14 October 2008
15 Sep
Elizabeth May and the Green Party of Canada have inspired people from across Canada to think about fairness, both in terms of having democratic debates and also on a related issue.
Had it not been for our first past the post system, which deprived Greens of Members in Parliament in 2006, there would have been no debate about the debates.
However, the attempts by Jack Layton, Steven Harper and to some extent Gilles Duceppe, to exclude May from the debates have helped make how voters elect their representatives a possible emerging election issue.
Indeed, electoral reform should be viewed as THE most pressing issue.Not the environment. Not poverty. Not the healthcare system. Not crime, gangs, or violence against women. Not abortion. Not the war in Afghanistan or the US invasion of Iraq and their imminent attack on Iran. Not the sabre rattling between the US and Russia.
While no one would claim that these issues aren’t important, no matter on which side you stand, the fact of the matter is they won’t get addressed by any party or politician. Not in any substantive, meaningful way.Not unless something fundamental changes in our eroding democracy.
I say this as a woman and activist whose employment income is limited to below poverty levels by disability and who is passionate about peace, the environment, food and housing security, a woman’s right to decide what happens to her body, and the development and sustainability of local economies.
The most pressing issue for the upcoming federal election and in next year’s BC election and all future elections until it has been addressed is democratic and electoral reform.
Without the proportional representation of the voters’ preference matched to the number of Members in Parliament and our provincial legislatures, democracy in Canada will continue to be a sham.Without true democratic representation, issues of importance to voters, rather than issues of importance to those in power and their corporate backers, will continue to be ignored.
Recovering our democracy is the most urgent issue facing the people of Canada.
So next time you nab a politician’s attention, ask him or her this question:Â ”Upon being elected, will you and your party take immediate steps to reform our electoral system?”
For complete information about electoral reform and what you can do to bring reform to the forefront of this election, visit FairVote Canada.

Conservative Party
Liberal Party
New Democratic Party
Bloc Québécois
Green Party
Christian Heritage
Progressive Canadian
Marijuana Party
Marxist-Leninist Party
Canadian Action Party
Communist Party
Libertarian Party
First Peoples Party
Western Block Party
Animal Alliance Party
neorhino.ca
8 Responses for "Democracy doesn’t stop at democratic debates"
I agree we need some sort of proportional representation in Canada. However, I don’t see how it would curtail the influence of “corporate backers”. As it is now, I am able to vote for an individual MP, who is there to represent the interests of the voters in their riding. They have a certain amount of accountability to the people who voted them in. With proportional representation, the party itself would select some of the MPs, who would have no accountability to any individual constituency. They would still be, however, beholden to their party, and any corporate influence on that party. I’m not saying it’s a bad idea, I’m just saying it’s not going curtail any corporate influence in politics that we don’t already have.
I studied political science in cegep and university and came out thinking, “I need to start to crusade Canada to sell citizens on having a modified proportional representation system” to replace the horribly unrepresentative “first past the post system”.
I am a single mother too, and nothing is more frustrating than the status quo, when you know how much better Canada could be with true democratic representation, how much better this country could be with all voices and interests being heard.
So many voters do not even care who their MP is, or that it is their obligation, as a citizen in a democracy to vote. And so many citizens do not even vote! Why? The typical response is that all politicians are the same! Of course they are, if all we have are elected reps who represent corporate interests to get elected and to keep
getting elected because our current system replicates its limitations over and over again.
For more than 30 years, I have supported the NDP… All the years they tried to survive this first past the post system which pretends to be democratic. I have counted my blessings every election that they have managed to survive.
I am now glad that Elizabeth May is participating in the upcoming debates. Everything she says will make democracy stronger by educating the public, something the papers do not do.
I am also trying to forgive Jack for his part in trying to exclude her. If the NDP strategists did this, one should take into account that the NDP have been around longer and have fought so, so hard to stay alive. Perhaps because the unions prevented the NDP from being as green as they might have earlier on in this past 15 years, the Greens have been making gains in Canada as well as in Europe.
To conclude, it would be great if the Greens (as an international political movement and party) could put more energy and money into making inroads in the US, where there is no NDP… And not much hope for the rest of us unless there is some Green revolution there!
Appreciate your stopping by, Peter, and I understand your points.
However, the form of proportional representation which I favour, and the one going to referendum in BC in 2009 – which received 58% of the vote in 2005, just 2% shy of the 60% required -, is single transferable vote or STV.
What you are envisioning, with the parties selecting MPs to fill up the proportional slate, isn’t a part of STV. That belongs to the voting system which was sent to referendum in Ontario, mixed member proportional or MMP. It’s precisely because parties would get to select some members and thus less power is held by the voters that the BC Citizens Assembly recommended STV, not MMP.
Some kind of election reform is needed, but time and time again, canadians have rejected systems that will cause more and more minorities. BC is only now, after mulling it over for 4 years, possibly going to accept STV. What we need is a parallel system, something that will ensure the opposition is of a fair size (in some provinces they capture less than 20% of the seats) and that all parties are represented (Tories in Newfoundland, NDPers in Quebec, Liberals in Alberta, etc) without causing endless minority governments. It’s possible.
[...] Democracy doesn’t stop at democratic debatesElizabeth May and the Green Party of Canada have inspired people from across Canada to think about fairness, both in terms of having democratic debates and also on a related issue.Had it not been for our first past the post system, … [...]
Yes, it’s about time Canada becomes a modern democracy.
All politicians SAY that they want to debate issues, they want more people to go voting and they don’t want people to vote strategically. Well all this could happen if our system could just evolve into something that includes a notion of proportionality, like most occidental countries have done. Yet, NONE of the politicians bring this issue on the table (except maybe the Greens which of course would benefit the most from it). We need the increase the pressure until they can no longer ignore it!
Imagine, your vote could mean something again! you could actually go voting according to your values and your vote would count… amazing!
Straight proportional representation will result in recurring minority governments, thereby causing a state of permanent electioneering vs policy driven government, with elections every 2 years or so. I don’t think this is what we want! Witness the instability and poor administration this has caused in Italy.
Any electoral reform should include rep by pop, some form of proportional representation and an elected senate. We also need reform of how government works: restrict the power of the PMO, give more to individual MPs and committees,and allow free votes. We need more independence, but also more cooperation.
My proposal for the House:
A) First past the post
PEI gets 1 seat.
Each province divides its population by PEI’s to determine its number of seats.
Each of the territories gets 1 seat.(concession from rep by pop)
Result: 240 seats, adjusted at every census for population growth.
B) Proportional representation
For each 2% of the vote a party gets nationally, it is allotted 1 MP. To determine the MPs, seats would be allotted to candidates for the party who did not win under first past the post in descending order by number of votes earned in the election.
ex. Greens win 8%, they get 4 seats. The seats go to the 4 Green candidates who gained the most votes in the election but did not win their riding.
Result: 50 seats
Total MPs: 290
Senate:
2 senators for first 1 million population by province.
For each additional 1 million population 1 senator.
1 senator for 3 territories combined.
Maximum per province: 10
Total:40, adjusted at census for population growth.
Election:After initial election, 1/2 of senators would be elected at every election.
Chrystal, you are quite right that the BC Citizens’ Assembly wanted a system that would not allow parties to fill up the list of additional (compensatory) MPs to make the result proportional.
However, they were also working on an open list MMP model which would have solved that problem. They ran out of time before they finished designing it, since they preferred STV. The Ontario CA also ran out of time before they could reconsider the question of regional open lists, which required more design decisions than they had time for.
If you aim to persuade involved voters to work for proportional representation, you may have to discuss some details. For example, a three-seat STV district is unlikely to give Green Party voters a voice: every vote will count, except as many as 24% of the votes, counted for the losing candidate on the final count. A six-seat or seven-seat district, on the other hand, gives much more proportional results. To simply say “STV” is about as useful as saying “MMP” — in both cases, the model can be more or less responsive to voters.
Leave a reply below or start a thread in the discussion forums
Note: Sometimes people try to portray more support for their candidate or their perspective in the comments section by posing as different people. If you attempt to do this, we will delete all of your comments.Update: despite the above warning, people are attempting to use multiple aliases, so we are now moderating all comments to check against possible abuses. We apologize for this inconvenience, however we will work to get comments posted as soon as possible.