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.

 

COVID-19 Pandemic Reflections and The Next Pandemic

Well the pandemic is over, at least according to most governments, science and medicine not so much. So now it is time to look back, and to look forward.

Perhaps my biggest reflection is that governments, at least in Canada, did not receive the rational criticism for their failures that they should have. The media was intent on concentrating on the irrational response of the anti-science, anti-public health, anti-vaxer crew who were co-opted by the far right white supremacist convoy types in Canada. The left, on the other hand, felt so strongly the need to defend the principle of governments acting to protect Canadians from this deadly pandemic that they failed to properly criticize governments failures in doing so. Not that there was no rational criticism, but what there was was overwhelmed by the Freedumb Convoy Shitshow.

The biggest failure was in not being prepared, even though scientists and public health officials had predicted that pandemics would be commonplace in the future, along with not following the precautionary principle and treating it as airborne until that could be completely ruled out.

But the most egregious, and I would say unforgivable decision, was to not utilize the front line of our health care system, but rather shutting down the vast majority of family physicians’ offices pushing an even greater workload onto the overwhelmed hospital system. This was either complete negligence on the part of the health care system or a clear indication we don’t actually have a health care system but just a bunch of disconnected parts.

As far as messaging goes, we had the use of the language “social distancing” rather than “physical distancing” at a time when maintaining social connections was critical to people’s mental health. Along with that error in messaging was the message to stay inside, rather than stay away from other people, at a time when getting outdoors (with appropriate precautions) could be critical people’s mental health.

However, in the long run, if only coincidental, there is some truth to the arguments for “no more lockdowns” and “we have to learn to live with the pandemic”.

If and when pandemics become a normal part of our reality we will indeed have to learn to live with them and it will not be sustainable to completely shut down our economy and society everytime they occur. Shutdowns or lockdowns, whatever you want to call them, will have to only occur rarely and for short periods when necessary to get an initial grasp of what is happening. And they will of necessity have to be political decisions.

But living with pandemics does not mean ignoring them. It means taking necessary precautions, such as physical distancing, masking with high quality masks, extensive vaccination programs, and, at times, restricting the highest risk activities such as large indoor gatherings of people packed closely together for long periods, methods that have been proven to work and reduce the incidence and seriousness of the outbreaks and most of all save lives.

But most importantly it means being prepared beforehand.

The first step in being prepared is having a primary care system where everyone has access to a primary care physician. In Ontario everyone does not have access to a primary care physician so we urgently need to drain more family doctors, fast track the approval of foreign trained doctors to work in Ontario and increase immigration and training of doctors from abroad, along with increasing the number of nurse practitioners available. And, of course, not shutting the primary care system down during a public health emergency.

We also need to have a hospital system that is not running at over 100% of capacity during the best of times. How do we build in excess capacity without it being inefficient. By using that excess capacity. As it is now so-called elective surgery is ridiculously backlogged. But this elective surgery is not elective at all. What we call elective surgery is surgery for non-life threatening conditions. Knee and hip replacements, eye surgery and many other so called elective surgeries may not be life saving but they certainly can be life changing for many patients for whom they make life worth living again. We can then, in the case of a public health emergency, divert that capacity to save more lives during a future pandemic. Purpose built publicly funded and operated specialty clinics can be part of that solution, and can be used to treat pandemic patients separate from hospitals, reducing the risk of infecting patients in the general hospital population.

And, though it need not be said, when the problem is the lack of doctors and nurses adding profit into the system is not going to solve the problem, only add unnecessary costs.

It also should not have to be said that the lives of vulnerable elderly persons should not be routinely sacrificed to ensure the profit margins of private long-term care facilities, creating a situation where those needless deaths increase exponentially during a pandemic. Being prepared for future pandemics requires that all health care should be publicly funded and operated. Private profit has no place in health care because that profit always has to come at the expense of patient care.

The other need for preparedness is economic. During the COVID pandemic the government scrambled to implement makeshift assistance programs for those economically impacted by the pandemic, and though it helped many it was a very messy solution. What we need is a permanent solution that will not only deal with public health emergencies but also with the economic disruptions of a transition from a fossil fuels based economy to a sustainable energy based economy. What we need is a guaranteed basic income along with a fair progressive taxation system.

There is no justification for not being prepared for the next pandemic.

Left, Right or Centre – Explainer

In today’s age of populism, with ideology apparently dead, how do you now if you are on the left or right or in the centre. There are indeed some basic philosophical positions that determine if you are on the right, left or in the centre.

If you are on the right you believe in individualism and the free market. Individualism rules supreme and there is no such thing as collective rights. You believe in the mantras that “acting in your own self interest is in the best interests of society” and “what is good for General Motors is good for America”.

You believe that almost everything, except perhaps policing and the military, is done best by the private sector and that the profit motive is the best motivator of people. Competition is the best way to provide progress and create wealth.

You believe in inequality because that is the best way to reward intelligence, talent and hard work. The poor are poor because they do not work hard enough.

You believe in small government whose role is essentially to protect private property rights. You think of taxes as something an outside entity (the government) takes from you, you may even refer to it as stealing. You may also believe in unfettered free speech.

If you are on the left you believe in community. You believe that individuals are not completely fulfilled unless they are part of a community. You believe in co-operation and working together for the common good. You care for others and believe everyone deserves respect and human dignity.

You believe everyone deserves a decent life and all work should receive a living wage with employment benefits, especially decent pensions. You believe the level of inequality in our society is immoral and billionaires should not exist.

You believe government exists to serve the common good by providing public services efficiently and reducing economic inequality in society. You believe taxes are how we collectively spend our money for the common good.

You may even believe that we have a responsibility to contribute to society according to our ability and society has a responsibility to provide for our basic needs, including food, clothing, housing, education and health care.

Those of you who claim to be in the centre are probably actually on the right but you believe government has a role in reducing the worst aspects of capitalism and providing a social safety net for the victims of capitalist excesses.

Much Ado About Truckers and Building a Canadian White Supremacist Fascist Movement

So what is going on with the truckers. They are calling it a protest. But it is not like any protest I have ever been involved in.

Protests are designed to attempt to make change. While they may be aimed at getting governments to change their policies, gaining public support to pressure government is always an aim of legitimate protests. To get the public’s attention of course you need to get he media’s attention and that usually is done by means of a large protest or some form of disruption.

The truckers are in an excellent position to do that. Large transport trucks take up a lot of space, one truck can taker the space of 100 marching protesters, so they can easily make a protest appear to be larger than it actually is. And trucks can be disruptive. You want attention, block the streets and clog traffic. So do that for a day or weekend and you have the media’s attention and you can get your point across.

Of course the truckers argument against the government protecting the health of it’s citizens is a hard sell to the general public.

So while you might need some disruption to get peoples attention you do not want to alienate the public whose support you are trying to gain.

So blasting neighbourhoods with noise, shitting on peoples lawns, attacking them as they go about their daily business and otherwise harassing and terrorizing them is not what a protest is about. Neither is openly displaying signs and symbols of hate a tactic used to gain the general public’s support. That is aimed at a much smaller target audience.

So what is going on. This is clearly not aimed at gaining public support. Nobody thinks they are that stupid. Something else is going on here.

We have bullies using tactics that appeal to other bullies. I believe it is clear that this is a recruiting move aimed at the worst elements of our society, bringing them together to form some sort of comradeship and solidarity. And one cannot discount the usefulness of this as a dry run for something even more nefarious than terrorizing citizens, but a rehearsal for actual insurrection.

Any actual truckers involved are just being duped and used as pawns in something very dangerous. What we are seeing is just one component of the building of a white supremacist fascist movement in Canada aimed at destroying the very fabric of our society.

Intuitive Lessons from The Pandemic – A Fantasy

This post is not based on comprehensive research or particular expertise on my part. Rather it is more what we would have called “common sense” before Mike Harris completely destroyed the meaning of the phrase.

We start off with the most obvious. We need a public health care system that is not overloaded to begin with. We can solve two problems here, provide pandemic readiness and provide timely life enhancing health care. We currently provide timely care for life threatening situations like cancer, heart surgery and emergency trauma but have created an artificial class of so called “elective surgery” we consider to be of lesser importance. This includes things like hip and knee surgery and replacements and many other types of health care that are necessary to allow people to live fulfilling lives. Health care is much more than preventing premature deaths. If we provided the necessary resources to provide all necessary health care without unreasonable wait times we would have the capacity to deal with a pandemic without putting peoples lives at risk.

Equally obvious is the need to bring long term care into the public health care system. Before the pandemic the horror stories of private long term care were well known even if the body counts were not as inexcusable as they became with the pandemic meeting the profit motive.

And still looking at the health care system, why did doctors offices shut down or become virtual during the pandemic when they should have been part of the response to it. Family physicians provide the first source of diagnosis for many serious illnesses like heart disease and cancer where early detection can be a matter of life and death. The system may respond quickly when these diseases are diagnosed but it does not respond at all when they are not detected. And why was the network of family physicians not used for pandemic testing and vaccinations.

And what of government policies. The big thing we got right was vaccines. In comparison to some jurisdictions to the south of us, all jurisdictions understand the importance and effectiveness of vaccines. The federal government did an admirable job of making vaccines available to the provinces and the provinces did a decent job in administering them. The main things Ontario could have done better was utilizing doctors offices and the school system to more efficiently get vaccines to the public.

As to the timely and appropriate response to the threat that is where we could have done better. We knew it was coming but we didn’t know what it would be like so it was a learning process. There is lots to criticize in hindsight but more importantly is learning going forward.

The biggest lesson was that internationally jurisdictions that put public health first and took strong, even drastic, measures quickly were able to get out of it faster than those that took half measures being more concerned with protecting the so-called economy than the public’s health. Having a provincial leader that considered himself a “businessman first” and by implication a Premier second did not help. We are still stumbling through in Ontario.

What is saving us is our sense of community. This works on two levels. On the personal level, it means in our personal behaviour, such as distancing, mask wearing and getting vaccinated, we base our decisions not just on what will keep us safe but also on what will keep our neighbours safe. This has made the big difference on how Canada has fared, compared to the United States, who arguably had better resources available to fight the pandemic.

The other level is the collective level, our collective actions taken together through our governments.

Here we are talking about three levels of government, federal, provincial and local, sometimes with differing philosophies and priorities. We really need to find a way to make federalism work better in these sorts of, not just national but international emergencies, climate change being another example.

If the pandemic has shown us anything is that individual action cannot replace collective action, and some things are just done better by acting collectively rather than acting individually. This is where we need to do better, particularly by strengthening our health care system and providing social supports. We are not financially prepared for the next pandemic because the political parties in power have chosen to go down the populist road of under-taxation thinking that would buy them votes. This is perhaps the most disastrous public policy position of the last half century.

Fortunately, because of that trend, there is substantial room to increase taxes to fill the void, particularly on that portion of the population that are excessively wealthy and under-taxed. This is a group in society that actually stands to gain more from collective spending by government than they can from individual spending by themselves. There is only so much you can spend on a wealthy lifestyle and the benefits of a better society far outweigh the benefits of people who have everything buying more everything for themselves.

We can be better prepared next time, and there will be a next time, but only if we choose to.

And the fantasy part – the belief that those in power will actually choose to learn these lessons and implement the necessary measures.

Quebec’s Bill 21 Has It All Wrong

I am writing this, not because Quebec’s “An Act respecting the laicity of the State”, commonly referred to as Bill 21, goes against Canadian values and violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which it does, but because it’s provisions will not achieve it’s supposed purpose of a secular state and civil society.

As an atheist I support secular public institutions. That means government and public institutions should be religiously neutral. The institutions should not favour one religion and include religious symbols, like crucifixes in the National Assembly or government buildings, hospitals or schools named after saints or popes. It does not meaning everyone working in the public sector needs to be an atheist.

Quebec has historically been a Roman Catholic Christian society. That historical majority, with or without individual symbolism, will see itself within government and public institutions. For public institutions, like schools, to be truly religiously neutral they must reflect all of Quebec society and it’s people of various religions. That inclusiveness and diversity, like justice, must not just exist but must be seen to exist. Quebec’s Bill 21 has it backwards.

Ban Campaign Promises and other Electoral Rants

Campaign promises. What are they good for. Absolutely nothing.

I wish we could get rid of campaign promises. If you are in government then a campaign promise is just something you think you should have done that you did not do. Maybe it is best not to remind the voters of that, especially if you have made the same promise election after election without delivering. Governing parties should run on their records.

If you are in opposition then campaign promises are wishful thinking. Once elected into government you might discover just how difficult implementing them might be, or worse yet that they really are a bad idea. Nothing politically good can come from breaking promises even when it is the right thing to do.

But the main thing about campaign promises is that they have become part of what has become elections as marketing and voting as shopping where the best candidate doesn’t win but the best marketing campaign does.

Sometimes I think would be better of without election campaigns. Just have all the candidates write essays (no ghost writing allowed) about the type of Canada they want and what they believe to be the best way to achieve that.

After all is not the idea of representative government to elect representatives we trust to take the time to study the issues and develop the best solutions to make the country a better place.

How well are we served by a process where all Members of Parliament do is vote the party line and implement predetermined polices rather than working together to develop the best policies for the country.

I actually remember a time when local all candidates debates mattered. How well served are we by election campaigns where the only people that count are the party leaders, and constitutional niceties aside, voters act is if they are voting for a President, not Members of Parliament.

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).

What Are Cyclists Lives Worth

While I cannot answer that question I can tell you what our society and its governments have decided cyclists lives are not worth.

Cyclists lives are not worth the cost of installing truck side guards on all large trucks.

Cyclists lives are not worth the cost of developing and installing better mirror or camera monitoring systems for large trucks and all motor vehicles.

Cyclists lives are not worth the cost of designing and building roads that do not place cyclists in the path of other vehicles such as big trucks and then directs those vehicles into the cyclists.

Cyclists lives are not worth the cost of infrastructure that separates cyclists from motor vehicle traffic where appropriate such as on the most dangerous routes.

Cyclists lives are not worth the political will to require drivers, especially truck drivers, to have a legal responsibility to be able to see where their vehicle is going (and who they may be driving into and running over) before they go there.

And most importantly cyclists lives are not worth the elimination of the get out of jail free card that drivers that kill cyclists get for simply saying they didn't see the cyclist.

So what are are cyclists lives worth.

Note: this post does not refer to any specific incident.

The Teachers Dilemma

Nobody wants to give in to a bully. Indeed teachers teach students not to give in to bullies and teachers are expected to be role models and teach by example.

So the teachers, when the bully took away their collective bargaining rights with draconian legislation that took away their right to strike, used the only legal avenue they had to fight back against the bully and refused voluntary activities.

They knew the government had pushed them into a corner so that their only legal way of fighting back would impact students and keep them from doing things they loved to do. I am sure they were looking individually and collectively for a way to bring things back to normal for their students while still taking a stand against the bully government.

When they found another way to make a last stand against the government with minimal impact on students, Dalton McGuinty said no that is illegal, the only protests we will allow you to undertake are ones that harm your students.

So what next.

Teachers Political Protest Not a Strike and Not Illegal

First of all it is not a strike because it is not part of the collective bargaining process because with a government imposed contract, imposed under a draconian law whose constitutionality is under challenge, there is no collective bargaining process. Secondly the political protest is aimed at the government as policy maker and legislator, not as employer.

It is not illegal because political protests are not illegal in Canada, even if Stephen Harper and Dalton McGuinty wish they were.

Not that the teachers are completely free of consequences. For one they will not be paid for the day, and secondly their contract provisions may provide for discipline for absences not approved by the employer. But any such action will be subject to the grievance and appeal provisions of their contracts. That being said the usual discipline by employers for such absences is suspension from work without pay. So theoretically the school boards could force the teachers to take time off work without pay as punishment for taking time off work without pay. Sort of like suspending students for truancy.

The biggest irony, or perhaps more appropriately described as hypocrisy, is that Dalton McGuinty has his knickers in a knot over teachers taking a day off without pay to protest a process that has imposed a contract on them that requires them to take days off without pay.

Rant For Canada

Are You Voting For Canada

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.

Thank You David Warren

I was beginning to worry about the Pope but you have assured me that the Pope has not gone over to the dark side - he has not forsaken god and embraced science nor has he accepted the evil that is sexual equality. Nor should I worry that the Pope thinks governments have an environmental responsibility because that would be "socialist materialism" and a "statist solution", which as you state, the Pope rejects.

I am not sure what "statist solutions" are but I can only assume that they are government actions like holding child molesters accountable and punishing them for their sins crimes. After all who are we to judge - that is for god to do after they die. Oh, but I forgot, if they accept Jesus as their saviour all is forgiven after they die.

But then again, this all assumes that you, David Warren, have a clue and some sense of reality outside of your own sheltered extreme right wing existence.

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.

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.