Electoral Reform (Senate, Commons, & Gov Gen)

[McG]

It seems that Ralph is ready to push ahead in Alberta and hold another Senator election.  While I think it is a waste of money doing this without an agreement between the provinces and federal government, maybe this will inspire our new PM to take a closer look at the issue.

 

[Infanteer]

I could see this idea getting more steam under the minority government.  I think two parties, the Bloc and the Conservatives (which have over half the seats), would like to move towards an elected senate in order for their traditional regional support base to gain more say in a Parliament dominated by Ontario and could possibly pressure Martin into allowing this to move forward.

 

[Torlyn]

I could see this idea getting more steam under the minority government.  I think two parties, the Bloc and the Conservatives (which have over half the seats), would like to move towards an elected senate in order for their traditional regional support base to gain more say in a Parliament dominated by Ontario and could possibly pressure Martin into allowing this to move forward.

You've got that right.  If you look and CDN history, minority governments, while not lasting more than 2 years (on average) do seem to get more things done...  And in regards to the bloc & the conservatives, I was surprised that there hasn't been more collaboration between the two.  I know that there has been a shift in the Bloc to a more liberal-esque platform, but I believe you've got a point that if the conservatives & bloc align on these issues, they may force martin to actually do something about it.

McG - Alberta has done it before, and Mulroney appointed the elected Senator in 1990, but that was a political consideration in return for support with the Meech Lake Accords. Stan Waters was the senator, a one-time Reform party member, who (unfortunately) served for only a short time until his death in 1991.  Alberta still has two standing "elected" senators (Bert Brown & Ted Morton) for the seat vacancy from 1999 (which was filled as a patronage appointment by Cretién)  Given that we still have two senators-in-waiting (not sure how long they retain that particular title) I wonder if Paulie will do anything, except in the methods stated by Infanteer.

T

 

[McG]

Well, the Conservative/Bloc Throne Speech amendments call for â Å“a citizens assembly to review electoral reform.â ?  I had hoped they might have put forward an amendment calling for the government to explore an elected Senate.  This would be consistent with the Conservative's western support base, and the Bloc must be cognizant of the fact that any move toward proportional representation would see their seats drop.  Even a more vague call for Senate reform would have fit with the NDP platform.

I think the way we elect our members of parliament works (no electoral reform needed), but it needs to be complimented with an elected Senate.

 

[Infanteer]

Yep.  I don't think we need to invent any new mechanisms to strengthen democracy in this country; within the Offices of the GG and the Senate we have offices that can be retooled if necessary.  The key is to find a PM who has the cojones to loosen the iron grip of the PMO on policy making (and hence losing his own power) and put government function over personal ego.

 

[Kirkhill]

I think the PM is going to get a lot of "encouragement" from the opposition to give up some powers.  And once powers have been lost the PMO will face an uphill battle to get them back.

On the other hand the struggle for power to control the agenda is neverending.

Cheers.

By the way, I am with those that think our instutions and their constitutional powers are largely in balance.  I wouldn't change the institutions.

I do think that a  combination of the Aussie Rules (single vote transferrable Commons and a split appointed/Proportional Rep Senate) combined with and elected GG would make for a nice balance.

 

[Boydfish]

My two cents:

#1 - House of Commons.  Elected based strictly on population, with no "grandfather" or "balancing" adjustments.  That means that the 7 million people in BC and Alberta get the same amount of seats as the 7 million in Quebec, unlike now, where Quebec has 75 and BC/Alberta have 64.  One vote must be equal in every part of the confederation.  I refuse to accept any system that values ones person's vote over another simply because of where they live.

If we use Quebec as a template number of 93,333 for each MP, then the seat distribution looks like this:

British Columbia - 43, up from 36
Alberta - 32 seats, up from 28
Saskatchewan - 11, down from 14
Manitoba - 12, down from 14
Ontario - 122, up from 106
Quebec - 75, unchanged.
New Brunswick - 8, down from 10
Nova Scotia - 10, down from 11
Newfoundland & Labrador - 6, down from 7
Yukon - 1, unchanged.
NWT - 1, unchanged.
Nunavut - 1, unchanged.
PEI - 0, down from 4(I'll get to this in a bit, but fear not, oh great potato farmers by the sea)
Total: 322, up from 308

The seat totals would be adjusted by the most recent census in every "zero" year.

#2 - Senate.  Equal, "selected" and effective.  Each province gets 5 senators and each territory gets 1 senator.  Instead of fighting over if they should be elected, appointed, chosen by lot or whatever, each province selects it's own method for how it comes up with the 5 people they send.  If Quebec and Ontario want appointed ones, they appoint. If BC and Alberta want elected, they elect.  Simple, no?

The Senate becomes the check on tyranny of the majority.

#3 - Governor General.  I mentioned this in another thread, but the GG position is disbanded and replaced in function by the provincial LG's.

#4 - Prince Edward Island.  In blunt terms, it's too small in geography and population to be a province.  It skews seat totals and representation, which leads to the current circumstances where a vote in PEI is worth three times as much as a vote in BC.  Either PEI ends up under or over represented as a result, most often over.

On the other hand, the idea of scrapping provinces due to inconvienience is not a practice that I'd support or want to create a history of doing.  The other nine provinces shouldn't be able to vote a tenth out of existence and I won't even dignify the idea of the confederal government being given such an authority(The provinces make up the confederation:  Without the confederation, the provinces are still there, but without the provinces, the confederation is nothing.).  The next Trudeau or Cretin would have the confederation reduced to Ontario, Quebec and "dem other places" in no time.

As a one off suggestion, I'd say move the confederal "seat of government" to PEI from Ottawa.  Just like the US and Australia, the "seat of government" would have no local representation beyond municipal government, instead relying on the obvious economicl benefits of having the confederal government located there.

It would neatly remove the problem of a small municipality sized province, but in such a fashion that would prevent future abuse by confederal or ganging up by the other provinces.

 

[bossi]

My thanks to Boydfish for crunching the numbers, since it was one of the issues I wanted to address.

I feel for PEI, however ... it has a population roughly the size of Scarborough, Ontario ...
(i.e.sorry spudsters, but ... size does matter).

Also - I'm against the NDP brainfart idea of proportional representation in the House of Commons, simply because of the instability it has caused in other national governments (e.g. Italy - how many governments since 1945 ... ?)

Presently the Senate consists of patronage appointments, stacked by whichever party was in power ... pathetic, in other words.  Similarly, the ridings seem to be divided whenever it suits the governing party ... instead of an impartial, transparent system.

We do need a system of checks and balances - the unadulterated arrogance of "Papa Doc Crouton" must not be allowed to repeat itself (can you believe it?  He spent $15 million of our tax dollars on travel during his last two years in office ... plus the Challenger jets that were ram-rodded through at the end of the fiscal year ... plus the billion dollar boondoggle gun registry ... and our Navy STILL doesn't have replacements for the SeaThings ... simply because some snot-nosed Liberal party pollster fartcatcher who wears red suspenders to bed at night came up with the catchphrase "... Me, I drives a Chevrolet, nots a Cadillac ..." instead of admitting that the North Atlantic is just a teeny bit more dangerous than taking the taxpayers for a ride ...)

 

[McG]

More movement in the wrong direction:

Ottawa may open debate on electoral reforms
By BRIAN LAGHI
From Monday's Globe and Mail
15 Nov 04

A federal plan is being developed that could lead to the launch of a sweeping review of the electoral system by opening up a national debate on everything from the first-past-the-post system to voter malaise.

Sources have told The Globe and Mail that Liberal deputy House leader Mauril Belanger is preparing a blueprint that would provide the public with a forum where it could express its views about the system, including the first-past-the-post structure under which the House of Commons is elected. Crucial issues like declining voter participation, youth engagement, fixed-date elections and political finance reform would also be open to discussion.

The minister has yet, however, to have his idea approved by Prime Minister Paul Martin, who has not seen Mr. Belanger's proposal. Approving the plan is fraught with risks for Mr. Martin, because, once he starts the process he would be bound to seriously consider its recommendations, which may not play to the Liberals' political advantage.

If it goes ahead, Ottawa would be following in the footsteps of several Canadian provinces, which are deep into their own deliberations over how to change their systems.

Sources said one notion being considered by the minister is for a series of five or so regional town-hall meetings, where citizens, academics and other groups would be asked to provide their views and suggest changes.

"It's an idea to take the pulse of the nation," said a source, who asked not be identified.

"The curve has been set by the provinces. We're simply following it."

A citizens assembly in British Columbia, for example, has already suggested that the province's traditional voting structure, which sees members elected in riding-by-riding competitions, be replaced by the single transferable ballot, a system that allows for multiple members to be elected from much larger geographical constituencies.

Residents will vote on the idea in a provincial referendum next spring.

Sources said the deliberations could be fashioned along the lines of those featured during the recent commission on health care, led by former Saskatchewan premier Roy Romanow. Mr. Romanow held public meetings as well as a massive focus group exercise, which presented participants with specific choices on what they wanted to see in a reformed health system.

The results of the work would be simply presented as information to Mr. Martin, and could conceivably become part of the government's platform for the next election.

The NDP â ” which would be warm to the idea of a review â ” has been in the forefront of the discussion on electoral reform and supports introducing proportional representation to the system. PR, as it is known, is a system under which the number of seats a party wins is fixed by the percentage of popular vote it garners. In other words, a party receiving 15 per cent of the votes would receive 15 per cent of the seats to the House of Commons.

PR would help smaller parties like the NDP, while reducing the seats of parties like the Liberals. The government, for example, earned 45 per cent of the votes in Ontario in the previous election, and came away with 75 per cent of the seats.

Mr. Belanger was given his mandate to look into reform issues when appointed by Mr. Martin in the summer. Sources said the fact that the PM has kept up a running interest in the issue could make it difficult for him to reject some sort of a public process. Mr. Martin also could have done away with the portfolio in the summer cabinet shuffle.

The Prime Minister also gave democratic transformation a boost in the recent Throne Speech when he bound his government to examine "the need and options for reform of our democratic institutions, including electoral reform."

The House of Commons standing committee on procedure and house affairs has also been asked to develop a process to study the issue.

If Mr. Belanger gets the nod, he could kick off the process as early as January.

Later this week, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty is expected to announce the formation of a citizens assembly to look into the issue. Other provinces dealing with the issue include New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Quebec.

 

[McG]

PM vetoes Alberta's Senate proposal
By BRIAN LAGHI and KATHERINE HARDING
From Thursday's Globe and Mail (19 Noc 04)

Ottawa and Edmonton â ” Ralph Klein's hopes to have elected senators from Alberta sit in the Red Chamber were dashed by Paul Martin yesterday, despite what the Premier took to be a pledge from the Prime Minister to act on the issue.

Mr. Martin, who is charged with appointing senators, told the House of Commons yesterday that Senate reform cannot be done on a one-off basis. Three of Alberta's six seats in the 105-member Senate are vacant.

â Å“I have long been an advocate of Senate reform. However, I do not believe that doing Senate reform piecemeal would really bring us the desired result,â ? the Prime Minister said in Question Period.

â Å“What it could quite well do is simply exacerbate a number of the problems. What I think we should do is look at Senate reform but look at it in its entirety.â ?

His comments came as a surprise to Mr. Klein, who said this week that the Prime Minister had told him privately a year ago that he would look favourably on making such appointments.

â Å“He's very disappointed. . . . This is unexpected,â ? said Marisa Etmanski, Mr. Klein's spokeswoman.

â Å“[Mr. Martin] is also not giving us a good reason.â ?

She said Mr. Klein viewed the idea of an elected Senate as an â Å“opportunity for the Prime Minister to prove he's serious about listening to Western Canada issues.â ?

The Prime Minister was answering criticisms yesterday from Opposition Leader Stephen Harper, who asked Mr. Martin to drop his long-standing opposition to naming elected senators.

Mr. Harper has said that, if elected, he would appoint elected senators.

Conservative MP Dave Chatters added his voice to those calling for the appointments, telling Mr. Martin that it would be a good way to address western anger.

â Å“The time has come for this Prime Minister to listen to Albertans,â ? said Mr. Chatters.

â Å“If he really wants to address western alienation, the time is now.â ?

The party's critic for intergovernmental affairs, Rona Ambrose, also noted that appointing a member to the Senate does not require a constitutional amendment.

Former prime minister Brian Mulroney appointed the late Stan Waters in the early 1990s after a similar Alberta vote.

However, other nominees have not been, while the Liberal government refuses to reopen the debate.

Next Monday, Albertans will go to the polls in a special Senate election taking place alongside the provincial vote.

Ten people, including Link Byfield, the former publisher of the defunct Alberta Report magazine, are candidates in the contest, which will cost the province $3-million to run.

 

[MissMolsonIndy]

Canada could definitely stand to undergo further democratic reform, and implement some of the proposals made: a Triple-E Senate, A form of Proportional Representation in terms of the Electoral Regime or the Single-Transferable Vote System, as well applying a more controlled and fixed system, like in the United States, for the calling of elections (as of present, the Prime Minister with the approval of the Governor General can call an election at any given time during his/her period of office).

As mentioned, the method in which the American people choose their head of state is more democratic than that of Canada: the American populace is able to, at the grass-roots, choose who will head their part of choice, instead of having the political party choose for them.

 

[Gilligan]

  Okay, so there is a stability issue with PR, but, SMP is expensive, and isn't truely representative of the population.  Sure under PR there would be less in the lines of constituencies, but, because of the formation of coalition governments, those who believe that some of the fringe parties (which some have excellent platforms by the way) are given at least 1 seat in the house.  And, on top of that, SMP is a two party system, and is outdated in Canada by a longshot....we just have too many parties and too many people pissed off with what we have....maybe a senate reform would work, I'm not so sure.

 

[a_majoor]

We are circling around an issue which is the real killer of democracy here in Canada, and in many other nations as well: Career Politicians.

No matter what arrangements we propose, as long as people are motivated by greed, fear, lust for power and all the other factors we remember from Maslows hierarchy of needs, they will "work the system" for their benefit, not ours. Gold plated pensions and 20% pay hikes are the most obvious symptoms, but really, any sort of innovation which would crack open the door and allow some other group to gain some control is vigorously resisted.

The Greeks of the Classical period used a system of random drawings from the eligible population to create their assembly, jurors, civil service posts and often "Generals" (alternatively, Generals could be elected by the assembly. Each Polis was different). Since the drawing of lots was done on a yearly basis, there was a built in term limit; after a year, the odds were someone else would be selected for the higher level posts. One year was enough to do a job, but not really enough to learn how to manipulate the system. Only skilled orators and demagogues could consistently sway the assembly and be elected to posts like General, but even then, their actions were always under fairly close scrutiny.

While having a lottery might not be the best way to get MP's and Senators in todays world, the idea of strict term limits and accountability would certainly go a long way to curbing abuses. As an example, City Council in Phoenix Arizona is constrained to a two term limit, and taxes apparently have not risen in the last 11 years! Having a constant stream of "fresh blood" and ideas coming through the ranks of Government would probably crack open many of the mental log jams which hinder Canada (you can pick which log jam to break).

My suggestion; each elective office can only be held for two terms. This would give people enough time to take on fairly large projects and see them through, and a person who was interested in a "long term" career in politics would have to win their Commons seat twice, then run for senate and win that seat twice.

 

[RCA]

The problem with term limits is that you wash away the good with the bad. The are many MPs plugging along doing the work they were elected for and doing a good job for their constitants.

Set term limits on Cabinet postions would be more effective. That is were the power corrupts thing happens.

Electors vote for their local MP (or MLA, Mayor., whatever). Thats the term limit. Don't like his policies or direction, out he goes. Move away from party loyalty. Its the electorate who need to become more involved not setting artificial limits

 

[a_majoor]

There is no ideal system, true, but consider our disfunctional Medicare system is still being debated in terms framed in the 1960's, and US Social Security is based on assumptions current in the 1930's, so a little new blood is needed. As well, "the good" will be valuable in any other career path they choose, so having a time out for a term in office will not hurt them.

 

[Reccesoldier]

A couple of ideas, just off the top of my head.

Eliminate the Party System.
Directly elect our PM who's job it would be to create a coalition from the other elected MP's to form his cabinet.
This means that we would have to rethink our current confidence measures in the House of Commons in essence making every vote except perhaps the budget a free vote. This would allow MP's to vote with their constituents instead of some party line.

Retain the Senate but institute Alberta's Triple E resolution. In order to save on cost and to represent the provinces, have the election of Senators done on a PR system that is tied directly to the results of the federal election. The Proportional Senators "elected" through the PR system are then selected from a list compiled by the Provincial Legislature.

I know many here have a problem with the PR system but I think it is a better way to go, it is certainly more democratic. Under STV constituancies still exist, just on a larger scale. The complaints that individuals would loose touch with their MP's in my opinion is not well founded and I think having a multi member constituancy could help that connection. For example let's just say that you are a Libertarian but none of your guys were elected. You would have the freedom to approach any of the 2,3 or 4 MP's elected in your riding on any issue. You could approach a Conservative candidate about governmental interferance in business and a Liberal MP on questions of the legalization of Pot.

As far as stability goes The Republic of Ireland has had a fully functioning STV system since the 1920's and their parliaments have been stable. Malta also has a PR system and they have a 2 party state so the balkanization of political views does not necessarily have to happen and will only happen if the people want those choices available.

 

[Infanteer]

I don't get it.

Eliminate the Party System.
Directly elect our PM who's job it would be to create a coalition from the other elected MP's to form his cabinet.
This means that we would have to rethink our current confidence measures in the House of Commons in essence making every vote except perhaps the budget a free vote. This would allow MP's to vote with their constituents instead of some party line.

For example let's just say that you are a Libertarian but none of your guys were elected. You would have the freedom to approach any of the 2,3 or 4 MP's elected in your riding on any issue. You could approach a Conservative candidate about governmental interferance in business and a Liberal MP on questions of the legalization of Pot.

You say eliminate the political party system and then you advocate STV on the basis that more party participation would strengthen democracy.

The reason I oppose most PR variations is that they only serve to strengthen the role of parties.  I am not really a fan of the parties as they only weaken representative democracy and encourage group-think.

 

[Reccesoldier]

Infanteer, I guess I wasn't clear I wasn't talking about the Libertarian Party, Liberal Party or Conservative Party but of ideological points of view which people may hold.

While a pure PR List system may strengthen the party system because the party itself decides how candidates appear on the list the STV does not as it is the individual voter who decides which candidate they feel will represent them the best.

BTW, the elimination of the party system will never happen, they are too ingrained into the psyche of the populous and they are too powerfull as institutions. It might be possible when forming a democracy but not once one has been in existence since 1867

I personally believe that what some see as a drawback of the STV system (the proliferation of parties) is actually a bonus. To have more points of view in our house of commons representing the varied and diverse points of view of the people of Canada is a good thing not a bad one. Also for the people a minority or coalition is a good thing as well, no four year dictatorships, no Cretien style vanguard party to impose a my way or the highway brand of non-leadership.

 

[a_majoor]

I don't see how you could eliminate the party system. In terms of the Constitution, parties are not mentioned at all. In a practical sense, parties represent the gathering of people with common interests. Liberals, for example, are interested in getting and controllong your tax dollars for their purposes  :rage:.

PR systems, encourage small parties with limited constituencies, and have historically resulted in fragmented coalition governments which are not stable. First past the Post is designed for accountability, but as we see here in Canada, this is not a garunteed outcome. The American Electoral College system ensures candidates must reach to and appeal to a broad range of constituencies, in the 2000 election Al Gore gained most of the urban vote (and hence most of the popular vote as well), but because his message did not appeal to middle and rural America, he didn't win the electoral college votes in most of the American States, and so lost the election. A look at the map of "Red" vs "Blue" states shows a similar pattern repeated in 2004.

Perhaps rather than argue about how we elect our governments, we focus more on what we want our governments to do, and how they achieve these goals. Bloated government payrolls and officials who refuse to be held accountable are two huge problems which won't go away under any system, but can be attacked by voter action rather than voter apathy.

 

[Reccesoldier]

PR systems, encourage small parties with limited constituencies, and have historically resulted in fragmented coalition governments which are not stable.

Stable is a relative term. Ireland has had stable governments under the STV since the 1920's each lasting 3 to 4 years. Malta also has a stable 2 party system under STV.

First past the Post is designed for accountability

I'd disagree with this statement, it is designed to give the party a clear cut mandate to rule in spite of the % of people who vote for it nationaly. SMP also penalizes small parties and overrepresents regionaly based parties. Obviously accountability is not something we have here in Canada, on that we can agree. Gun registry anyone?

Perhaps rather than argue about how we elect our governments, we focus more on what we want our governments to do, and how they achieve these goals. Bloated government payrolls and officials who refuse to be held accountable are two huge problems which won't go away under any system, but can be attacked by voter action rather than voter apathy.

Good point. Sounds like an interesting thread.