Liberals rigging electoral reform

[Glacier]

Andrew Weaver is doing a good job in Victoria, and a valuable service at that. Even in a two party system (it's really only one party that rules most of the time), a minority party with a single MLA/MP can embarrass the government. I would argue that Weaver is doing more to hold the Liberals to account than the entire NDP caucus (eg. his scathing attacks on government over the MSP). It is not the number of members a party has that matter, but rather, how they use their voices.

On the federal level, the Reform Party had great influence over the Liberals because they raised the issue of fiscal restraint. This forced the Chretien Liberals to own that issue as their's, and not merely pay lip service to it. Do you know why left-wing governments often show more fiscal restraint than right-wing ones? Because the party across the isle forces them to take up the cause lest they lose their job like the NDP did in BC. Similarly, do you know why almost all voting privileges (women, First Nations, Chinese, etc) in Canada were passed by Conservative governments? Because the party across the isle forces them to take up the cause lest they lose their job. Do you know why the party in power has to listen to the NDP? Because addressing their concerns that make the most sense to Canadians(eg. medicare) is the only way to keep the NDP out of power.

See, a two party system can work. Heck, even if the Liberals get their wish for a one party system, they will still have to listen to the other parties or they will lose ground. The great thing about democracy, and especially under FPTP, is that it's relatively easy to throw out a tired old government. Under proportional representation, the government that deserves the boot, whether it's the NDP in BC, the PCs in Alberta, or the Conservatives in Ottawa never get the boot they deserve. Because of the perpetual minority situation, a tired old corrupt government doesn't get the a$$ kicking they deserve, and instead hold the balance of power, which in may respects means they are still the ones in control of the government. Do we really want that?

[maryjane48]

Good. Hope they rig it so cons disband and become a bad memory.

[Omnitheo]

I know multiple people who owe their lives to Tommy Douglas. Were it not for universal healthcare, they and their families never would have been able to afford treatment.

To say he's done more harm to Canada than good is pretty offensive, and does not reflect Canadian Values.

[Glacier]

Canadian values? You sound like a right-wing neo-con!

[Omnitheo]

Well my family goes back several generations in Canada. I'm what you could call an Old Stock Canadian

[hobbyguy]

Glacier, you make some good points.

There is one wrinkle I think is worth considering: the initial attempts of the Reform party and Preston Manning (and Stephen Harper) to break into Canadian politics fell completely flat. There simply wasn't room in the political landscape. Too many folks figured that if they voted Reform, they would split the vote and the Liberals would take over from the PCs.

The only reason that the Reform party got traction in the following election was the debacle at the end of the Mulroney/Campbell PC tenure in conjunction with the rise of the Bloc. Eventually it required the process of the Alliance party and gobbling up the remains of the PCs to make the Conservative party a real contender.

Such junctures in Canadian political history are very rare.

IF there had been a proportional representation system, the Reform party might well have become a represented political force in their first outing. That would have given them, and their ideas, much earlier airing.

I doubt very much that a system that trends to/maintains a two party system is good for democracy. Consider the situation in BC. Anyone who does NOT want the BC NDP has one real choice, the BC Libs. IF there was a viable alternative, and it was more representative of my views...and coalitions were an option...

[Glacier]

Glacier, you make some good points.

As do you. This is a complex issue with no obvious right answer. I'm throwing out ideas that may or may not be right, but my opinions continue to evolve as time goes on. For example, ealier in the Summer I was thinking of starting a new thread titled: "Why JLives is right about Direct Democracy," but then I got distracted and went on holidays, and now I can't remember why I was thinking that that day.

[Rosemary1]

Electoral reform is very complicated. Any reform brought in by whatever government is sitting without a referendum will be suspect. Voters need to be presented with 2-3 well explained and debated options (one option may be 'to keep it the same) on which to vote.

[Omnitheo]

Why wasn't it suspect then when BC had a referendum, and with both a majority of votes for it, and a higher vote percentage than what the liberals were elected with, they opted to reject it because it wasn't "enough of a majority"

[Glacier]

Why wasn't it suspect then when BC had a referendum, and with both a majority of votes for it, and a higher vote percentage than what the liberals were elected with, they opted to reject it because it wasn't "enough of a majority"

The rules were set before the referendum. Then they had a second referendum with the new criteria being 50%+1, and it failed.

[The Green Barbarian]

Good. Hope they rig it so cons disband and become a bad memory.

The people of Manitoba are hoping that this actually happens to the NDP. Like us in BC, thankfully the NDP being in government is just a bad memory, but like us, they're going to be paying for NDP ineptitude for years to come.

[The Green Barbarian]

I would venture to say that if you were to try to eliminate the programs that Tommy Douglas was instrumental in creating, most Canadians would vote you out of office in a heartbeat. .

And I'd venture to say that if Tommy Douglas were alive today to see the money-eating behemoth of total waste and corruption that the Canadian Health Care system has turned into, he'd hang his head in shame. Tommy always ran a tight balanced budget and it would drive him nuts to see how poorly run and managed the system we have in place now truly is.

[The Green Barbarian]

To say he's done more harm to Canada than good is pretty offensive, and does not reflect Canadian Values.

*removed* I actually agree with you in this case that Tommy did a lot for Canada, and stands as an outlier to Veovis' overall point, which I think is still valid.

[hobbyguy]

The difficulties with direct democracy referenda are many.

As we saw in the Brexit vote, the government are at a disadvantage. Parties opposed to the government position are often guilty of promoting arguments/positions that are designed for political advantage rather than what may be the best for the country. As Glacier posted, the Conservatives would lose, the NDP gain, the Greens gain, the Bloc gain, and the Liberals gain with proportional representation. It may well be that proportional representation or mixed system is the best for Canada. Under either of those systems, I would expect the Greens and perhaps the Bloc to be supportive for political reasons. The NDP (and the Liberals) to support proportional representation because of political positioning. The Conservatives might be OK in a mixed system, but might get hosed under a proportional system. The Conservative "best shot" has been FPTP, so I would expect them to oppose change - purely as political calculus.

And so it goes. What made that very clear was watching the Brexit vote, Nigel and Boris grandstanding and making all kinds promises and arguments - with apparent passion. Then when the chips are down, Brexit wins, they run and hide. Hmmm...

When you think about "direct democracy", you also have to think about fashion. Maybe "x" is fashionable, but is it the right thing for the country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmetics_in_Ancient_Rome

"Although Romans esteemed pale faces, a light pink on the cheeks was considered to be attractive, signifying good health. Plutarch wrote that too much rouge made a woman look showy, while Martial mocked women, believing that rouge was in danger of melting in the sun.[4] Sources of rouge included Tyrian vermillion,[10] rose and poppy petals, fucus,[23] red chalk, alkanet, and crocodile dung.[24] Red ochre, a more expensive blush, was imported from Belgium and ground against a stone into powder.[17] Despite a widespread knowledge that cinnabar and red lead were poisonous, they were both still used extensively.[7] Cheap alternatives included mulberry juice and wine dregs.[8]

And then you have to think about the time factor/passion factor for many folks. Do they have the time and/or interest to really inform themselves? Some may simply read one article on the Rebel. Some may simply read one article in the Tyee. Some may read nothing and go "dis one. dat one, dis one, dat one, this one".

Even if you think about "barring politicians" from the campaign, there are so many "surrogates" like the Fraser Institute, and many others, to muddy the discussion with misinformation. You can not say to the Rebel or the Tyee that they are not permitted to comment - they should be allowed to comment.

I also happen to think that rural and small town voters tend to get their voices drowned out in a referendum.

The good thing is, we can always kick the LIberals out and pick a party that espouses something else down the road. That can happen regardless of which system, if any is chosen. In the meantime, mail your MP for sure when the choice(s) become available, and before that if you are passionate about the subject.

[sooperphreek]

i cant wait till elections are rigged against right wing crybabies