Before the arguments about electoral reform get out of hand, everyone needs to back up and understand why we are arguing and what we are arguing about. The demand for a referendum at this stage is specious if we do not know what we are going to vote on or why. One thing for sure is that while people involved in politics might have reason to want changes, they need to be sure what causes their dissatisfaction with the status quo before they shout out for reform.
In almost 60 years of involvement in Canadian politics and electoral process, it was natural for this politico to develop an interest in how other countries did their politics. Maybe the writer had an advantage travelling around the world on unrelated business but it concerns us when we see how little Canadians really know on this subject. It is hard to fault them though when you realize that we have one of the best functioning First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) voting systems of any country using it.
We also need to understand that we also have one of the worst systems of government when it comes to the need for checks and balances supporting our democracy. When you consider that our system was inherited from Great Britain about 150 years ago, it was out-of-date when we adopted it. And without review or periodic refreshing, Canada’s political system is stagnating.
And the band-aids to the system have not been helpful. When the highly politicized Charlottetown Accord failed in 1992, politicians threw up their hands and said change was not possible. They would have had to eat those words if the Quebec referendum of 1995 had come out “Yes.”
It was 2007 when Ontario had a non-binding referendum on a proposed modified proportional voting system. It was disappointing that there was no vigorous debate on the subject. There was little public interest and the proposal was defeated by a ratio of about two to one. That was not a particularly surprising result but you would think when so much money had been spent, some serious effort would be made to explain what Mixed Member Proportional voting meant.
A proposal in British Columbia for a Single Transferable Vote (STV) passed by a slim majority in 2004 but not sufficient to be passed into law. When the province voted again in 2009, the motion was defeated. It is assumed that by 2009, the voters of B.C. had figured out what STV meant.
This writer had a friendly discussion on real change with Justin Trudeau more that five years ago but you could see him shutting down on the discussion when a constitutional congress was proposed to bring our constitution up-to-date. Real change only goes so far.
-30-
Copyright 2016 © Peter Lowry
Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to [email protected]