Parliament, not people, to decide on electoral reform

[Retrosnap]

And not a peep from the CBC.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... e27942303/

[Ka-El]

The federal Liberals say they will not hold a referendum to gauge public opinion on voting reform as they fulfill their promise to abandon the first-past-the-post system but will instead leave it up to Parliament – where they hold a majority of seats – to decide how Canadians will elect future governments.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has promised broad consultation by an all-party committee before legislation is introduced, within 18 months, to reform the existing system and bring in alternatives such as ranked ballots or proportional representation

Critics – and members of other political parties in particular – argue that without putting proposed changes before Canadians in the form of a referendum, the Liberals could use their majority to weight an already skewed system even more heavily in their favour.

Now we have something we can really criticize Trudeau for. If we wanted this type of politics we could have kept Harper.

[Omnitheo]

Electoral reform, was part of their campaign all along. Both the NDP and Liberals said they would bring about it, and Trudeau promised that this would be the last election held under first past the post. At the very least it would put an end to the complaints that Trudeau won a majority with 40% of the vote.

The last time we tried to have a referendum on this in BC, a number of special interest groups not wanting change ran misinformation campaigns and advertisements treating British Columbians like they were 4 year old children that would be too confused by numbers. And unfortunately a minority of people fell for it, and prevented the majority from enacting the change (58% out of 60% needed)

Sometimes There's a reason we elect leaders to make choices for us. We are just fortunate that A) We actually had a choice in who we could vote for, and it could have gone many ways. And B) that the leader is trying to create a system that would be more fair for all, and not just their own party.

[Captain Awesome]

I thought parliament IS people.

You know, it consists of people's representatives democratically elected to make such decisions on our behalf.

[Ka-El]

Sometimes There's a reason we elect leaders to make choices for us. We are just fortunate that A) We actually had a choice in who we could vote for, and it could have gone many ways. And B) that the leader is trying to create a system that would be more fair for all, and not just their own party.

Fair enough that you want to assume the man we elected to be PM is sincerely trying to create a system better for all, but like justice, fairness not only needs to be done, it needs to be seen to be done. By leaving this decision to a parliament where the Liberals have majority control, whatever the outcome it will never be accepted by all as fair or impartial, and it very much has the potential to leave an everlasting stain on Trudeau's leadership. You made some fair arguments but as you noted we had conservative forces at work in BC that wanted to preserve the status quo. It is the task of a true leader to sell us on his vision. Just my opinion but I believe Trudeau's job here is to first develop that vision (through consultation and discussion), then promote it and then put it out to the electorate for a vote on it. This isn't a budget that will run its course and expire. Something as potentially lasting as this should not be imposed or delivered by some end run. That is one of the reasons Harper was defeated so soundly. This is exactly the type of politics the Canadian electorate was sick of and voting against.

[Jonrox]

Exactly. Collectively we're too dumb to make decisions like this. We like to think we're experts on everything but on something like this there's no way I trust us to make a rational decision.

We've shown time and again that we can't be trusted to make important economic and political decisions through referendums. One of the more recent examples being how we screwed up on the HST referendum here in BC. We got caught up in the politics of the decision rather than making the decision that would actually benefit us most in the long run.

We won't be able to get past the politics on something this important. It's also way too complicated for us to understand.

[Retrosnap]

I thought parliament IS people.

You know, it consists of people's representatives democratically elected to make such decisions on our behalf.

I normally agree with this sentiment. However, something as fundamental as how we elect those should be given over to the voters.

Trudeau has said he favours the ranked ballot over proportional representation. Had this been in place on Oct 19, the liberals would have won an even larger majority with only 40% of the vote.

Justin is playing a dangerous game if he uses his majority in parliament to strengthen his hold on power.

[maryjane48]

Exactly. Collectively we're too dumb to make decisions like this. We like to think we're experts on everything but on something like this there's no way I trust us to make a rational decision.

We've shown time and again that we can't be trusted to make important economic and political decisions through referendums. One of the more recent examples being how we screwed up on the HST referendum here in BC. We got caught up in the politics of the decision rather than making the decision that would actually benefit us most in the long run.

We won't be able to get past the politics on something this important. It's also way too complicated for us to understand.

speak for yourself

[d0nb]

Trudeau is probably guessing that the more Canadians know about his plans, the less likely they will be to support them.

Personally, I want to be represented by the candidate who receives the most first choice votes, rather than the one who was so bland that he/she was a popular second choice.

If we're going to change, let's bite the bullet and institute real run-off elections between the top two candidates.

[Retrosnap]

Here's one columnist's take on this. The bolding is mine.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-de ... e27951364/

The Liberal government plans to use its parliamentary majority to force a constitutional change – electoral reform – without holding a referendum. In the year 2016, this is flatly wrong.

Make no mistake. The “constitution” is about the rules of the game. No rules are more important than those that determine which MPs will be elected and which party forms government. That is what “electoral reform” is all about. And it should not be managed by the job seekers.

Our current voting system has its problems. The Liberals, with less than 40 per cent of the vote in the October election, have received 100 per cent of the power. Many people (including the Liberals, previously) say this is wrong. The New Democrats would love “reform” because they are perennial losers under the current system. The Conservatives, for equally selfish partisan reasons, want no change. But only the Liberals say that they should unilaterally be allowed to change the rules to make sure they get a majority most of the time in future. That is the likely impact of their “ranked ballot” dream.

Electoral reform is very complicated. There are many options and any change will bring winners and losers. The thing is to design change so that the winners include the general public, with much less concern for the interests of the political parties. That means, flatly and bluntly, a system that gives you more control over who becomes your member of Parliament, and then gives your MP more power over the government.

At the moment, as Pierre Trudeau once said, MPs are “nobodies” a few metres from Parliament Hill, which makes the rest of us nobodies, too. Electoral reform could do a lot about this. But how do we figure out what is right?

Fortunately there is a gold standard for this sort of work, developed and proven in Canada. The B.C. Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform met on weekends for a year. It was made up of 160 citizens selected at random (like a jury) from around British Columbia, one man and one woman from each riding. The panel was representative. Every British Columbian could see someone there rather like themselves, from professors to couriers. (Politicians were not allowed.)

The members took their work seriously, since any recommendation was guaranteed a referendum and, if approved, would change the political order. For the first months they listened to experts from around the world, organized by a neutral research team and chair. Then they held public hearings across the province.

The final period was deliberation, deep and respectful. Though there was provision for a simple majority report, in the end they came to a massive consensus in favour of a system known as STV (single transferable vote), which was put to the public. (This is not a plea for STV, although it has the virtue of some proportionality without the splintered chaos of “pure” systems. But many variations have merit.)

This next part is important. In May, 2005, the B.C. public voted “yes” for STV, by almost 58 per cent. It is not true that such referendums invariably fail. Alas, the government had specified a minimum of 60-per-cent approval, and what the public supported was dead. But the process worked, and worked well. (Ontarians will remember their own experience in 2007 which, for reasons of inadequate execution, was far less useful, but that proves only that it must be well done.)

There are many (spurious) arguments against a referendum. Some will say, “Oh, reform is not a constitutional change” – but just ask any political scientist. It is. The government says that a parliamentary committee will sagely consult and evaluate all of the options, recommending only the best. Well, if you have ever been an MP, MLA or a witness before such committees, you know this is smoke and piffle. A majority government (such as this one) always gets what it wants.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau asked a skeptical questioner if it is necessary to have a referendum on everything that matters. Would he try that logic on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? This is evasive tap dancing, not worthy of the man.

Some say such referendums always fail. Not if it is a good question, they don’t.

No, set these excuses aside with the contempt they deserve. We were promised “sunny ways,” not a dark and evasive manipulation of our right to vote. We must have direct consent. A course correction on this one cannot come too soon. The voting system belongs to the people. Not the politicians. Period.

[Omnitheo]

Regardless of the change to the system, whether it is MMP or STV, you will be able to continue to vote the same as you always have. Nobodies constitutional rights are being trampled on. Nobody is being told that they can't vote, or that they have to vote a different way. They're making it so that we CAN vote differently to better represent our wishes.

Even if it's STV, I imagine many of the Harperites on this board will simply vote only conservative and not give a second choice to another party out of protest. That's their own prerogative.

[Jonrox]

speak for yourself

I speak on behalf of the 99.9% of Canadians who aren't educated enough in matters of political science to determine how electoral reform should occur.

A referendum will turn into a political battle with party lines being drawn according to the system each believes would give them the best chance at winning consistently. We'll then vote based on our political affiliations, rather than on the system that suits Canada best.

We can't be trusted to collectively make a rational decision. I'm fairly well educated and think I'm pretty smart, but issues like this and determining their long term ramifications is something I shouldn't be allowed to vote on.

I already voted for somebody who's smarter about these things to make these decisions on my behalf.

[Veovis]

I speak on behalf of the 99.9% of Canadians who aren't educated enough in matters of political science to determine how electoral reform should occur.

A referendum will turn into a political battle with party lines being drawn according to the system each believes would give them the best chance at winning consistently. We'll then vote based on our political affiliations, rather than on the system that suits Canada best.

We can't be trusted to collectively make a rational decision. I'm fairly well educated and think I'm pretty smart, but issues like this and determining their long term ramifications is something I shouldn't be allowed to vote on.

I already voted for somebody who's smarter about these things to make these decisions on my behalf.

This......it would turn into the same situation that happened with the HST in BC, a vote done by emotions not by facts. The election reform votes also became a large campaign not "people knowing what they wanted". In those situations we have seen that the sides will always lie and put out false information as well to try to win.

However I don't think a party with full control should get to make the new rules as they sit in a back room snickering about how much more "fair" it will be now, for you that disagree think this "What if it was Harper making the rules", many would cry bloody murder, so the same applies here, no party should get this ability to stack the game.

So what should happen? I'm not sure. Perhaps a collection of all party representatives all with an equal vote from federal and provincial systems (not just seated people), and you hire a few guys that actually know what the heck they are doing and then have a large collection of those people in Canada work through it all and make a vote/recommendation......even if at the end it says, "don't change it, everything else will be worse"

[Urbane]

This......it would turn into the same situation that happened with the HST in BC, a vote done by emotions not by facts. The election reform votes also became a large campaign not "people knowing what they wanted". In those situations we have seen that the sides will always lie and put out false information as well to try to win.

However I don't think a party with full control should get to make the new rules as they sit in a back room snickering about how much more "fair" it will be now, for you that disagree think this "What if it was Harper making the rules", many would cry bloody murder, so the same applies here, no party should get this ability to stack the game.

So what should happen? I'm not sure. Perhaps a collection of all party representatives all with an equal vote from federal and provincial systems (not just seated people), and you hire a few guys that actually know what the heck they are doing and then have a large collection of those people in Canada work through it all and make a vote/recommendation......even if at the end it says, "don't change it, everything else will be worse"

It's a can of worms and the government needs to proceed very carefully. While I agree with Gordon Gibson about the need for a referendum I acknowledge that the HST referendum showed that petty politics and a misinformation campaign can make for a flawed decision. An alternative to a referendum is your suggestion and it's worth considering.

[bob vernon]

No need for a referendum. The preferential ballot is just fine. It will reflect the overall wishes of the masses. We cannot afford to have another majority right wing person government elected by a minority of the electorate in a first-past-the-post fiasco. We have 330 wise people who we just elected and they can decide. Of course the Conservatives want the unbalanced system to continue and allow the entitled 1%ers to buy the elections with their wealth.