Whisper
October 29th, 2008, 12:43 PM
If Canada hopes to remain a politically viable country in the future, it must seriously undertake electoral and parliamentary reform or risk losing any semblance of a democracy.
The writing on the wall could not be clearer, as only 59% of eligible voters turned out across Canada, while only 57,000 people turned out in Northumberland-Quinte West, down from 62,870 in 2006.
Certainly, there was a chorus of cries for electoral reform from Fair Vote Canada, as well as the NDP, calling for a change to the system.
These groups seek to create some kind of proportional representation that would better reflect the overall popular vote, as compared to the first-past-the-post system currently in place where the winner takes all.
If there were a proportional system in place for the election two weeks ago, a coalition of Liberals, NDP and Green Party members would have won 161 of 308 seats, leaving the Tories in the opposition benches rather than forming a minority government.
Critics of a proportional system like to point to the paralysis created through this kind of electoral configuration. Germany often finds its parliament in a stalemate while Italy has governments that rise and fall on a nearly constant basis.
In the news this week, the Israeli Knesset was forced to go to the polls because leaders were unable to strike a coalition, leaving vital peace talks with Palestine in limbo and possibly a chance for a meaningful resolution in the balance.
There is an opportunity to bring about meaningful reform, while maintaining the strengths of the current system. It is time to move forward on Senate reform by changing the way members are appointed.
Only days after the election, Prime Minister Stephen Harper started talking about Senate reform. Exasperated with the lack of action by provinces to elect senators, he threatened to appoint them.
With 17 vacancies and another 17 retirements coming up, it could mean the Tories would be able to dominate the upper chamber by a slight margin.
During the election campaign, Harper said he would move to abolish the Senate if reform would not take place.
He had already put legislation in place to limit a senator's term to eight years, but it died when the election was called.
A second bill was introduced to allow provinces to hold a referendum to seek Canadians' choices for the upper chamber during provincial or federal elections. The prime minister would then appoint Canadians' preferences to the Upper Chamber. This idea died at the committee level.
These ideas are misdirected and do not represent any progress towards a more democratic system. One should become more worried, when a politician gets to appoint anyone, since it merely furthers the practice of patronage, which is one of the major reasons the Senate is no longer relevant or meaningful.
And any system that directly elects senators would simply repeat the faults of the current electoral process.
Instead, it might be worthwhile to consider a proportional system for the Senate, leaving the first-past-the-post system for Parliament. This means the 89 seats that currently exist would be divided as a percentage of the popular vote. This would still give citizens a member of Parliament and someone to hold directly accountable for local matters, whereas the Senate would be transformed into a more meaningful body of sober second thought that would reflect Canadians' wishes.
Senators would be elected from within each political party. This would serve two purposes.
First, it would democratize the selection process, moving it away from patronage appointments.
Second, it would provide an opportunity for each political party to be more active and engaged between elections.
The struggle to elect 89 people from within a party would provide ample opportunity to debate policy, recruit members and energize them internally.
Currently riding associations almost go dormant between elections, with membership skyrocketing at the time of candidate selection. It would be very important to have fixed election dates to allow the parties to meet this requirement.
From a voter's perspective, it would mean casting a ballot based on conscience rather than being strategic.
A single vote would play two ways. Even if you knew the Green Party might not win the seat locally, your Green vote would not be wasted, since it would contribute to a potential seat within the Senate.
Of course, there would need to be a minimum percentage of the total votes to be given one seat, say 5 or 10%of the popular vote. This would keep out fringe parties and hopefully limit the number of federal parties.
The prime minister is correct to be anxious to reform the Senate. It is a haven for political appointees and, while it does have an important legislative purpose, it is not functioning properly.
Any proposals to directly elect or somehow appoint Senators are merely folly. Elections would only create more paralysis and partisanship.
Under a proportional kind of system these individuals could feel they were representing all Canadians from their political perspective, not just one riding.
This would mean the chamber of sober second thought might just achieve its mandate rather than be a punch line to a very bad joke.
Robert Washburn is a professor of e-journalism at Loyalist College. He can be reached at [email protected] on.ca.This (http://www.on.ca.this/) column and others are archived online at http://considerthis.onlinedemocracy.ca (http://considerthis.onlinedemocracy.ca/)
The writing on the wall could not be clearer, as only 59% of eligible voters turned out across Canada, while only 57,000 people turned out in Northumberland-Quinte West, down from 62,870 in 2006.
Certainly, there was a chorus of cries for electoral reform from Fair Vote Canada, as well as the NDP, calling for a change to the system.
These groups seek to create some kind of proportional representation that would better reflect the overall popular vote, as compared to the first-past-the-post system currently in place where the winner takes all.
If there were a proportional system in place for the election two weeks ago, a coalition of Liberals, NDP and Green Party members would have won 161 of 308 seats, leaving the Tories in the opposition benches rather than forming a minority government.
Critics of a proportional system like to point to the paralysis created through this kind of electoral configuration. Germany often finds its parliament in a stalemate while Italy has governments that rise and fall on a nearly constant basis.
In the news this week, the Israeli Knesset was forced to go to the polls because leaders were unable to strike a coalition, leaving vital peace talks with Palestine in limbo and possibly a chance for a meaningful resolution in the balance.
There is an opportunity to bring about meaningful reform, while maintaining the strengths of the current system. It is time to move forward on Senate reform by changing the way members are appointed.
Only days after the election, Prime Minister Stephen Harper started talking about Senate reform. Exasperated with the lack of action by provinces to elect senators, he threatened to appoint them.
With 17 vacancies and another 17 retirements coming up, it could mean the Tories would be able to dominate the upper chamber by a slight margin.
During the election campaign, Harper said he would move to abolish the Senate if reform would not take place.
He had already put legislation in place to limit a senator's term to eight years, but it died when the election was called.
A second bill was introduced to allow provinces to hold a referendum to seek Canadians' choices for the upper chamber during provincial or federal elections. The prime minister would then appoint Canadians' preferences to the Upper Chamber. This idea died at the committee level.
These ideas are misdirected and do not represent any progress towards a more democratic system. One should become more worried, when a politician gets to appoint anyone, since it merely furthers the practice of patronage, which is one of the major reasons the Senate is no longer relevant or meaningful.
And any system that directly elects senators would simply repeat the faults of the current electoral process.
Instead, it might be worthwhile to consider a proportional system for the Senate, leaving the first-past-the-post system for Parliament. This means the 89 seats that currently exist would be divided as a percentage of the popular vote. This would still give citizens a member of Parliament and someone to hold directly accountable for local matters, whereas the Senate would be transformed into a more meaningful body of sober second thought that would reflect Canadians' wishes.
Senators would be elected from within each political party. This would serve two purposes.
First, it would democratize the selection process, moving it away from patronage appointments.
Second, it would provide an opportunity for each political party to be more active and engaged between elections.
The struggle to elect 89 people from within a party would provide ample opportunity to debate policy, recruit members and energize them internally.
Currently riding associations almost go dormant between elections, with membership skyrocketing at the time of candidate selection. It would be very important to have fixed election dates to allow the parties to meet this requirement.
From a voter's perspective, it would mean casting a ballot based on conscience rather than being strategic.
A single vote would play two ways. Even if you knew the Green Party might not win the seat locally, your Green vote would not be wasted, since it would contribute to a potential seat within the Senate.
Of course, there would need to be a minimum percentage of the total votes to be given one seat, say 5 or 10%of the popular vote. This would keep out fringe parties and hopefully limit the number of federal parties.
The prime minister is correct to be anxious to reform the Senate. It is a haven for political appointees and, while it does have an important legislative purpose, it is not functioning properly.
Any proposals to directly elect or somehow appoint Senators are merely folly. Elections would only create more paralysis and partisanship.
Under a proportional kind of system these individuals could feel they were representing all Canadians from their political perspective, not just one riding.
This would mean the chamber of sober second thought might just achieve its mandate rather than be a punch line to a very bad joke.
Robert Washburn is a professor of e-journalism at Loyalist College. He can be reached at [email protected] on.ca.This (http://www.on.ca.this/) column and others are archived online at http://considerthis.onlinedemocracy.ca (http://considerthis.onlinedemocracy.ca/)