who would be dictator.

Stephen Harper wants all the trappings of Presidential Power without the checks and balances of the separation of powers in the American system, nor the inconveniences of accountability to Parliament in our system of responsible government.

Pierre Trudeau is reported to have said that Members of Parliament are nobodies off Parliament Hill. Stephen Harper would have them be nobodies on Parliament Hill. Stephen Harper believes that the Prime Minister's Office should be the seat of all power, not Parliament.

His contempt for Parliament has been shown by his multiple prorogations to avoid facing it, his government's withholding information from and lying to the House of Commons and it's committees, its cabinet ministers doctoring official documents from public servants, and the list goes on. Indeed his government is the first in Canadian history to be formally found in Contempt of Parliament.

But Stephen Harper not only has contempt for Parliament, but contempt for the voters and the courts. His attitude to his party being found guilty of violating the laws designed to ensure that we have fair elections is to dismiss it as unimportant and simply a difference of opinion on minor regulations. Of course Stephen Harper believes the market should rule everything and that voting should be like shopping - whoever has the most money to wage the best marketing campaign, whether deceptive or not (or fought with the taxpayers money using government advertising), should get the most customers votes.

But then again, Stephen Harper does not believe that the Members of Parliament elected by the people should choose who forms the government. He seems to honestly believe there is something undemocratic about the majority of elected Members of Parliament forming a government and that only a government of the largest minority is legitimate, seemingly unaware of the principles of our Parliamentary system or the practices of the overwhelming majority of democratic countries in the world.

But the problem goes beyond the Reformatories and Stephen Harper. Unlike the vast majority of democratic countries in the world our electoral system results in a House of Commons that rarely, if ever, reflects the way the population as a whole votes in terms of party representation.

Unlike most countries in the world that have proportional representation systems Canadian elections usually result in one party having a majority of seats in the House of Commons without receiving a majority of votes in the election. This is praised because it is seen to be more efficient to have power concentrated in one party. Most other democratic countries of the world seem to manage fine with coalition governments that actually reflect how the people voted and require the different parties to co-operate and reflect the wishes of the voters.

Our system however does not just concentrate power in the hands of the party with the largest number of seats (in some cases the party with the most seats may receive less total votes than another party) but tends to concentrate power in the hands of the Prime Minister, as we have seen too well with the current Canadian regime.

This attack on democracy goes beyond contempt for Parliament and the voters - but extends to a contempt for the whole idea of government, the whole idea of the people acting collectively for their collective interests.

The Reformatories, and right wingers everywhere, like to spout the rhetoric of the evils of big government and the evils of taxation. They do not believe that the people should act collectively or spend their money collectively. They have very good reasons for being against government. When citizens act and spend through their governments they act on a one person one vote basis. When citizens act and spend individually they, in effect, act on a one dollar one vote basis, thus concentrating power in those with the most wealth.

That is the reason right wingers do not like government - because it takes power away from the wealthy and transfers it to the people.

Municipal Elections Suck

So why do municipal elections suck.

Because the way the system works now all too often the least preferred candidate wins rather than the most preferred candidate.

This results from the fact that there are often a large number of candidates, many of whom may share a similar philosophy and similar policies and who appeal to the same group of voters. For simplicity sake lets divide the candidates (and voters) into alphas and betas, for want of better terms.

Various scenarios can come into play here but for demonstration purposes lets look at a simple one. Let us say there are three alpha candidates that share 60% of the vote roughly and one beta candidate with 40% of the vote. Let us assume, reasonably, that the beta candidate is the last choice of almost all of the alpha voters. And let us assume, also reasonably, that while all the alpha voters may have individual preferences all the alpha candidates are acceptable to almost all of the alpha voters.

Under our present electoral system the beta candidate, the last choice of the majority of voters and the one acceptable to only a minority of voters would get elected. Similar situations can happen with different numbers of candidates and different breakdowns with either beta or alpha candidates benefiting from the flaw in the system.

Another effect of this of course is that people realize this is happening and "strategic voting" comes into play and voters attempt to avoid this by voting for their second or third choices instead of their first, depending on who the media says has the best chance of winning. Such a situation deprives voters of the ability to vote for their first choice and gives the media an inordinate (and undemocratic) amount of power in choosing who gets elected.

There is an alternative - system that allows voters to vote for their first choice amongst acceptable candidates and not vote for unacceptable candidates. Instead of voting for one candidate you would rank the candidates in order of preference, ranking as many candidates as you wish and avoiding ranking unacceptable candidates if you do not wish to. The votes would be tabulated electronically dropping the bottom candidates from the list and redistributing their votes to the voters next choice until a candidate receives over 50% of the vote.

Under this system the least preferred candidate would never be elected and the elected candidate would always be acceptable to the majority of voters.

This would allow voters to vote for their first choice knowing that if their first choice was not amongst the top vote recipients their vote would be transferred to their second choice and not become a de facto vote for the candidate they least liked. Strategic voting would be eliminated and all candidates would know how much real first ballot support they had and candidates would not be penalized because the media tells everyone they do not have a chance.

This type of system, of course, would not just work in municipal elections. Indeed, this is the type of system that the United Kingdom is going to hold a referendum on.

Using such a system in Ontario municipal elections would be an excellent place for us to start. While it is likely too late to introduce in this years election it may very well not be too late to add a question to the ballot in the November election to find out what voters think of the system.

Prorogation - The Best Thing Stephen Harper Ever Did for Canadian Democracy

If you believe that Stephen Harper's prorogations are part of the normal Parliamentary process then read this.

If you believe nobody cares then go here (over 200,000 members and counting).

So why is prorogation the best thing Stephen Harper ever did for Canadian democracy.

Because he may have finally awakened the Canadian public to the role of Parliament and the fact that our Parliamentary democracy is based on the concept of Parliamentary supremacy and the requirement for the government to have the support and confidence of the House of Commons to govern legitimately.

Pierre Trudeau is reported (July 25, 1969) to have said that Members of Parliament are nobodies when they are off Parliament Hill. Stephen Harper seems to believe that they are nobodies when they are sitting in the House of Commons.

In December 2008 Stephen Harper suspended Canadian democracy and through a clever PR campaign managed to convince the Canadian people that a government led by the leader of the party with the most seats (but a minority of seats) in the House was more democratic than a party led by a leader who had the support and confidence of a majority of Members of the House of Commons. It was a situation that left those of us that understood how Parliamentary democracy works shaking our heads.

Since then Stephen Harper has continued to treat Parliament as if it does not matter and with his latest attack on Parliamentary democracy the people have finally seen the light.

Let us step back a bit and talk about the concept of prorogation. There is nothing wrong with prorogation in itself, the problem is how Stephen Harper (with the collusion of the Governor General) is using it. Saying the Liberals prorogued in the past is meaningless. Prorogation is a normal part of the Parliamentary process.

The normal scenario is that a government is elected. They set forward their program in a Throne Speech. the House of Commons passes most of their legislative program over a period of 12-24 months. Historically the length of time required has increased from sessions around a year in length to sessions normally about eighteen months to two years in some cases. It really depends on how well a government can manage it's legislative program. The House of Commons is then prorogued and a new session starts with a new Throne Speech within days.

Prorogation has nothing to do with the House not sitting. The House routinely recesses for over two months during the summer but they remain in session so they can easily be recalled to deal with emergencies and matters of public interest. Indeed often a government finishes its legislative program at the summer break, but they do not prorogue, they return for a day in September or October and prorogue and the new session starts within days.

That is because, up until Stephen Harper (with one exception and he was forced to resign when Parliament resumed), all governments understood that prorogation was not intended to be used to shut down Parliament. That is because, up until Stephen Harper, Canadian governments understood and respected the concept of Parliamentary supremacy. They actually understood and respected the system of Parliamentary government.

Unfortunately, under the current government, we have a Prime Minister, and may I add a Queen's Representative, who do not respect the principle that when there is a conflict between the House of Commons and the Prime Minister, the House of Commons must prevail. Stephen Harper thinks that when that happens Parliament should be shut down.

Fortunately, the people have finally seen the light and my hope is that Stephen Harper's attempt to take their democracy away from them will get them thinking more about the Canadian democratic process.

For Parliamentary democracy to be truly democratic the House of Commons should reflect how Canadians voted. While there are many factors that go into how people vote, including the individual candidates qualifications, abilities and values, the biggest factors are the policies, programs and philosophies of the parties running in the election. The representation in the House of Commons should reflect these factors. For Parliament to be truly democratic the percentage of seats each party receives should reflect the number of votes each party receives, normally referred to as the popular vote.

Our current single member constituency "first past the post" system does not do this.

However there is a system called Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) that allows voters to not only vote for the local Member of Parliament of their choice but also elect a House of Commons whose membership reflects the percentage of votes each party receives in the election.

Indeed, the main criticism of MMP is that we will not get majority governments unless the voters give one party a majority of the votes. That is right, under MMP if voters vote for a minority or coalition government they will get a minority or coalition government. That is the main criticism of MMP - that voters will get what they vote for. That seems to be a rather strange criticism of a democratic process.

It is time to shut down Stephen Harper and it is time to reform our electoral process. It is time for the people to speak.

Statement of Democratic Principles

With an election looming the Fifth Column calls on all federal political parties and party leaders to adopt the following:

Statement of Democratic Principles

The Canadian people have the right to elect Members of Parliament of their choosing and the House of Commons of their choice.

The House of Commons elected by the Canadian people has the right to govern.

A government that has the support and confidence of a majority of the Members of the House of Commons is legitimate, and indeed a government requires the confidence of a majority of the Members of the House of Commons to be legitimate.

The letter and spirit of fixed election date legislation must be respected and that an early election should only be held when it is not possible to form a government that has the confidence of a majority of the House of Commons.

And further, that party representation in the House of Commons should reflect the popular vote and that a process should begin immediately following the election to amend the electoral process to ensure that.

Finally, we all pledge to inform the Governor General that we have adopted and support this Declaration of Democratic Principles.

As The Fifth Column is a small player in the blogosphere, if any of the larger players want to promote this please feel free to take the ball and run with it.

Today We Give Thanks

On this election eve Thanksgiving Day we can give thanks for living in a democracy and having the right to vote.

Perhaps some day we will be able to elect a House of Commons that represents the wishes of Canadian voters and reflects how they voted.

For more information on Canada's antiquated electoral system see Fair Vote Canada.

I Challenge Jack and Stéphane

If Canadian voters get their way one of you will be the leader of a minority government with the other holding the balance of power. I challenge you both to agree to these three principles before the current election is held.

Electoral Reform

If the voters do get their way and the House of Commons reflects how they voted, it will not be because of our electoral system but in spite of it. I challenge you to, immediately upon election, initiate the process to change the election system so that party representation in the House of Commons reflects the popular vote and to put such a system in place before the next election.

Climate Change

Both of you and your parties believe that tackling climate change is a necessity for both the environmental and economic sustainability of our country and the world, but you have different proposals to do that. I challenge you to find common ground and implement real measures to tackle this problem before the next election.

Poverty

The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Averages mean nothing when looking at our economic progress. What really counts is what is happening to our most disadvantaged. I challenge you to make the elimination of poverty a focus of all government programs and actions.

Why We Need FPTP

As the FPTP supporters would tell us we need FPTP so that candidates are nominated democratically at the local level and not just put on a list by the party leadership.

After all, we wouldn't want something like this happening.

I Don't Want to Blog about The Election

It's the end of Ontario Election Week and what is there to say. No surprises in the election, and that was no surprise. The biggest disappointment being that only about half of eligible voters voted. The other big disappointment being, that even though everyone predicted it, I still believed the people would see beyond the lies and fears and reform the electoral system. But that was not to be. One can only wonder if the predictability of it all had something to do with the low turnout.

The People Have Spoken

The 2007 Ontario election results are in. There will be no analysis in this post as yesterday was the day for the people to speak and today is a day to reflect on it.

Election Results from TVOntario
PARTY.....%Votes...%Seats
Liberal......42..........66
PC............32..........24
NDP..........17...........9
Green.........8...........0

Though these results may look skewed to some of us, the people appear to be quite happy with these kinds of results.

REFERENDUM...%Support
FPTP.......................63
MMP........................37

Be Sure To Vote Today

If you live in Ontario be sure to vote today. You can vote in the Ontario election if you are:

* 18 years of age or older,
* a Canadian citizen, and
* a resident of the electoral district in Ontario

If you are on the voters list you must provide proof of identity to vote.

If you are not on the voters list you can still vote by providing proof of identity and proof of residence.

For more details on these requirements and a list of acceptable identification documents see the Elections Ontario Website.

Be sure to vote in the referendum. It will be the most important vote you cast in this election.

Perhaps the FPTP Supporters Have One Thing Right

One of the biggest arguments of First Past the Post is that it is more efficient than Mixed Member Proportional. Perhaps they are right. With one party able to gain control of the government, while receiving a minority of the seats, the Party Leader and Premier holds great power. By controlling Cabinet and committee appointments and other perks of government he can virtually run the government. With one man in control the government must be more efficient. After all, nobody ever criticized dictatorships for being inefficient, only for being undemocratic.

With Mixed Member Proportional the legislature will reflect the votes of the people. And since the people have varied positions and opinions on the issues and differing priorities one party is unlikely to win majority control of the legislature and one person is unlikely to have control of the government. The parties will have to work together, compromise and develop policies that reflect the will of those that elected them. Indeed with MMP, the legislature, rather than the executive, will govern the province.

The problem with the FPTP supporters position is that it does not go far enough. Why have a legislature at all. Why not just elect a dictator every four years, or for that matter why bother with inefficient elections.

The real problem with the FPTP approach is that it presumes the goal of electoral reform is a more efficient system, when the goal of electoral reform is a more democratic system, which of course, is what MMP provides.


No blog tomorrow as I am taking an extended long weekend.

The Two Faces Of MMP

In our present FPTP system voters theoretically vote for local candidates. Indeed, that is one of the main arguments of the FPTP proponents.

However, we all know that is just theory and that most voters vote on the basis of party without regard for who the local candidates are. They vote for a party's candidate as an indirect way of voting for the party.

MMP will allow voters to vote for the party of their choice directly, rather than indirectly. At the same time it will allow voters to actually consider the local candidates, their background, qualifications and personal positions and vote for them directly without losing their ability to vote for the party of their choice.

This will lead to more interest in the local candidates, more interest in elections and greater voter turnout, and thus greater democracy.

It will also lead to getting more Independent and independent thinking candiates elected.

So why are some people afraid of it.

The Big Lie About MMP

The Big lie about MMP is that candidates on "the list" are somehow selected differently, and less democratically, than local candidates.

Referendum Ontario, the agency responsible for the referendum states:

‘List Members’ are candidates from any registered political party. Before an election each political party prepares an ordered list of candidates they would like considered as ‘List Members’.

These lists, and the way they are created, would be made public well in advance of any election in a Mixed Member Proportional system.

Is this different than the way local candidates are chosen. In fact, according to the Ontario Election Act, local candidates are chosen by the political parties and "endorsed" by the party leaders.

The Ontario Elections Act states:

Ballots

Names of candidates

34. (2) The names of the candidates shall be shown on the ballot in accordance with the following rules:

5. The official name of the registered party that endorses the candidate shall be shown after his or her name if,

i. a statement of endorsement signed by the party leader is filed as described in section 28.1, and

Endorsement by Party Leader

Statement of endorsement

28.1 If a candidate is endorsed by a political party that is registered or has applied for registration with the Chief Electoral Officer under the Election Finances Act, a statement of endorsement signed by the party leader may be filed with the Chief Electoral Officer, on or before the close of nominations. 2007, c. 15, s. 17.

In fact, while most local candidates are selected through party nomination votes, the Party leaders can hand pick candidates, and have done so in the past.

The law (and proposed law) is in fact no different as far as the selection of local and list candidates. It is up to the parties to use democratic selection methods and up to the voters to judge them on the methods they use.

Vote for MMP

While it may not have been my first choice I want to state that I unequivocally support voting for MMP in the Ontario referendum.

After the Citizens Assembly process that we have gone through, if we do not support electoral reform now we may be stuck with the current system forever. On the other hand, because this will be a new system, I believe MMP will be open to fine tuning, such as improving the party list selection process.

It seems that the main criticism of MMP is that we will not get majority governments unless the voters give one party a majority of the votes. That is right, under MMP if voters vote for a minority government they will get a minority government. That is the main criticism of MMP - that voters will get what they vote for. That seems to be a rather strange criticism of a democratic process.

I am voting for MMP because voters will get what they vote for.

My Referendum Quandary

What to do about the referendum. While i believe we need electoral reform I would prefer a preferential ballot system to a proportional representation system, as stated in a previous Fifth Column. My quandary is that if I vote yes in the referendum question and it is approved will it shut the door forever on a preferential ballot system and if I vote no and it fails will the likelihood of electoral reform of any kind be nil.

The answer of course is obvious. Looking at these questions rather than the ballot question itself is the same as strategic voting, which is what I believe to be the biggest problem with the current system. The simple question is whether I prefer the status quo or the proposed alternative. No other questions are on the ballot.

Do We Need Electoral Reform

Is our system of representative government broken. Does it require fixing.

Some will argue that, because the representation of parties in our legislatures does not represent their percentage of support overall within the country or the province, all people and ideas are not being represented. They may have a point, but if we accept that how do we fix it and retain a representative system. Do we want to retain a representative system.

The value of representative government is that our representatives are more than just legislators, they are representatives of communities. We do not just vote for party leaders or parties but for someone to represent our community. Our elected representatives act as our link to government, not just as legislators but as information conduits in both directions, from and to government. Much of a representative’s time is spent in an ombudsman role in what is referred to as “constituency work” and this work involves dealing with the elected government, Cabinet Ministers, as well as with the Public Service.

Most of the proposals for proportional representation involve party lists and two classes of representatives, some representing local communities (constituencies), and some selected overall from the party lists.

Do we want to have two classes of representatives. Do we want to have a system that puts even more emphasis on voting for the party and party leader than the local representative.

Or should we expect someone wanting to get elected to have to convince a majority in their local community to vote for them.

We do have a problem. The problem is what most call “strategic voting”, but what is really “negative voting” - choosing who to vote for based on who you do not want to get elected rather than who you want to get elected. It involves people not voting for their first choice but for the least worse of those they think have the best chance to win. Fear that the “wrong” person will be elected appears to be stronger than the desire that the “right” person be elected.

This practice does more to prevent independents or representatives of newer or “minor” parties from getting elected than the structure of the system itself.

There is a solution. It involves allowing people to vote for their first choice without “losing” their vote and it means all representatives will be elected by over fifty percent of voters in their community.

Voters will vote preferentially for as many candidates as they like. If they only want to vote for one candidate they only indicate a first choice, otherwise they will indicate their choices in order of preference for as many candidates as they choose. Votes will be transferred from candidates receiving the least number of votes to the voters next preference until one candidate receives over fifty percent of the votes.

I predict that such a system would result in a reduction in the imbalance between parties overall popular vote and percentage of elected representatives and will also see an increase in the number of independents elected, something that proportional representation proposals do not address.

In this age of electronic voting it is an idea whose time has come.

As for proportional representation, if we are not prepared to abolish the Senate, it might be an interesting experiment to try with the Senate.