Electoral Reform (Senate, Commons, & Gov Gen)

[RangerRay]

May just wants to be appointed as the next Liberal senator for BC...it's been obvious since she became leader of the Greens.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Several years ago I did a quick and dirty analysis of our first past the post (FPTP) electoral system and concluded that it does, indeed, "reward the winners" and "punish the losers." I wondered if that was, really, a bad thing.

My conclusion was, and remains, that FPTP is not the best system for a liberal democracy, but it is far, far from being the worst either. I also suggested that of all the things wrong with democracy in Canada FPTP should be pretty low on anyone's priority list. But it isn't. There is an idiot fringe in Canada, and the Globe and Mail's Jeffrey Simpson is its spokesman, that doesn't understand democracy or the idea of representation. They are stuck on the (wholly stupid) notion that proportion is more important than representation and they believe, again wholly wrongly, that a majority of Canadians voted against Stephen Harper's CPC. That's simply not true and it betrays an abysmally low level of basic intelligence. It is true that a solid majority of Canadians voted for candidates who were not representing the CPC but no one (except the individuals concerned) knows why Canadians cast their votes the way they did and, in some (many? most?) cases we can (must?) assume that they did, indeed, vote for the NDP or Liberal or Green or independent candidates and not against the CPC.

(dapaterson and I have both expressed a preference for the 'single transferable vote' system which, I believe, can be implemented, well, with a good degree of automation of vote counting and considerable voter education. But it's still a variation of our familiar, tried and true, FPTP system that preserves local representation while improving the notion of proportion.)'

But, Jeffrey Simpson, representing the persists in trying to lead us to the (I repeat: wholly stupid) notion that we, somehow, need PR; here is his nonesense, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/everyone-loves-pr-except-canada/article23511155/

Everyone loves PR (except Canada)

JEFFREY SIMPSON
The Globe and Mail

Published Wednesday, Mar. 18 2015

The election Israel held Tuesday will eventually produce a minority government, because the country’s electoral system always does. Britain’s May 7 election will likely produce a minority government, in spite of a system that is supposed to produce majorities but recently has not.

Canada’s first-past-the-post system is looking increasingly isolated. It’s a system inherited from Britain, but even in that country, the system no longer easily fits with a fractured electorate. It also no longer fits easily in Canada, where three of the last four elections produced minority governments, as might the election scheduled for October.

Throughout Western Europe, proportional representation systems predominate. In New Zealand, first-past-the-post was replaced by a form of PR called multiple member proportional.

In Australia, the Liberals govern in a coalition with their allies in the National Party. Even if an Australian party wins a majority in the House of Representatives, it often faces a Senate controlled by other parties whose members are elected.

PR systems of any kind mean checks and balances, because parties have to negotiate with each other to form a government. This kind of negotiation can lead to stability and consensus, as in Germany with its “Grand Coalition” of Christian Democrats, Social Democrats and the Christian Social Union. Or it can lead to haggling and bargaining of an unseemly nature, which is what will likely occur in Israel in the days and weeks ahead.

In Israel, any party that receives more than 3.5 per cent of the popular vote (the threshold used to be 1 per cent, then 1 1/2 per cent, then 2 1/2 per cent) gets seats in the Knesset. The result is a kind of Mad Hatter politics with political bribes being offered by the larger parties to smaller parties for their support.

The Israeli system invites people to vote narrowly, because that way their party might bargain its way into some power. That’s one downside of PR: People think only of their ethnic or religious group or region or ideology, and not of a bigger national canvas.

It could be, therefore, that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ends up stitching together another coalition with parties representing militant settlers, ultra-Orthodox and far right-wing voters. Or he could be unable to form a government, which would be just deserts for the U.S. Republicans who tried to give his campaign a boost by inviting him to address Congress.

In contrast to many other systems, the Canadian provides very few checks and balances on a prime minister with a majority. The unelected Senate is a wet noodle; the government backbenchers are yes-men; the cabinet members are appointed by the top dog. With a couple of exceptions, none would dare stand up to such a domineering leader and his controlling staff.

It might be argued that previous prime ministers with a majority always got their way. True, but none did so in such a bruising, crushingly partisan, controlling way as the current Prime Minister. All the very worst characteristics of majority government in the first-past-the-post system have been on display daily under Stephen Harper’s Conservatives.

Across the aisle, the New Democrats and Liberals are terrified even to talk to each other about postelection scenarios that might force them to work together to form a government. This kind of discussion would be common in PR systems, but not in Canada.

Worse, because of the amateurish attempt by previous leaders of the Liberals (Stéphane Dion), New Democrats (Jack Layton) and Bloc Québécois (Gilles Duceppe) to unseat Mr. Harper after the 2008 election, any hint of pre-election discussion will be condemned by the Conservatives as anti-democratic plotting. What might be normal in other systems is considered verboten in Canada’s.

Attempts to introduce PR systems to Canada have failed in voter plebiscites in British Columbia and Ontario. Recommendations to adopt PR by commissions in New Brunswick and Quebec went nowhere.

Perhaps the supreme irony of Canada’s ineffectual dalliance with PR is that Mr. Harper himself once favoured proportional representation.

In 1996, the future prime minister and friend Tom Flanagan (they have since fallen out) penned a paper arguing that PR might allow “conservative” forces to get a share of power and therefore nudge forward their agenda.

Those were dark days for Conservatives. After enjoying a majority government since 2011, the status quo seems fine.

The fact, and I contend it is a fact, the the Liberals and NDP are afraid to face the people of Canada, before an election, to say that they would be willing to support one another in a loose ~ or even formal ~ coalition, says more about the Liberal and NDP 'leadership' than it does about electoral politics. Coalitions, formal or not, are legal and proper and valid in our system of government ... I, for example, would welcome a Conservative-Liberal coalition that promised, before the election, to cooperate to give us a stable, socially liberal and fiscally prudent government for the foreseeable future. Some Canadians, maybe even many Canadians (the not so bright ones), would favour a stable Liberal-NDP coalition that promised to be socially liberal and fiscally irresponsible.

PR is unnecessary; it would, in my opinion, actually be a regressive step because it would sacrifice representation of us, Canadians, in our communities, in order to improve proportion ~ the former is infinitely more important than the latter.

There are problems with democracy in Canada ~ we do have a serious problem with equality of representation (and I have banged on about how to fix that, too) and we have a problem with an unelected Senate. Both need attention more than does proportion ... but PR, a problem that doesn't need solving, gives Mr Simpson and the Laurentian Elites a tool to bash Stephen Harper so it is on the agenda, again.

 

[a_majoor]

And while I have fortunatly never lived under a PR system, I have spoken to enough people from places like Italy and Israel who do live under the system, and they uniformly hate it.

Not only do they not really know who is supposedly representing them in thier Parliament, but they are also keenly aware of the (often petty) backroom wheeling and dealing needed to form coalition governments when there is no clear majority (i.e. always). This lack of transparency provides all sorts of opportunities for corruption (think of the back room dealing needed to pass Obamacare among the representatives of one party, then multiply by however many parties have representation in Parliament), and a disconnect between the governors and the governed (voters don't see the connection between their votes and the actions of the parliamentarians who putatively "represent" them, so many effectively "opt out", much like we have low voter turnout for similar reasons, but different causes [tight central control of parliamentarians by party discipline and party whips often has voters at odds with thier MP's, with little recourse for 4 years...]).

So people like Simpson and the rest of the lunatic fringe might want to consider actually speaking to the voters who live under that system, not the enablers, rent seekers and cronies who thrive under it.

 

[TCBF]

- PR brought us Hitler. He could never have been elected without it.

 

[McG]

PR gives more power to the parties at the expense of the voter constituents.  Transferable vote would at least keep the balance of power where it is now between voters and parties.

 

[Kirkhill]

The Black Spider letters of Prince Charles and the role of the new-fangled Supreme Court in Britain has prompted some interesting debate on the powers of the court vice the powers of parliament.

It used to be clear cut in the days of the Law Lords.  Parliament was supreme.  Its laws were the laws of the land until such time as a future parliament changed the laws.  The convention was that no parliament could bind a future parliament.  That served the UK and the Commonwealth for the best part of 300 years.

...This is what happened.

The Blair Government introduced the Freedom of Information Act. Parliament wanted a presumption in favour of releasing government information – that it should be released unless proved that it should not be, rather than the other way round. It gave this power of release to an Information Commissioner, and empowered an Upper Tribunal (a form of court) to adjudicate.
But Parliament also wanted a backstop. There would be some cases where the government of the day would need, in the public interest, to prevent publication. So it granted the power of what is called “executive override”. The relevant Minister could, on clear grounds, say No. This is what the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) says – Section 53(2), to be precise.

Along came The Guardian, full of righteous anger against Prince Charles for what it calls “lobbying” (others might call it concern to right neglected wrongs). It wanted to see some of his confidential letters to Ministers. The departments in question refused, supported by the Information Commissioner. The Guardian appealed. The Upper Tribunal found in its favour. The Attorney-General of the time, Dominic Grieve, thought that the Prince was entitled to write these private letters and had written them trusting that they would stay private. Mr Grieve disagreed with the Tribunal about where the balance of public interest lay. He exercised his statutory power of executive override, to prevent publication.

The Guardian got a judicial review which eventually, via the Court of Appeal, reached the Supreme Court. On 26 March, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury handed down the Court’s leading judgment, in favour of the Guardian. That is why we now know (though actually we knew before) what Prince Charles thinks, and why the Patagonian toothfish has achieved greater public prominence.

Lord Neuberger’s judgment was long, learned and characteristically distinguished. But what it said, in essence, is that it is outrageous for the executive to override a court, and therefore the Act which allowed this override cannot mean what it says.

Well, one is not in favour of Parliament kicking courts about, so perhaps Lord Neuberger is right. But wait a moment. Under our system, Supreme Court judges are permitted to give judgments which dissent from the majority of their fellows. I find that these minority views often contain less judicial self-congratulation and more common sense than the ones that prevail. In this case, two judges, Lord Hughes and Lord Wilson, dissented.

Lord Wilson said this: “…in reaching its decision, the Court of Appeal did not in my view interpret Section 53 of FOIA. It re-wrote it.” Lord Hughes said this: “The rule of law is of the first importance. But it is an integral part of the rule of law that courts give effect to Parliamentary intention. The rule of law is not the same as a rule that courts must always prevail.”

Both men were protesting about what might be called “judicial override”. It is a major problem of our time.
The good news is that lawyers themselves are starting to worry about it. Richard Ekins, an Oxford Professor of Law, directs the new Judicial Power Project at the think-tank, Policy Exchange. He points out that part of the rule of law itself, as traditionally understood in this country, is that the courts “were to be Parliament’s loyal servants”. This did not mean that politicians could interfere with their processes or bark orders at them. It meant that a key duty of the judges was faithfully to give effect to statutes. They were entitled to point out that a statute was poorly drafted, or seemed to contradict another statute. They were not entitled to ignore its meaning because they did not like what it meant. As Lord Hughes says, the key issue is “a matter of the plain words of the statute”.

After all, if judges were entitled to override these plain words, what would be the point of elections? In elections, voters choose who will make laws on their behalf. Out of those chosen, a government is formed. The Ministers of that government propose new laws. If Parliament agrees to them, law is what they become. If the highest court of law then says that they are not laws because they do not show sufficient deference to the greatness of judges, who is servant and who is master? The ultimate logic of this process is to stop electing MPs and start electing judges. I doubt if that is what anyone wants.

For various reasons, many of them understandable, we have lost a lot of faith in the people we elect. Many of them were shown to have spent more time working up their expenses than scrutinising legislation. Governments have become more careless about what laws say. They have more frequently curtailed debate on them, leaving the poor old Lords to do the work.

Above all, by handing over ultimate power to the EU, MPs have half opted out. They have signalled that, though they are happy to maintain their numbers and their salaries, they don’t mind surrendering their unique right to legislate. (It is an interesting sideshow in the Prince of Wales case that some of his letters cannot be protected, whatever British law may say, because some EU environmental directive, waved through by our half-asleep officials 10 years ago, removes all privacy from environmental papers. This European “executive override” of our national rights does not seem to trouble our judges one bit.)

Into this democratic vacuum have stepped the judges. Seeing a vast European space (both EU and the European Court of Human Rights) – indeed, a global adventure playground – they are turning themselves into arbiters of politics, morality, religion (usually against it) and anything else that takes their fancy. The rule of law has become the same in their minds as the rule of lawyers, and it no longer respects tiresome, old-fashioned national boundaries or elected bodies. It denies, for example, the right of our troops, when fighting wars abroad, to take what action they need to win. Not since the medieval princes of the Catholic Church has such a powerful international class had such unanswerable power over us peasants.

It requires considerable intellectual courage for politicians to confront this problem. They are cruder creatures than judges, and have less time. If they get it wrong, they could genuinely interfere with the legitimate independence of the judiciary. Now that Michael Gove has been made Justice Secretary, however, the courage and the brainpower are present.

Unless laws can once again come closer to the people for whom, supposedly, they are made, it will not only be the Prince of Wales who suffers. It will be all of us.

Link

This discussion ties into the wider British debate on withdrawing from the European Convention of Human Rights and from the EU as well.  The UK Government's intent is to promulgate a separate British Bill of Human Rights and to make the British Courts (and British Parliament) free from the EU judiciary.

But it also ties into Canada's situation.  Pierre Trudeau was adamant that he would bind future parliaments to his law by means of the Constitution and the Supreme Court.

For the corporatist the British tradition of Parliamentary Supremacy has always smacked too much of the mob, as I am sure Hans Joerg Schelling would agree.

 

[McG]

Preferential voting will hit Ontario in 2018.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/ontario-to-introduce-ranked-ballots-starting-in-2018-1.2395387

If it is well received in municipal elections, one can hope it is only a matter of time before it gets into provincial and federal levels.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Preferential voting will hit Ontario in 2018.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/ontario-to-introduce-ranked-ballots-starting-in-2018-1.2395387

If it is well received in municipal elections, one can hope it is only a matter of time before it gets into provincial and federal levels.

Cynic that I am (and I'd be GLAD to be wrong), I'm doubtful that a lot of municipalities will take this up (although Toronto looks like it might) only because of the "if it's a system that makes it less likely for me to get back in, it's crap" factor. 

I forsee a similar effort to the Ontario 2007 proportional rep referendum question - offer it up JUST enough to look like you're open to the idea, but don't push it all the way.

 

[McG]

But proportional representation is not good.  It empowers parties over the voters.  I would not expect preferential voting to be received the same way.

 

[Kirkhill]

But proportional representation is not good.  It empowers parties over the voters.  I would not expect preferential voting to be received the same way.

I agree with you on the Proportional Representation stitch up that the Dictatorship of the Proles keeps trying to foist of on us.  But I have to admit to a certain fondness for the Irish Alternative Vote (Preferential Vote) system.  It has three advantages: a clear winner; random selection; and it confounds pollsters.  Just the thing you would expect from the nation that gave us the Irish Sweepstakes.

 

[a_majoor]

Looking at the last several election at different levels, it seems we already know how to confound pollsters....

 

[Kirkhill]

Looking at the last several election at different levels, it seems we already know how to confound pollsters....

Confusion to the Enemy.  :cheers:

 

[Edward Campbell]

Essentially, and as expected, the SCC has ruled against the Government on almost every single point. The decision is here.

So: Prime Minister Harper cannot reform the Senate without reopening the Constitution and Mr Mulcair cannot, in good conscience, promise to abolish it.

What next?

In my opinion: nothing.

Prime Minister Harper will say, to people like me,, "I tried, but the Supremes say that I cannot do it, not, at least without a Constitutional imbroglio that none of us wants."

                    And

Gordon Gibson, long time Blue Liberal and Fraser Institute fellow (and that's about as blue as one can get), opines that there are ways - but not Justin Trudeau's way - to reform the Senate in ways that the Supremes have not closed off in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/the-senate-lives-on-with-all-of-its-powers-so-now-what/article18459108/#dashboard/follows/

The Senate lives on with all of its powers. So now what?

GORDON GIBSON
Special to The Globe and Mail

Published Monday, May. 05 2014

It isn’t over until it is over and it is finally over. The idea of significant Senate reform is dead in our time courtesy of the Supreme Court reference decision. Gone. Kaput. Vanished. Forget about it.

Some diehards won’t give up. They suggest de facto abolition by prime ministers simply refusing to make appointments until the Red Chamber dies with the passing of the last senator, nothing left but the grin of the Cheshire Cat. Constitutional idiocy. When the number of senators drops below a quorum, Parliament (of which the Senate is a necessary part) stops. The wheels fall off. No more budgets, bills, no any of the fine things that our political masters contrive to better our lives.

Some propose variants whereby prime ministers appoint only an equal number from each province to arrange for the famous Triple-E Senate. Any significant evidence of this would see lawsuits by deprived provinces demanding the prime minster do his duty. Good political theatre perhaps, bad policy.

Even Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau’s no doubt well meant, but foolish scheme to depoliticize the Senate might founder upon any well defined scheme of appointment, a necessary part of his plan. This could again require provincial assent. More importantly, it would lead to a powerful Senate with no democratic connection to the elected caucuses, a horror show waiting for the curtain to rise.

Other diehards will seek significant reform schemes that the provinces and feds would support in a major consensus. Good luck with that. A child born next year might see this by the end of his or her life, but most of us will concern ourselves with more immediate matters such as the effects of climate change 50 years hence.

And yet the Senate lives on with all of its enormous powers. So now what? There are two routes only, namely “same old” in terms of appointees, or “better senators.”

The mad Emperor Caligula appointed his horse to the Roman Senate, presumably to show his contempt for that body or his regard for the equine. Canadian prime ministers have, from time to time appointed, only the rear part of the horse to our own Upper Chamber.

But surely Prime Minister Stephen Harper must stand at the pinnacle of responsibility for the addition of disgraceful names, of which we will learn more as the details of police investigations unfold. Now is an opportunity for him to be a great prime minister, if he can, to take a second look and set a new pattern. What might it look like?

First, a great prime minister might set as a personal target the naming of new senators in such a way as to gradually make that place a better mirror of Canada generally, in terms of linguistic, gender and ethnic balance. Nothing new about this trend. The Senate is already a better reflection in these terms than the House. But we have a way to go.

One dimension where the Senate should not reflect the country is in age. It is supposed to be a place of sober second thought. And wisdom, especially political wisdom, comes with age. I would put a higher age requirement – not in law but in aspiration – of 55. Retirement is at 75 and a 20-year term is long enough. One might go a step further and make senatorial pensions fully earned after 15 years, encouraging early departure by those feeling they have given what they can.

Second, a great prime minister might look at how Supreme Court judges are nominated. Judges, too, are appointed by the prime minister (in fact, if not law) but problems are few because most names on the potential lists have already been vetted by panels of the legal community in each province. (Where this is not the case, one can occasionally encounter a Marc Nadon-like embarrassment.)

Such a system should be set up for senators, with the PM undertaking that with few exceptions, appointees are to be chosen from a list advanced by local panels. These could include representation from the governing and opposition parties in the legislatures, municipalities, universities and so on. As with court nominations, these lists should be private and for the eyes of the PM only.

Finally, a revolutionary idea, give the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons a few appointments to make on his/her own call – every fourth one, say. The opposition in the Senate must be kept healthy as well, and opposition parties need strong members to be ready for their eventual day in office.

If Mr. Harper doesn’t like this kind of appointment reform, it sounds as though Mr. Trudeau might. This is a matter not to be overlooked at the next election.I like the general thrust and tenor of Mr Gibson's ideas, but not all the details.

First: the very best way, the only democratic way to select senators is through elections. Right now one province, Alberta, elects senators and the prime minister - any and all prime ministers  - should encourage other provinces to follow suit. Prime Minister Harper should promise that he will appoint fairly elected senators, as vacancies occur, regardless of political affiliation.

Absent election, which should be run by provinces in conjunction with their own provincial general elections, it is a good idea to encourage provinces to submit, in confidence, lists of nominees to the prime minister. He should not agree to be bound by those lists - you can imagine that no PM would want to accept a list from, say, a PQ government in Quebec, but he should promise to consider it. The prime minister might, also, invite nominations from provincial organizations - the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations, or the Council of Ontario Universities if he's considering appointing a distinguished, albeit Conservative leaning aboriginal leader from Saskatchewan or an educator from Ontario.

Now, David Akin weighs in in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing Provisions of the Copyright Act from the Toronto Sun:

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/06/06/senate-must-change-and-fast

Senate must change and fast

BY DAVID AKIN, PARLIAMENTARY BUREAU CHIEF

FIRST POSTED: SATURDAY, JUNE 06, 2015

OTTAWA - Twenty of the 105 seats in the Senate chamber are empty. Among those who occupy the rest, two dozen — maybe more — are either in front of a judge on fraud charges, are being investigated for fraud, or will be questioned by the RCMP who protect us from fraud.

Which means, when you do the math, as many as half of the seats in the legislature that can block the will of Canada’s elected representatives in the House of Commons are either vacant or occupied by someone who might have been ripping us off all this time.

This isn’t funny anymore. Something’s got to change and change fast.

About this time a year ago, Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau told us if he was prime minister he would appoint senators on the recommendations of a committee of eminent Canadians.

As he explained it, picking senators this way would, first of all, not require a constitutional change and, second, take all the political grubbiness out of the whole affair.

At the time, I rolled my eyes as it sounded like Trudeau would pass this important responsibility to the same group of people who select Order of Canada recipients, the kind of folks who continue to snub Don Cherry and other popular if slightly rough-around-the-edges types.

Trudeau’s kind of committee would fill our Senate with those who read John Ralston Saul, watch foreign films with the subtitles turned off, and find vacation spots that have at least one art gallery that they can brag to their friends they visited.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

But there’s also nothing wrong with a few senators who don’t mind admitting to reading Fifty Shades of Grey, can name each Robertson in Duck Dynasty, and plan vacations around a World Wrestling Entertainment event.

A year after Trudeau put that idea forward, I have to confess it may be the best proposal going. It needs no legislation or constitutional amendment. It may actually do some good. Likely can’t hurt.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper rode into town in 2006 partly on the strength of the whole Triple-E senate package - elected, effective, equal - inherited from Preston Manning’s Reform days.

But Harper dithered on Senate reform and nearly a decade on his watch, we have the mess we have today in the Senate. He blew it.

Harper won’t even fill the 20 vacant seats in the Senate, judging (likely correctly) that he’d take a political hit ahead of the next election. Instead, he’ll leave it for the next guy.

That next guy, the latest polls say, could be NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair. There are no NDP senators, never have been, and if Mulcair is PM, never will be, because he’ll simply abolish the Senate. Hurrah! What a great idea! Why didn’t anyone think of that before? Blow it up! Turn the red chamber into more daycare spaces!

But Mulcair’s response to the Senate mess is an immature one from someone who wants to be his party’s first-ever PM. And it borders on irresponsible that, whenever a reporter (including this one), asks a New Democrat about appointing senators and Senate reform, we get the simplistic reply that the NDP would simply do away with it.

Canada, listen to me: We can’t just get rid of it. We’re stuck with it. Macdonald, Cartier and all our founding fathers baked the Senate into our federal parliamentary institutions in such a way that, as the Supreme Court reminded us last year, we can’t change a darn thing about it — let alone get rid of it — unless seven provinces, the House of Commons and the Senate agree to those changes. And at least half the country must live in those seven provinces.

The NDP knows this. So when you hear a New Democrat — or a candidate from any other party — at a barbecue this summer boast that they’ll “deal with the Senate” if they are the government, get them to explain to you exactly how they’d do that. And then send me an e-mail and tell me what they said.

Because I can’t get a straight answer from any of them about realistic, practical solutions to make senators more accountable to the Canadians they represent.

I know, I know ... this is  :deadhorse: and I am  :bla-bla: and you are  :waiting: but ...

I repeat:

    1. Canada, as a federal state needs a bicameral legislature ~ one chamber represents and is accountable to the people, at large, on a (roughly) equal basis, the other represents and must be accountable to the constituent parts of the country,
        the people, still, but in their (still sovereign) "partners" in Confederation, the provinces and territories;

    2. A modern legislature in a 21st century liberal democracy must be accountable to the people ~ "sober second though" by elders and betters is not required; and

    3. There is only one way to have an "accountable' chamber ~ elections.

The supremes have said:

    "Introducing a process of consultative elections for the nomination of Senators would change our Constitution’s architecture, by endowing Senators with a popular mandate which is inconsistent with the Senate’s fundamental nature and role as
      a complementary legislative chamber of sober second thought.  The view that the consultative election proposals would amend the Constitution of Canada is supported by the language of Part V of the Constitution Act, 1982 .  The words
      employed in Part V are guides to identifying the aspects of our system of government that form part of the protected content of the Constitution. Section 42(1) (b) provides that the general amending procedure (s. 38(1) ) applies to
      constitutional amendments in relation to “the method of selecting Senators”.  This broad wording includes more than the formal appointment of Senators by the Governor General and covers the implementation of consultative
      elections.  By employing this language, the framers of the Constitution Act, 1982  extended the constitutional protection provided by the general amending procedure to the entire process by which Senators are “selected”.
      Consequently, the implementation of consultative elections falls within the scope of s. 42(1) (b) and is subject to the general amending procedure, without the provincial right to “opt out”.  It cannot be achieved under the unilateral
      federal amending procedure.  Section 44  is expressly made “subject to” s. 42  — the categories of amendment captured by s. 42  are removed from the scope of s. 44 ."

That's pretty definitive.

We can be 100% sure that Prime Minister Harper does will not reopen the Constitution prior to the 2015 election. We can be pretty sure that he doesn't want to open it at all.

So, he's here ...

... right?

No, not quite ... remember this admonition:

   

A (near) future prime minister, maybe Harper, maybe his successor, will have to "do something," and, given the constraints imposed by the supremes it involves either:

    1. Reopening the whole Constitution ~ something to which I look forward but something that makes sane people quake in their boots; or

    2. Using (misusing? abusing?) §33 (the infamnous Notwithstanding provisions); or

    3. Defying the supremes and following my two letters route ~

        a. One letter to each senator asking for his/her resignation effective the next provincial general election, and

        b. One letter to each premier saying that the prime minister will appoint only elected senators (who agree to resign at the next provincial election) and inviting (challenging) the premiers to hold senatorial elections in
            conjunction with their provincial elections.

COA 3 is sort of like a mini-Constitutional conference, dealing with one issue only.

;D

 

[The Bread Guy]

Prime Minister Harper will say, to people like me,, "I tried, but the Supremes say that I cannot do it, not, at least without a Constitutional imbroglio that none of us wants."

And to the rest of us, via the media, here's what he said this weekend ....

.... “Look, obviously we find any abuse of taxpayers’ dollars by Parliamentarians … to be unacceptable,” the prime minister told reporters during a visit to Kiev where he demonstrated solidarity with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko as the conflict with Russian-backed fighters intensifies.

Asked to comment on leaked revelations from Auditor-General Michael Ferguson’s report, Mr. Harper said the Senate is a separate entity from the Commons, where he sits, and senators are the ones that called for the watchdog to comb through their expenses.

“As you know, the Senate is an independent body and the Senate is responsible for its own expenses. The Senate itself commissioned the Auditor-Generals’ report and the Senate itself is responsible for responding to that report,” the Conservative Leader said ....

More here and here.

 

[Edward Campbell]

So, it's been 800 years since a group of English (actually mostly French speaking imports) magnates decided that their (equally French) king, John by name, needed a bit of adult leadership. They wrote a contract, of sorts, a Charter, called a Carta in Latin, which was pretty big (Great or Magna) and which managed, after a pope or two tried to strike it down, to lay the foundations for our modern, Western, liberal world order. It was struck down, by King John and a compliant pope in Rome, but William Marshal ~ almost certainly an illiterate but one of the greatest men of England, ever ~ reissued it, in the name of the child King Henry III, in order to unite the country (the barons were the bloody country, for all intents and purposes) under the boy king and to persuade the recalcitrant barons to pay their taxes to his exchequer.*

Magna Carta has been under much attack in the media because it is not a grand statement of 21st century liberal values. But it did, in a few phrases, lay the foundation for real liberalism: for a small handful of fundamental rights and for the supremacy of the common law. It is, far, Far, FAR more important to life, liberty and happiness and to peace, order and good government than anything until the Glorious Revolution of 1688/89 and more important than anything after, including the American Declaration of Independence and Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Magna Carta established the principle that the sovereign must take counsel ~ it took a while to solidify the power of the officials who gave such counsel, and you can thanks two Cecils: William (Lord Burghley) and his son Robert (Earl of Salisbury) for doing that, and then Robert Walpole (Earl of Orford) for formalizing it.

The really vital bits of our, Canadian, Constitution are nowhere to be found in the Constitution Act of 1982, it is, to quote Shakespeare, "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Like the US Constitution it lays out "wish lists" and then relies upon courts and, more important, political good manners, to give them effect. But the real state of civil government ~ the constraining power of the "people" over the sovereign is established in Magna Carta.

_____
* And history records that William Marshal paid, from his own pocket, for a new chequered cloth which was used to calculate the king's share of the baron's profits for the year

 

[McG]

The Trudeau has come out with his support for preferential voting.  If such a system were a result of the coming tight election, that would be a good thing.  Unfortunately, he waffles by opening the possibility of proportional representation as an alternative to the preferential vote.  This would be a bad thing, giving greater power to the political parties at the expense of the voters themselves.

Trudeau wants alternative to first past the post
A sneak peek at the Liberals’ plan to ‘restore democracy in Canada’
Joan Bryden, The Canadian Press
MacLean's
16 June 2015

OTTAWA — Justin Trudeau wants this fall’s national vote to be the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post electoral system.

And, if the Liberal leader becomes prime minister, it may also be the last election in which Canadians can choose not to vote, as well as the last in which the only way to vote is by marking an X on a paper ballot.

Changing the way Canadians vote is just one element of a sweeping, 32-point plan to “restore democracy in Canada” that Trudeau announced Monday.

Some of the measures have been previously announced, such as strengthening access-to-information laws; empowering backbench MPs by allowing more free votes and beefing up legislative oversight by Commons committees; and ending partisanship in the scandal-plagued Senate.

Others are new or build upon previous commitments. Among other things, Trudeau promised a Liberal government would:

— Reform question period in the House of Commons so that one day each week would be devoted solely to grilling the prime minister.

— Impose spending limits on political parties between elections, not just during election campaigns.

— Appoint an equal number of men and women to cabinet and adopt a government-wide appointment policy to ensure gender parity and greater representation of aboriginal people and other minorities.

— Create performance standards for services offered by the federal government, complete with streamlined application processes, reduced wait times and money-back guarantees.

— Create individualized, secure online accounts for Canadians who want to access all their government benefits and review key documents.

Perhaps the most ambitious promise, however, is Trudeau’s vow to do away with first-past-the-post (FPTP) in time for the next election.

The current system badly distorts voters’ choices, allowing a party to win the majority of seats in the House of Commons with less than 40 per cent of the vote, and delivering wildly different seat counts to parties that win similar shares.

Trudeau promised he’d introduce electoral reform legislation within 18 months of forming government. The legislation would be based on the recommendations of a special, all-party parliamentary committee mandated to fully and fairly study alternatives to first-past-the-post, including ranked ballots and proportional representation.

The committee would also explore the notions of mandatory voting and online voting.

The Liberal party sought grassroots reaction to the notion of legally compelling Canadians to vote, as is done in Australia, in a survey last summer. But Trudeau has not committed to take it any further until now.

The survey followed an analysis by one of Trudeau’s senior policy advisers, University of Ottawa academic Robert Asselin, who advocated mandatory voting and the introduction of preferential or ranked ballots as ways to re-engage Canadians in the political process.

Turnout in federal elections has plunged from a high of almost 80 per cent of eligible voters in 1958 to a record low of 58.8 per cent in 2008, according to Elections Canada. It rebounded slightly in 2011 to 61.1 per cent.

Under Asselin’s proposal, eligible voters would be legally required to vote but would have the option of voting for “none of the above.” Those who didn’t vote would face a small fine.

Electronic voting has also been touted as a way to entice busy Canadians to cast ballots. But Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative government last year effectively scotched Elections Canada’s plans to experiment with online voting, requiring any such tests to be approved by Parliament.

First-past-the-post has long been viewed as the primary culprit behind declining turnout, contributing to Canadians’ belief that their votes don’t count.

Trudeau personally favours replacing it with preferential balloting, in which voters rank their first, second, third and subsequent choices. If no candidate receives an absolute majority on the first ballot, the last-place candidate is eliminated and his or her supporters’ second-choice votes are counted. That continues until one candidate receives over 50 per cent.

However, Trudeau has also said he’s willing to consider proportional representation, a more complex reform for which there are a variety of possible models. Essentially, it involves electing multiple representatives for each constituency, with the seats divvied up in proportion to the share of votes won by each party in each riding.

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/trudeau-wants-alternative-to-first-past-the-post-by-next-election/

It was a year ago tomorrow that a Trudeau advisor's support for this idea was first reported:  http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-adviser-backs-mandatory-voting-preferential-ballots-1.2678610

 

[Edward Campbell]

There are some good ideas in there, also some suspect ones ~ but so it is with all political platforms.

I commend M Trudeau for both: having some good ideas; and enunciating some policies.

I suspect this foray into policy is driven by fear of M Mulcair's standings in the polls.

 

[Underway]

There are some good ideas in there, also some suspect ones ~ but so it is with all political platforms.

I commend M Trudeau for both: having some good ideas; and enunciating some policies.

I suspect this foray into policy is driven by fear of M Mulcair's standings in the polls.

Agreed to all your points.  I'm a huge fan of mandatory voting.  It's point three in my draft charter of responsibilities.  Figured since rights come with responsibilities we should write them down in legislation.

 

[RedcapCrusader]

Agreed to all your points.  I'm a huge fan of mandatory voting.  It's point three in my draft charter of responsibilities.  Figured since rights come with responsibilities we should write them down in legislation.

My only conflict with mandatory voting is that we are a democratic society (albeit, only slightly due to the whole Constitutional Monarchy thing we got going on), forcing people to vote is creating a society of "ballots under duress".

"Vote, or you will be punished!"

The fundamental item of democratic society is that citizens have a choice. If that choice is not to cast a ballot, fine, they have that freedom. However, I am on the fence as I would like to see mandatory voting and those that would normally not cast a ballot due to complacency to involve themselves in politics (or the uninformed) can simply spoil their ballot. The vote isn't counted except to voter turn out. I feel that making voting mandatory would cause one of two things to occur:

1) More citizens will become politically involved to the benefit of the collective society. Less voting for "lesser of 3 evils", more chances for smaller parties and independents to win seats

2) Widespread fear. The less politically involved citizens will end up casting ballots influenced by poor information given by their peers, media. Thus creating a system of "impulse voting."

 

[dapaterson]

You can always make provisions to permit people to decline their ballot once they show up.

If your position is "I hate the system and can't even be bothered to show up" then you're not apolitical, you're apathetic.