gdp's Comments

Kingstonist.com : Weekly Poll: Electoral Reform

Tue, 6 Sep 2016 04:51:00 +0000

No, Justin Trudeau has NOT had a preferred option since the Liberal caucus decided in early 2015 (and the party convention agreed) to include proportional representation as an option. And wrong description of MMP (although you're only copying the CBC's mistake): it's not "two votes: one for an MP and one for a party," it's "two votes: one for an MP and one for a party or one of its regional candidates." That's what the Law Commission of Canada recommended, and what half the Liberal caucus supported the last time Parliament voted on it.

Macleans.ca : The case for proportional representation

Thu, 5 May 2011 08:44:58 +0000

As I said, the Law Commission's recommendation has never been rejected. Both of those recommendations were on a closed-province-wide list model. For example, the NDP's strongest region in Ontario is Northern Ontario, yet Northern Ontario rejected the Citizens' Assembly's model more strongly than any other region of Ontario -- because it failed to provide that Northern votes would elect northern MPPs, while reducing the number of local MPPs from the North. Only Toronto voters were favourable to a model with province-wide lists, precisely as one would expect.

Macleans.ca : The case for proportional representation

Thu, 5 May 2011 03:57:27 +0000

The best way to have PR in Canada has already been exhaustively studied and recommended by the Law Commission of Canada in 2004. Their model has never been rejected. In Saskatchewan, voters in nine larger ridings would elect local MPs as we do today. You would also have a second vote for a party and your favorite of that party's provincial candidates. Voters for a party under-represented by the local results (in this case, the NDP, but in Montreal that would be the Conservatives) elect some of those five provincial MPs. If voters voted as they did on May 2nd (which they wouldn't when they knew every vote would count equally) NDP voters wouold have elected all five of the provincial MPs, namely, the five who got the most votes. All MPs are personally elected and faced the voters.

Macleans.ca : Seventy-six shoulders strong

Sat, 8 Jan 2011 03:41:46 +0000

Despite the Ministry's size, only five of the 38 are from Quebec: 13% is serious under-representation, a bad sign for Canadian unity. Three other Quebec MPs are parliamentary secretaries, omitting only Maxime Bernier, byelection victor Bernard Généreux, and, oddly, the talented Steven Blaney, an environmental engineer who drew my attention last April 20 when he said “I want to remind my colleague that the Bloc Québécois is over-represented here in the House with respect to the percentage of votes in Quebec.” Nice to see a Conservative make the case for proportional representation. Blaney is right: if we had a democratic voting system, Quebec Conservative voters would have elected seven more MPs in 2008, and the Bloc 19 fewer. Those seven would have represented Conservative voters in the Greater Montreal area, l'Estrie and Mauricie who are all unrepresented today. And we would have had a cabinet which, like the House, would be a true representation of the country.

Macleans.ca : Even if it's broken, don't fix it

Wed, 22 Dec 2010 05:43:24 +0000

That's an ironic comment, since it's the Bloc that benefits most from winner-take-all, and Quebec federalist voters who have the most to complain about. In 2008 it took 86,203 federalist voters to elect one Quebec MP, but only 28,163 Bloc voters. Why Liberals need the Law Commission of Canada’s recommended electoral reform.

Macleans.ca : Even if it's broken, don't fix it

Sat, 18 Dec 2010 02:47:42 +0000

Pepall wasn't watching Elections Ontario during the Ontario referendum campaign. Far from explaining the proposals, they refused to explain them ("we have to stay neutral"), and spent millions on ads saying "make sure you understand the question" while refusing to help understand it, and refusing to send out the leaflets produced by the Citizens Assembly. That wasn't the only reason it failed: the process started a year later than planned, ran out of time before the Citizens Assembly could fine-tune their proposal, and left far too little time for public debate. But Elections Ontario were no help at all.

Macleans.ca : Something in Parliament just doesn't add up

Sat, 18 Dec 2010 02:29:21 +0000

Today, a vote in New Brunswick is worth 38% more than a vote in Ontario. But partisan inequities created by the winner-take-all voting system are even more startling. In Quebec, a Bloc vote was worth 2.8 times a Conservative vote and 2.2 times a Liberal vote. In Alberta, the weight of a Conservative vote was 5.3 times that of an NDP vote, while a Liberal vote or a Green vote had no weight at all. http://www.fairvote.ca/en/press-release/2010-04-0...

http://www.themarknews.com/ : Let\'s All Hate Toronto! | The Mark

Thu, 16 Dec 2010 15:57:31 +0000

One reason some people hate Toronto is because its voters vote 91% Liberal. Don't they? Well, no, it's 46%. The reason 91% of Toronto MPs are Liberal is the winner-take-all voting system. The same system that gave Bloc voters 65% of Quebec's MPs on 38% of the votes. So why do people hate Toronto, or hate Quebec, but not hate our voting system? Umm, they do. Polls consistently show more than 60% of respondents want every vote to count equally, and think election results should reflect the proportion of the votes each party gets. So why doesn't anyone in Ottawa do anything about it? Well, Carolyn Bennett is trying to, with her coast-to-coast "Canadians Make The Rules" tour. Applause where it's due.

http://www.themarknews.com/ : First Past The Post Is Preposterous | The Mark

Wed, 17 Nov 2010 16:11:25 +0000

Good article, but it fails to mention the largest under-represented group. For the past six elections, the majority of Quebec voters have voted for federalist parties, and six times in a row the Bloc voters have been awarded the majority of Quebec MPs. In 2008 it took 86,203 federalist voters to elect one Quebec MP, but only 28,163 Bloc voters. The Bloc voters got 49 MPs when their vote share deserved about 29. Don't blame Quebec for the paralysis in the House of Commons; blame the winner-take-all voting system. The Law Commission of Canada designed and recommended a proportional model in which no MP would have an automatic list seat. Two thirds would be elected locally as today, while the other one-third would be elected regionally: voters could choose their favourite from the regional candidates, as well as from the local candidates. Every MP would be personally accountable, and all votes would count. Let's do it!

Macleans.ca : Where ideas are considered dangerous

Sun, 10 Oct 2010 23:47:10 +0000

Excellent piece, except "America, we tell ourselves, is the land of ideology. Therefore, on the principle that we must in all cases define ourselves in opposition to them, we can have none." In my experience, more people think America is the land of no ideology, fear that they will be considered anti-American if they have one, and prefer to be pro-Canadian than anti-American.

Macleans.ca : Still here, and more alienated than ever

Wed, 4 Aug 2010 11:26:26 +0000

"for two decades now, Quebecers have been basically abstaining from federal politics." Not true: the majority have still voted for federalist parties. In six elections the Bloc has never won the majority of Quebec votes, yet Bloc voters always elect a majority of Quebec MPs. "The absence of a critical mass of Quebec MPs in the governing caucus means that the province’s demands don’t get anything resembling a fair hearing." True, but don't blame the Bloc. In Quebec, Jean Charest's government started to introduce proportional representation right after they were elected in 2003. They then tripped over their own feet, but are still trying to get it right. Unlike the federal Liberals since 2005. In 2005 the Bloc's position was "While the Bloc Québécois Members of Parliament are not in Ottawa to defend the federal system, or to reform Canada’s electoral system, we accept that such reform is necessary." Does Ignatieff?

This Magazine : Another reason for voting reform: Parliament needs women

Tue, 27 Jul 2010 12:53:25 +0000

The miracle may start in Quebec, the only province with a government that actually needs PR. Quebec's demography wastes a stack of Liberal votes that pile up unneeded in their strongholds. The PQ can win, and has, with fewer votes than the Liberals. Last Nov. 11 and 12, Quebec's National Assembly unanimously voted for Amir Khadir's motion that reform of the Elections Act ensure "fair representation of political pluralism." As the government spokesman said "Everyone can agree on the principle, the problem is the how. . . We want a proportional voting system, we must specify which method of proportional representation we put forward. We have resumed the debate, the issue is not dead, the issue is evolving, the question is before us, the issue moves forward."

This Magazine : 3 alternative voting systems in use today around the world

Sat, 24 Jul 2010 04:38:09 +0000

The MMP box should more accurately read: "In MMP, each voter gets two votes: one for their local representative and one for a party or its regional candidate. Parliamentary seats are allocated proportional to party votes, but the majority are still local reps. Voters for parties that get more of the popular vote than local MPs elect “top-up” MPs from their party's regional candidates. YAY: MMP promotes proportionality in party representation, but voters are also ensured a local MP. BOO: In some models, party lists mean reps who aren’t directly elected by voters." I said "in some models" because both the Law Commission of Canada and the Jenkins Commission in the UK recomended the second or regional vote can be for a party's regional candidate, so all MPs have faced the voters. This "BOO" was expressed perfectly by Lord Jenkins: top-up members locally anchored are “more easily assimilable into the political culture and indeed the Parliamentary system than would be a flock of unattached birds clouding the sky and wheeling under central party directions.”

This Magazine : Q&A with Judy Rebick: "We have one of the least democratic systems in the world"

Thu, 22 Jul 2010 03:28:57 +0000

Third, as the Chair George Thomson has said, with another three weekends to deliberate, he felt some elements might have been different, like regional lists and open lists. (Closed province-wide lists were unsaleable in the North and many other regions, disheartening New Democrats and others. The UK's Commission on the voting system gave a colourful explanation that accurately predicted why closed lists would be rejected in Canada: additional members locally anchored are “more easily assimilable into the political culture and indeed the Parliamentary system than would be a flock of unattached birds clouding the sky and wheeling under central party directions.”) Fourth, with more time for public discussion before the election campaign, more voters would have understood what they were voting on. Still, Judy is right: the government kicked the CA when they were down by refusing to distribute their report to the voters; guaranteeing defeat.

This Magazine : Q&A with Judy Rebick: "We have one of the least democratic systems in the world"

Thu, 22 Jul 2010 03:28:43 +0000

I don't disagree with Judy's points, but there were other problems. First, the government's Democratic Renewal Secretariat were excellent people; if the Liberals had wanted to stack the deck against PR, they could have, but they didn't, because some of them did want PR. Second, the Secretariat planned for the whole CA process to start much earlier; if it had, there would have been enough time; the delay was not deliberate but was an end-of-session screw-up.