If it were really an honest attempt at election reform, it wouldn't come from the man who put Michael Fortier in the Senate after years of criticizing the Senate.
He also accepted whassisname crossing the floor immediately after the election.
But those two instances of hypocrisy (or giving the Liberals a taste of their own medicine) don't automatically mean that any reform proposed by the Conservatives is necessarily insincere.
Harper was also at the forefront of the unite-the-right movement, which aimed to manipulate a flaw in our system of democracy (the first past-the-post system of voting) to get his party into power.
Oh, come now. There's nothing inherently sinister, or evil, or manipulative, or underhanded about tryng to get all parties right of center under one umbrella. Under our current system, it was in fact politically necessary (or so the party leaders said).
Didn't somebody in the NDP suggest a similar 'unite-the-left' drive not so long ago?
Not into another region-based body, since the House of Commons already does that.
Actually, it doesn't. Under some of Mulroney's last legislation (which I would argue very strongly is illegal), the number of seats in Parliament is limited, and Quebec automatically gets a quarter of them even if the proportion of Quebec's population relative to the whole country goes down. So Quebec always gets 75.
Under the Constitution PEI also has a guaranteed four, regardless of its population. And all provinces are guaranteed to have no fewer than the number of seats they held at the time of the patriation.
So the House of Commons is not currently representative of the population: some provinces count more than others.
And of course, there's the whole idea of a triple-E Senate. In a large country like ours, it isn't democracy when 4 million votes in Toronto dictate what happens in BC or Alberta.
The same philosopher pointed out that referendums reduce complex questions to simple a "yes" versus "no,"
Isn't that what it comes down to in Parliament? Yea or nay?
when most people have a more complex and nuanced idea of what should happen. To this end, they elect public officials.
Actually, I think most people are blissfully ignorant of governmental concerns. They don't have a 'complex and nuanced' view; they barely know what's going on unless they go out of their way to find out. And few do.
I also don't think you can claim that public officials are elected to resolve just one issue, unless you want to have an election every time a new issue comes up.
Also, I should note that a true referendum is not legal in Canada.
? Of course it's legal. I think what you mean to say is that it isn't legally binding. I'm not sure even that's true any longer; several provinces now require a referendum before approving or vetoing changes to the Constitution, for example.
Anyway, the political cost of ignoring a referendum result on an important question is something that shouldn't be brushed aside casually by any politician who wants power. As they all do.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
regna
(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-10 01:59 am (UTC)If it were really an honest attempt at election reform, it wouldn't come from the man who put Michael Fortier in the Senate after years of criticizing the Senate.
He also accepted whassisname crossing the floor immediately after the election.
But those two instances of hypocrisy (or giving the Liberals a taste of their own medicine) don't automatically mean that any reform proposed by the Conservatives is necessarily insincere.
Harper was also at the forefront of the unite-the-right movement, which aimed to manipulate a flaw in our system of democracy (the first past-the-post system of voting) to get his party into power.
Oh, come now. There's nothing inherently sinister, or evil, or manipulative, or underhanded about tryng to get all parties right of center under one umbrella. Under our current system, it was in fact politically necessary (or so the party leaders said).
Didn't somebody in the NDP suggest a similar 'unite-the-left' drive not so long ago?
Not into another region-based body, since the House of Commons already does that.
Actually, it doesn't. Under some of Mulroney's last legislation (which I would argue very strongly is illegal), the number of seats in Parliament is limited, and Quebec automatically gets a quarter of them even if the proportion of Quebec's population relative to the whole country goes down. So Quebec always gets 75.
Under the Constitution PEI also has a guaranteed four, regardless of its population. And all provinces are guaranteed to have no fewer than the number of seats they held at the time of the patriation.
So the House of Commons is not currently representative of the population: some provinces count more than others.
And of course, there's the whole idea of a triple-E Senate. In a large country like ours, it isn't democracy when 4 million votes in Toronto dictate what happens in BC or Alberta.
The same philosopher pointed out that referendums reduce complex questions to simple a "yes" versus "no,"
Isn't that what it comes down to in Parliament? Yea or nay?
when most people have a more complex and nuanced idea of what should happen. To this end, they elect public officials.
Actually, I think most people are blissfully ignorant of governmental concerns. They don't have a 'complex and nuanced' view; they barely know what's going on unless they go out of their way to find out. And few do.
I also don't think you can claim that public officials are elected to resolve just one issue, unless you want to have an election every time a new issue comes up.
Also, I should note that a true referendum is not legal in Canada.
? Of course it's legal. I think what you mean to say is that it isn't legally binding. I'm not sure even that's true any longer; several provinces now require a referendum before approving or vetoing changes to the Constitution, for example.
Anyway, the political cost of ignoring a referendum result on an important question is something that shouldn't be brushed aside casually by any politician who wants power. As they all do.