Electoral Reform (Senate, Commons, & Gov Gen)

[a_majoor]

I see the issue of PR or some form of SVT is beeing mooted in Ontario as a referrendum for our next election in October. It has occured to me that the "debate" is quite sterile since the issue is being framed as "either/or" between PR and First Past the Post.

Some issues might simply be resolved by taking them right off the table; jurisdictional limits should be observed and enforced ("Your city council overspent their budget and dosn't want to raise taxes? Sorry, the Provincial legislature dosn't cover your shortfalls")

Other alternatives exist as well, such as the electoral college system in the United States, which the founding fathers developed as a way to prevent mob rule (it is irrelevant in a Presidential election who has the greatest popular vote, this way cities and large states do not overwhelm the voters in rural areas and small states). Swiss style citizen referendums (or US ballot initiatives) are another potential means of breaking the political "establishment's" monopoly on the legislature.

 

[Brad Sallows]

What determines who qualifies as an aboriginal voter?  Don't assume the current rules for band membership necessarily apply.  As long as I'm a resident of a political jurisdiction (municipality, province), I'm qualified to vote there.  Where the exercise of political power is involved, there can not be a guild guarding membership of the privileged.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today's online edition of the Globe and Mail, is an interesting comment by former Pierre Trudau advisor Brian Flemming:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070605.wcomment0605/BNStory/National/home

Web-exclusive comment

Stephen Harper's turn
Every prime minister has a chance to remake Canada in his image and it's not too early to see this one's direction

BRIAN FLEMMING
Special to Globe and Mail Update

June 5, 2007 at 1:10 AM EDT

When you are elected prime minister, you get the chance, like the God of Genesis, to remake your country in your own image.

With his Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Pierre Trudeau, the constitutional lawyer, changed Canada forever. Business-oriented Brian Mulroney negotiated a North American free trade deal that permanently altered the Canadian economy. A modest small-towner, Jean Chrétien, successfully pulled the country from an economic swamp.

It's too early to hand Stephen Harper a final report card on how his character has changed Canada. But it's not too early to discern some of the directions in which he is taking the country.

There's no question Mr. Harper's first year in government was a success. He delivered on his five-point election platform with a decisiveness that impressed Canadians. For a brief, shining moment, his poll numbers predicted he might get his holy grail of a majority.

Lately, however, the wheels have been falling off his minority government. Today, he and his front bench want nothing more than for Canada's dysfunctional Parliament to pack up and go home for the summer.

Between a spring prorogation and a fall throne speech, the Prime Minister must pull his government back together, because it is likely to last for another 21/2 years, due to recent changes in Canada's electoral laws.

Parliament is now chained to a fixed election date in late 2009. Unlike all his predecessors, Mr. Harper cannot go to the Governor-General and ask for an election writ. The only way Canada can have a general election now is if a vote of non-confidence brings Mr. Harper down.

Getting that vote won't be easy, because with 125 Conservatives in our 308-seat Parliament, it will take 154 votes to defeat him. The 100 Liberals cannot combine with 49 Bloquistes to do it. Nor can the 29 New Democrats join with the Liberals or the Bloc separately to defeat the government. There are also three independents and two vacant seats, but it will take a simultaneous descent into insanity by all three opposition parties, voting together, to trigger an election.

Mr. Harper will have to withdraw the infamous handbook his office recently distributed on how to make Parliament not work and replace it with one showing how it can work — until 2009.

If he wants to succeed, he'll have to treat the Senate with more respect, rather than imposing his undemocratic, Reformist ideology on the Red Chamber and failing to fill its vacancies.

Sections 24 and 32 of the Constitution Act require Mr. Harper to fill those seats — language that is mandatory, not enabling. The government has a "constitutional duty to appoint qualified persons to the Senate," Senators Tommy Banks and Wilfred Moore noted in a recent debate, accusing the Prime Minister of Öwilfully breaking the law, not just exercising a valid policy option.

But there are currently 12 openings, including three from Nova Scotia — 30 per cent of the province's constitutionally guaranteed number. The Maritime provinces are currently missing 20 per cent of their constitutionally allotted number of senators, more than any other part of Canada — a reflection of how Mr. Harper has written off this region politically.

By 2009, one-third of Canada's Senate seats could be unfilled. Mr. Moore suggested this might be Mr. Harper's sneaky way of rebalancing it so underrepresented provinces like Alberta and British Columbia achieve parity.

If our stubborn, secretive Prime Minister continues to refuse to appoint senators, the Supreme Court of Canada should be asked for a declaratory judgment on the subject: That would set the constitutional cats among Mr. Harper's populist pigeons.

Mr. Harper must be forced to play his Senate cards in a transparent way, not in the shadows. Above all, he must be forced to reform the Senate in a lawful manner, and not emulate the disastrous way in which Tony Blair tried to change Britain's House of Lords.

In any case, Mr. Harper's character is already dictating Canada's constitutional destiny, if not the very stability of Parliament. Avert your eyes: It won't be a pretty sight.

Brian Flemming writes for The Daily News of Halifax. He was an adviser to Pierre Trudeau.

Even allowing for Flemming's political bias, this is a remarkably one-sided piece.

Flemming cites §24 & 32 of the Constitution; they say:

Summons of Senator

24.  The Governor General shall from Time to Time, in the Queen's Name, by Instrument under the Great Seal of Canada, summon qualified Persons to the Senate; and, subject to the Provisions of this Act, every Person so summoned shall become and be a Member of the Senate and a Senator.


Summons on Vacancy in Senate

32.  When a Vacancy happens in the Senate by Resignation, Death, or otherwise, the Governor General shall by Summons to a fit and qualified Person fill the Vacancy.

I'm not a lawyer but I fail to see how these clauses require the PM to act expeditiously; to act, yes, to act quickly, no – but I'm happy to be corrected.  I understand why Sen. Banks and Sen. Moore want Harper to act against his own policy and appoint unelected senators.  They, Banks and Moore, oppose an elected Senate.  I wonder if Banks, Moore and Flemming have the balls to go to the Supreme Court of Canada to ask it to perpetuate an undemocratic, appointed legislative chambre.  Nothng, I think, would make Mr. Harper happier. 

 

[GAP]

It's a good thing that article's premise isn't bias.....gee.....

 

[Reccesoldier]

This

rather than imposing his undemocratic, Reformist ideology on the Red Chamber

has got to be the most laughable example of faster than a tornado spin I have ever seen put to a sentence.

Somehow Flemming sees the election of senators as being undemocratic?

un-freaking-believable

 

[a_majoor]

It seems Ontario voters will be asked to weigh in on some sort of PR system this election. Not surprisingly, I havn't come across any discussion as to what sort of system is being proposed; it seems like PR supporters are trying to sneak something in since they havn't made gains in other parts of the country.

Anyone have more details?

 

[Reccesoldier]

It seems Ontario voters will be asked to weigh in on some sort of PR system this election. Not surprisingly, I havn't come across any discussion as to what sort of system is being proposed; it seems like PR supporters are trying to sneak something in since they havn't made gains in other parts of the country.

Anyone have more details?

http://uncommonsensecanada.blogspot.com/2007/05/another-doomed-attempt-at-democratic.html

 

[a_majoor]

Now that MMP has bitten the dust, I would like to point out that PR and related systems are geared to providing more power to political parties. The MMP proposal was particularly blatant: the "list candidates" were to be from a closed party list. Voters don't even get an indirect say in who represents them from the list.

While the current FFTP system provides majority governments without majorities of the voters, it does offer (in theory) accountability of the elected member to the voter. In order to retain the direct link between representative and voter, we need to agitate for something other than PR or a PR variation. Some possible things to propose:

Voter recall
Elimination of party whips and whipped votes in the house
Redistricting
Much smaller ridings (and therefore many more seats in the house)
Electoral College (prevents rural ridings from being "swamped" by more populated urban ridings due to weightings)
Swiss referendum system

I'm sure other systems are out there, and I am also certain that people who want to empower parties even more will fight tooth and nail against them.

 

[Kirkhill]

I much prefer the Run-Off system as used in France: (They do somethings right - cheese is pretty good, wine is so-so).  It results in a clear majority, keeps the decision in the hands of the electorate and results in accountability to the local voters.

It is a bit more expensive than our single FPTP vote, it requires two trips to the polling booth.

But it is simpler to explain than the equally effective and cheaper "ranking" system.  That's the one where you rank your candidates 1,2,3...... Candidate with the "Fewest" points wins (1=1, 2=2, 3=3...  5 Firsts = 5 points, 2 Seconds = 4 points, 4 Thirds = 12 points for a total of 5+4+12 = 21 points).  Maybe that could be the follow-on project.

 

[McG]

But it is simpler to explain than the equally effective and cheaper "ranking" system.  That's the one where you rank your candidates 1,2,3...... Candidate with the "Fewest" points wins (1=1, 2=2, 3=3...  5 Firsts = 5 points, 2 Seconds = 4 points, 4 Thirds = 12 points for a total of 5+4+12 = 21 points). 

Shouldn't the points be higher for being voted highest ranking (vice more points for being ranked last)?

 

[Reccesoldier]

Not all proportional systems increase the power of the parties.  By power I mean their ability to decide who is elected, STV for example. 

The real question I have is how was the citizens coalition group chosen?  By whom, and how were they able to give up their day jobs for a year to do it?  Sounds like a hand picked group with personal interests, plenty of spare time which speaks of established wealth.  Sounds like a group that had more in common with the establishment than the rest of the people in the province.

That coupled with the piss poor explanation and education of the issue by the government led to an inevitable outcome. 

My conspiracy riddled mind says the established parties didn't want to change the status quo so they first selected the method of PR which would increase their power and then threw the rest of the game by only half-heartedly explaining it.

 

[RangerRay]

Electoral College (prevents rural ridings from being "swamped" by more populated urban ridings due to weightings)

I would suggest that a Triple E Senate would balance out the Commons which is weighted heavily towards urban areas.

My $0.02...

Edit to add:

The real question I have is how was the citizens coalition group chosen?  By whom, and how were they able to give up their day jobs for a year to do it?  Sounds like a hand picked group with personal interests, plenty of spare time which speaks of established wealth.  Sounds like a group that had more in common with the establishment than the rest of the people in the province.

Here in BC, the members of the Assembly were randomly selected from the voters list, and letters went out inviting them to attend.  Those who could participate did.  I believe they were able to get 2 people per riding to participate.  Most appeared to be retired ordinary citizens.

 

[Infanteer]

I would suggest that a Triple E Senate would balance out the Commons which is weighted heavily towards urban areas.

My $0.02...

+1.

The Americans and the Aussies do it; why can't we?

 

[Kirkhill]

Shouldn't the points be higher for being voted highest ranking (vice more points for being ranked last)?

I think it works either way MCG.  "Low man wins" has the advantage of being the identical calculation regardless of how many people are in the field.  "High man wins" means you have to count up the number of candidates in each riding and let every "First" equal the number of candidates .  2nd Place = n-1, 3rd = n-2....I think  ???

 

[Edward Campbell]

I would suggest that a Triple E Senate would balance out the Commons which is weighted heavily towards urban areas.

Actually the HoC is weighted heavily, waaaay too heavily, towards rural and small town areas. A PEI riding, any PEI riding, is 'worth' for than three times many major urban area (Calgary and Toronto) ridings.

Canada fails two of the major tests of a liberal democracy: we have an appointed legislature (Senate) and our votes are nowhere near equally weighted. It's disgraceful and its should be cause for riots on the streets - or it would be if Canadians were politically mature.

 

[observor 69]

Canada fails two of the major tests of a liberal democracy: we have an appointed legislature (Senate) and our votes are nowhere near equally weighted. It's disgraceful and its should be cause for riots on the streets - or it would be if Canadians were politically mature.

+1 

 

[Infanteer]

Actually the HoC is weighted heavily, waaaay too heavily, towards rural and small town areas. A PEI riding, any PEI riding, is 'worth' for than three times many major urban area (Calgary and Toronto) ridings.

Yes (and this should be addressed) but there is only 4 PEI ridings while Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal have how many ridings - this goes to the heart of RangerRays point; over 1/3 of all Canadians come from 3 relatively small geographical areas and that an triple E senate will act to counter this trend.

Canada fails two of the major tests of a liberal democracy: we have an appointed legislature (Senate) and our votes are nowhere near equally weighted. It's disgraceful and its should be cause for riots on the streets - or it would be if Canadians were politically mature.

+1

 

[RangerRay]

Actually the HoC is weighted heavily, waaaay too heavily, towards rural and small town areas. A PEI riding, any PEI riding, is 'worth' for than three times many major urban area (Calgary and Toronto) ridings.

Canada fails two of the major tests of a liberal democracy: we have an appointed legislature (Senate) and our votes are nowhere near equally weighted. It's disgraceful and its should be cause for riots on the streets - or it would be if Canadians were politically mature.

I agree completely.  If we are to have a true Triple E Senate, then the representation in the Commons should be a true representation by population.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Yes (and this should be addressed) but there is only 4 PEI ridings while Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal have how many ridings - this goes to the heart of RangerRays point; over 1/3 of all Canadians come from 3 relatively small geographical areas and that an triple E senate will act to counter this trend.

So your vote should be worth less just because you or I, like the overwhelming majority of the people in the whole bloody world, live in an urban area?

There is no point, except: One person, one vote, roughly - give or take, say, 25%.

If we are going to have something akin to a real, grown-up, liberal democracy then PEI should have only one seat in a 300+ seat HoC or, if PEI must have four seats - as the Constitution says it must,* then we need a 1,200 seat HoC to accommodate Constitutional necessity.

----------

* The Constitution says no province may have fewer seats in the HoC than it has senators. PEI was given four senators back in 18nn so it cannot have fewer than four MPs.

 

[Infanteer]

So your vote should be worth less just because you or I, like the overwhelming majority of the people in the whole bloody world, live in an urban area?

Well, I come from a rural area....

There is no point, except: One person, one vote, roughly - give or take, say, 25%.

If we are going to have something akin to a real, grown-up, liberal democracy then PEI should have only one seat in a 300+ seat HoC or, if PEI must have four seats - as the Constitution says it must,* then we need a 1,200 seat HoC to accommodate Constitutional necessity.

----------

* The Constitution says no province may have fewer seats in the HoC than it has senators. PEI was given four senators back in 18nn so it cannot have fewer than four MPs.

Of course this needs to be addressed - hence my "and this needs to be addressed" caveat in my previous post.  I was only adding further substance to Ranger Ray's claim that there is an inherent unbalance to the House of Commons due to the nature of Canada's population distribution (irregardless of whose vote means more) and that a properly functioning Senate can act to rectify this.

Irregardless of whether a PEI'er's vote is worth one Torontonian vote or three Vancouverite votes, those 4 (overweighed) votes will be drowned out in Parliament.  A Jane and Finch or a East Hastings street solution may be what a majority of the people in Canada want, but it may not be the best for a majority of the country.

A triple E Senate, bringing equality to the provinces in the Upper House, may be something that will convince PEI to let go of its 4 seats in the Lower House in order to allow equality of the electorate....