A commentary by Elsie Hambrook, Chair of the New Brunswick Advisory Council on the Status of Women, is a must-read.

When Doris Anderson, former and famed editor of Chatelaine and lifelong activist, came to Saint John on a stormy winter night in 2003, drawing hundreds of women to hear her speak on electoral reform, she confided something that, years later, still makes some of us think…

Getting the message out to the public [no matter what it is] is damn hard these days. Not just because the media and corporate and party elites are so strongly against democratic and electoral reform, but because, among other things, locations where people come together are increasingly not available for canvassing or soliciting.

For example, at the All Candidates Meeting in my community, I wanted to distribute Fair Vote Canada flyers on the seats in the theatre. I’d printed off 250 flyers, plus sheets of the FVC petition for candidates and audience members to sign (was hoping to ask a question at the mic on ER/PR).

When I arrived at the ACM venue, I asked permission of the manager to distribute my flyers on the theatre seats.

Denied.

So I asked permission to distribute the flyers outside, at the front of the building.

Denied again.

Even the purportedly public sidewalk fronting the building was off-limits….

Full article

Reprinted with permission from Fair Vote Canada.

Open letter from Fair Vote Canada to strategic voters and vote-swappers

“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.” – Albert Einstein

Another federal election and another disaster for democracy.On October 14, millions of Canadians – possibly eight million – will become orphan voters, casting ballots that send no one to Ottawa. As usual, the election results will be wildly distorted.

Some parties will get a portion of seats far exceeding their portion of the popular vote, while others will get too little or none at all.We may even see a party opposed by six voters in every ten take majority control in the House of Commons.

Why we call this exercise “democracy” is a continuing mystery.

During every election in recent memory the frustration created by an undemocratic electoral system leads some to conclude that voters should try to “game” the system. Instead of marking the ballot for a party you support, they say, be “smart” and vote for a party you do not support in order block another party that you despise.

A recent poll by the Toronto Star indicated that about half of those supporting the Liberals, NDP and Green Party would consider casting a negative or “strategic” vote, abandoning the party they actually prefer, to vote for another party in the hope of stopping a candidate from the front-running Conservatives.

In addition to 40% of the eligible voters who choose not to vote we could now have another large group of people who have given up on sincere voting and genuine democratic representation.

This is no way to nourish pride of citizenship or public respect for the laws that emanate from an unrepresentative Parliament.

Citizens in most major democracies take for granted their right to cast a vote that elects the representation they want. In the upcoming election, the majority of Canadian voters will all but certainly be denied that right.Fair Vote Canada cannot advise voters whether to cast negative votes or to participate in vote-swapping schemes on October 14. It’s rarely a clear or easy choice.

What we can advise is that all Canadians should be coming together to demand reform of our country’s undemocratic election process.

If you have not already done so, join and support Fair Vote Canada. Sign the Fair Vote Canada petition calling for a national referendum on electoral reform. Urge other organizations to make active citizenship, equal votes and proportional representation for all Canadians a part of their basic mission.

Together we can win.

British Columbians showed the way in 2005 when 58% voted by referendum for proportional representation, only to be frustrated – in the short-term – by an undemocratic government-imposed threshold of 60%. On May 12, 2009, British Columbians will vote again in an electoral reform referendum. With our encouragement and help, they can lead Canada on the path of democratic renewal.

The electoral system has orphaned many of us. We must refuse to be silenced. Democracy has been long delayed, but if democrats are steadfast, democracy will not be forever denied.

Fair Vote Canada
Orphan Voters

Please help spread the word about the importance of reforming our electoral system – distribute this letter widely. – Ocean.

An explosive account in a major column today reveals that the federal NDP back in Ed Broadbent’s time, rejected the Liberal government’s offer to change our voting system to proportional representation.

Why?

Because “the MPs were afraid of losing their seats.”

The electoral crapshoot would long be a thing of the past had NDP leader Ed Broadbent and his caucus seized a never-before-disclosed offer from prime minister Pierre Trudeau immediately after the 1980 election. The Liberals captured 147 of 282 seats with 44 per cent of the popular vote, but failed to elect a single MP west of Winnipeg despite the support of about 25 per cent of western voters.

A Liberal majority with no western seats ignited western rage. Not only do ongoing unrepresentative and perverse electoral outcomes undermine democratic legitimacy and suppress turnout, they rupture the bonds holding the country together, artificially fomenting regional alienation and fracturing national unity.

Trudeau invited Broadbent to his office for a chat. The NDP had captured 26 of its 32 seats in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and B.C. with about one-third of the vote. Trudeau said he would introduce legislation for proportional representation if the NDP would co-sponsor it.

According to well-placed sources, Broadbent said he would take the proposal to his caucus. The answer was no.

Broadbent told the prime minister NDP MPs were afraid of losing their seats. Trudeau declined to forge ahead alone.

This is a lengthy column, with lots of info, and likely to get substantial attention.

Bloggers everywhere are writing about strategic voting.

Some argue that progressives should vote strategically. Others argue against, making the compelling case that it is never right to vote for the lesser of evils rather than for a party which best accords with one’s values.

This will be my last post on this topic.

As I responded in a comment on another blog, I think people of good conscience can take different sides on strategic voting and both be right.

I’ve weighed back and forth whether voting strategically is the ethical thing to do – for me – and I don’t pretend to know what’s right for anyone else.

But after thinking hard about it, having for a moment thought that, for the first time in all my voting years, it was right that I vote against one party and not for the party whose values most reflect mine, I just can’t do it.

For me, a vote for a party I don’t support goes against everything I believe in, and the principles and values which have guided me throughout my life. But I do understand someone arguing that to uphold their own values – which could be very similar to mine -, they must do exactly opposite to what I’ve decided.

It may be that the tension between the two positions is really that captured between two levels of thought or discourse, between the philosophically ethical and the specifically moral. Which is why each position can be both right and wrong.

From this point on in this election and for several months beyond to the May 2009 BC election, I’ll be spending my time working toward democratic reform. That must start with a change to our voting system, to proportional representation.

Had PR been in place for this election, no voter would be confronted with the dilemma of choosing to vote other than what’s in their heart.

[Cross-posted at Challenging the Commonplace]

 

I’ve very little info about this All Candidates Meeting except to report that:

• it was hosted by the BC Nurses Union;
• took place at the Coast Bastion in Nanaimo;
• was attended by Christina Knighton (Green),  Brian Scott (Liberal) and NDP incumbent Jean Crowder; and
• Conservative Reed Elley was a no-show.

A report in the Cowichan NewsLeader on Wednesday indicated a fifth candidate running: Jack East, for the Marxist-Leninist Party. 

Over at JimBobby Sez, the man has given me pause for thought and I’m so glad he did.

Perhaps all of us who have been thinking of voting strategically for the first time should think again and read his passionate reminder: about why we’ve never voted strategically before, about why we didn’t and that those reasons haven’t changed just because we’re facing another Harper government, about the feeling you get when you vote for the lesser of two evils, about ….

Here’s an excerpt from JB’s post.

It may take a strong dose of un-democracy to convince enough Canadians that we have a broken system in need of reform. So be it. When we engage in schemes and vote trading and candidate trading and all sorts of strategies to play the game by the unfair rules, we only perpetuate acceptance.

I voted strategically once… I felt slightly nauseous afterward and the experience still leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.

Hmm. Well you’ve given me something to think about, JB. Because I’ve never done it and have always voted according to the candidate whose party best matched my principles and values. Even thinking of voting strategically makes me feel ill and brings a writhing sense of self-loathing.

Until this election, I never entertained the idea of voting strategically and, as you, thought that only some real tough medicine in the form of an ultra-right Canada led by Harper or the like, would – maybe, just maybe – get Canadians to rethink their voting system.

This election more than most, I’ve been working hard as a volunteer with Fair Vote Canada and had already signed up with the FVC-BC group to support the coming STV referendum in BC.

I continue to believe that democratic and electoral reform are THE issues for all elections now and into the future – until the change to proportional representation gets done. That is, the first legislation passed by any party forming government should be to begin the process of electoral change. And that process must ensure that the people, not the parties, ultimately decide on the basis of a simple majority – no simple majority of MPs imposing a higher threshold -, the system which gets instituted.

Because only then, when we have proportional representation, will the majority of Canadians have a reasonable chance of seeing the major issues which concern them getting addressed.

People should read JB’s entire post. He offers many arguments against strategic voting, including ones which suggest that it will fail anyway. Not enough people will do it – they’ll either vote for their party of choice, destroy or refuse their ballots, or simply stay home.

and the Liberals become an endangered species? First, let me apologize for not posting recently, I have been out of town for the last few days. But, good on you readers for keeping the discussion going in the comments section. I’m just going to post a few random thoughts (nothing substantive, but hey that’s nothing new from me) as campaigns and issues are now coming into focus.

West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast – Sea to Sky:

Everybody but John Weston seems to be fading quietly into the night. By no means is he setting the world ablaze with his campaign, but he seems to be quietly running a smooth campaign with a solid ground presence in both West Van and North Van, bad news for the Libs. The Liberals have been virtually invisible, particularly in West and North Van where they have to win big to be competitive in the riding. That’s not to say that Ian Sutherland isn’t a competent candidate, he is. Nor is it to say that he can’t make in roads in Squamish, he can. It’s just that he needs to maintain the party’s traditional areas of strength and that doesn’t seem to be too likely. The NDP have recovered from the Dana Larsen experiment with a solid (on paper) local Sunshine Coast candidate that may be able to stop any vote bleed that may have been perceived prior to the election. With the NDP seemingly on an upswing in the province maybe they’ll even be able to pick up a few more votes than last time. The Greens, well after an interesting first few days, they have managed to fall into their regular role. I’m convinced Wilson will pull a good number for the party (up to 20% if the Greens can regain some momentum in the debates). On the whole, minus a massive shift, you can count this a Tory pickup.

North Vancouver:

I’m of the mind that you just can’t count out Liberal incumbent Don Bell. It’s been said before and is worth repeating, people vote as much for Don Bell as they vote for the Liberal brand. Consequently, I would expect a competitive Liberal result. It’ll be interesting to see what impact, if any, the arts funding debate has in this riding, as the local movie industry has played a major role in Bell’s two victories. Nonetheless, I would expect that this too ought to be considered a Conservative pickup on voting day – just don’t be too surprised if it’s called late. On a side note, the local NDP have been putting up “Jack Layton and the NDP team” signs, in place of those for the local candidate (admittedly the candidate does have a few of his own). Given that the candidate, Michael Charrois, is relatively unknown outside of the Arts community, this may be beneficial in growing party support – or it may marginalize the candidate. Either way, Charrois will ensure that Arts funding continues to be discussed (I’m not generalizing here at all, really…).

(more…)

Cynic here didn’t think it would happen. The letter exceeded the Letter-to-the-Editor word limit. Times three. But my letter to the local paper made it anyway.

Originally titled Competition It Isn’t, here it is under the headline “Electoral systems needs change to promote democracy.”

• Sat Sep 27, 2pm. GABRIOLA ISLAND. Organized by Gabriola Ratepayers Association, Gabriola Island Community Hall, 2200 South Rd.
• Mon Oct 6, 6:30-9pm. NANAIMO. Organized by Greater Nanaimo Chamber of Commerce, Vancouver Island Real Estate Board, Nanaimo News Bulletin, Island Radio, ‘A’ British Columbia. Nanaimo District Senior Secondary School, 355 Wakesiah Av.
• Tue Oct 7, 7pm. DUNCAN. Organized by Duncan Chamber of Commerce, Island Savings Centre (formerly named the Cowichan Centre), 2697 James St.
• Wed Oct 8, 1:30-3:30pm. NANAIMO. Organized by Vancouver Island University Students’ Union, Bldg 355, Rm 211.
• Thu Oct 9, 10-11:15am. MILL BAY. Organizer: Ric Snyder, Social Studies Dept, 250-746-6916. Frances Kelsey Senior Secondary School, 953 Shawnigan-Mill Bay Rd.

Julian West has just dropped out as the NDP candidate in Saanich-Gulf Islands. Since the nomination deadline has already passed, this means the NDP will not be running a candidate in the riding. This is significant as it reduces the split among the anti-Gary Lunn vote, leaving Liberal (but former Green) Briony Penn and Green candidate Andrew Lewis to try and knock off Lunn. You may remember that Andrew Lewis was the top vote-getting Green candidate in 2004, winning almost 17% of the vote.

As I wrote a couple of weeks ago, electoral reform is the most pressing issue facing the electorate – both those who still vote and those who have given up and no longer do.

Yet nowhere in the Liberal Party’s 66-page plan is there mention of electoral reform or proportional representation.*

How could a party claiming to care about making this country a “fairer Canada,” about “enabl[ing] every Canadian to realize their full potential” omit electoral reform?

How can they not see that a disenfranchised electorate means more and more citizens becoming disillusioned about and disengaged from their political institutions?

Under an eroding democracy, only the few can realize their potential – the corporate backers and moneyed lobbyists who stand closest to and pull the strings of those (seen to be) in power.

The voices of the many, the majority who vote other than for the party which forms government, are left out.

If we had proportional representation, then all votes would matter in this federal election. And if they did, then likely more people would return to the voting booth, more would become re-engaged not just federally, but locally and provincially.

Because then, we’d see that our opinion and voices do count.Instead, with our first-past-the-post system, there is a chance that Canadians will get the “majority” Stephen Harper has been threatening, and on the basis of less than 38% of the popular vote – not 50% + 1, as a true majority would warrant.

(more…)

The following was written to the editor of The Cowichan Valley Citizen. Unfortunately, the paper hasn’t a website so I can’t point readers to the original article. Voters in the Cowichan Valley, however, all receive the paper free at their doorsteps.

Dear Editor:

I read your article by Sarah Simpson, “More than a two-horse race,” with a growing sense of irony.

Superficially, the topic was democracy.

Certainly, the article started off describing Canada’s democratic deficit, telling of the media consortium’s decision to exclude, and subsequently include, Green Party leader Elizabeth May in the upcoming televised debates.

Left out of the account was that the NDP and Conservatives colluded to block May’s participation, both Jack Layton and Stephen Harper having threatened to boycott the events should she attend. Only Layton’s and Harper’s reversal due to intense pressure from angry citizens, including from within their own parties, precipitated the change in the consortium’s decision.

The article stated that only three parties have represented this riding since 1988. These have been the NDP and the Reform or Canadian Alliance, the latter two being earlier versions of today’s Conservative Party.

The situation for voters in this riding is far worse than this polarization would suggest.

We have not elected a member to the government in 29 years. In fact, we have done so only twice in the past 50 years. And you’d have to go back 68 years to find a Liberal candidate who had been elected

With the article’s headline, one might have expected that more than the two horses in question would be mentioned, yet only the NDP and Conservative candidates’ names and photos were included. Both Liberal candidate Brian Scott and Green Party candidate Christina Knighton were left out.

This kind of editorial omission helps perpetuate the two-horse race and the dominance of the NDP and Conservatives in our riding. But what troubled me most was not this omission, but the response by one of those two horses, NDP candidate and incumbent Jean Crowder.

Referring to the number of candidates which typically run in our riding during federal elections (up to ten), Crowder responded: “There is a lot of interest and that does a lot of good for the democratic process, that people get involved.” As to the prospect of facing the extra competition, she stated: “I think it allows us to get some perspectives on the issues. It generates good conversation. I think it’s very healthy.”

Within the NDP’s platform one can find a small section on electoral reform. Yet rarely does one hear NDP candidates voicing their concern that the votes of the majority of Canadians, including those of citizens in this riding, fail to be represented in the House of Commons.

For example, in Nanaimo-Cowichan during the 2006 federal election, the votes of 53.2% of us elected no one. That’s 32, 499 votes. That’s 32,499 of us whose opinion didn’t matter.

Since only first place matters in a winner-take-all system, even the votes for the Conservative who placed second didn’t count.

This Citizen article was a golden opportunity for Crowder to raise the issue of the lack of democracy in our voting system. That she didn’t has to make this voter wonder how committed she and the NDP are to democratic and electoral reform – and not just the kind of reform which the party prefers, but that which the people decide.

(I omit the Conservatives because they do not profess to want change to our voting system.)

It’s fine for Crowder to state, in response to a question about facing added competition, that “it allows us [presumably the horses in the two-horse race] to get some perspectives on the issues, [that] it generates good conversation.”

It’s another to acknowledge that with our first-past-the-post electoral system THERE IS NO COMPETITION beyond that between the two front-running horses.

Clearly and once again, politicians in the lead don’t care about this issue and would prefer that it be buried.

Will voters allow this?

We’ve shown what we can do when we get angry, when we witness a threat to our democratic choice. We got Elizabeth May into the televised debates.

We have the power to force change. Therefore, I urge anyone who cares about our country’s growing democratic deficit to visit Fair Vote Canada’s new website, www.orphanvoters.ca. It pulls together the facts about electoral reform, answers your questions and offers constructive suggestions on what you can do to promote this change.

In the words of FVC’s Executive Director, Larry Gordon, “The abused, neglected and abandoned voters of this great land will no longer meekly say ‘Please sir, we want some democracy’. When the new government takes office we will remind whoever forms the government that they do not have a democratic mandate from the people.”

Chrystal Ocean, Duncan.

Over at my other place, I’ve written three posts since June focused on the GST for municipalities. One was in response to a TorStar report on the Liberal strategy for municipalities. The second responded to another (and supporting) editorial in The Star. The third was a copy of my letter written to the Liberal Party’s Urban Committee and commenting, in a fair amount of detail, on their full report to the party.

Only the Greens have seen how RIGHT and REASONABLE the One Cent Campaign championed by Toronto Mayor David Miller, and endorsed by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, is.

This policy shouldn’t fail to convince people who give it more than two cents’ thought.

While I appreciated the announcement of the Liberal Party’s proposal of a catastrophic drug plan, I’m tired of the meme “healthcare,” which is code for the medical and acute care industry.

WHY do parties and politicians insist on maintaining the fiction that health is equivalent to care-after-the-fact? Worse, that sickness prevention requires only the targeting of individual behaviour, such as addiction and eating and exercise habits?

There is a consistent message coming from Canada’s public health professionals, the World Health Organization and international agencies, and even from our own government’s Chief Public Health Officer, Dr. David Butler-Jones (whose report was quietly tucked away by the Harper government). It is this:

Social conditions crucially matter. And they can be deadly.

Investing more and more money on doctors, nurses, hospital beds, trauma care … is wrong-headed. First, our acute care system needs a management overall, rather than just more money thrown at it. Second – and more importantly – we need fewer SICK PEOPLE, fewer people made vulnerable to illness.

Poverty causes stress. Stress is a proven primary underlying cause of heart disease, diabetes, and other major and chronic illnesses.¹

Given these facts, which have been known for decades by researchers of the social determinants of health, it’s clear that poverty is the #1 killer and our largest health threat.

People need less stress in their lives. With less stress, we’ll be healthier. With fewer stressed people, Canada’s acute care system can undergo its own recovery.

Whether members of the medical and drug industries would be happy with fewer sick people is another matter.

¹ Google ‘poverty causes stress’ and you’ll be swamped with references. Also simply ’stress causes’; your search result will uncover a huge number of diseases linked to stress.

[Cross-posted at Challenging the Commonplace.

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: ”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.

I stopped by Liberal leader Stephane Dion’s town hall meeting at the University of Victoria on Friday, September 12th.  The event drew a surprising number of people, and Dion’s procession from his bus to the auditorium managed to generate an impressive surge of applause from the mostly student crowd assembled.  I failed to get into the auditorium itself, and it was difficult to make out what was being said on the speakers set up in the lobby to broadcast what was being said inside.

Despite not being able to listen to Dion, the event did give a hint as to the state of the Liberal Party machine in greater Victoria.  All three Liberal candidates in greater Victoria were present, though the bulk of Liberal supporters appeared to be  with Briony Penn’s campaign, the candidate in Saanich-Gulf Islands.  Her buttons were in ample supply for interested attendees and pinned to many who were present, and she had the most signs.  Surprisingly, the only Liberal incumbent, Keith Martin, seemed to have the least presence at the event.  Apart from a few vertical placards, his campaign had no indications of existence, no paraphernalia to hand out.

What this event suggests is that the strongest Liberal machine in greater Victoria (or at least the most enthusiastic) is in Saanich-Gulf Islands, where it is evidently hoped that Penn’s environmental and centre-left credentials will allow for the anti-Conservative vote to coalesce around her campaign.  Saanich-Gulf Islands in the last two federal elections has had a strong yet fractured anti-Conservative vote which has allowed Gary Lunn to win. 

It should be noted that the Victoria Conservatives were also present at the Dion event.  About a dozen or so members of Jack McClintock’s campaign (the Conservative candidate in Victoria) were handing out literature and waving signs.  They also managed to place several Conservative lawn signs along the path that Dion walked down on his way to the auditorium.  The local Tories (most of whom appeared to be of university age) also attempted to stand behind Dion during his scrum with reporters while holding up their blue signs, obviously in the hope that they would form the background in any television coverage of the scrum.  The effort was abandonned, however, after the Liberals responded by placing their own bigger signs between Dion and the young Tories.  

As a side note, in the bit of travelling around Victoria I’ve done, I’ve seen more Conservative lawn signs than anyone else’s.  The NDP come in second and the Liberals in third, with no sign of the Greens.

We’re approaching three-quarters of a century since we voted in a Liberal MP.

The last Cowichan MP who was also a member of the sitting government was Don Taylor, the Progressive Conservative candidate in the 1979 election. Since British Columbia joined confederation in 1871, the Cowichan riding … has not elected a Liberal representative since 1940 with Alan Chambers. 

 

As far back as 1979, Nanaimo-Cowichan has swung, usually widely, between the NDP and the Tories.

For 14 years, the NDP owned the riding. But they were defeated in 1993 by Reform candidate Bob Ringma who also soundly defeated the Liberal.

The Tories won again in 1997, with Reformer Reed Elley, and in 2000 also with Elley, this time under the Canadian Alliance banner.

The pendulum swung back from the Tories in 2004, with NDP Jean Crowder winning handily. She repeated her win in 2006.

Reed Elley is running again for the Tories – his third contest also being his third time running under a different party moniker. Despite Elley’s popularity, early indications in the riding are that Crowder will duplicate or surpass her previous results and return to Parliament for a third term.

• 1988 – NDP
• 1993, 1997 – REF
• 2000 – CA
• 2004, 2006 – NDP