Canadians must have final say on electoral reform, not political parties
By Peter Ewart
The Trudeau Liberals have announced that the adoption of a new electoral voting system will be decided by the parties in Parliament, rather than a public, nation-wide referendum by voters.
In essence, this means that the political party with the majority of seats in Parliament, the Liberals, will make the decision. To drill down even more, given the dysfunctional nature of Parliament, it will mean that the swollen Prime Minister’s office, a legacy of past Conservative and Liberal regimes, will likely have the final say.
Although the Liberal government promises to consult with Canadians about any change to the voting system, the reality is that Canadian voters of all political persuasions will be left out in the cold with no actual decision-making role. Instead, there will be a fight between all the current parties in Parliament, with each clamoring for its own pet voting system. Given positions expressed so far, the Liberal Party will likely favour an “Alternative Vote“ system, which would hand it an even bigger majority of the seats; the Conservative Party will go for the current First-Past-the-Post system which favours it; and the NDP, Bloc and Greens for some kind of Proportional Representation which is to their advantage.
There is something unseemly and unsavory about this entire imbroglio in which all of the parties in Parliament are proceeding from their own partisan interests, rather than the interests of the voters and the country as a whole. The result, far from improving the democratic process, promises to foster more hyper-partisanship and division, as well as a more dysfunctional parliament.
For their part, the Trudeau Liberals are caught in an enormous contradiction. They claim they want to improve the democratic process and that Canadians are “deeply frustrated” with the current flawed, First-Past-the-Post system. Under this system, the Liberals received 39.6% of the popular vote, yet were awarded a large majority of seats in Parliament. And a similar imbalance existed with the previous Conservative government. Yet, the Liberals want to use this very flaw (which has resulted in them getting a majority of seats) to push through a significant voting system change that could favour them even more. It reeks of hypocrisy.
Now, strong arguments can be made for changing our voting system or for renewing the entire democratic process itself, given the longstanding problems. However, any such changes should proceed from democratic principles that empower the Canadian people as a whole. In a genuine democracy, the people of the country have sovereignty – all power flows from them. Any proposed changing of the voting system, or the Constitution for that matter, should proceed from that principle. It follows that there must be a democratic process structured so that it is the hands of the people, and that they constitute the final and supreme decision-makers.
Various Opposition parties and media pundits are calling for a referendum. Yes, there should be one. However, they leave out a crucial element. To be truly democratic, there should be a process independent of any of the political parties.
Political parties are private organizations with partisan interests. We need a public process, whereby a non-partisan assembly of citizens – either elected or randomly-selected – deliberates on which voting system is the best, educates and involves Canadians in discussion, and formulates a ballot question. Only then should a referendum proceed in which it is the Canadian people who make the final decision. In that regard, the BC Citizens’ Assembly is one example.
However, the fact that the Trudeau Liberals are putting the entire process in the hands of an all-party parliamentary committee, and have ruled out any public referendum, exposes an even deeper flaw in the Canadian political process. When it comes down to the crunch, sovereignty is not truly vested in the people, but rather the political parties in Parliament, especially the one which happens to command the majority of seats.
In Medieval times, kings and queens ruled and held sovereign power. Today, in Canada, it seems we have a parliamentary prince and his political party.
Peter Ewart is a columnist and writer based in Prince George, British Columbia. He can be reached at: peter.ewart@shaw.ca
Comments
“In essence, this means that the political party with the majority of seats in Parliament, the Liberals, will make the decision.”
In essence.. really… as for the party in power making decisions.. it has always happened that way.. thats why there is TPP and the muting of scientists, 170 billion added to our debt by the previous government.
“Although the Liberal government promises to consult with Canadians about any change to the voting system, the reality is that Canadian voters of all political persuasions will be left out in the cold with no actual decision-making role.”
When has consulting ever meant be part of the decision making.. its for information gathering to assist with the decision making.. poor writing.
“that could favour them even more. ” or is couldnt.. you dont pay this guy for his reporting I hope..
I see why they call this a story.. thats all it is.. actually is should be call Ewarts fables.
BTW the canadian voters played a HUGE roll in the decision making..they decided to send the Cons packing and the Libs in power..
Exactly! Once the NDP wins a majority in Ottawa it can change the election method to its liking! Count on the Cons to do likewise! Even with a referendum there will be the usual objectors (sore losers) who will predictably cry foul! To please all the people all of the time is totally contrary to human nature!
So Trudeau thinks it’s undemocratic for a party to win with less than 40% of the vote, and thus it’s majority and it’s legislation is not valid.
But then he’s using that very same invalid majority power to change the voting system? According to him, he shouldn’t be allowed to do that!
He justifies not holding a referendum by saying his victory under the very system he so abhors was Canadians voting in support of his reform???
Here’s the thing, since less than 40% of Canadians voted for you, that leaves more than 60% who DON’T agree with your reform proposals.
Not to mention, your campaign promise was to get rid of FPTP. You didnt say what you would replace it with. Don’t you think we deserve a say in that? Not just “consultation” but an actual say?
Because, it’s 2015.
Here’s the thing, since less than 40% of Canadians voted for you, that leaves more than 60% who DON’T agree with your reform proposals. WRONG ! The greens platform had Proportional representation . So did the NDP . So 70 % voted for the change . Get over it .
Actually Dirtman it was over %60 that thought anyone was better than harper..
You do know Harper lost dont you ?
But he actually won… we will be paying him till he dies, along with full medical and dental.. and he will be gouging us for over $500,000 a year once he retires.. thats criminal.
Obviously the Liberals won an outright majority in Parliament. Canadians who bothered to take an interest in the election by actually voting and voting their preference have spoken. Now let’s get on with implementing what was promised!
What, the shiny pony is just an self absorbed ordinary politician, noooooooooooo it can’t be so!!!!!!
That observation will cause sticky keyboards from spit up coffee all over this land.
So quick to judge seamutt. :)
Posted on Tuesday, December 29, 2015 @ 9:34 AM by P Val
Actually Dirtman it was over %60 that thought anyone was better than harper..
You do know Harper lost dont you ?
But he actually won… we will be paying him till he dies, along with full medical and dental.. and he will be gouging us for over $500,000 a year once he retires.. thats criminal.
====================================================================
Actually P Val, you’re a little bit right but a whole lot wrong.
You’re correct that over 60% voted against Harper, but they did that in the last election too and he won a majority. And voting against Harper doesn’t translate into approval of a change to an unknown voting system.
Where you’re really, really wrong is on the pension issue. Under the old formula he would have received a Prime Minister pension of $104,102 when he turns 65 in 2024. Under Harper’s formula, that has been cut to a mere $47,319, less than half! On top of that he pushed back the age at which he can start to collect. He won’t be hurting, he’ll still collect his MP pension in addition to the PM pension for a total of $180,476 starting at age 67. If he lives to age 80 that means his changes will have cost him personally $2.1 million.
This information came from the Globe & Mail, Oct. 19, 2012.
Posted on Tuesday, December 29, 2015 @ 9:30 AM by Ataloss
The greens platform had Proportional representation . So did the NDP . So 70 % voted for the change .
==============================================================
They voted for a change of government. The Liberal platform did not specify prop rep. You might recall that although a majority of BC voters voted against the BC Liberals they got a majority. After they were elected they held a referendum on changing the voting system, and the majority voted against it, thereby clearly demonstrating that voting for a change of government does not equal voting for a change of the voting system. Get real.
P Val, weren’t you a supporter of Peter Ewart’s columns, back in the days when he picked on Stephen Harper and the Conservatives?
Now that Peter is picking on our “parliamentary prince and his political party” you refer to his column as “Ewart’s fables”?
What’s up with that?
Can someone please explain why any voting system will favour one party over another.
The current voting system has elected several different parties in the country as well as provinces. What is important is the layout of the ridings.
This topic is a non issue which just provides everyone another opportunity for partisan venting.
P Val is still in anti Harper mode.
If anyone really wanted to look at Trudeau’s so called campaign promises they would come up with very little, as it is primarily rescinding a lot of the Conservative legislation.
So we could say that Trudeau and his minions don’t have a platform other than like (P Val) an anti Harper bent. While this may have got them elected it will not keep them in power. They need to come up with more than **selfies** and photo ops. After all they do have a Country to run.
If we use the refugee’s situation as an example we see very quickly that this Prime Minister, and those in his Cabinet haven’t got a clue.
First we were going to have 25000 refugee’s in Canada by years end. This was then changed to 10,000 by years end, and then changed again to sometime in February, and of course it will change again.
Everyone in Canada including a lot of Liberals knew that getting 25000 refugee’s here by years end, was not possible. The only people who didn’t know were Trudeau, and Macallum. So this should give you an immediate insight to the intelligent level of our new Prime Minister.
Had Harper made such a stupid statement he would have been torn to pieces by the media. Trudeau on the other hand gets a free ride.
My guess is that the free ride will be over very soon,.
P Val will have a hard time defending this Prime Minister.
Stephen Harper – $5,596,474
Prime Minister Stephen Harper would receive an estimated lifetime pension of $5,456,109 if he were to retire in 2015.
This is from 2015..
hart Guy.. I picked apart a few of ewarts stories before..but of course like any con..you only remember what you want :)
“First we were going to have 25000 refugee’s in Canada by years end. This was then changed to 10,000 by years end, and then changed again to sometime in February, and of course it will change again.” OMG he changed his time frame once he realized the true weight of the refugees.. so many con supporters where saying him wanting them all here by end of year was to fast.. along with many others.. so he slowed down the bringing of them.. Now its he was lying of the time frame.. So he listens to the people..(like a PM should) changes the time frame and now he is not seen as doing what the people asked by the cons and others.. but being called a liar for changing the time frame… lol.. pathetic indeed.
Outlaw all political parties.
So P Val if Trudeau sticks it to us for a few years and thats a big if, he will not collect a pension? Will he just keep living off what his daddy’s daddy brought to the table.
Pick and choose, pick and choose.
I borrowed this about Trudeau, lots of people see the fluff.
“Of the people by the people and for the people, that is your mandate. Look after the taxpayers over here, nevermind the grandstanding behavior, we’re far from being impressed. The economy, the unemployment, the pensions, the Canadian families suffering, our pitiful health system and many other issues require you to focus with the Canadian dilemmas. Stay this side of the border and address our issues at hand. There goes the little twit again experimenting in the world’s lab, navigating in deep waters and the grandiose gestures. Keep it up, soon you’ll be the laughing stock of the world and drag us down with you. Stop your righteousness ego trip, reduce the photo ops and look after your subjects.”
Palopu, not only has JT missed his original target of 25,000 by years end, and not only has he missed his amended target audience of 10,000 by years end, it would now appear that many if not the majority of the 2,400 or so that have been brought in so far are refugees that were already “in the system” under the Harper Government!
I agree with you Hart Guy, its P Val who seems to be looking a Trudeau through rose colored glasses.
He/She cannot seem to come to grips with the fact that this Prime Minister is fast becoming a buffoon. Perhaps P Val thinks that if He/She continues to support him, he will grow up. Somehow I doubt it.
Trudeau was not making any changes because of what the people wanted. He is making changes because his original target was foolish, and his handlers are trying to save face.
Palopu, JT’s new Immigration Idiot, oops I mean Immigration Minister now says that there are delays because the refugees might have personal items that they may want to sell prior to coming to Canada!
John McCallum, what a moron, haha!
Palopu, as for your comment about this Prime Minister fast becoming a buffoon, I’d like to suggest that rather than becoming a buffoon, he is now in fact already a buffoon!
But at least he as nice hair, haha!
Posted on Tuesday, December 29, 2015 @ 1:48 PM by P Val
Prime Minister Stephen Harper would receive an estimated lifetime pension of $5,456,109 if he were to retire in 2015.
This is from 2015..
============================================================
Let’s see, $5,456,109 divided by his yearly pension of $180,476 comes to 30.23 years. So you’re assuming he will live past 97 years of age. Even if he does, it comes to a whole lot less that Jean Cretien is collecting.
Losing an election may have long lasting psychological effects not only on a politician but also on his loyal followers. – Platypus.
It’s not the ‘long lasting psychological’ effects we’re worried about in this instance, Prince George, it’s the long lasting ‘financial’ ones.
Brian Mulroney , Kim Campbell ,Joe Clark , John Turner , Paul Martin , Stevie blunder and now Trudeau . Canadians sure are a generous people . It’s a good thing that they are getting younger and younger . Heck with modern medicine we could see them live to be a couple of hundred years old . I hope they give themselves a COLA clause . We wouldn’t want to see them losing pay through inflation . Hey , joe canada , the jokes on you .
Dirt an is factually incorrect when he says BC voters voted in a majority against the BCSTV process that the BCCitizens Assembly proposed and went to referendum.
In fact a majority did vote in favour of the change. 59% voted in favour of the BCSTV, but the premier Gordon Campbell at the time set the requirement at 60% for implementation and the referendum although a majority did not get 60%…. One percentage short.
I supported the BCSTV as better than what we have as at least then all MLA’s would be required to have the majority support of fifty percent of their constituents. I support clear one member riding with an alternative proportional ballot more because I think rural direct representation by an elected MP with a majority vote is best.
Dirtman. When they calculate a politicians pension they use 80 yrs as the end point. So he will be making $420,000 a year.
I would rather be looking through rose coloured glasses than the ones smeared with crap that Harper had us looking through
So did I eagle . It was so stinky that I thought a recount was in order but hey this is democracy bc style .
Posted on Tuesday, December 29, 2015 @ 10:10 PM by P Val
Dirtman. When they calculate a politicians pension they use 80 yrs as the end point. So he will be making $420,000 a year.
=============================================================
His pension is pegged at $180,476 per year and that’s what he’ll make. Whoever’s calculations you’re using seems not to know this.
Ataloss did you leave out Chretien on purpose.
Comments for this article are closed.