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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

Final Words - Frustrated and Disheartened

Stephen Harper is the schoolyard bully who picks on the smaller kids and when they join together to fight back he cries – that's not fair you're only allowed to fight me one at a time. And the Canadian schoolyard is cheering him on.


Is My Country Gone

In all the years I have watched Canadian politics I have never seen anything like this and I have been watching Canadian politics for fifty years. When I was in high school I had the daily Hansard delivered to my home and read them everyday. After that I earned my degree in Political Science and spent over thirty years working for the House of Commons, reading, analyzing and indexing the House of Commons Debates.

The first election I took an interest in was when I was eight years old cheering for John Diefenbaker. I think I can be forgiven for cheering for a Tory due to my young age, but Diefenbaker captured the imagination of all Canadians. John Diefenbaker was a Parliamentarian and truly a House of Commons man. He must be rolling over in his grave as his successor as Tory leader colludes with the Governor General to overrule the will of the House of Commons.

The last ime I had to write about something like this was almost 40 years ago when Pierre Trudeau suspended the civil liberties of all Canadians. But at least Trudeau had the support of a majority of the House of Commons, with the notable exception of .Tommy Douglas and the New Democratic Party. Today it is Stephen Harper suspending the democratic rights of all Canadians. How ironic that Harper is following in the footsteps of his arch rival.

This is not to say that there are not precedents for what Harper is doing, just not in Canada.

1629 King Charles I in England
1799 Napoleon in France
1913: Victoriano Huerta in Mexico
1933: Adolf Hitler in Germany
1936 Fransisco Franco in Spain
1939: Benito Mussolini in Italy
1973: Augusto Pinochet in Chile
1975 Indira Gandhi in India
1999 Perez Musharaff in Pakistan
2008: Stephen Harper in Canada

Is the Governor General to Blame

I am reluctant to blame Governor General Michaëlle Jean for acceding to Stephen Harper's request for fear of stirring up Republican sentiments and because we do not know what lies Stephen Harper told her or what threats he may have made.

But we do know she has acted in a manner that no representative of the Queen should, by explicitly going against the clearly expressed wishes of a majority of the democratically elected House of Commons. And she did that to allow the government to avoid it's constitutional accountability to the House of Commons, by avoiding a vote of confidence. And she did that on the advice of an illegitimate Prime Minister whom she knew had lost the confidence of the House of Commons.

This must not be allowed to happen again. To deal with the specific prorogation decision the House of Commons Act should be amended to prevent the Prime Minister from requesting a prorogation longer than a week so that prorogation is only used to end a session to allow a government to introduce a new Throne Speech, and not used to shut down Parliament. To deal with the larger issue of the Governor General's constitutional decision making powers, I agree with other bloggers' advice, that this power be delegated to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who is truly independent and knowledgeable and experienced with ruling on matters of constitutional law.

Stephen Harper is to Blame For This Political Crisis

Stephen Harper ignored the fact that he had a majority in his first term and, with the collusion of the Liberals, governed as if he had a majority. Then he broke his own fixed election dates law, with the collusion of the Governor General, to attempt to win a majority. He then failed, attempted to ignore his minority status again, and when the democratically elected majority in the House of Commons calls him on it and is about to defeat him and present a democratically elected alternative coalition government, he shuts down Parliament, again with the collusion of the Governor General.

He engages in a campaign of lies, that even CBC commentators have to inform their viewers of the truth every time he speaks. He goes as far as to question the legitimacy of democratically elected Members of Parliament from Quebec and uses rhetoric best designed to create a national unity crisis. Indeed he uses rhetoric that experts and commentators believe will increase support for the Part Québecois in the Quebec election.

And for this his public support increases. And I cry for my Canada.

Stephen Harper's Lies and the Truth About Parliamentary Democracy and the Coalition

Stephen Harper would like to believe that he was elected all powerful President of Canada and he would like us to believe that somehow the people of Canada voted for him to be Prime Minister. The only people who voted for Stephen Harper where the residents of Calgary Southwest. The rest of us voted for individual Members of Parliament just as the residents of Calgary Southwest did.

Yes, we voted knowing that if the Conservative Party won a majority of seats Stephen Harper would become Prime Minister and if the Conservatives won the most seats but not a majority, he would be given the first opportunity to form a government and seek the confidence of the House of Commons.

But the most basic principle of Parliamentary Democracy is that the government is responsible to the legislature and can only govern while it retains the confidence of the legislature. The normal constitutional practice when a government loses the confidence of the legislature depends on how long the government has been in power. If it is late in the term of the government an election is usually called. If it is early in the term of the government the opposition is usually given an opportunity to form a government and seek the confidence of the legislature.

Stephen Harper and his Tory talking points repeat over and over again the lie that the Bloc Québecois is part of the Progressive Coalition. That is a blatant lie. The coalition is made up of the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party. As to the claim that the Bloc Québecois has a veto over coalition policies. That is also an outright lie. The Bloc is committed to voting with the coalition on all matters of confidence. While it does reserve the right to vote against the coalition on other issues it would require the support of the Tories for them to block any coalition legislation. The only way the Bloc could block any coalition legislation is with the “collusion” of the Tories. And Tories never vote with separatists. Well unless it is to get their budget passed.

The Conservatives argue that we should not change Prime Ministers without an election. That might be true if we elected Prime Ministers, but we do not. Take the case of Kim Campbell who became Prime Minister between elections. On June 13, 1993, Kim Campbell was elected leader of the Progressive Conservative Party. As the leader of the party in power in the House of Commons, Kim Campbell automatically became Prime Minister. That is how Parliamentary Democracy works.

The Conservatives argue that only the party with the most seats should be allowed to form a government. What would they say if the seats won by the four federalist parties were more evenly divided leading to the Bloc Québecois having the most seats. Would Stephen Harper and the Tories argue that the federalist parties should not be allowed to form a coalition. I think not.

Where Do We Go From Here

The Tories talking points are reminiscent of their policy approach of simple solutions to complicated questions – inflamed rhetoric and outright lies instead of fact and logic. Add a massive establishment media propaganda campaign to the mix and a large number of people are falling for it.

But Harper may have outsmarted himself. His campaign may be at its peak the day before the scheduled non-confidence vote would have taken place. Though Harper is hoping the “time-out” will give the Progressive Coalition time to fall apart, I believe he misjudges the coalition. It looks like prorogation will actually give the coalition time to replace Stéphane Dion, who, while he may be a competent leader, is clearly a poor communicator. And more importantly it will give the coalition time to educate the public about the real threat to democracy posed by Stephen Harper and his actions.

As to the replacement of Dion as Progressive Coalition leader, there is a way to avoid circumventing the democratic Liberal Party leadership process. Let the coalition caucus select a leader for the coalition. It need not be either coalition party leader, or it may turn out to be one of them. The chosen coalition leader could serve till the coalition government ends, or be revisited after the Liberals select a new leader.

What we have learned most from this crisis is that Stephen Harper will do anything to cling to power and anything to stop the democratically elected Progressive Coalition from taking power.

The bully must not be rewarded. The coalition must not allow the Conservative government to continue with Harper as Prime Minister. The only way the Conservative government should be allowed to continue is if they replace Harper as Prime Minister and present a budget that meets the real needs of the Canadian people.

If that does not happen and the government is defeated Harper will then undoubtedly request a new election, and if the Governor General accedes to the request of her illegitimate Prime Minister, who lacks the confidence of the House of Commons, we will be into an election campaign.

If that happens I would propose an electoral accord between the Progressive Coalition partners, The Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party, as well as the Green Party. The Bloc Québecois would not be part of this electoral accord because it is important that Quebeckers have a federalist alternative to the Tories. The Electoral Accord partners would run the candidate best able to defeat the Conservative candidate in each constituency based on historical and other factors agreeable to all parties.

Proportional Representation is the Real Solution

But the real long term solution to to Canada's electoral problems is to adopt an electoral process that allows every vote to count and elects a House of Commons that truly represents the will of the Canadian people. If such a system had been in place during the last election we would now have a ”coalition we deserved”, where the seats held by each party would have reflected their portion of the popular vote. Such a system would give us a government that most of the public are demanding now, one where the House of Commons must work together for the good of all Canadians.

Postscript

The irony of all ironies would be if the Conservative budget was opposed by the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party but passed with the support of the Bloc Québecois. Would Stephen Harper resign because a government requiring the support of the evil separatists is illegitimate. I think not.

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.

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.