NDP Surge?

I find it quite amusing that the NDP is being considered a valid vote for more Canadians this time around, especially in Quebec. It may be that the voters are tired of the same old, except for the die-hard cons and libs and are looking for an alternative to the tried and not-so-true main parties. It would sure shake up our country if the NDP gained enough seats to be the official opposition. It might even change the dynamics enough that the Libs would suddenly be willing to seriously entertain merging with the NDP and forming a second major party to the merged PC's and Reform-Alliance parties. Unless they do, it appears the cons will continue to gain enough seats to form a minority government time after time.
There is an alternative. Why not join the rest of the world (USA, exempted) and go to proportional representation instead of first-past-the-post? I would like to think that the electorate is becoming literate enough to think beyond us vs. them, black-and-white, and all-or-nothing that's required in a two-party system. One can only hope.

Parliamentary system needs overhaul

That's the essence of an article in today's National Post. Essentially what we see on TV during Question Period is a farce, a staged performance meant to garner support. Unfortunately the way it's being done brings more derision than anything. According to the article the best work is done in secret, by committees, that don't see the light of day. The rest is for show. Very sad indeed. It's time for a overhaul. But, guess what? No one wants to sacrifice their lives or mental health in order to do it. No wonder apathy rules the land. Unfortunately apathy is exactly what keeps the system from changing to one of accountability and bringing it closer to the grass-roots where it belongs. Oh, right, the ruling corporations won't let that happen as they control the financing of political wannabes.
Maybe someday......the financing will come from the common folk. Now there's the making of a revolution.

Canadians for Fair Taxation

Good news!
A citizen's group is tackling the fairness or wisdom of cutting corporate taxes. They point out that the more money the government gives away to corporations the less the government has to spend on social needs, etc. Eventually the government is so limited due to lack of finances that they are given no choice but to farm out social services to guess who? Corporations! They then benefit once again by taking over services normally run by the government and make even more money all at the expense of the common folk. The well-connected wealthy folks don't mind as they can spend money on whatever comes up but for the vast majority of the population this is a serious threat to their very survival.
I encourage anyone with a sense of justice and decency to go the website and sign the petition and be courageous enough to bring it up in conversations with your buddies.

Bloc Party in the national debates during federal elections

I thought Rex Murphy made a good point on the National tonight about the fact that Quebec gets to state its case during the national debates when no other regions or provinces are able to do so. Just because they run a separatist party and win some national seats do they get this privilege. Duceppe, at present, gets to promote his province like no one else is able to. Maybe the only solution for the other provinces to get similar representation is to start their own separatist-type parties and run in the federal elections. Then they, too, can sit in on the debate. See the problem? Either the leaders meet in every province and/or region to have their debates or they leave Quebec out. So, to be fair, if the leaders don't debate everywhere they only should debate once in both english and french. Not separately. Not favouring one province.
At least that's what I think right now.

Voter turnout

The Globe and Mail has an article in todays paper re negative campaigning and how it can keep voters at home.
I believe, from my observations, that the Harperites are doing just that--making politics so ugly-looking that most people, especially young people, stay away from the voting booths out of disgust. That plays perfectly into the hands of a party that has a solid base it is catering to that will come out and vote to keep what precious power they have.
This is not a new strategy as apparently the Republicans do this in the USA. It's also a strategy that is used to make companies easier to sell off. Remember when CN had good passenger service across Canada? I am old enough to remember that era and I remember how gradually their service deteriorated to the point where ridership went down dramatically. Suddenly it was for sale and the government dumped it at a fire-sale price. I've seen other companies do the same thing.
Harper and his crew criticized the Senate and then appointed loyalists who were clearly not Senate material but were appointments who would give his government a majority vote to make sure any bills that he wanted passed would get passed and those bills that displeased him and his voter-base would be defeated. The Senate is not supposed to be partisan but is to provide sober second-thought to legislation brought forward by the parliamentarians. By changing those dynamics the Harperites and the Cretianists have created a monster that suddenly no one wants any more. Perfect for a power-hungry prime minister who then has less hurdles to cross in order to bring in laws and programs suitable to his or her (I wish) philosophy.
And furthermore, the antics in the House of Commons turn off potential voters to the point where little positive regard is left for how things are being done in Ottawa. Teachers are reluctant to take students there on field trips anymore because the teachers don't want their students to learn by example. The media is complicit in that it shows news clips of the highlights of the yelling and put-downs that are now all too common. It's the Canadian version of reality shows on TV. I'm waiting for this to be spoofed on some comedy show. Or has it been done already?
Again, the Harperites are saying that we need a majority to bring stabilization to this chaotic version of the House of Commons. What he's doing is setting us up to believe that only with the Harperites in power will there be stability and civility.
We will soon find out how gullible we are. Come May 2 we will know whether this cruel, calculating strategy has worked. If it has, I have to wonder what comes next? Controlling the media and the public so that there are no embarrassing revelations that would give the government a negative light? Will there be tons of propaganda in our mailboxes and on TV promoting the good the government is doing for us?
I imagine the government will moderate its behaviour enough to stay in power but without external checks it may try to go where no democracy should go.
Only time will tell.

Fair Vote.ca

I highly recommend reading the articles, etc., that Fair Vote publishes on line extolling the benefits of proportional representation. I wrote a letter to them that I thought I'd share here.
This is what I wrote after going over their material:
I just signed the Fair Vote petition as I strongly believe that our system is out of date and in need of updating just as your site points out. What seems to be missing from your articles cited and posters, etc. is some analysis of what happens under the present system that is so crippling to democracy. (I admit I haven't read every article on your web site so if I've missed these points, my apologies.)
Under our first-past-the-post system the politicians spend most of their time during elections in swing ridings, like you say, and more destructively, they spend their time and energy trying to prove or at least show everyone how much better they are than their opponents. Even if they win the "false majority" they continue to decry the losing party and how they have to clean up after them, etc. They spend more time, publicly at least, marketing themselves and their party than in some effective governing. The PM grabs more and more power in order to control and enforce the messages sent out to the public again in order to convince the public to keep electing them, NOT it seems to support their decisions to govern effectively on behalf of the electorate. They are not concerned with being accountable to the public but rather are concerned with their image and how it will translate into more votes in the next same-kind-of-election.
And, during elections parties crowd the centre of the political spectrum in order to attract the most votes. How do you win votes when all gravitate towards the centre? Run down the other person, not just their policies or promises! No wonder we get fed up during elections. And, that's possibly another reason for asking for a false majority. So that the public quiets down and forgets how useless and destructive the election process is! The only time a large turnout of voters occurs under our present system is when enough people are fed up with what they believe is going on. So, what do parties do? They create scandals in the other parties hoping that it will catch fire and get the voters out to support them. The recent non-confidence vote is one of many examples too numerous to mention here. They had to wait till they had what they believed was a legitimate scandal that would upset enough people to bring about a change of government. It goes on and on. If there are genuine scandals as this one likely is, fine, but contriving them or making mountains out of mole hills is much more common.
I think the proportional representation voting system would allow politicians to concentrate on what they can offer, such as their assets, and where they stand on the political spectrum in regards to social needs, human justice, etc., etc. They would not have to tow the party line as tenaciously in order to hold on to their seats or to stay in favour of their internally elected boss.
No system is perfect but choosing the one that does the least amount of harm makes the most sense.
In summary, I'm very concerned about the way this system distorts reality and forces politicians to play roles they wouldn't have to play if the rules governing elections were different.

Who pays the bills?

What I would like to know is where the money is coming from to fund the politician's campaigns. Why is no one asking to see the running records of incoming funds for each of the politicians and the party as a whole? It wouldn't have to name individual contributors, unless the contributions were over a certain amount, but certainly any corporations or unions that spend their money on campaigns should be public knowledge. The reason being that after the elections are over the ones who contributed towards their successful campaigns expect something in return. And, since the "winners" don't want to bite the hand that feeds them they must promote or make decisions that will please their benefactors. At the same time, the elected candidates must appear to be doing what their constituents wanted by electing them. Or, at the very least, making sure their constituents don't find out what they're really doing and saying in office.
I'd love to hear from past politicians about their experience in balancing this delicate balancing act between funder and voter. Any takers?
I've heard first-hand what it's like to have to tow the party line and the penalty for breaking those rules, but I've yet to hear much about the price politicians pay personally, not just financially, for any missteps they might make while trying to please their funding bodies. And, how many of them must they please in order to stay in the good books? And, if they remain a back-bencher how much less are they "worth" on the funding market, so to speak?
There must be articles or books on this subject by now. I'll start searching.
I think we need to know this so that the public is fully informed and can make their decisions based on more than personality or party lines.
Ultimately, the question becomes: Is our country corporate-led or people-led (i.e., without fear of losing their position other than through open, accountable elections)?

First-past-the-post

I find it frustrating reading the comments in the Star and Globe and Mail, etc., as most everyone seems to buy into the present system of electing our federal politicians. I just finished reading Doris Anderson's book, "Rebel Daughter". In the final chapter she does some wishing about how else things could be. I was particularly in agreement with her description of proportional representation. She asks, quite rightly, why Canada continues to cling to the out-of-date electoral system, which by the way, is only used in the USA and the UK, besides in Canada. In our present system a party can win an overwhelming majority with less than 40% of the vote. That's exactly what the parties are vying for in this 2011 election. Once in power they operate like little dictators all the while claiming that they have the will of the people with their "majority" win. To quote Anderson for a bit: "Proportional representation, used in most western democracies, is much fairer, more representative, and accommodates itself to a much wider diversity of political opinion. Each party gets the same proportion of members in parliament as they garner in votes." (p.278)
She goes on to say that in our present system the parties all try to crowd the middle of the political spectrum to the point where it's difficult to differentiate between the parties. We need to consider a more amiable way of electing politicians if we are to avoid heading further towards a two-party system where little is left to distinguish the two from each other. Otherwise, we simply vote for the ones we like the best at the moment and then are ignored till the next election is called. A choice between twiddle-dee and twiddle-dum.
As I see it, it's a lot like school yard bullies trying to impress the crowds with their bravado and hoping to get as many on their side as possible in order to "win" the fight. They make promises they can't keep hoping to attract the crowds. They hide their weakness so as to impress everyone with their abilities that are to be seen as beyond the normal reach of the common folk. No wonder we are disappointed when we find out our political leaders are only human and make mistakes.
I would like to be able to vote for a party that closely represents my world view and know that there's an excellent chance that there'll be a representative in parliament to reflect these views, even if it's not the "ruling" party.
I think it would allow for more tolerance of diversity and limit the amount of name-calling and the us-vs-them mentality we see in the present campaign here in Canada.

(Link goes to a humorous look at First-Past-The-Post. Enjoy!)